HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 11 20001 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 July 11, 2000
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 9:37 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
7 McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 L. Ward Nelson None
11 Connie Hoag
12
13 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
14
15 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CANYON CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN AREA
16 (AB2000 -114)
17
18 Paula Cooper, Special Projects Engineer, distributed a memo
19 dated July 11, 2000 (on file) regarding the two options for the Canyon
20 Creek area that was given as direction from the committee during its
21 last meeting.
22
23 Nelson questioned whether she discussed this with the property owners.
24 Cooper stated she hadn't. She talks with individual property owners from time to
25 time. One property owner stated he would sell if he received the fair market value
26 for his lot. She spoke to The Logs Resort owners. She talked to the Land Trust
27 about how they work out creative agreements with individual property owners to
28 make it work for them. If the County does the buyout program, it has to look at
29 each owner's situation. The Logs Resort is a property that has enough habitat
30 potential that habitat money may be available. She talked to John Thompson, who
31 sees that property as potentially being funded by Salmon Recovery Fund (SRF)
32 Board grants. If they can get funding to buy the land and let the owner live there
33 in the structures until they get a FEMA grant to buy the structures, that is one way
34 to pay the owner off now and let them live there with their structures. They can
35 work with individual property owners to make something that would work for them.
36
37 Nelson asked if the County could assume the owners want to sell out.
38 Cooper stated the owner is not going to answer that until the County says it will do
39 nothing except buy out the property. The Logs Resort owners talked to her and
40 asked questions creatively.
41
42 Nelson questioned whether she discussed creating a diking district with The
43 Logs Resort owners. Cooper stated that didn't come up in the conversation. The
44 Logs Resort has different partnerships in the ownership. Not all partners are on the
45 same page amongst themselves.
46
47 Nelson stated The Logs Resort is a business. It is in a different situation.
48 The Logs Resort has been there a long time and they are established in the
49 community. He was concerned about whether they want to form a district. If the
50 County does not take action, the buyout is the only alternative the property owners
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
have. Cooper stated that is an option at any point if the County doesn't pursue any
other option. The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) representative
Marty Best said that it doesn't make sense from FEMA's standpoint to do the buyout
and repair the dike. Even if the County creates a buyout program tomorrow, there
is still work to do to determine whether such a program is feasible and whether
there will be enough property owners to buy in to the program.
Nelson suggested that holding a public hearing is the next step. He didn't
have a handle on what the public in that area is looking for. One option would be
to force the residents out. That is the buyout program. That option doesn't leave
the residents any other option. The County is dictating to the residents. Another
option is to repair the dike. That is expensive. Whether or not fixing the dike is
effective is questionable. He was certain that fixing the dike is of benefit to the
residents, but he questioned whether that is a benefit to the public at large.
Another option is that the County can say it will do nothing. They need to have a
clear distinction between the options. That was done initially.
McShane stated they've had a public process and a field trip to that area.
Many people showed up and the property owners voiced their opinions both ways.
Going to the end of the levee at The Logs Resort, the buyout program gives them
quite a few options because it is voluntary. It is a better scenario. When it comes
to that low end, there is little that can be done to alleviate the problem.
Nelson questioned whether the dike would done if the County does a buyout
and if The Logs Resort owners or other property owners don't want to sell their
property according to the buyout program. Cooper stated that for the buyout to be
effective, the bulk of the people have to be willing. FEMA is looking for a complete
solution. The buyout option hinges on getting the people on board.
Nelson stated that in order to do that, they need to have the flood control
money available to buy out the undeveloped lots. Cooper stated there is the
potential for some areas to be acquired with grant monies from recreational grants.
She talked to Parks Department Director Roger DeSpain and asked if he'd be
interested in that area if it was developed into a recreational facility with salmon
habitat, viewing opportunities, and other recreational opportunities. Mr. DeSpain
said he would be interested. There is other money out there that would be
available if they developed a multi- objective and multi- function project.
Nelson suggested moving the buyout proposal forward. That will provide
direction. Cooper stated they could try to see how successful it would be.
McShane stated the Council needs to commit and say what it wants the staff
to do. Hopefully it would work. It may not. They needed to be committed to doing
it.
Nelson stated he needed to see what type of program it will be. Cooper
stated it would take effort and time to develop that project.
Nelson suggested that they move it forward to the full Council to see if that's
the direction that the Council wants to go. It is not a final decision, but merely a
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
direction to get a response from the community, show how the plan would be
developed, and determine what the plan would entail.
