HomeMy WebLinkAbout970RESOLUTION tJZ!}
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, regarding adoption of a Water Quality
Management Program.
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Department working with a
Citizens Committee, prepared a Water Quality Management Program,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department's and the Citizens
Committee's research, findings, and conclusions concerning the
Water Quality Management Program have been summarized in the docu-
ment titled, Water Quality Management Program, Executive Summary,
dated April 1982, and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed Water Quality Management Program on
Hay 25, 1982, and recommended to the City Council eight
specific actions for approval, which actions are contained in the
Water Quality Management Program Executive Summary, and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council held a public hearing
on August 2, 1982, on the proposed Water Quality Management Program,
as recommended to them by the Planning Commission, and at that time
approved the program as set out in the Water Quality Management Pro-
gram, Executive Summary, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DO
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1: That the Water Quality Management Program as
set out in the Water Quality Management Program, Excutive Summary,
attached hereto as Appendix "A", be and hereby is incorporated herein
by reference as if fully set forth herein, and the same hereby is
adopted.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council this
day Of ar-(y."?._/-1 1982 •
BETTY GfAY, DEPUi# CITY CLERK
~··
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of
Resolution ~222 , passed by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, the /6.~ day of ~ , 1982.
l&'au-~-(SEAL}
BE!TTY Giu~·;DEPU'CITY· CLERK
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMA.RY
CITY OF KENT
APRIL 1982
MIDWAY CREEK) WEST HILL
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SU:[\.1MA.RY
CITY OF KENT
APRIL 1982
MIJWAY CREEK; WEST riiL~
TABLE OF COHTEfJTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Approach 1
Study Area Characteristics 2
Hi story of tlle Study Area 4
II. \lATER QUALITY ISSUES AND 11ANAGE11ENT
Degradation of Streams 5
\later Quality !1anagement in Kent 7
I I I. \MTER QUALITY t~AtiAGEt1ENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 15
Alternative 2 16
Al tel~nati ve 3 1 7
Alternative 4 17
IV. RECO!~t·1ENDED \~ATER QUALITY i1ANAGEr1ENT PROGRN·1 17
I . I NTRODUC TI mJ
APPROACH
The Wdter Quality Management Program consists of seven specific tasks. The
first six tasks provided key background i nfomati on whi 1 e the sevent!1 was
totally oriented tm;ards i mpl ementati on of the program. Four different
documents were produced as a result of these tasks:
1. 11 Streambed Assessments, Habitat Evaluations, Beneficial Uses and
Recommendations Towdrd Enhancement of Stream Ecosystems Within the
City of Kent 11 (This is a detailed report on the condition of streams
in the City of Kent).
2. 11 Estimated Pollutant Loads for Lead, Phosphorus and Suspended Solids
for Selected Drainage Basins in the City of Kent, Present and Future
EstiiilateS 11 (This document estimates the impacts of pollutants on the
city 1 s streams and creeks).
3. 11 Strear.J FloH f·1easurements for Garrison and Mill Creeks, .June 1981 to
November 1981 11 (This is a short sur.1mary on h0\'1 high storm water
vol Uiiles in Garrison and i~i 11 Creeks can dar.ldge the str'eam ecosystem}.
4. 11 Review of City Codes and Ordinances That Have a Direct or Indirect
Ir.1pact on \~ater Quality" (This document briefly examines the
effectiveness of these codes and ordinances).
The Water Quality Management Program \~as funded by the Federal Environr.Jental
Protection Agency through a "208 11 'dater quality grant \'lith matching funds fror.1
the City of Kent. METRO" as the \later quality planning agency for the Cedar
and Green River basins, manages and grants these funds in conjunction with the
Federal EPA. METRO assisted in the Water Qual~:y i·lanager:1ent Program by
providing background assistance to the City of Kent staff. All documents
produced by this program \vere sent to t·1ETRO for revi e\'1 and coment.
Additionally, all documents were reviev1ed by the Kent Public Works Department
in conjunction vii th the City 1 s proposed drainage utility.
The Water Quality r~anagement Prograr.1 began as a outgrowth of the study titled
11 Green River Basin Critical Drainage Study 11 by Jack Dodge and Peter Orser of
the Kent Planning Departr.1ent. This study was an early effort to locate all of
the city 1 s drainage basins and to identify all visual \·tater quality problems
prevalent in each stream identified in the study. The study itself was a
coordinated effort ~itl1 the King County Resource Pla!1ning Division.
The follm'ling items have been utilized ir the Hater Quality Program:
1. Algae Blooms
An excessive gro,Jt!l of Si:laii, Jne ce··~ plants ~n a lake, pond,
wetland or slo\w moving creek Hhich is generally caused by a
combination of high water tempera~u~es, sunlight, and high amounts of
nutrientso
-1 -
2. Bentlli c Organi sr.ts
Invertebrates that occur at the bottoD of a body of water.
