Completion report Snohomish County Coastal Zone Management Grant Project, grant no. G0089042

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

W2-D

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVCES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Libray

COMPLETION REPORT

Snohomish County

Coastal Zone Management Grant Project

Grant No. G0089042

Planning Division
Department of Planning and Community Development

QH July 1989
76.5
.W2
S66
1989

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Summary Account 2

List of Documents Prepared 5

ABSTRACT: Snohomish River Wetlands Management Plan Exhibit A

ABSTRACT: Aquatic Resource Protection Program Exhibit B

Workshop Documents: Snohomish River Flood Control Exhibit C
Management Plan

SUMMARY ACCOUNT

The following summarizes work accomplished under the three
elements (as revised) of Snohomish County's FY 1989 Coastal
Zone Management Grant No. G0089042.

ELEMENT ONE: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FACILITATION FOR SNOHOMISH
RIVER FLOOD CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The objective of this element was to facilitate diking
district and public involvement in the formulation of the
Lower Snohomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management
Plan, thus complementing the County's Public Works Department
effort to prepare this plan. Primary project funding comes
from the WDOE Flood Control Assistance Account Program. Plan
completion is anticipated to occur in mid-1990.

Alice Shorett of Triangle Associates was subcontracted by
Snohomish County to conduct a minimum of two public workshops
and to direct and document proceedings. The Department of
Ecology gave approval to the contract by letter dated October
4, 1989.

Public workshops were held on October 19th and December 7th,
1988. Invitees included Snohomish River diking districts,
cities, environmental and other interest groups.
Approximately twenty-two individuals attended the first
workshop, discussing the project scope/schedule, ground rules
for meetings, problems to be addressed and level of
protection criteria. Twenty-one individuals attended the
second workshop, continuing refinement of the level of
protection criteria (including alternative solutions) and
discussing environmental protection issues.

Exhibit C contains workshop agendas, meeting summaries, study
objectives and draft criteria for evaluating levels of flood
and environmental protection.

Completion of the above CZM-funded activities will serve as
the foundation for developing a detailed flood protection
strategy within the continuing planning process. An effective
public participation mechanism has been established which
will undoubtedly contribute to a feeling of authorship on the
part of program participants.

ELEMENT TWO: SNOHOMISH RIVER WETLAND UNITS MANAGEMENT PLANS

The objective of this element was to develop site-specific
management policies and plans for each of the nine wetland
units previously designated by the Snohomish River Wetland

Units Preservation Management Plan (1985), and to identify
related wetland preservation needs such as the establishment
of protective buffers and additional land acquisition. Grant
funded tasks consisted of those contained in Phase Two of the
ongoing management planning process. Phase One, initiated in
August, 1988, utilized funding from the Department of Natural
Resources to develop management policies and plans for
wetland units under County ownerhip, Otter Island and a
portion of Ebey Island. Phase Two then considered the
remaining units and related preservation needs.

Shapiro and Associates was contracted to assist County staff
and the Advisory Committee in preparing both phases of the
plan. The consultant initiated Phase One work tasks in
August, 1988 and Phase Two tasks in late January, 1989. A
request was submitted to the CZM Grants Officer on January
24, 1989 for authorization to subcontract with Shapiro and
Associates, with written approval received by letter dated
April 21, 1989. The total contract amount was $36,000.

Completion of Phase Two, partially funded through the CZM
program, has resulted in the preparation of individual
management plans for Wetland Units I - VI and IX.
Recommendations for these units range from retention in the
existing wetland condition to the provision of limited public
access and interpretive facilities. Several additional
wetland parcels in the delta are also recommended for
long-term preservation, with appropriate protective buffers
being identified as well. Phase One of the study had
previously established that Unit VII should serve as the
primary public access and interpretive site within the
designated wetland units. A carry-in boat launch, trail
system, interpretive structure and wetland enhancement area
are recommended for this primarily upland unit.

The Wetland Advisory Committee met approximately monthly with
the consultant and county staff to provide guidance on
management issues. The final product is a document entitled
Snohomish River Wetlands Manacaement Plan, dated June, 1989.
This set of management recommendations and site plans will
now be forwarded to the Snohomish County Executive and
Council for consideration of implementing actions.

ELEMENT THREE: WETLAND PROTECTION GUIDELINES

The objective of this element was to complete formulation of
county wetland protection guidelines initiated in 1987,
prepare necessary SEPA documentation, and facilitate public
revie-w.

