Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 09/07/1999 S , COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES September 7, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton, Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Judy Woods, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Jim Harris,Bill Wolinski, Kevin O'Neill, Don Wickstrom, Brent McFall, Dena Laurent, Pat Fitzpatrick, John Hodgson PUBLIC PRESENT: Doug Levy Bill Wolinski, Environmental Engineering Manager—One of the council's target issues for this coming year is the Endangered Species Act response. In March of this year the National Marine Fisheries Service,which is under the Department of Commerce,had listed the Puget Sound Chinook under the Endangered Species Act that's being threatened. And of the things I wanted to do today is give the council members a background on the Endangered Species Act and the status of the fish within our region and also the efforts that are under way at various levels to work towards the recovery of the endangered Chinook. Basically, we're dealing with the Chinook Salmon which is the largest of the salmon in the Pacific Northwest. They can get as large as 100 pounds and they reside in portions of Kent. There has been a lot of press about the Endangered Species Act for over the last year, and what I'm going to try to do is sort through and give us a clear understanding of what the situation is with regard to the Endangered Species Act and how it might affect Kent and the citizens of Kent. The Endangered Species Act is a federal law that was passed in 1973. It basically provides a mechanism for protecting species of both plants and animals from becoming extinct. There are two different status of protection—endangered versus threatened. When something is considered endangered, it basically means that it's likely to become extinct. When something is designated as threatened, it means that there is a likelihood that it will become endangered, and it's just a different level of coverage. Right now the Puget Sound Chinook are considered threatened. The Act itself is intended to be a permanent status for the species. It basically provides for recovery. An example back in 1973 here: there were about 128 species that were listed and as of today 60% of them have fully recovered and there's examples with the Pacific Gray Whale, the Bald Eagle, etc., that have been basically restored through protective measures. In March of this year there were actually 9 runs of salmon that were listed under the Endangered Species Act. One that most affects us immediately is called the Puget Sound Chinook. There's also a potential listing that's due out next month on the Bull Trout which inhabit the Green River Watershed and this would also have some impact on us because it ranges all the way from the estuary down near the Duwamish all the way up into the headwaters. So it covers a large geographical area. The life cycle of Chinook Salmon is similar to other salmon. They come up in the large rivers and spawn, lay their eggs, and the eggs hatch in about three weeks. The young stay within the river systems and the tributary of the rivers for 3-6 months and they move out to salt water and actually range all the way up to the Gulf of Alaska as far as the Puget Sound Chinook and basically return to their home streams to lay eggs again and repeat the cycle. And the carcasses of the spawned out salmon provide food a source for other species of animals and Council Workshop,9/7/99 2 support plant life, which is part of the food chain. You hear a lot about factors of decline when you're talking about the endangered species status of the salmon. And they call it the"4 Hs" and they basically talk in terms of Harvest--actual commercial, tribal, and recreational takings of the fish; Hydropower, that includes the construction of dams for other purposes much larger water supply; Hatcheries, which is a contentious issue as far as the role of hatcheries and how they affect the wild fish and habitat; and Habitat. The"4 Hs"are the predominant factor that local governments and lower levels of government have impacts on. The hydropower, hatcheries and harvest are usually activities that are regulated at the federal and state level. So local governments are more drawn into this whole fuss through issues of habitat. Habitat has a lot of elements of biological or biotic integrity of streams. Stream buffers - that's the land along the stream edges. Large woody debris (what's actually in streams) historically has been taken out of streams to improve conveyance for flood flow control and that has had negative impacts on the biology of the streams. In-stream flows - basically when we develop a watershed, we pave over areas and it changes the amount of water that gets into the ground. It is known to have a dramatic adverse impact on fish when the stream flows get real low. Shading—if you remove vegetation along the streams the water heats up. It also takes away from a source of food for insects. The leaves and branches and all provide food for the insects which in turn feed the fish. The complexity of the streams, if you straighten them out and basically grade the banks and all that, it basically takes a lot of function away from the streams. Streams are meant to be very living dynamic systems where the gravels move around. The • stream moves around and it creates over time a changing habitat. Refuge from floodwaters is complexity of stream, the large woody debris, the different cuts and pulls, and all afford protection during real high stream flows