3. Dissolved Oxygen
The oxygen content in a body of 1-1ater (generally expressed as
r.tilligraQS per liter).
4. Redds
An area in the strear.1 channel Hhere fish eggs have been deposited.
5. Scouring
The action of eroding away the streaQbed and strear.tbanks of a creek.
6. SediQents/Sedir.tentati on
Solid Qaterial of organic or inorganic origin that has settled from
suspension and been deposited by water, Hind, or ice, (i.e. the
process of sedimentation).
7. Springs/Seeps
A natural opening at the eartl1's surface out of \'thich \<later issues,
ranging in voluQe from a trickle to millions of gallons a day.
Springs are usually differentiated froQ seeps by a more abundant and
concentrated fl 01~ of 1tater.
STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The studies resulting fror.1 the Water Quality f·1anager:Jent Program exaQi ned six
creeks encor.tpassing 22.2 lililes of the Green River drainage basin \'/ithin the
City of Kent's sphere of interest. (Figure 1 )
The western portion of this area is typified by a flat plateau that drops
rapidly to the Green River valley floor (froQ 425 feet dovm to 30 feet in less
than .3 mile). The central portion is characterized by flat river plain
topography and is approximately three miles wide. The eastern portion of the
study area is a.gently sloping plateau that also drops rapidly from its edge
to the va 11 ey floor, tl10ugh not as quickly as the western part of the study
area (a 470 foot drop in .5 to 1 mile distance). On both plateaus, many areas
are cut by steeply sided valleys that adjoin creeks.
The topography of the study area resulted chiefly from the many episodes of
glaciation in the Puget Sound area; the most recent ended approximately 14,000
years ago. Generally, the plateaus of the study area are ground moraine
deposits consisting of till material. (Till is the bedrock material carried
do\m by a glacier from its origin \'lhile a moraine is the form in vthich the
till material is deposited. Ground moraine deposits indicate that a glacier
retredted at a uniform rate.) On the fianks of the West Hill, kame terrace
deposits are also found. (Kar.Je terraces are deposits of material occurring
between the edge of a glacier and a valley \'lall and are famed by melt Hater
from a glacier.) The central portion of tbe study area, the valley floor,
-2-
N
t ..
t -J! L ..
~ .tit~ •••••••• . K ·:
272 St.
FIGURE I
STUDY AREA
• • • • • • •
CREEK
s 212 s
-3-
•
• • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••• ••
(l\UBURN)
I
j
\
\
Grc:er.
...
~ ..
.~
I. :.r. ···j :1
••••• 11 • f" ... SE 208 St.
• ...
:\
..
:l -~ ••
Study Area
Boundary ·-·-·-·
~
'• Drainage ·.~ nasin ... -·
~ Boundary
•••••••••
consists of alluvium. Alluviur.J is r.~aterial laid dmm by rivers, which in this
area consists prir.~arily of volcanic r.~aterial, the source ~eing ~he Cascades.
T:1e geology of an area has a direct relation 11ith the pedology (soil type).
Generally, r.Joraine deposits consist of gravelly sandy material wnich is
reflected in the characteristics of the soils found on the plateaus in the
study area. These soils are primarily Al der1'1ood, Al derwood-Kitsap, and
· Arents-Al derwood soils \'lith Indi anal a and Everett soi 1 s occurring to a 1 esser
extent. The composition of these soils range from a gravelly sandy loam (loam
being a mixture of clay, silt or sand) to a loamy fine sand. Small pockets of
Noma and Tukwila soils are also found on the plateaus and are associated \vith
poorly drained areas such as wetlands. On the valley floor five major soil
types·are found: Hoodinville, Renton, Snohomish, Puget, and Briscot soils.
These soils are associated 11ith river and strear.J valleys and range fror.1 a
silty clay loar.J to a silt loam and are poorly drained alluviur.J.
As mentioned earlier, r.~any steep valleys and adjoining creeks cut into the
plateaus of the study area. On the eastern plateau these valleys include
Springbrook, Garrison and l~i 11 Creeks. ~1i 11 and Garrison Creeks are
tributaries of Springbrook Creek. These creeks flow in a northwesterly
direction, entering the Green River at Renton near the Renton Se~age Treatment
Plant. On the \vest plateau these valleys include Johnson, Midway, Star Lake
and Bingaman Creeks. They flow in an east-northeastern direction entering the
Green River north of S. 204th Street (Johnson Creek), north of Kent-Des Moines
Road (Mi d\o~ay Creek) and south of Kent-Des Moines Road (Star Lake and Bingaman
Creek). The valleys are heavily \~Coded with a r.1ixture of Douglas fir, :¥estern
red cedar, hemlock, red alder and r.Japle trees. In r.1ost valleys, oid grmvth
trees can be found.