.A Draft and Revised Draft Aquatic Resource Protection Program
were published and circulated for public review. A series of
informational meetings on the proposed Aquatic Resource
Protection Program were conducted for the benefit of a
variety of interest groups including the Snohomish County
Agricultural Advisory Board, the annual Snohomish County
3

Agriculture Day luncheon, Snohomish County real estate
brokers, Snohomish County utility managers, and the local
chapter of Land Surveyors.

Public comments have been considered and appropriate changes
made to the Draft document. A Determination of
Nonsignificance was prepared and released, along with an
economic analysis of anticipated program impacts. A series of
public meetings were held with a wide range of interest
groups. Hearings on the Draft proposal are currently under
way before the Snohomish County Planning Commission. Upon
conclusion of the hearings and formal Planning Commission
action, the document will be forwarded to the County Council
for consideration.

ELEMENT FOUR: DRAINAGE PROCEDURES MANUAL

The objective of this element was to provide the development
community with a procedures manual that graphically describes
alternative methods for addressing drainage impacts and
development options associated with construction around
streams and wetlands. To be both timely and effective, the
manual could only be prepared upon County Council adoption of
the wetland/stream protection guidelines. Since continuing
agency and public review of the proposed guidelines
significantly delayed adoption, preparation of the procedures
manual was determined to be neither appropriate nor feasible.
Therefore, on March 10, 1989 a request was submitted to the
Grants Officer-for an amendment to the grant contract
allowing transfer of funds from Element Four to Element
Three. The transfer was justified due to the fact that
additional resources were needed to ensure formal revision
and consideration of the protection guidelines being
developed under Element Three.

The request for a contract amendment was approved on June 30,
1989, with an effective date of May 1, 1989. All funds
previously in Element Four were subsequently expended within
the revised Element Three budget.

List of Documents Prepared

Element One:

- Two public workshop summaries, including study objectives
and draft evaluation criteria

Element Two:

- Report entitled Snohomish River Wetlands Management Plan

Element Three:

- Revised Draft Snohomish County Aquatic Resource Protection
Program

EXHIBIT A

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Snohomish River Wetlands Management Plan: Final
Report

AUTHOR: Shapiro and Associates, Inc.
The Smith Tower, Suite 1400
506 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104

SUBJECT:'The Management Plan recommends management policies
and actions for designated wetland units in the
Snohomish River delta and identifies supportive
preservation needs

DATE: June, 1989

DEPARTMENT AND PARTICIPATING LOCALITIES: The Washington
Department of Ecology entered into a grant agree-
ment with Snohomish County as authorized by Section
306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

SOURCE OF COPIES: Snohomish County Planning Division
Fifth Floor County Administration Building
Everett, Washington 98201
(206) 259-9313

WDOE PROJECT NUMBER: G0089042

SERIES NUMBER: N/A

NUMBER OF PAGES: 90

ABSTRACT NARRATIVE:

The purpose of the Management Plan is to identify effective
site-specific management policies and plans for each of the
nine wetland units previously designated by Snohomish County
and to identify related wetland preservation needs such as
the establishment of protective buffers and additional land
acquisitions. Establishment of management policies and site
improvements is intended to ensure coordination among all
affected jurisdictions and to facilitate appropriate uses of
each county-owned site.

Shapiro and Associates, with oversight by county staff and a
twenty-five member advisory committee, prepared the
Management Plan in two phases. Phase One addressed management
needs of wetland units previously acquired by Snohomish
County, while Phase Two concentrated on the balance of the
designated units and supportive preservation needs.

The Plan applies a wetland evaluation methodology, evaluating

Page 1

nine distinct wetland functions, to each of the designated
wetland units. Among seven potential management roles, each
unit is then identified for one or more long-term roles.
These range from limited public access to habitat
preservation and enhancement. Consistent with the overall
management objectives, individual strategies are presented
for each unit. Site plans for the four units identified to
receive physical improvements incorporate the relevant
management strategies. Seven additional wetland areas are
recommended for preservation, along with linear buffers to be
established through conservation easements or similar
mechanisms.