Hoag questioned what happens to the people who live there now, who want
to continue living there, who don't feel that they are in a highly hazardous area,
and who just want to see the dike fixed. She wanted to know the impact on those
people because they were there first. The County allowed development there in the
past. Unless the County is certain that this is the way it must go, she is concerned
about the impact on those residents. Cooper stated it depends on where the people
are located. They have to make the buyout area as small and realistic as possible
about where the County feels the worst risk is at. It is questionable as to whether
this alternative can be implemented. Given the option of no action, more people
are likely to choose the buyout. The residents hope that the County will keep fixing
the dike over and over again.
Hoag stated they have rehashed this over and over. She is still not
convinced. She asked for an explanation about why it is not a good idea to move
the dike back. When they laid out the options from the beginning, it was said that
option has the least long -term upkeep cost and will best protect the highway and
the properties. She hadn't heard why that option has been discarded other than
the landslide area above. Cooper stated it is the nature of the hazard. If they
move the dike back, they may buy a period of time. The nature of the hazard is the
debris, slurry, dam -break type of flood. There is no guarantee that moving the dike
back will work. It is more likely to work than where the dike is now, but it is
difficult to nail this stuff down.
Hoag questioned the effect on the residents in the area and the highway if
there was a buyout compared with the effect if the dike was moved back. Cooper
stated there is more storage area for the deposition to occur if the buyout occurred
and the dike was removed. If enough sediment comes down that it fills the area up
and the water begins flowing over land, through the area they bought out, then no
one would get be hurt. The highway will be at risk under that alternative.
McShane stated he was concerned if the creek can't get back to its original
path because the dike is in its way. That creates a risk of the creek staying outside
of its channel and going across the highway.
Hoag questioned whether McShane's concern is that the debris flow will
cause the creek to break out above the dike.
McShane stated if a debris flow caused the creek to break out above the
dike, which is a possibility, then the entire creek is on one side of the dike and has
no way to get back to its channel.
Hoag questioned the topography at the beginning of the dike and whether it
is channeled or if it can go behind the dike. Cooper stated it depends on where the
debris deposits itself. It could get behind the dike. If it blew a hole through the
dike like it cut through the road in 1989, it would be in a swale. The Logs Resort
would be at risk if it got through the dike.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated the area was confined in a valley where the dike is located. She
questioned whether they are only concerned about the water getting behind the
dike if the dike breaks. Cooper stated that if it comes out of the V- shaped canyon
and drops a load of sediment, then there is no telling where the water is going to
scour and get itself out. She didn't see a normal flow event getting behind the
dike. The debris flow is unpredictable.
McShane stated one reason the dike was pushed forward was to force the
creek to continue to carry sediment at that location. They don't want sediment at
that location. If they move the dike back, transportation won't occur because the
creek will lose the energy. The area will fill in with gravel.
Hoag stated the downside is that restricting the creek to create the velocity
to carry the sediment, the creek is more easily plugged.
McShane stated in restricting the creek, the forces against the dike are
extremely high. They have the deposition further down the creek. It acted like a
firehouse and eroded the other side of the Nooksack River in 1995. There is a big
failure at the opposite bank of the Nooksack River.
Hoag asked about moving the dike back and cleaning out the sediment
occasionally. Cooper stated it is a Chinook spawning stream. They can't even get
permits to cable trees in the river anymore.
McShane stated another concern is if the slide were to dam the creek. The
amount of sediment would be a one -event happening. It would be filled in
overnight. What happened in 1989 was a catastrophic event.
Hoag questioned whether they are scouring the spawning beds when the
high velocities move the sediment. Cooper stated nature is allowed to. The County
is not.
McShane stated that is one of the costs to this. Any repair will require some
mitigation. Previous mitigation measures have not lasted.
Hoag stated she is concerned they are reacting to one event.
McShane stated there have been three events.
Hoag stated the one event that broke through is the one event they are
talking about. She has respect for people's homes and property. The option of
moving the dam back is the least expensive in terms of upkeep. It protects the
area except in the event of a major debris flow. If there is a major debris flow
there are hazards in the area even if there is a buyout. They are overreacting.
Nelson stated they need to move forward with one option or the other. He
suggested that the community form its own diking district. It is not fair for
Whatcom County to continue to repair the dike. Show good faith in trying to
provide a protection mechanism. The County created the initial structure. If the
community wants to stay as is and protect the area, then the citizens need to form
their own district as they have with other flood hazard areas.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated she liked that proposal. She still wants to move the dike back.
Nelson stated it has to be the citizens' choice.
Hoag suggested a diking district with a voluntary buyout program.