On both plateaus, wooded areas, including valleys, encor.1pass 36 percent of the
vacant land; with open space, agricultural and pasture land comprising the
rest. For both plateaus, approximately 66 percent of the land is vacant. On
the valley floor, north and east of the Green River, 60 percent of the 1and is
vacant. Of this land, 4 percent is wooded 11ith the rest consisting of open
space, agricultural, or pasture land.
HISTORY OF THE STUDY AREA
In the study area, before the first white settlers came, the area \'las covered
by dense vegetation and was heavily forested. The plateaus were covered with
Douglas fir, western red cedar, and hemlock; while the valley floor was
covered with cottenwood, willow, ash and red alder. As tl1e first \1hite
settlers arrived in 1854, sraall subsistence fams 11ere carved into the valley
floor which grew onions, potatoes, and cabbage. In the forthcoming years,
these crops gave way to hop farming which \'las ~Jell established by 1878. By
1917, large truck farms began to appear in Kent growing such vegetables as
peas, beans, broccoli, and cabbage. On the East Hill, forests began to give
\lay to large cherry orchards, chicken farms, dairying operations and berry
raising.
The Kent valley area remained basically rural and agricultural until the
1950 1 S. The 1950 population of Kent Has oniy 3,278. From the 50 1 S to the
present, development accelerated in the :<ent area. Ne\1 cor.Jr.Jercial areas and
housing began to be constructed on the east and \'lest plateaus and :71any creeks
began to experience 1·1ater quality problems for the first time. On the valley
-4-
floor. the Howard
Hanson Dam was built in
1961, inaustrial devel-
opment appeared. Soon
small truck farming dis-
appeared and was replaced
by warehousing and apart-
ments. Presently, of the
10.2 square miles that
comprises the valley por-
tion of the study area,
approximately 3 square
miles are used for indus-
tria 1 anc commercial uses.
Of the rema1n1ng l.i
square miles of land,
little is used for farm-
ing and most remains fal-
lovJ as open space. Pre-
sently, on the plateaus,
aporoximately 4 of the
12 square miles are uti-
, ... } .J ,t...
• .-t:J'
lr .
Figure 2. The Springbrook Trout Farm on Springbrook
Creek.
lized for industrial, commercial, multi-and single-famiiy
land being pasture, wooded areas or open soace.
uses with the remaining
I I. W.~TER QU.A~ ITY ISSUES AND ~1ANAGEHENT
DEGRADATION OF STREAMS
As mentioned earlier, the Water Quality Management Program examined six creeks
encompassing 22.2 miles of the Green River drai~age basin including Mill, Garri-
son, and Springbrook Creeks on the East Hill and Jonnson, Midway, and Star Lake/
Bingaman Creeks on the West Hill. In the past, tnese creeks supported viable
resident trout populations and abundant salmon runs. The runs consisted primarily
of coho salmon th-at favored these creeks for spawning (coho salmon fry can live
in creeks as little as one foot in width and one inch deep) with chinook and chum
salmon using them to a lesser extent. Additionally, summer and winter steelhead
trout along with searun cutthroat trout also used these creeks for spawning.
As a result, many local residents utilized these creeks for recreational fishing
with trout farms established on Springbrook and Star Lake Creeks to help serve
these needs. (The Springbrook Creek trout farm is still in operation, Figure 2.)
Generally, these creeks remained unaffected by major water ouality problems
until·the 1950's.
From the 1950's to the present, ne','i develooment has increasingly impacted these
creeks. r~ill and Garrison Creeks began to experience frequent high storm water
flows from uncontrolled surface water runoff while Bingaman and Star Lake Creeks
were impacted by sedimentation from gravel mining operations. Additionally,
Midway Creek suffered heavily from inadequate drainage controls. In one case
new development completely obliterated a stream system. This is the former
Grandview Creek which is now cccuJied by the Kent Highlands landfill operations.
Long-time residents of the area renort that this st~eam once supported an abundant
trout population and possible salmon runs. Meanwhile, on the valley floor, pollu-
tants fror;1 new lndu:;trial and com!ll:c-rcic:-: development began to impact the valley
reaches o.c f0i:1 . Garrisor~ anc Sc::'.c'IC]broof >eeks fo .... the f~rst time.
-5-
Figure 3. As shown at left, salmon eggs need a
steady flow of clean water through gravel to
supply oxygen and flush away silt. vlhen fine
sediment enters a stream and settles between
gravel, shown at right, it can smother fish
eggs.
impact on the ecosystem of a creek. These impacts
to the following:
Presently, all creeks 1n the
s:udy area experience water
quality problems to some
degree. On the valley floor,
the creeks suffer from high
amounts of pollutants from
development (Springbrook,
Garrison and Mill Creeks)
with high water temperatures
an additional problem in
the summer due to little
vegetation along the creeks.
In the plateau and valley
reaches of the creeks, high
storm water volumes are com-
mon. Consequently, streambed
scouring and sedimentation
in the creeks are prevalent.