Page 2

EXHIBIT B

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Snohomish County Aquatic Resource Protection Program
Revised Draft

AUTHOR: Snohomish County Planning Division
Department of Planning and Community Development
Fifth Floor, County Administration Building
Everett, Washington 98201

SUBJECT: The Program proposes county policies and regulations
necessary to ensure an adequate level of protection
for existing aquatic resources of the county

DATE: April, 1989

SOURCE OF COPIES: Snohomish County Planning Division
Fifth Floor County Administration Building
Everett, Washington 98201
(206) 259-9313

WDOE PROJECT NUMBER: G0089042

SERIES NUMBER: Second Draft

NUMBER OF PAGES: 190

ABSTRACT NARRATIVE:

The proposed Aquatic Resource Protection Program is intended to
establish county policies and implementing regulations which
ensure the protection of aquatic resources, and consists of
four primary components:

1. Aquatic Resource Policy Document
2. Title 24, Grading and Drainage Ordinance
3. Title 30, Aquatic Resource Protection Ordinance (including
technical appendices)
4. Code amendments to various land use ordinances.

All program components are interrelated, either substantively
or procedurally, and when considered together, comprise the
provisions necessary to ensure an adequate level of protection
for existing aquatic r'esources in the county.

The Aquatic Resource'Policy Document provides both general and
�specific policies pertaining to the preservation and protection
of streams and wetlands. These policies provide the basis for

Pa ce 1
ABSTARPP.doc/TN

ordinance implementation and will be incorporated into the
county's comprehensive land use plan. The policy document also
includes a discussion of the importance of aquatic resources in
Snohomish County and their current susceptibility to
environmental impact.

Proposed Title 24, Grading and Drainage Ordinance, is a
compilation of existing Chapter 17.04, SCC and Title 24, SCC
provisions. The existing grading and drainage control
regulations have been integrated into a single title with the
addition of provisions pertaining to clearing in critical
areas. Generally, development proposals requiring the review
and approval of drainage plans will also be subject to the
provisions of proposed Title 30, Aquatic Resource Protection
Ordinance.

Proposed Title 30, Aquatic Resource Protection Ordinance, is a
new ordinance containing aquatic resource preservation and
protection regulations including definitions, aquatic systems
(streams and wetlands) identification and classification
procedures (as technical appendices), preservation thresholds,
buffer requirements, proposed project review and permitting
procedures, mitigation provisions, and variance procedures.

A variety of amendments to existing land use ordinances are
proposed which will allow increased project design flexibility
when aquatic systems are present on a project site. The
amendments generally allow additional project design
flexibility without decreasing overall project development
potential. An expanded use of the lot size averaging and
Planned Residential Development concepts is proposed, together
with the potential for increased building heights and decreased
landscaping requirements when aquatic systems are preserved on
a project site. Ordinance enforcement provisions specific to
aquatic resource protection are also proposed.

Page 2
ABSTARPP.doc/TN

EXHIBIT C

SNOHOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLAN

WORKSHOP #1.
October 19, 1988
7:00 PM

Executive Conference Room
Third Floor, County Administration Building

AGENDA

7:00 Introduction and Welcoming Remarks

7:20 overview of the Comprehensive Flood Control
Management Plan: DOE's Perspective

7:30 Project Schedule and overview

7:45 Ground Rules for Meetings

8:00 Problem identification Statement: Goals for the
Flood Control Plan
8:20 Discussion: Level of Protection

MEETING SUMMARY
SNOHOMISH RIVER COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Workshop #1
October 19, 1988
7:00pm to 9:00pm
Snohomish County Administration Building,
Executive Conference Room, Third Floor
Eveett Washington

The meeting opened with introductions by members of the task
group. John Engel, Snohomish County Public Works
Department, welcomed the participants. Lisa Randlette,
representing the Washington Department of Ecology, provided
an overview of the .law and regulation that are the basis for
the preparation of the comprehensive flood control
management plan. John Engel reviewed the project schedule
and overview, using viewfoils attached to this summary. The
hydraulic analysis and computer model will be developed as
the workshops for the task group are held (December,
January, March, May). Open houses will be held at two
points in the study and a public meeting toward the end of
the study.

Draft Ground Rules and Study Objectives

There was a discussion about the draft-ground rules and
study objectives. As part of this discussion, the group
talked about the definition of consensus. Several
definitions were suggested.

1. More than a majority by quite a bit and if objection, a
description of the viewpoint so total picture is given
to the decision makers.

