2024-01-08-minutes-public-works-study-session

Home Browse Search

<barlow.eric@gmail.com> Subject: Rooney Comments on PW Study Session draft (was Fw: June 28) Hello Commissioners, I received the attached Study Session draft that is being prepared for a meeting on Lick Creek from Eric Barlow. It seems timelier to 'comment on the draft than wait for a final copy to be posted. The Rooney's are seeking partial mitigation for the issues that county action is creating. Nothing more. The county project is putting in place grading that blocks today's high-water flow and a bridge structure to reroute existing floodwater conditions from the west side of the road to flow on the east side of the road. Evidence in the way of photos and county provided hydrology charts indicate clearly that county action to reroute these high flow events will overwhelm existing downstream infrastructure and limit access to and from the properties during high water events as well as create habitat degradation. The Barlow shop/barn will certainly take on water. WDFW's role in issuing the permit and the county's responsibility as project sponsor appear to be willfully misunderstood. Per WDFW correspondence with Mr. Rooney and which the commissioners were copied on 4-21-2020, "WDFW may only approve, deny, or provision Hydraulic Project Approvals with respect to no net loss offish life and fish habitat. We cannot take project impacts to residents, potential effects of flooding to infrastructure, or other non fish related concerns into consideration when issuing HPAs." It further states, "To answer your question on qualifications of hydraulic projects under Fish Habitat Enhancement Project criteria: the process requires that a project sponsor certify that a proposed project meets the FHEP criteria outlined under WAC— in other words, the onus is on the project sponsor and applicant to demonstrate that the project qualifies for FHEP and will not result in adverse impacts to public safety, infrastructure risk, etc." The Rooney's are concerned that their parcels will not be accessible on a recurring basis and not just during a hundred - year event. This is clearly a public safety risk that the county is creating and should be willing to mitigate. The Rooney's are not willing to participate in remedying this condition on their shared driveway with the Barlow property as they participated with WDFW (Specified size of culvert and assisted with permits), the KCCD (Cost share and engineering assistance) and others at great expense to combine two water crossings into one and eliminate any fish barriers that existed. This project was completed in 2012 and used as an example of private property owners not only willing to partner with agencies on habitat improvement but finding the opportunity to do so. Mr. Barlow is willing to fund replacement of this culvert with a bridge at his expense and the Rooney's will allow removal of his jointly owned culvert if driveway grading concerns are addressed as discussed with Mr. Cook and the County's engineering firm in January. The Rooney's are willing to participate to a maximum amount of forty thousand dollars with the county in replacing its northern most parcel's culvert with a bridge. (This pads the quote received when I priced out a bridge when this share arrangement was first undertaken by 18.75%.) The rationale behind this is fourfold. 1. It is desired to reduce project created backwater pressure and ice flow impacts on the neighbor's (Stuart Parcel 377635) adjoining parcel. 2. The county project will cause streamflow to "fire hose" through the existing culvert and create a fish blocking situation. Replacing this culvert with a bridge will prevent that and protect the millions of dollars in upstream habitat enhancements that have taken place in the last few years. 3. It is acknowledged that the existing culverts typical life