High storm water volumes,
high water temperatures
and pollutants all have
include but are not limited
1. High storm water volumes scour streambed and streambanks. This in turn
can scour out fish eggs (redds) and benthic organisms and kill them.
Alternately, large sediment loads associated with high storm water flows
can bury redds and benthic oraanism with sedi~ent and suffocate them.
This is especially apparent i~ the upper reaches of Garrison Creek. (Figure 3.)
2. High water temperatures from 70-80° in the summer are a major problem
and can decrease the ability of fish to withstand diseases or can be lethal.
Mill and Garrison Creeks have been especially impacted by high temperatures
during summer heat waves.
3. High water temperatures coupled with pollutants, such as phosphates and
nitrates, can cause algae blooms in the streams. This in turn lowers the
dissolved oxygen content of the water in the creek which can be fatal to
fish.
Another less publicized contributor to the degradation of water quality and
fi-sh populations is the destruction of vJetlands. ~ietlands perform three impor-
tant functions in the protection of water quality and fish population in a creek:
l. Aquatic plants in wetlands preserve water quality by changing inorganic
pollutants into organic material and stores ct in their leaves and in aeat.
2. The stems, leaves, and roots of these olants slow the flow of water through
the wetlands which in turn helps to settle o~t sediments.
3. Wetlands act as a natural detention pond, s~~ring water during the wet season
and recharging the water table during dry se3sons. (All creeks in the study
area are fed by groundwater seeps and sor~~gs in the dry summer months.
-6-
Removal of wetlands
could cause the creek
to go dry in the sum-
mer. Additionally,
the size of fish popu-
lations, in part,
depends directly on
the low summer flow of
a creek.) Thus, re-
moval of wetlands can
cause faster flows of
dirty water.
Also, wetlands provide
essential breeding,
nesting, resting, and
feeding areas for
myriad numbers of
wildlife. (In the
City's combined wet-
land/detention pond
at the top of Mill
Creek Canyon ten dif-
Figure ~-The City of Kent's combined wetland/
detention pond on upper Mill Creek.
ferent species of birds were sighted during a one hour period, among them, the
Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, and Redwinged Blackbird, Figure 4.) As develop-
ment has accelerated 1n the study area, many wetlands have disappeared. On
the valley floor, many wetlands were filled in by industrial and commercial
development while on the plateaus, wetlands were filled for residential uses.
In one case, filling of a wetland coupled with new development caused large
scale water quality problems (sedimentation) in Lake Fenwick on the West Hill.
This resulted in costly cor~ective measures to control the water quality
problem. Also, loss of wetlands have led to the reduction in the diversity and
abundance of wildlife in the study area.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN KENT
With the acceleration of urban development in the study area, water quality
problems in the City's water courses became apparent. The City has addressed
these problems by adopting specific goals, objectives and policies which are
intended to lead toward the protection of water quality of fish and wildlife
in the City of Kent. These goals, objectives and policies have been cited
iR various comprehensive plans and are listed below.
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Adopted January 3, 1977)
viATERWAYS
OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE OPTIMU~1 USAGE AND PRESERVATION OF THE CITY'S WATERWAYS.
GOAL 1: To permit optimal usage of the City's waterways for fish, wildlife
habitat, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment.
Objective l: Preserve and enhance water quality.
Policy: Provide adequate sewerage systems adjacent to waterways.
Policy:
Objective 2:
Policy:
Policy:
Objective 3:
Policy:
Objective 4:
Policy:
Policy:
Objective 5:
Policy:
Policy:
Prevent pollution of both surface and subsurface water
resources.
Preserve and enhance and restore biotic habitats in
waterways, channels and adjacent lands.
Retain naturally vegetated buffer strips along at least
80% of waterways.
Encourage nature vegetative cover to be left along
~1aterways by property mmers.
Preserve the natural functions of the waterways.
Promote "non-destruction" of water\'lays in areas of new
construction by causing the stream courses to remain
stable and.in their natural state.
Incorporate \later resources into an open space net\·1ork.
Designate the waterways and adjacent lands, including
wetlands, as open space which cannot be built upon.
Define the intended usage for waterways as open space.
Promote both private and public recreational usage along
waterways.
Promote easements for IIi kers and non-motorized vehicles.
Provide rest areas along waterways.
GOAL 2: Preserve local water resources.
Objective 1 :
Policy:
Policy:
Policy:
Policy:
Surface water management system shall utilize natural
features.
Where fl 0\'1 contra 1 in wa ter\vays is required, promote
means other than channelization and levees.
Significant v1etlands should be used as detention ponds
for flood control.
Discourage the practice of chemically spraying for
control of vegetation along waterways.
Ne\1 construction shall be designed so that peak
discharge is no more than what it was under natural
conditions.