2. Absolute agreement of all participants.

3. No one feels strongly enough against to ma ke a major
objection.

It~was agreed, by consensus, that the third definition would
serve the work group.

A goal will be to build consensus on major recommendations
so groups are not polarized in public hearings.
Participants will be reporting back to their organizations
and bringing issues in to the task group discussions.

since the process will use consensus, the importance of
participants' committing to being present at the meetings
was pointed'out. An alternate could attend to fill in a
participant, but continuity of the individual will be

important. Additional changes to the draf t ground rules
were suggested. Revise title "Communication during workshop
process."1 and add phrase "Communication with press will be
handled through the County."

The task group wants to reserve the option of re-visiting
the objectives. With this proviso, the group agreed to use
the ground rules and study objectives.

it was noted that meeting scheduling should attempt to
coordinate, not conflict with other scheduled public
meetings.

Level of Protection

There was a discussion about dike heights and flood
frequency which led to requests for information about the
county's method for measuring dike heights. Snohomish
County uses mean sea level as base and the dike heights are
measured accordingly. For example, with a dike height of
ten feet and a flood height of nine feet, there would be one
foot freeboard.

A discussion about a number of possible criteria for "level
of protection" generated the following list:

o A predictable future standard. This is desired by
*districts behind the dikes so planning can be
undertaken.

o A standard that meets requirements of Corps of
Engineers, state, for project funding.

o Either different criteria or method of accommodating
the tidal influences in lower reaches and tidal-
influenced dikes.

o A method to take into account drainage from
tributaries.

o A concept to achieve in design is if some dikes overtop
during a certain flood event then all dikes will
overtop.

o Integrity of the structure (dike) influences the level
as well as the height.

There was preliminary consensus that within the flood plain,
there will always -be flooding and dikes will not be 'built to
withstand all flooding.

The end product of the study should provide useful data that
can be applied as a standard for decisions. Fish and

-2-

wildlife components will be added to the agenda for future
sessions.

The next meetinc is scheduled for Wednesday evening, 6:30PM,
December 7, 1988, Executive Conference Room, Third Floor,
Snohomish County Administration Building.

Information Recruested

1. Copy of the Washington State flood control guidelines
and any applicable federal flood guidelines.

2. Meeting viewfoils

3. Thirty-five year record of flooding in lower Snohomish
- year and floods and frequency chart illustrating the
historical record.

4. Definition of 100 year flood, 10 year flood, 5 year
flood. These should be defined in terms of elevation
at a gauge and water volume.

5. Existing dike heights and how measurements for heights
are calculated.

6. History of the dike building and design standards for
various sections (ex: Soil Conservation Service).

It was suggested that information be provided in three hole
punch format, notebooks, and each set of meeting materials
be provided with a tab.

Meetina Attendees
Dennis Gregoire Port of Everett-
Pearl Maddy City of Everett
Mike Corcoran City of Marysville
Steve Cottrell City of Snohomish
Ward Lawler Coordinated Diking Council
Everett Alexander Diking District #1
Don Nilsson Diking District #2
Debra Bickford Diking District #6
Leonard Tuengel Drainage District #13
Don Thomas Marshland Flood Control District
Tim Stocker Agriculture at Large Representative
Lorena Havens Friends of the Snohomish River Delta
Delbert Franz ' . Hydrologic Consultant
Terry Williams The Tulalip Tribes
Curt Howard Snohomish Wetlands Alliance

Also in attendance:
Lisa Randlette Washington State Dept. of Ecology

Larry Adamson Snohomish County Planning Division

- 3-

Doug Beyerlein Snohomish County Public Works
Bill Derry Snohomish County Public Works
John Engel Snohomish County Public Works
Sky Miller Snohomish County Public Works

Alice Shorett Triangle Associates
coml:sn6fac:summlll4

DRAFT 10/19/88

-GROUND RULES AND STUDY OBJECTIVES -

SNOHOMISH RIVER
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN

A. STUDY OBJECTIVES

A set of realistic, achievable recommendations that:

o Coordinates f lood .control work amongst af fected parti es
and develops equitable flood protection for the
Snohomish River Basin

o Provides direction for flood control projects and
defines county policies for permitting and project
decisions

o Balances needs to protect fish and wildlife resources

o Defines flood control alternatives to reduce flood
damages

o Meets requirements of Coordinated Flood Protection Act
(State of Washington)

B. GROUND RULES

MEETING CONTENT

o Meetings will be task oriented with specific agendas.

o Participants will fully explore issues, recognizing
time limitations and size of workshop groups.

o Participants commit to search for opportunities and
creative solutions.

o All participants in the workshops will bring with them
the purposes and goals of their organizations.

o All parties recognize the legitimacy of the goals of
others and assure that their own goals will also be
respected.

o Participants will enter into a dialogue that includes
listening carefully, asking questions, educating others
regarding individual needs. The atmosphere will be
problem solving, rather than stating positions.