which is vital to the fish and water quality. The salmon basically require the highest qualities of water of any fish species. Biological integrity- we're talking about diverse and abundant insect populations. That's basically what keeps the salmon alive and the insects live on leaves and branches and rocks. The buffers along the streams need to be wide and with a lot of protection and historically, Kent and other cities have allowed development very close to the stream edges and we took a lot of the function away from the stream systems and basically had an adverse impact on what's there now. And also the passage issues—when we build culverts or pipe crossings and whatever, it's important to allow in the design that the fish be able to move through these systems. Oftentimes you'll see the bottom of the pipe way up high above and there's no way that the fish can move through it. And dams are another issue. If you construct a dam, it has to have some provisions to allow the adult fish to get upstream and lay their eggs, etc and the young to move downstream. And it' expensive to build these fish ladders, but they're an integral part of the design of these structures in order to allow for fish movement. Water quality is a big issue because, again, salmon demand the highest quality of water, high dissolved oxygen, cool temperatures, neutral pH, low levels of metals, and high clarity. As an area gets more and more developed, it's harder to maintain high quality. You take away the shading in the stream, reduce the flow, and you have adverse impacts on both temperature, oxygen, and flow. And if you don't adequately treat storm water and control the activities on Council Workshop,9/7/99 3 land, you have a lot of other pollutants that get into the stream systems. In the geographic area of Kent, we have several areas that are considered fairly significant Chinook habitat. Chinook like the bigger stream systems or river systems and inhabit the Green River proper, Lower Big Soos Creek near the mouth of the Green River, and the Green River tributaries-Midway Creek, Mullen Slough, and Mill Creek in Auburn. There's two Mill Creeks in our area and the one in Auburn basically goes into the Green River. And these areas are the ones that are known for heavy use by the Chinook. The smaller Chinook will range up into some smaller stream systems,but the adults inhabit the larger parts of the stream systems. Basically there are 9 species of salmon that were listed and this gives you a sense of how large of a geographical area is being impacted by the Endangered Species Act. It extends all the way up to the Canadian border and out in Eastern Washington and down into Oregon, and there are different Salmon that are threatened under the Endangered Species Act. So, it's not just our area that's impacted. It's a large geographical area, the Pacific Northwest. As far as Chinook Salmon itself, this is a map of the State of Washington and it shows you geographically how extensive the areas are in the different counties and all are affected by the listings. It's a fairly wide spread coverage and there's potential listings of other species, and it's believed that will impact the entire state. If bull trout become listed and Cohn salmon then listed, the entire state will be impacted. This is a map showing what they call an Evolutionary Significant Unit. It's essentially the habitat that's used by a population of the Chinook Salmon at different life stages and encompasses a good part of Western Washington, all the way down to the Columbia River • system, and it goes out to the Olympic Peninsula to the Elwa River and up north to the Canadian border. The color codes show you the different ownerships of the land. The green areas are federal and the bluish areas are private and the gray areas state land and tribal land. So any action that is taken as far as dealing with the habitat of the Chinook Salmon involves a lot of cooperation at different levels of government. Through studies of this particular population of fish they found out how wide the range was and there's uniqueness in the genetics of this particular Puget Sound stock that characterizes it as one unit. They find that they range over this area,primarily using the areas for early life stages and spawning. In actuality, in range, they go up to the Gulf of Alaska during their adult stages, but this is primarily early life cycle and spawning. The National Marine Fisheries Service has a basic goal and that's embodied in the Endangered Species Act to increase abundance of naturally spawned fish to self-sustaining, harvestable levels, and a broad distribution of the fish throughout that Evolutionary Significant Unit and genetic diversity at different levels. And this touches upon some of the controversy with hatcheries where you take a fish and artificially spawn it, keep it in ponds, and then release it. It loses a lot of its ability for survival, and there's a lot of controversy by introducing a large number of these fish, overwhelming natural fish that are in there, and overtly competing for available space and food. The listing of the Puget Sound Chinook basically triggered a lot of activity at all levels of government. The governor and the state were quick to come up with a strategy. Basically, the fear is that the Federal Government alone will dictate everything as far as what has to be done. . The different levels of government are trying to assume some responsibility and control over Council Workshop, 9/7/99 4 what gets done and how it's done and the timing. So the state has a lot of