Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/25/1996 3307 SPECIAL MEETING OF PORT ANGELES CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Port Angeles, Washington June 25, 1996 CALL TO ORDER - County Commission Chairman Phil Kitchel called the special meeting of the Port INTRODUCTION: Angeles City Council and Board of Clallam County Commissioners to order at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Kitchel then stated the order of the agenda and the ground roles for those wishing to make presentations and/or address the issue at hand, which is the proposed removal of the Elwha River dams. Chairman Kitchel stated that there would be three presentations, the order of which would be determined by Mayor Prosper Ostrowski "drawing names from a hat". After each of the three 15-minute presentations, citizens would be allowed to ask questions of each presenter for a 15- minute period. Then, during the remainder of the meeting, citizens would be allowed to address their personal positions regarding the dam removal issue. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Present: Mayor Ostrowski, Councilmembers Braun, Campbell, Doyle, McKeown, and Wiggins. Commissioners Present: Dorothy Duncan, Phil Kitchel, and Martha Ireland. Members Absent: Councilmember Hullett. Staff Present: Acting Manager Pittis, Attorney Knutson. Public Present: Bart Phillips, David Morris, Brian Winter, Marv Chastain, Art Dunker, Dick Fourrfier, David Anders, Susan Chadd, Tom Santos, Tim McNulty, Francis M. Ingrassia, Karl Schroeter, Eldon Bussell, Larry Leonard, William H. Thomas, Willis Gormley, Melarde Caltrider, Femie Missall, Donald E. Rudolph, Bill Zynda, Erran Seaman, Stan Goertz, Don Carey, Mike McItenry, Marilyn Hill, O.D. Collins, M.D., Cat Hawkins Hoffman, Ken Hartford, Michael Smithson, Scott Bosse, John Miller, Ed Chadel, Barb Mossman, William Sanchez, Joan Sargent, Wes Baublits, Start Hicks, Ruth Hoham, Jancee Bock, Don Baldwin, Jeff Boheman, Jim Walton, Walt Forsberg, John Miller, and others who did not sign the sign-up sheets. PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Ostrowski drew the name of the fa:st presenter, which was the Elwha Citizens Advisory Committee. Ban Phillips made the presentation on behalf of the committee. He stated how the committee came to be, what its goals and objectives were, and the process that it followed in developing its consensus report. Among the committee's t~mdings were that the Elwha projects can't be relicensed; the status quo threatens jobs, fish, and the community in general; there is a compelling case for fish restoration being maximized by dam removal; and the dam removal proposals in the draft environmental impact statement are not fiscally sound. The committee's recommendations included sequential removal of the dams, which would result in the Glines Canyon Dam being removed only if the Elwha Dam removal proved successful. Mr. Phillips stated that beneficiaries of dam removal other than the general taxpaying public should also pay for dam removal. During the question and answer period following Mr. Phillips' presentation, Art Dunker asked about the accuracy of snow pack figures, to which Jim Walton responded that the figures are variable but the snow pack is extremely low. Francis Ingrassia questioned where the dam removal funds would come from and how much - 1 - 3308 SPECIAL MEETING June 25, 1996 it would cost. William Thomas stated that we should be shooting sea lions instead of removing dams in order to protect the fish. Melanie Caltrider asked what expertise the committee had with regard to power, fish, hydrology, and fish ladders, to which Mr. Phillips responded that the committee had heard from agency experts, sports fishermen, and others, including one paid consultant from REAL and a few from the Olympic National Park. Additional comments came from Fernie Missall and Mr. Dunker, who stated that the committee's report was incorrect, in that power from the dams could be used to supply Port Angeles in an emergency. Mayor Ostrowski then drew the name of the next presenter, which was REAL (Rescue Elwha Area Lakes). Mary Chastain made the presentation. He stated that there was a need to deal with the current fish crisis in the Elwha River by certain short-term, rather inexpensive measures. He further stated that all necessary fish studies have been done and are attached to REAL's report. The funds to start the process could come from a combination of state legislation and private grant funding. Oversight would be provided by a local committee that would include no tribal or governmental members. Additionally, there should be a land swap between Olympic National Park and the Olympic National Forest in order to get the upper dam out of the