McShane stated they couldn't do both.
Hoag stated she was not talking about FEMA. FEMA wants everything bought
out.
Nelson questioned how much it would cost to buy out the property and under
what conditions.
Hoag stated they have two options. They could set up a voluntary buyout
with flood monies in the meantime for people who want to step forward now in an
area that is high hazard and could be bought out. If there is a major event, FEMA
can buy out the area if it wants.
Nelson stated he was not sure FEMA would do that if the County establishes
its own program using its own funds.
Cooper stated that is not the problem with FEMA. FEMA has a problem with
continuing to allow development after realizing the area is a risk.
Hoag stated that people who have lived there a long time should be allowed
to continue to live there.
Nelson questioned whether Councilmember Hoag was suggesting a buyout
for undeveloped land.
Hoag stated it would. It would also include those people who don't want to
live there any more. If the County buys out that land and home, it means someone
else would not move into the house. It would be voluntary for property owners in
the high hazard area, developed or not.
Nelson stated they couldn't use FEMA money. Cooper stated FEMA wouldn't
have any problem with that program.
Nelson stated FEMA would have a problem if the County is also trying to
maintain the dike. Cooper stated allowing new development is the issue with
FEMA. The County may be able to create a mechanism to stop development and
only maintain the dike until the properties are acquired. Marty Best told her that it
might be okay if it was a temporary program until the County implements the
buyout program.
McShane stated they need to look at whether option one, a voluntary buyout
program, can be developed and forwarded. If that is done, then FEMA can step in.
The levee there now does provide protection as long as there is not a large debris
event. He is not comfortable spending $1 million to move the dike back as a
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
temporary fix to buy time. It is money that will not necessarily work in the case of
a large event. That is a big price tag to buy time for a few people. That is why he
prefers to move away from that. They need to move something forward.
McShane moved that they follow option one, as presented by the Public
Works River and Flood Section in the memo dated July 11, 2000.
Hoag stated she didn't see where that leaves those who want to stay there.
Cooper stated this wouldn't happen overnight, in two years, or in five years. It may
be a ten -year program. Whether or not they can only do the buyout and allocate
resources is a good question for FEMA. If they don't get everyone out of there, it is
a straightforward program. FEMA may go along with that as a focused, complete
solution in the long run. Those people can always change their minds.
Hoag questioned whether it is still voluntary.
McShane stated he experienced a place on the Skagit River called Thunder
Lane. It is upstream from Concrete, Washington. At one time, there were sixteen
homes. Now there are three homes. Skagit County was buying three homes last
time he was there. One neighbor came out and stated that he enjoyed Thunder
Lane more now that there were fewer people there. That resident realized the river
could get very deep there. They saw it as a positive thing.
Hoag questioned whether the focused buyout is voluntary. Cooper stated
she never considered condemnation. She still tosses the idea of limiting new
development.
Hoag questioned whether they could repair the existing dike if they went with
the buyout. They have to protect the people while they are there.
McShane stated they would not repair the dike.
Hoag stated that is a problem. They are going to insist that the dike be
repaired. That is $510,000 and a $5,500 annual maintenance cost. That is half the
price of moving the dike back. There are problems with the existing dike with
scouring. She didn't think that the County is addressing both aspects of the issue
by doing that. She wanted a voluntary buyout, a diking district formed, and to
move the dike back. Otherwise, they are being penny -wise and pound - foolish. She
wouldn't support the motion. She suggested her suggestion as a motion.
Cooper questioned whether Councilmember Hoag is assuming that the
County would participate financially or form the diking district to move the dike
back.
Hoag stated the County would pay to move the dike back and then form a
diking district for maintenance. The County has been up there and has the hole in
the dike. The County has to fix the problem. It should move the dike back to have
a workable situation, then form the diking district and make the dike repair the
responsibility of the district. People don't want to move out. The County has
created a bigger problem because there is a restricted area that is more likely to be
dammed by debris. They are scouring the salmon beds. They are causing the
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
firehouse effect on the other side of the river. They are not protecting the highway
as well. The different things that option three addresses provides gives the highest
level of protection. It makes the most sense, while acknowledging that there is a
landslide area and the County should look long -term at having a buyout program in
the area so that people who want to get out of the area are able to, and so they do
not have further development in the area.
Nelson stated Hoag's proposal puts a price tag of $4 million, plus
maintenance. Hoag stated it is $1 million to move the dike back, which is the
County's obligation. The buyout is $3 million, and everyone thinks it should be
done.