responsibilities. Basically they're in charge of the agriculture,water use, fish passage. They set the rules at the state level for storm water management. They, together with the tribes, co-manage the harvest of the fish. They work with the Federal Government on hydropower issues and work with enforcement of environmental laws and are involved also with education and adaptive management (the governor issued this plan back in January of 1999). They rely heavily on large increases of funding in the state budget and there seems to be a breakdown in credibility between the executive branch and legislative branch. And to make a long story short they didn't get the money they asked for. So, right now, they're in a very vulnerable position because they advocate a lot of activities and all and it's questionable the degree to which they're going to have the money to do it. A lot of the recovery hinges on this and it becomes a matter of the Federal Government stepping in if something isn't done. (The Federal Government shuts down a lot of activities at their discretion that the state isn't working.) We're relying on the state as a partner in our own recovery plans. At the regional level basically the three counties—Snohomish, King and Pierce—organized the response when they heard about this listing and basically they have a tri-county process. A lot of the elected officials from the three counties are working together to try to come up with some type of recovery plan that covers that geographic area that will help defer federal assertion of their authority over everything. And that's what this ESA response is all about. There's been a lot of paper generated trying to embody what might be done. This is the counties' document"Return of the Kings" that was issued earlier this year. Basically a compilation of what's being done throughout King County. This is just for one county. And the City of Kent put their pieces in, along with a lot of the other cities, hoping to show the Federal Government that we are doing things and we are taking certain actions and that we have the ability to participate actively in some type of conservation plan that's needed for recovery of the species. This is an organization of some of the work that is going on. The counties were divided into watersheds. The City of Kent is most geographically located for the most part in the Green/Duwamish Watershed. We do have involvement in the Lake Washington/Cedar River system because one of our principal water supply sources, Rock Creek/Clark Springs, is located in the Cedar River system. And we've been participating in that watershed activity. But basically it shows you the levels of government—the National Marine Fisheries, the state, tri county, and then there's a steering committee that a mayor sits on. It's an elected officials/tribal representatives/federal agency representatives, and there's a technical work group that supports the development of a conservation plan and they report to the steering committee. And this structure has been under way since January of 1999. Even before this, the City of Kent has been actively participating in regional watershed management activities. We've been involved for about four years now in the Green/Duwamish and the Lake Washington/Cedar River system, even without the threat of the Endangered Species Act. We've been trying to work with the county and the tribes and the other cities to try to deal with all of these issues that ultimately touch upon fish and fish survival. The Green/Duwamish Watershed basically starts up in the Cascades at Stampede Pass. Howard Hansen Dam is the flood control and water supply components for the city and is integral to the . Tacoma Pipeline Project. We have a lot of the smaller cities that transition from a heavily Council Workshop,9/7/99 5 forested, protected area to agricultural areas to developed areas down to the Duwamish's heavily developed areas, and the quality of the river and all changes dramatically. The lower section is heavily levied for flood control purposes and has been a highly altered system. Historically there's been a lot of diversions of rivers from this river system which has had a dramatic impact on the ecology of the river. It's expected the listing will come out some time in October. When the National Marine Fisheries lists a species as threatened, they have to come up with a draft rule providing some protection of the species before a full recovery plan or conservation plan is developed. This is part of the information going into the draft pool. We're trying to identify what we're doing right and that we're responsible in a lot of the activities that we have under way, and that we deserve some coverage, initially, to allow us to continue to do our water supply, our storm water, work our development activities, and our capital improvement projects. One of the elements of the Conservation Plan in this watershed is for the individual cities to do a programmatic review. We look at all of our regulations, rules, policies, projects, and programs from the standpoint of how they might potentially impact fish or fish habitat. We've been working with Brent McFall and the department heads to organize this effort and we selected a consultant to undertake this programmatic review. We'll be working with the council to bring forward information on what we're doing right and wrong and what we might need to change. And that's part of what's embodied in our planning for the target goals and all—to prioritize it, discuss it and come up with an action plan and associated cost. In the 8 years