COMMUNICATION DURING PROCESS

o All of the individuals who are participating in the
workshop group accept the responsibility to keep their
* ~~~~associates 'and constituency groups informed of the
progress of the discussions and to seek advice and
comments.

o Communications with news media concerning these
discussions will not be solicited by workshop members.
Everyone will be mindful of the impacts their private
and public statements have on the climate of this
ef fort. No participant will attribute suggestions,
comments or ideas of another participant to the news
media.

CONSENSUS

o Commitment to attempt to reach agreement among all
participants.

o Where agreement is'not reached, issues will be
identified and positions noted.

INFORMATION SHARING

* ~~o Participants will seek to identify relevant information
and provide it to the workshop group.

coml~snowgrdrules

SNOHOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLAN
Workshop Participants

SNOHOMISH RIVER DIKING DISTRICTS:

Ward Lawler Coordinated Diking Council
Barney Bagwell Diking District #1
Don Nilsson Diking District #2
Debra Bickford Diking District #6
Leonard Tuengel Drainage District #13
Don Thomas Marshland Flood Control District
Dan Bartelheimer French Slough Flood Control District

SNOHOMISH VALLEY CITIES:

Kelly Robinson City of Snohomish
Mike Corcoran City of Marysville
Pearl Maddy City of Everett

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS:

Sally Van Niel Washington Environmental Council
Lorena Havens Friends of the Snohomish
River Delta
Curt Howard Snohomish Wetlands Alliance

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS:

Terry Williams The Tulalip Tribes
Phil Bannon Port of Everett
Jean Olson P.U.D. No. 1
Tim Stocker Agriculture at Large

DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF PROTECTION

The largest flood (expressed as return interval,
such as a 5-year event) which results in a water
surface elevation which does not overtop the levee
or the stream bank.

[DEFLOP]

DRAFT CRITERIA FOR LEVEL OF PROTECTION

o All Snohomish River levee systems should be built
to overtop equally for the same flood event.

o Levee systems may be constructed with additional
protection of up to one foot in the vicinity of
structures, such as houses, located immediately
adjacent to the levee. The additional one foot
of protection shall be permitted within 50 PT
upstream and 50 FT downstream of the structure.

o The level of protection provided by the levee
system should be feasible to build based on
anticipated limits of funding by jurisdictions
including diking districts, county, state and
federal governments.

o Levee improvements to be made, or new levees
to be built must consider the impacts, such as
increased flooding, in other parts of the
valley.

Note: criteria related to fish and wildlife habitat and
other environmental issues are being developed.

CRITLOP5 Draft

' f
SNOHOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLANI

SCHEDULE ,
WORKSHlOP #1 OCTOBER 19, 1988

WORIKSHIOP' 12 DECEMBER
AND OPEN HOUSE

WORIKSHOP 13 JANUARY 1989

WORKSlHOP #4 MARCH
AND OPEN HOUSE

WORK(S-IOP ,.5 MAY

i. ; *.

suNO'HOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLAN

SCHEDULE (con't).
PUBLIC MEETING JUNE, 1989

PUBLIC MEETING : AUGUST

FINAL DRAFT PLAN ; OCTOBER

COUNTY COUNCIL OCTOB ER/
REVIEW AND HEARINGS 7 NOVEMBER

.COUNCIL ADOPTS PLAN DECEMBER, 1989

:: j~~~

-."A b.ra,.

SNOHOMWIISH R=IVER.FLOO3D CONTROL Nn

PR JECT. OV RVI EW

iCW r..._ PUBLIC
1 WOR I(SI-IO ~MEETINGSI

I~~~~ I
I I DRAFT j PUBLIC PLAN
I,,j~ I ~ FLOOD HEARIN(GS ADOPTION
Illil~t:): n CONTROL
I I PLAN

I-IYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
i~~i COMPUBICQP~1TER MO3DEL,
. tt: SI
F'J1~ S li

i ...~~Zt

1SNOHOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLAN !"

Problem Identi Siion tatement e
� :;. '. , i 3,1*,.
: hat are effective ways to manage
.IIr floodbe protec tion system for the

; wildle characteristics f he

:1I'! Snio~hnomish River valleyi If equita
!-,. idwldiechrce;ristics o the ~l.
Siiohom as River valley?. .
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;lr ril~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 j

SNOHOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLAN

WORKSHOP #2
December 7, 1988
6:30 - 9:00 PM

Executive Conference Room
Third Floor, County Administration Building

AGENDA

SUBJECT ACTION

6:30 Summary of Workshop # 1 and Adoption of Meeting Summary
Status of Computer Model

6:45 Environmental Concerns Discussion and Initial List
of Issues

7:10 Flood Frequency Analysis and Presentation and Discussion
River Hydraulics

7:30 Criteria for Level of Protection Initial Consensus on
Criteria