Nelson stated citizens would have the best of both worlds. He questioned
whether Hoag would be willing to explain to the citizens of Whatcom County that
the County is going to pay $4 million for 130 citizens.
Hoag stated that if the County is not going to condemn the property, it is the
only choice. If the taxpayers look at someone whose lives are at risk, they would
say it is okay. However, if they want to save money, they would condemn all the
properties and buyout the owners.
Nelson stated he would support option three, but it would have to be a
partnership. Otherwise, they open the door to areas with other hazards.
Hoag questioned whether Councilmember Nelson wanted to do option three
with the 80/20 program and create the diking district at the same time. Cooper
stated they are currently doing the 80/20 program unless there is significant
fisheries mitigation. It then goes to an 85/15 program.
to.
Hoag questioned whether that is what Councilmember Nelson would agree
Nelson stated he would agree to that.
McShane stated there is a motion on the floor. Moving the levee back will
not work. It provides a false sense of security to anyone who will move there. Any
worthwhile geologist will not say there is a buildable lot in that area. It will cost $4
million and they would be kicking FEMA out of the picture because they would have
the levee program. There are other issues on the Nooksack River that will be
significantly expensive. There will not be any money to do things for the
community as a whole.
Hoag questioned whether the County would kick FEMA out of the picture if
the County repairs dike and puts in a voluntary buyout program, with no further
development allowed in the area. The County would protect the properties there.
She questioned whether FEMA would refuse to come in to the County. Cooper
stated she didn't know. FEMA told her they would not buy the property if the
County fixes the dike. She would ask FEMA that question.
McShane stated the odds of getting permitting for moving the dike back are
remote.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Nelson questioned the amount of money being generated per year for flood
control. Cooper stated about $1.7 million is going to the flood projects.
Nelson stated the County would use one year's worth of money to do
Councilmember Hoag's program.
Hoag stated the County would use half of a year's worth if it did the 80/20
program.
Nelson stated the amount is $800,000, plus the buyout. If they can't include
FEMA, it would be more than that.
Cooper stated the $1 million is only for the conceptual level design, with no
mitigation. If they want to pursue that further, they have to get the final
conceptual design of a project and go through the permitting process.
Nelson stated the cost would be enormous. It would take a substantial
amount of the flood control money to do it. He would support McShane's proposal
to get it on the floor, with an amendment to have a public hearing. If people in
that community are so die -hard that they want to stay in the area with the costs of
Councilmember Hoag's proposal, then the public should be made aware of that as
well. He would move that type of thing forward. To get it processed, he supported
McShane's proposal with a friendly amendment to have a public hearing at the end
of July.
McShane accepted that as a friendly amendment.
John Herrod, Y Road, discussed the point about moving the dike back. The
$200,000 of the community's responsibility isn't going to happen. The first step is
to define the danger zone. They need to get a final map. Do the elevations or
whatever they have to do. If there are only 10 properties, it is silly to put a lot of
money in it. IT is not silly if there are 100 properties. Get funding for the study.
Nelson stated they still want to do the buyout for the ten properties. He
agreed with Herrod. He wanted to get this moving to begin discussion.
McShane stated that is the intention.
Cooper stated it is a good idea to create the map before the public hearing.
She proposed to dig out the maps and work with Land Use Manager Roland
Middleton and discuss it with the Council. They will not go to the point of going out
and taking soil samples.
McShane stated the only thing that has not been done is the map. They
should move forward without the map. It is defined enough that they have a good
idea of the number of the lots.
Nelson stated he better have the lots identified.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
48
49
Cooper stated there is considerable discrepancy between Interfluve's map
and Purnell's map. That is what Mr. Herrod was referring to.
McShane stated they have to do a survey and get some elevations on the
boundaries.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Cooper stated there has been information in FEMA publications about
mapping alluvial fan risk areas. They call for an onsite look at sediments rather
than topography. There are two levels. She was unsure that the sediment study
would provide any more certainty.
McShane agreed. Given the nature of the fan and given the cut on the
Nooksack River, it is all coarse grain. There are boulders in it the entire way, which
would indicate that the entire fan is extremely hazardous. Ninety percent of the fan
was deposited at the end of the ice age. It is the elevation issue.
Cooper stated she could get that started.
Nelson stated they need the map before the public hearing.
Hoag agreed.
McShane stated they would not hold the public hearing until there are
elevation details and a hard line boundary.
Motion, as amended, carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane stated Water Resource Manager Bruce Roll provided a scope of
work, and the comments for that are due on July 14. They will discuss that
particular scope of work next week on.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 9