I've been here we've been advancing our management. We basically require infiltration of root leaders. Even where a site doesn't accommodate full infiltration, we actually require partial infiltration. So, we've been pushing the envelope in ourselves recently,but I think the minimum standards are going to be pushed up even further. And we've done other projects like tree planting, etc. One project out in the Meridian area is a big channel concrete flume along 256th that is about 1,200 feet of channel. We're going to create a new stream system and basically take in the creek. That particular Meridian Valley stream which goes through the golf course, if you walk along there, you'll see thousands of Coho. Now, Coho aren't listed right now,but they're candidate species for listing. Most of the salmon you see throughout Kent are Coho. They're more adaptable to smaller streams. Another project along in the Soos Creek area is the Lake Meridian outlet. It goes in a ditch system along 152nd. That's part of our capital improvement planning. We're looking at relocating that creek into a newly created stream system. We're working at doing some restoration work in the upper Meridian Valley and I just cite these projects because they are some recent ones that were brought before the council as part of that CIP Program. We're basically looking for a fish friendlier Pacific Northwest. And you know the citizenry seems to be pretty responsive. They care about fish in general but it's going to be a challenge to translate all this especially when the regulations get more arduous, more difficult. Councilmember Tom Brotherton—Where do you see our greatest vulnerability? The risk of us having to change,where's the impact going to be? Water consumption? Bill Wolinski—Well, from my perspective water use is a real contentious issue. Our spring supplies are associated with streams. There's a lot of concern that when you draw water out for human consumption and then discharge it somewhere else you're having the potential impact on the stream and the quality of the stream. Clark Springs—we've been working five years with the Muckleshoot a Council Workshop, 917l99 6 . Tribe in King County over flow issues in Rock Creek. Rock Creek is a tributary of the Cedar River. It's recognized to be one of the highest value creeks in the Cedar River system for various species— Sockeye, Coho, and supposedly Chinook. Basically, we've been working with the county, and the tribe will come up with innovative ways to deal with low flow in the streams in the summertime because they see a direct link on how much water we're drawing out for our use for our customers and the flow in the summertime. So we've come up with a lot of different strategies working in Public Works with the county and the tribe. One proposal we have on the table right now is to build a pump station at the Cedar River immediately upstream of where Rock Creek goes into the Cedar, and during the summertime when there's low flows, pull water up from the Cedar and allow it to flow and increase the flows in the stream. Not using it up, it's just going to be recycling it, and we've put that proposal before the tribe and the county, trying to work that out. We're looking at developing some additional wells on our property to seasonally put more water in. The other big issue that's going to create a lot of contention is loss of use of land along the streams. They're looking at as much as 100 feet to 200 feet on each side of the stream, what they call management zones, and that would restrict what you can do within that area. Then in a highly developed area like Kent, we don't have 200 feet you know. There are a lot of parking lots and buildings, etc., and it's going to be a challenge to figure out equitable ways of dealing with protecting that area where it's not considered taking people's property. And there might be some creative ways through conservation easements where we could go in there and not purchase the property but do some planting and maybe look at enhancements of the planting and narrow that from 200 feet to 100 feet. We've been doing some work on some properties that are available,but it is a big challenge in a highly urbanized area to do this. I think that it would be useful periodically to give even a short update on things as we go through all this to keep everyone current as far as what's taken place and all. This Programmatic Review is going to be finished the end of this calendar year and I think thereafter the first part of the year it might be useful to give you a briefing on what we found out and the relative significance of things. I can distribute a draft copy of the Conservation Plan to everyone which will give you a flavor. I tried to put together some reference material on this handout to give you some additional reading, depending on the level of detail you want to get in. But I think it would be useful for me to send you a copy of our draft Conservation Plan because it spells out in greater detail what I tried to present here. It's basically looking at the watershed, the Green, Duwamish, Lake Washington/Cedar and finding out what's most impacting fish in that system and then coming up through Programmatic Reviews at different levels of government, taking into consideration what the state's doing and the tribes, etc and coming up with an action plan. Council President Leona Orr—I was thinking if you were able to put something together that could be shown on Channel 21 we might even make it available to the schools. If it was done in the right way, it would help the kids get