8:45 Future Meetings Discussion and Schedule

9:00 Adjourn

[AGENDA..2]

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

o Effects of Dikes upon Wetlands

o Dike Heights

o Tidal Influences

o Riparian Habitat

o Dike Maintenance Practices - Vegetation Clearing
and Herbicide Use

o Costs to Rebuild Dikes

o Urban Development Pressure in the Floodplain

o Elevation of Manure Lagoons

o Coordination with the Soil Conservation Service

[ENVCONC]

MEETING SUMMARY
SNOHOMISH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PLAN

WORKSHOP #2
December 7, 1988
6:30 - 9:10 PM

Executive Conference Room
Third Floor, County Administration Building

The workshop opened at 6:30 PM with a review of the written
summary from Workshop #1 with the suggestion that future
notes provide a more detailed description of discussion and
list the questions that were asked. Omissions that should
be reflected in the first workshop included a discussion of
equity. A further clarification was requested of the
consensus definition, that it will not be a voting process,
but an opportunity to meet the interests of all groups
involved in this effort. With these notations, the Workshop
#1 Summary was accepted by the group.

John Engel reported on the status of the computer model and
provided an overview of the Snohomish County Flood Control
Plan. One person indicated that a more appropriate title
might be a "dike integration plan.".
%

Environmental Concerns

There was a discussion about a list of environmental
concerns that resulted from earlier workshops. The topics
and discussion follow.

o Effects of Dikes Upon Wetlands

The concern is the closing of wetlands and loss of habitat
for wildlife. A number of "wetlands" definitions were
offered related to the timing of what was and is a wetland.

o Riparian Habitat & Dike Maintenance

The concern is 'the need for vegetative cover and the cooling
effect for wildlife habitat and need for dikes
simultaneously. It was noted that there are benefits
provided by different types of vegetation offering differing
opportunities for wildlife habitat and dike stability. The
alternatives for vegetation should be reviewed in light of
opportunities for both habitat and dike stability.

- 1 - Draft 12/9/88

o Dike Maintenance Practices - Vegetation Clearing
and Herbicide Use

There is concern related to the possible water quality
impacts of herbicides used for dike maintenance versus other
vegetation clearing methods. There was a request for
information about current practices.

o Costs to Rebuild Dikes

The concern was balancing the costs and benefits of
rebuilding a dike versus the habitat. Another issue related
to the costs is the "sunk" economic costs that have been put
into the dikes historically over time.

o Urban Development Pressure in the Floodplain

There was a discussion related to the various types of flood
way zoning in the Snohomish flood plain. In the City of
Everett it was noted, most flood plain is in the "flood
fringe" where development is not allowed. Snohomish County
has a category called "density fringe." There was a request
for information regarding the County's flood hazard
ordinance.

Another issue under urban development is a concern about the
"double edged sword" as, the value of lands increases, it
causes pressure to develop. However, it was pointed out
that the assessed value for diking district taxes is based
on historical rates. For example, in some assessments there
is a proportionate share - properties have set percentages
of an annual budget. There was a request for information
about how diking district assessments are set.

o Fish and Wildlife Effects

A monitoring program could follow the effects of dikes on
fish and wildlife. It was suggested that individuals who
wish to add additional items to refine the environmental
issues do so in writing. The environmental issues list will
be refined into a list of draft criteria for review at the
next workshop session.

Flood Freauencv:Analvsis and River Hvdraulics

Doug Beyerlein, Snohomish County Public Works Department,
made a presentation about the flood frequency analysis and
river hydraulics part of the study. First, Beyerlein
explained how to determine the flood size. The U.S.
Geological Survey measures the height at their station.

- 2 - Draft 12/9/88

They take the information and measure the flow velocity.
Then, a rating curve of the stage versus the discharge
(flow) is determined. The result, is a determination of
discharge for any stage. Beyerlein explained that the USGS
and Corps of Engineers have come up with dif f erent numbers
for flood size because they use different assumptions.

Second, Beyerlein described how engineers determine flood