-8-
GOAL 1:
Objective 1 :
Policy:
OVERALL GOAL:
OPDJ SPACE
Preserve, conserve and preserve farm land, forested
areas, flood plains, wetlands and watersheds.
Create a forestry and \later shed code \'lhi ch aids in
preventing/regulating the cutting of vegetative cover
and which aids in retention of slopes and ravines.
NATURAL RESOURCES
PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES.
GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosyste~s and protect the aesthetic
Vdlues.
Objective 1:
Objective 1:
Pol icy:
Preserve and protect suitable habitat for local species.
Protect and enhance existing nesting, breeding, spawning
and feeding areas.
Utilize the latest technology to ensure that streams
used by fish do not beco~e negative breeding and
spawning areas.
GOAL 2: Encourage the conservation of soil resources.
GOAL 4:
Objective 2:
Po 1 icy 1 :
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
GOAL 3:
Objective 5:
Policy 8:
HOUSHJG ELEMENT
Preserve and ~aintain as ~uch of the natural environment
as possible.
Prohibit residential development in areas unsuitable for
development (e.g., steep slopes, swamps, etc.).
Require site design to utilize the natural features
(e.g., streams, steep slopes, wetlands).
In site develop~ent plans, require preservation of
significant natural features.
HUMAN RESOURCES
Preserve existing areas of unique scenic, cultural,
historical, or natural interest.
-9-
PUBLIC UTILITIES
GOAL 3: Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient storm drainage and
retention system which respects and utilizes the natural drainage
system.
Objective 1 :
Objective 2:
Objective 3:
GOAL 4:
Objective 4:
OVERALL GOAL:
Complete and implement a comprehensive stom drainage
plan encompassing both facilities and services.
Coordinate closely 11ith t4ETRO, King County, and local
drainage districts to develop regional drainage policies
and programs.
Develop programs to minimize increased stom 11ater
runoff.
The refuse collection and disposal system should not
cause pollution to the natural environment.
HUMAN ENY IRONf~EtJT
ASSURE KENT.RESIDENTS AN AESTHETIC AND HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT.
GOAL 1: Maximize the aesthetic qualities of Kent•s natural and man-made
dmenities.
Objective 1 :
Po 1 icy 1 :
Policy 3:
Maintain and enhance natural environmental amenities.
Identify significant natural amenities and prohibit
their destruction.
Require reestablishment of some of the natural amenities
destroyed during development.
EAST HILL PLAN (Adopted January 3, 197
GENERAL LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL II: All natural features of the area (forested areas, streams lakes,
etc.) be protected from indiscriminate destruction.
Po 1 icy 1 :
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Before approval of any developmental plan the developer
should present a plan to handle any strear.1 through his
property. The methodo 1 ogy should be geared toward
minimizing the disturbance of the natural channel and
strear.1 bed.
The piping and tunneling of Hater should be discouraged
and all owed only 1vhen it is necessary to go under
streets.
Every effort should be made to keep a 11 s trear.1s or
bodies of water free fro~ debris and pollutants.
-1 G-
Po 1 icy 4:
Policy 5:
GOAL 2:
Policy 7:
Establish forest protection zones for groves of
particular beauty and functional shelter for water
runoff.
All forests, woodlands, copses, and freestanding trees
of significant size should be subject to preservation
regulations.
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE POLICIES AND GOALS
A storm drainage system should be installed to collect
stonn waters in residential areas and move it out of
such areas without interfering Hith residential type
activities.·
STORM DRAINAGE
GOAL; Recognize the natural drainage system of East Hill.
Policy 1:
Po 1 icy 2:
Po 1 icy 3:
Policy 4:
Policy 5:
Keep·all streams or bodies of water free from debris and
pollutants.
Do not reroute the natural drainage unless there is no
adverse result in the area of rerouting or upstream and
downstream.
The piping and tunneling of water should be discouraged
and allowed only when going under a heavily traveled
paved road.
Recognize the role that vegetation plays in the drainage
syster.J.
Recognize the effect development and large paved areas
have on the drainage system.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN (Adopted July 2, 1979; amended February 17, 1981)
HOUSING
GOAL 3: Assure environmental quality in residential areas.
Objective 1 :
Po 1 icy 1 :
Preserve and maintain as much of the natural environment
as possible.
Prohibit residential development in areas unsuitable for
development (e.g., steep slopes, swamps~ etc.).
-11-
GOAL 3:
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient storm drainage and
retention system \lhich uses the natural drainage system.
Objective 1: Develop a comprel1ensive storm drainage plan encompassing
both facilities and services based on phased developmer.t
decisions.
Policy 1:
OVERALL GOAL:
Develop specific programs to minimize increased storm
water runoff.
tlATURAL RESOURCES
PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE VALLEY
FLOOR.
GOAL 1 : Ensure tl1e preservation of ecosyster.~s.
Objective 1:
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
OVERALL GOAL:
Preserve and protect vital habitat for species common to
the valley floor.