an understanding. They are the ones that are going to be dealing with it in the future and kids can have a lot of influence on their parents when it comes to those kinds of things. Council Workshop,9/7/99 7 Regional Issues Director of Operations Brent McFall—I just wanted to bring you up to date on what's happening with Valley Com. You'll recall that when we talked previously it was determined that Valley Com does need to build a new facility. They simply have outgrown the current facility so I wanted to let you know what has happened to date on that. The Valley Com Board,which is made up of the Mayors of the four owner cities has agreed and authorized proceeding with a new construction project. The Valley Com is buying property from the City of Kent that we own right at the top of the hill at 274th and 108th. So right across the street from Meadow Ridge Elementary, on the west side of 108th right at the top of the crest of the hill there are about five acres of useable land for this new facility. The Board has further agreed to accept the City of Federal Way as another owner city. So rather than the four current owners, we would go to five. That has one very beneficial element to it and one that has a slightly negative impact. The very beneficial one is that we can spread the development cost five ways instead of four and that makes the project more affordable. The potentially negative, and it is slightly negative, impact is that the City of Federal Way now contracts with Valley Com for dispatch services, and contract agencies pay a slightly higher rate per call than do the owner cities so there operating costs will go down slightly and thus revenue to Valley Com from that source goes down slightly. The City of Federal Way does not operate the Fire Department. That is operated by a special purpose fire district. The board of Valley Com did agree that if Federal Way was to join, then the Federal Way Fire Department or the Fire District could essentially come in as another owner agency as sort of a sub contractor to the City • of Federal Way. The City of Federal Way would speak for both its Police Department and the Fire District at the table. The Fire District isn't going to get a seat at the table. They will be the Federal Way Fire Department and the city will speak on their behalf. The preferred financing technique at this time for the new facility will be the creation of a Public Development Authority just as we've done for the new Public Market that will be opening, hopefully, in October. This will be slightly different because we've got the ownership interest of the five cities. Because the facility will be inside the City of Kent, the Kent City Council will create the Public Development Authority. What we anticipate doing is at the time that it is created, we also have in the agreement that the Board of the Public Development Authority will be the five mayors just as they are the Board of Valley Com. So the PDA truly is only a financing technique. Valley Com in and of itself has no ability to issue debt. So that means that each of the owner cities have to issue its own debt or create this Public Development Authority. Let it issue debt to build a facility and retire that debt from the lease payments that the five owner cities make back to it. We're looking at probably in the neighborhood of a$3 million cost per ownership city, and bear in mind too, that we have the opportunity over time to offset some of that cost through the payments that the contract agencies pay to Valley Com. So it looks like it's moving along and probably some time in December,perhaps November, we'll actually have a new interlocal agreement for your consideration as will all of the five cities that brings Federal Way into the fold as an owner. We will also have legislation for you to consider in creating the Public . Development Authority for the purpose of building and owning a new Valley Com facility. So I Council Workshop,9/7/99 8 think that this project has gone along very well. We had early cost estimates exceeding$20 million. The Board of Valley Com after getting back up off the floor said, no way, and they charged me and my colleagues from the other cities to reduce that cost and we're looking now at about a $12 million or so facility cost. And then there's a substantial computerized dispatch cost of going into the new facility and that's where we don't quite yet know what the costs are going to be, but that's where I'm getting the $3 million each. The five cities would all be equal owners of the facility. Our operating expenses are not the same because that's based upon our volume of activity and, obviously, Kent being the largest city and having the largest volume,pays the highest operating expense for Valley Com. But, in terms of the ownership of the business, if you will, we would be five equal partners and share in that capital cost equally. Tom Brotherton—It sounds like from what you said that the four existing cities are taking a financial hit having Federal Way join as a whole partner. I'm sure there are reasons of amity and cooperation, but is this extra financial burden we're now experiencing going to be offset by anything? Brent McFall—It will be offset in two ways, Tom. The capital expense being shared is more significant than any operating cost. The other thing is we contract with other agencies as well and their volume as a percentage continues to grow as well. So it really ends up being about a wash in terms of operating expense. So it's a consideration but I don't think it's a significant one. The meeting adjourned.