frequency. The purpose is to determine how likely a certain
size flood is going to happen. The method is to use
historic flood records and rank floods by size, using
statistics to create a flood frequency curve. The result is
to determine the return interval or frequency for any size
flood.

The third step, as explained by Beyerlein, is to select dike
heights. The purpose is to know if the dike will be
overtopped by a flood. The method is to measure the top of
the dike elevation relative to mean sea level, compute flood
height by computer model and add freeboard to dike height.
The result is to compare dike elevation with the flood
elevation.

Criteria For Level of Protection

The discussion opened with the question, how is fod
defined? Several definitions were put forth:

1. For flood frequency analysis,, a 'Iflood" is the
largest flow in that year. A' "water year" has a
cycle of October 1 thorough September 30, unlike a
calendar year.

2. Another definition is when the river leaves its
normal channel banks.

3. A third definition is when there is a flood stage
where preparations begin to fight a flood.

It was requested that, if possible, historical activities
such as road building, clear cutting and large developments
be reviewed in relation to major flood events. An issue to
deal with in the future is the impacts of major developments
such as one proposed at Snoqualmie Ridge (500-3,000 acres)
on downstream flooding.

A tentative definition for purposes of the study was agreed
to by consensus. "Level of Protection Definition" is the
largest flood which does not overtop the levee on a stream
bank.

- 3 - Draft 12/9/88

It was suggested that members of the workshop group have the
opportunity to understand the dikes by visiting them at some
point in the study. If a flood situation could be observed
safely, the group might be provided such opportunity.

A discussion ensued related to Draft Criteria for Level of
Protection. The draft list was read by John Engel. As the
discussion began, the question was raised, are all the dikes
at the same level now? What would happen in the interim as
the dikes are being brought up to the same level? It was
suggested that the criteria should address when improvements
can be made (equity) in the interim.

A statement was made that the Coordinating Diking Council
understands the purpose of this study would be to bring dike
heights to an equal basis. Those districts needing to build
to standard would be able to build to that level. The
Coordinating Diking Council's goal is to bring all levels to
a standard level of protection for a 5 year plus 1 foot
flood event. Thus, districts would be eligible for Corps of
Engineers rehabilitation funds under Public Law 99.

it was noted that if the Corps of Engineers would change the
standard or provide a different source of funds, then
alternatives could be explored. -

It was suggested that another topic be added to the criteria
list related to the amount of damage and differential
impacts on how much damage Can be withstood by different
areas behind the dikes. It was suggested that tidal
influences be taken into account in thef criteria. Questions
asked: Will the model be able to take into account the
Corps of Engineers recommended flood frequency levels?

A suggestion for the next workshop:
Use aerial photographs and mark on mylar the dike areas that
can take water. The concept is that every place can take
water except a few. Those could be visually indicated on
the map.

A last point on -the criteria list was suggested that the
words "and enhancing" be added to "while preserving fish and
wildlife habitat." The discussion revolved around how
incentives for fish and wildlife need to be in the flood
control plan. Alternative suggested language was "and/or
enhance." Here, the concept was that in some cases
enhancement was possible and it could be viewed on a case-
-case basis.

There was not consensus on this point but the group agreed
to take it back for review.

- 4 - Draft 12/9/88

There was consensus that the "Draft criteria for Level of
Protection" could be used by Snohomish County to proceed and
fine tune the language as the workshop group reviews
specific alternatives. Additional criteria will be
developed related to interim building while dikes are
brought to standard and equity of differential damage.

It was suggested that there be an opportunity to have the
Tulalip Tribe explain how they fit into the permitting
process and the opportunities.

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.

Next Workshop dates:

Wednesday, January 25, 6:30 PM - 9 PM
Open House 4:30 PM

Wednesday, March 8, 6:30 PM - 9 PM

Information Reauests

1. Value of Properties located behind dikes