Encourage property mmers to deed to the City, 1 and for
open space and water retention.
Encourage use of mineral and soil resources in harmony
with the existing ecosyster.~s.
HATERWAYS
PROVIDE FOR PRESERVATION OF THE VALLEY FLOOR'S WATERWAYS.
GOAL 1 : Provide optimal usage of the Green River, creeks, and other valley
floor waterways for fish, wildlife habitat, general recreation and
aesthetic enjoyment.
Objective 1:
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Objective 2:
Polic:,' 2:
Restore, preserve and enhance water quality and biotic
habitats.
Sign interlocal agreements with other agencies and
jurisdictions on water quality.
Restrict use of pesticides and other pollutants in land
cultivation activities.
Retain vitally needed natural buffer strips along the
Green River.
Discourage non-recreational developr.~ent of waterways and
natura 1 \-Jetl ands.
GOAL 2: Preserve natural \later resources
-12-
Objective 1:
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Natural water resources should be conserved by a Surface
Water Management Program.
Encourage enlargement as necessary of creeks and
tributaries to support aquatic life and associated
ecosystems.
Encourage use of Kent sewage lagoon for water retention
and natural wildlife.
As mentioned earlier, the above goals, objectives and policies are the City 1 s
official mandate for the protection of 1-1ater quality and protection of fish
and wildlife. Consequently, various codes/ordinances have been adopted to
implement these GOP 1 s. These codes/ordinances are listed below:
1. Surface Water and Drainage Code, adopted December 4, 1978.
2. Kent Subdivision Code, adopted September 17, 1973.
3. Kent Zoning Code, adopted June 4, 1973, revised November, 1981.
4. Tree and Stream Ordinance 2245/2318, adopted September 3, 1980.
5. Ordinance 2264/2272 11 Environmental Excise Tax 11
, adopted DeceQber 15, 1980,
revised February 2, 1981 (now revoked by the State Legislature).
6. Ordinance 2224 11 Public Improvement 11
, adopted t·1ay 21, 1980.
Of the above codes/ordinances, two were adopted specifically to implement to
the City 1 s goals, objectives and policies tm'lards the preservation of water
quality and stream channels: 1) The Surface Water and Drainage Code helps to
preserve the \'later quality by controlling stom 1-1ater runoff from ne\1
development and keeping runoff at predevelopment levels. 2) The Tree and
Stream Ordinance was adopted to prevent the uninhibited clearing of trees and
to preserve stream channels in their natural state. The remaining
codes/ordinances all have an indirect but important function in preserving
water quality in the City of Kent.
The preservation of water quality and the protection of streams, 1 akes,
wetlands, woodlands, and steep slopes is a major concern of the citizens of
Kent. These concerns are reflected by two public opinion surveys done in the
City and its sphere of interest in the past year.
The first survey was a public telephone survey prepared by GMA Research
Corporation in May, 1981 for Kent 1 s East Hill Comprehensive Plan update. In
the survey various questions regarding uses of streams, lakes, wetlands,
woodland, and steep slopes were asked. The following summarizes these
questions and responses. The sample size included 621 households randomly
selected and representing three subgroups.
1. City residents
2. County residents
3. Single family households
-i 3-
SURVEY RESULTS -NATURAL EtN IRONMENT
1. How important to you are the wetlands (ponds and marshes) of East Hill in
maintaining your quality of life?
Somewhat to very important
Somewhat to unimportant
No opinion
73%
19%
8%
2. How important to you are the creeks and streams of East Hill in
raaintaining your quality of life?
Somewhat to very important
Some\/hat to unimportant
No opinion
87%
9%
4%
3. How important to you are the lakes of East Hill in maintaining your
quality of life:
Somewhat to very important
Somewhat to unimportant
No opinion
93%
5%
2%
4. How important to you are the steep hillsides of East Hi 11 in mai ntai"ni ng
your quality of life?
Somewhat to very important
Somewhat to unimportant
No opinion
63%
26%
11%
5. How important to you are the woodlands of East Hill in maintaining your
quality of life?
Somewhat to very important
Somewhat to unimportant
No opinion
95%
3%
2%
6. Slloul d public funds be spent to preserve or protect the natural resources
of the East Hill?
Yes
No
Don't Know
76%
12%
5%
7. Should local laws/regulations be adopted to preserve natural resources?
Yes
No
Don't Know
84%
8%
2%
The second survey was a city-wide survey completed in September, 1981 for the
Parks Department and \las prepared by Leonard Guss Associates fl'•om Tacoma.
While the questions in the survey are related to park usage and acquisition,
it should be noted that many natural areas such as lakes, wetlands, steep
slopes, creeks, ravines can be used for park purposes or as open space. {The
survey includes 405 respondents city •1ide.)
-14-
1. In its future planning, do you feel that City of Kent should emphasize or
not the following?
