Board weighs $2M high‑level plan, carp dependency and agrees to scope alum pilot in Fishhook and Bass canals

Ocean Shores Freshwater Advisory Board · February 3, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members debated Herrera’s three 'levels of service' and funding options; Becky said the high option would require $2 million to start and $570,000/year thereafter. Members agreed to scope a pilot alum treatment in Fishhook and Bass canals and to resolve carp removal and ordinance issues before broad implementation.

Ocean Shores’ Freshwater Advisory Board spent a substantial portion of its Feb. 2 meeting debating proposed levels of service in a Herrera report and how to start remediation. Becky told the board the high level of service in the report would require about $2 million to initiate over three years and roughly $570,000 annually thereafter; by contrast, recent freshwater appropriations were about $300,000 per biennium.

Board members discussed tradeoffs between low, medium and high service levels and emphasized that carp removal is a gating issue for some treatments. "We've got to get rid of the carp," one member said, noting that until carp removal and related city ordinance updates are complete, some mitigation options cannot fully succeed.

Given the costs and program dependencies, members endorsed a targeted approach: the board asked Becky to work with Aquatechnix and Herrera to scope a pilot alum (aluminum sulfate) treatment in Fishhook and Bass canals to test effectiveness and duration. The board agreed a pilot is feasible within roughly two months if funding and logistics are arranged; members volunteered local test sites and said they would provide on‑the‑ground monitoring.

The board also discussed mixing and matching services across the system and the need to present a recommendation to the City Council to inform stormwater rate discussions. No council funding decision was made at the meeting; board members emphasized the need for a clear costed proposal for council consideration before any rate change.