Four issues were discussed at the Flood Control District Nine Advisory Board meeting of Oct. 29, 2009:

One: Approval of Minutes of the meeting held March 24, 2008. Public had no knowledge of the contents of the Minutes and does not know what the Board approved by their action.

Two: Ross Unit 4 (Fish Ladder) Army Corps of Engineers EIS/EIR completion date is anticipated to be Dec 2011. Construction at the earliest would begin summer of 2013. This is one-year delay due in part to staff reassignment and stricter review process at the Army Corps level.

Ross Unit 4 finances are a Federal matching grant process. Jack Curley advised that if the FZ9 litigation ended today and the FZ9 Fee revenue is used for the Unit 4 Federal Project, the Army Corps would not reimburse. It is Mr. Curley’s understanding that even if Ross did the Unit 4 project earlier, it would have to eat the cost. Army Corps is paying 98.5% of the construction costs according to Curley.

Town of Ross representative presented a Position Statement that Ross Council wants approved as a Resolution by the Board of Supervisors, all Councils, and sent to Congresswoman Woolsey, Senator Boxer, and Assemblyman Huffman.

The Position Statement reiterated a litany of circumstances including a “long history of flooding”, “ In 1962, the U.S. Congress recognized this problem and enacted the Flood Control Act of 1962”, In 1971…Fairfax and San Anselmo opted out of the project”, “The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 limited the scope of the Army Corps of Engineer’s project through Unit 4”, “For several years, the Army Corps of Engineers has been conducting required environmental review for the project, including a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report( EIS/EIR)”, “…this process is taking longer to complete than previously represented and senior staff …have been reassigned”, “The project is long overdue and is vital link to reducing the risk of flooding in Ross Valley.”

The Position Statement neglected to mention previous activity by the County of Marin against the Army Corps, the 2005 flood event that resulted in the Ross Valley Storm Drainage Program Fee that would timeline after the 1986 legislative event and before the EIS/EIR processing delays. How far will Ross go in urging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and our elected officials to expedite the implementation and completion of the project work related to Unit 4? If Ross is in such a rush, why didn’t it move forward the project forward for twenty years? What were they waiting for?

Stetson Engineering Technical Memorandum No. 1 reveals, “Meaningful flood protection for the Ross Valley will only come about through a suite of on-the-ground projects spread watershed wide that work together…” Should Flood Control District Nine Board be encouraged to limit Ross from taking unilateral control of Unit 4? What fundamental watershed solutions in Fairfax, Sleepy Hollow, and San Anselmo will be implemented or neglected if Ross acts as a solo practitioner?

If Army Corps refuses to short circuit its EIS/EIR and Federal grant funding is not expedited, should money be allocated by the Board of Supervisors to complete the Ross Unit 4 (Fish Ladder)? Should Ross and the County of Marin then litigate against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to demand reimbursement because Ross politicians felt compelled to take control of the Unit 4 project?

Ross seems ignorant of the reality that Army Corps is impacted by an economic downturn that has restricted staffing, that Army Corps is responding annually to nationwide catastrophes, and Army Corps’ stricter reviews of design and construction are a benefit to process and that mitigate future catastrophes, avoid duplication of efforts, and navigate safely through multi-level incompetence.

On June 21, 2007, as an observer of the categorization of the FZ9 Fee ballots, Board of Election staff gave Louise Mathews a copy of Tricky Questions/Talking Points. It was a page included with the Ross Valley Watershed United YES campaign material.

“The Ross project is funded through older identified funding sources under the 1970s Army Corps matching formula of 98.5% This funding was kept alive year, after year by Woolsey and Boxer (we assume). The Army Corps does not fund projects at this level anymore. Hence, the need to pass a local flood control measure. …All this takes time and a lot of planning. All projects are required to be CEQA compliant and to be permitted by all pertinent state and federal agencies.”