A. Preserving open space.
Emphasize
Not emphasize
Don't knm~
B. Acquiring an adequate supply of parks for future use.
Emphasize
Not er.tphasi ze
Don't know
84%
13%
3%
71%
25%
4%
2. Are you willing to pay reasonable additional taxes to provide the local
share of funding for acquisition of parks?
Yes
No
73%
27%
In summary, the t\'IO preceding surveys show that the citizens of the City of
Kent are concerned about the natural environment and are willing to pay
additional costs and/or enact legislations to preserve it.
As part of the Water Quality Management Program, a Hater Quality Advisory
Committee Has established. This committee includes all interested parties
concerned with water quality in Kent (i.e. 25% private citizens, 25%
representatives of public interest groups, 25% public officials, and 25%
citizens or representatives of organizations \iith an economic interest in the
project}. The committee revie\'ied all documents produced by the Water Quality
Management Program (the four documents mentioned earlier), and acted in an
advisory role in making recommendations relating to the text of the Water
Quality Ordinance.
In the course of the program, the Water Quality Advisory Committee met 16
times with four of these meetings being field trips. The field trips were to
areas defined as critical areas in the proposed Hater Quality Ordinance.
II I. .WATER QUALITY r~ANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
As part of its regular meetings, the Water Quality Advisory Committee and City
staff examined four different alternatives regarding the protection of water
quality· in the City of Kent: 1. No \'later quality management program but
utilize existing codes and ordinances. 2. Revise current regulations. 3.
Adopt a new water quality ordinance. 4. Adopt a new water quality ordinance
and revise current regulations.
A sumary of the above alternatives and tt1eir advantages and disadvantages are
1 i sted bel ow.
-15-
1. Utilize existing codes and ordinances
Advantages
A. No new 1 ayer of 1 egi sl ati on is adopted. Nell 1 egi sl ati on can delay
the development process.
Disadvantages
A. Present City codes/ordinances are Heak in the protection of water
quality. Generally, the lack of definitions co~bined with lack of
requirements in the codes/ordinances has 1 ed to 1-1ater quality
problems.
B. With the lack of definitions for such tems as critical areas or
unsuitable lands, use of present code/ordinances cause so~e confusion
for staff and applicant alike. This results in further inequities in
codes/ordinance enforce~ent.
C. Present City codes/ordinances do not cover all components for the
protection of water quality. '.~ater quality protection is
~ulti-faceted and deals not only 1-1ith the direct protection of water
quality (such as storm 1'/ater detention ponds for new development) but
uith indirect means of protecting 11ater quality. An example of this
is preservation of wetlands, steep slopes, stream channels, setbacks
from streams, etc. Present codes/ordinances do not adequately
address these concerns.
D. Present codes/ordinances do not set ~inimum standards for water
quality protection.
2. Revise Current Codes/Ordinances
Advantages
A. A new layer of legislation/regulations \<.fill not be adopted.
B. Revising present codes/ordinances will provide definitions for such
terms as unsuitable land, steep slopes, etc. and strengthen the·
present codes/ordinances in their ability to protect water quality.
c. Will alleviate so~e of the confusion of City staff and develooers
regarding the identification of unsuitable lands, etc.
Disadvantages
A. Present City codes/ordinances still vmuld not address all facets of
water quality protection. (For example: In the Subdivision Code
even if unsuitable lands are defined, the code applies only to land
under subdivision application. The code does not apply to land under
construction that is not subdivided.)
B. Mi nimur:1 standards for tl1e protection of water quality are still not
adopted. Without minimuo standards people may perceive wetlands
-16-
differently thus resulting in inequities of codes/ordinance
enforcer.~ent. This applies to both City staff as well as to
applicants for development.
3. Adopt a \'later quality ordinance.
Advantages
A. A water quality ordinance would establish m1n1mum standards for
protection of water quality in Kent. This \'iould cover all facets of
non-structural ~later quality standards in the City of Kent. This
includes as protection of key \'letlands, setbacks from stream systems,
retention of streamside vegetation, etc.
B. It ~'ioul d protect the above areas and its \'later quality for the future
use of the citizens of Kent.
C. It would help preserve the diversity and abundance of fish and
rlildlife in the City of Kent.
Disadvantage
A. A water quality ordinance would add on a neH layer of regulations for
de vel opr.1ent in the City of Kent.
4. Adopt a \later quality ordinance and revise current codes/ordinances.
Advantages
A. A ~later quality ordinance would establish minir.lUm standards for the
protection of ~later quality in the City of Kent.
B. Revising current codes/ordinances in conjunction \'lith a water quality
ordinance would help provide the maximum protection of water quality
through non-structural r.1eans, (i.e. protection of steep slopes,
ravines, setbacks from creeks, etc.).
C. It would help assure the future protection of \'ietlands, creeks, etc.
and protection of water quality for the citizens of Kent.