2. Map of historical location of wetlands (from Corps and
County reports)

3. Vegetation clearing methods currently used by dike
owners

4. Diking districts' methods of assessment (from Ward
Lawler)

5. Flood Hazard Ordinance, Snohomish County, section about
floodplain on Snohomish River and brief explanation

- 5 - Draft 12/9/88

B ' bz,: jY IKIRNULL H& Sp. 08

Meetina Attendees

Pearl Maddy City of Everett
Mike Corcoran city of Marysville
Ward Lawler Coordinated Diking Council
Everett Alexander Diking District #1
Don Nilsson Diking District #2
Debra Bickford Diking District #6
Leonard Tuengel Drainage District #13
Don Thomas Marshland Flood Control
District
Tim Stocker Agriculture at Large
Representative
Lorena Havens Friends of the SNohomish River
Delta
Terry Williams The Tulalip Tribes
Curt Howard
Roy Metzgar Snohomish County P.U.D.
Sally Van Niel Washington Environmental
Council

Others in attendance

Lisa Randelette - Washington State Department
of Ecology
Larry Adamson Snohomish(County Planning
Division

Doug Beyerlein Snohomish County Public Works
Bill Derry Snohomish- county Public Works
John Engel Snohomish County Public Works
Sky Miller Snohomish County Public Works

Alice Shorett Triangle Associates

D:triaft lesnrk

- 6 - Draft 12/9/88

CRITERIA FOR LEVEL OF PROTECTION

[DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF PROTECTION: Th'e largest flood or tide which
does not overtop the levee or streambank]

CRITERIA INTENT

o All Snohomish River levee systems should be built Equity of flood protection
to overtop equally for the same flood event.

o Levee systems may be constructed with additional Protect structures located on or
protection of up to one foot in the Vicinity of immediately adjacent to stream banks
structures, such as houses, located immediately from the direct force of water
'adjacent to the levee. The additional one foot overtopping the levees.
of protection shall be permitted within 50 FT
upstream and 50 FT downstream of the structure.

o The level of protection provided by the levee Public expenditures of funds must
system should be feasible to build based on be reasonably justified based on costs
anticipated limits, of funding by jurisdictions and benefits derived.
including diking districts, county, state and
federal governments.

o Levee improvements to be made, or new levees Future levee improvements cannot be
to be built must consider the impacts, such as unilateral but must be coordinated for
increased flooding or increased da~mages, in the entire Snohomish Valley. Effects
other parts of the valley, of one district on another must be
resolved.

[CRITLOP6 Draft 5/5/89]

DRAFT CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'
(2-21-89)

INTRODUCTION

The intent of these, criteria is to provide guidance to plan
alternatives with respect to environmental resources effected
by flood control activities in the Snohomish River valley.
They will be used to help define plan alternatives related to
levee heights, levee maintenance, design and construction
standards, and the overall scope of flood protection in the
Snohomish flood plain. These criteria are based on the
draft presented at the January 25th workshop and discussions
at previous workshops.

Based on these discussions, there appears to be a preliminary
consensus that the existing fish and wildlife habitat be
preserved and that flood control activities occur within the
framework of "no net loss" of habitat. This is the policy of
the Fisheries Department when issuing Hydraulic Project
Approvals. We also had an understanding that as a general
policy, it will be the intent of the groups (i.e. the Diking
Districts, Fisheries Dept., the Tulalip Tribes, and others)
to work with each other in implementing habitat management
practices, and- enhance existing habitat if possible on a case
by case basis.

CRITERIA

o All levees should have the same height relative to
the water surface. The hydraulic analysis should
take into consideration tidal differences.

o Vegetation clearing on levees, rather than herbicide
use should be the goal during dike maintenance.

o When levees need to be rebuilt, serious consideration
should be given to diking structures that would
protect. nursery areas. if the cost is not too
prohibitive,' preferred modifications should protect
or enhance nursery areas.

o Development should be prohibited in the flood plain.
Agricultural activity should be allowed.

o Monitoring should be carried out to ensure that dike
maintenance does not degrade fish and wildlife.
habitat.

0oOpportunities should be investigated which would
provide satisfactory flood protection and enhance or
increase fish and wildlife habitat.