Three:

Phil Stevens of the Urban Creeks Council (UCC) reported on the Streamside Management Program for Landowners (SMPL). The 5% participation in the program said to be normal. Of the 2,316 streamside parcels, 120 responded. Of those 78 are completed reviews with additional reviews pending. Mr. Steven said he was unaware that some municipalities own the streamside of private parcels and did not advise local public agencies of the UCC bioengineering approach.

San Anselmo resident Bob Lewis asked how the UCC program that will affect so few parcels relates to Stetson Engineering activities for the entire watershed.

Jack Curley, County Public Works replied, “These are problems that need immediate solutions. People are losing property and the sediment is traveling down the creek and plugging at places. We have to address these problems now. The way we are integrating it with our long-term plan is that we have Matt Smeltzer under separate contract, who is a geomorphologist…a river scientist …to consult with the Urban Creeks Council. Matt is also working on the Feasibility Study with Stetson. So, there is natural integration there because he knows what the big picture is long-term and the Urban Creeks Council expertise is to address these local one-property-at-a-time problems.”

Phil Stevens (UCC): “We are building anything that we think is simply a short-term solution. Everything we build should be durable in the long-term and shouldn’t cause problems in the long-term. We are addressing immediate needs with long-term fixes that won’t necessarily fix the entire system, but will certainly be durable fixes for those sites.”

Four: Stetson Engineering wrote Technical Memorandum No 1, which addressed four issues from which meaningful passages are extracted. The entire 18-page study is online at www.rossvalleywatershed.org

1. Flooding and flood damage reduction

“Detention basins will need to an integral component of any effective flood control system.” (Page 1)

2. Maintenance of the earthen channel

Because of the high cost, temporary benefits, and undesirable environmental consequences, dredging is not favorable method for maintaining the channel. (Page 8) {In 2004, 400,000 cubic yards of sediment.}

The study will address this issue by exploring opportunities to increase natural flushing of sediment from the earthen channel by means of enlarging the tidal prism. The tidal prism is the volume of water that flows daily into and out of the estuary with the flood (sic) and ebb of the tide, excluding any contribution from freshwater inflows. An enlarged tidal prism would induce natural scouring of the channel bottom sediments, thereby restoring higher conveyance capacity. (Page 9)

[Note: The effectiveness of this method depends on sediment transportability; that is, the ability of the sediment to be scoured and flushed by tidal flows.] (Page 18)

3. Creek and aquatic habitat degradation, particularly fish habitat, and,

Human-related factors contributing to often inadequate dry season flows in Corte Madera Creek include:

• Impermeable surface which increase wet season runoff and reduce recharge to groundwater that later supplies dry season flows; and

• direct diversions of water from the stream by submersible electric pumps or groundwater pumping from near-stream wells.[ NOTE: This study will not address this bullet point]

4. Creek utilization for public enjoyment

• Construction of creekside trails and linking of existing trails in appropriate areas;

• Removal of dilapidated creekside structures

• Removal of invasive non-native vegetation and replanting of native riparian vegetation; and,

• Enhancement of playing fields and other open areas used for detention basins.

The Ross Valley Flood Protection and Watershed Storm Drainage Fee Engineer’s Report, which is the legal document required under Proposition 218 for an election, does not include the added activity of “Creek utilization for public enjoyment”.

Creating a public recreation area along the creeks is not part of proposed projects listing. The language “incorporate habitat enhancement” was specified as for the fish environment, not humanity.

Should FZ9 Fee revenue be used to upgrade a Town’s creekside steps at a public park or renovate playing fields at municipal parks and public schools because a detention use is integrated into the FZ9 landscape? Should FZ9 money pay for the removal or partial replacement of the impermeable surface synthetic sports field grass when it falls into decay? Should creekside bike trails be constructed with FZ9 Fee revenue?

The next Flood Control District Nine meeting is April 2010. For six months, the FZ9 taxpayers have no comprehensive control of the master planning designs on their future.

llm