D. The ordinance \'/auld preserve the diversity and abundance of fish and
\til dl i fe in the City of Kent.
Disadvantage
A. A water quality ordinance v1ill add a ne\'1 layer of regulation for
development in the City of Kent.
IV. RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Water Quality Management Program \'/as initiated by the City of Kent as an
effort to protect the water quality, fish, and rlildlife within the City. To
achieve this goal, a variety of tasks were performed as part of the Water
Quality Management Program. These tasks examined the present streambed
-17-
conditions and water quality in Kent, the potential future water quality
problems and their impacts and the ability of present codes/ordinances to
handle these problems.
As a result of these tasks, various water quality problems \'lere recognized by
the Wdter Quality Advisory Committee and City staff. These problems included
high stom water flows, erosion, sedir:~entation and high \'later ter:~peratures in
addition to pollutants in the City's streams, creeks, lakes and \ietlands.
In recognition of these problems, the Water Qua 1 ity Advisory Comi ttee
endorses the present City goals, objectives and policies that address the
preservation of water quality, fish and 1-1ildlife in Kent. In addition, the
Committee recor:tmends the following Water Quality t~anagement Program to
impler:~ent these goals, objectives and policies:
1. Adoption and Enforcement of a \~ater Quality Ordinance.
A \'later quality ordinance l'lould provide r:1inimur:1 standards in
protecting IMter quality, fish, and wildlife in Kent. This
protection would be provided through non-structural means such as
setbacks from creeks, protection of ravines, protection of steep
slopes, preservation of \ietlands, etc.
2. Maintain Consistency Between City Plans, Programs, and Regulations
Relating to Hater Quality
Consistency betHeen City codes/ordinances dealing vd th \'later quality
will help clarify the City's position in protecting \'later quality.
This would help avoid confusion by both City staff and developers in
regards to the City's policies in protecting water quality.
3. Establishment of the Proposed Drainage Utility
Development of a Drainage Utility will establish the structural means
in preserving water quality in Kent. Such a utility will not only
help in controlling high stormwater runoff volur:~es that are damaging
to the City's creeks, but help provide funds for the maintenance of
stonnwater runoff control faci 1 iti es ( sucl1 as detention ponds).
4. Establish a \~ater Quality Monitoring Program (through Green River
Community College)
A Water Quality Monitoring Prograr:1 would enable the City to gauge the
effectiveness of its Water Quality Ordinance. This program, if
provided through Green River Cor:nunity College, will insure both an
inexpensive method to monitor the water quality in the City's creeks
and provide a practical learning experience for Green River Conmunity
College students.
5. Identify the remaining Hetlands 1vithin the City of Kent.
Identifying the remaining wetlands in the City of Kent (excluding
wetlands identified in the valley f1oor studies) Hill enable the City
to inventory its remaining \ietlands and decide \·lhich ones are 11 Unique
and Fragile ...
-18-
Figure 5. Coho salmon fry found in Garrison Creek,
July, 1981.
Figure 6. Spawned out chinook salmon found in
Mill Creek, December, 1981.
-19-
•
6. Coordinate the Water Quality Program with other Governmental Agencies
All of the creeks in Kent transcend the Kent city limits. Thus, the
sections of the creeks outside the Kent city limits are under other
jurisdictional control. Intergovernmental agreements should be made
to protect those sections of the creeks. Such an agreement would
help assure that equal water quality standards apply to all sections
of the creeks.
7. Establish a Salmon Enhancement Program in Kent on Selected Creeks
Such a program, through a comunity effort, could help rehabilitate
salmon runs on selected creeks (such as Mill and Garrison Creeks) in
the City of Kent. The South King County Chapter of the Northwest
Steelhead and Salmon Council would be willing to co-sponsor sucl1 a
program.
8. Identify Potential Point Source Pollutants and Develop a Program to
Control Same. (AdcU..t:,i_on.a..t Re.c.omme.n.da..t:ion. -pe.Jt Pf.a..Y!.YUn.g Com~.6.<..on.
action., May 2 5, 79 82)
-20-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WATER QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ted Knapp
Raul Ramos
Carol Stoner
Jim Leonard
Bill Pugerude
Joan Madden
Tom Miller
Lauri Johnson
Doug Cullen (alternate)
FORMER MEMBERS
Dan Ke 11 eher
PLANNING STAFF
James P. Harris, Planning Director
James M. Hansen, Associate Planner
Jack A. Dodge, Assistant Planner
FORMER STAFF MEMBERS WHO WORKED ON THE
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Dan Leonard
Bruce Bortz
OTHERS
Linda Simkanin, METRO
Dale Anderson, METRO
Bob Brenner, METRO
John Buffo, METRO
Tom Hubbard, METRO
-21-
Ed Fohn, G.R.C.C.
Steve Butkus, G.R.C.C.
Tom Paedon, G.R.C.C.
Chris Harvey
Kathleen Toensjos~e