Park's jurisdiction. Long-term, REAL recommends a fish ladder to get fish around the lower dam and a trapping and hauling process to get the fish around the upper dam. REAL's estimates are that a fish ladder at the lower dam would cost $4,000,000, a fish ladder at the upper dam would cost $12,000,000, and trapping and hauling the fish around the upper dam would cost $2,000,000. Mr. Chastain referred to studies of other situations comparable to that on the Elwha, including the Mad River in California, in which siltation problems still exist and fish runs have not improved following the removal of a dam from the river 20 years ago. He also stated that University of Washington Fisheries PHd's Robert Crittendon and Ernie Brandon had reviewed on REAL's behalf existing studies that have been done on the Elwha River fish situation. REAL's conclusions are that the fish may not survive the early years following dam removal, that there would be significant adverse consequences from dam removal, and the practical approach should be tried first. During the question and answer period, Mr. Chastain responded to a question from Chairman Kitchel about the inability to get the dams relicensed by suggesting that the federal government buy the dams and then lease them to an appropriate public utility. Art Dunker asked where the lost county property tax revenue would come from, to which Mr. Chastain replied that the best solution to avoid lost property tax revenue would be to leave the dams in private ownership. Mr. Dunker added that if the federal government did acquire and operate the dams, the power generation profits could be used to pay the county's lost property tax revenues. Wes Baublits asked whether or not wells would be affected by dam removal, to which Mr. Chastain replied that the federal government has not satisfactorily answered this question. Melanie Caltrider asked if the dams would need to relicensed if the federal government buys them, to which Mr. Chastain replied in the negative. Chairman Kitchel asked whether REAL's trapping/hauling proposal would satisfy the Elwha Act, to which Mr. Chastain replied that he didn't know but that the law didn't clearly define restoration. Francis Ingrassia asked how the fish would be able to get upstream following dam removal, to which Mr. Chastain replied that the federal government has not provided a response as to how the fish would negotiate the elevation differential that would exist following the removal of the Glines Canyon Dam. The third presentation was made on behalf of the Olympic National Park by the Park's Elwha Project Coordinator Brian Winter, who was introduced by Park Superintendent David Morris. Mr. Morris first stated that the executive branch of the federal government supports the Park's position, which is that the dams should be removed and the ecosystem restored but that the Park Service is willing to work with the community to address local concerns. Mr. Winter then stated that in addition to the -2- 3309 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/BOARD OF CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING - June 25, 1996 dam removal draft EIS, much information was available from the FERC process, including the need for fish ladders and trapping/hauling if the dams are not removed. However, this option would end up with only twelve percent of the fish compared with the numbers that would return following dam removal. He concluded that all of the facts demonstrate that there is no question as to dam removal being the most effective way of returning fish so that the issue is not a technical one but rather one of personal choice between reservoirs and dams or fish and jobs. He also stated that Dr. Brandon had written a report that the 100-pound Elwha Chinook will return but haven't due to hatchery practices. During the question and answer period, Chairman Kitchel asked if flood control would be maintained following dam removal, to which Mr. Winter replied that the levies would be retained and flood control would be maintained at the current level. When Chairman Kitchel asked if dikes are compatible with full restoration, Mr. Winter stated that they were, because Congress intended full restoration to mean restoration of the fish, which isn't affected by artificial levies, and that the Elwha Act must be interpreted to be consistent with practical feasibility. Chairman Kitchel then asked about all the other understocked fish runs in Olympic Peninsula rivers, to which Mr. Winter replied that there are healthy fish runs where healthy habitat exists. In reply to Art Dunker's question about how lost property tax revenues would be restored, Superintendent Morris stated that the federal government is looking for solutions but can't discuss the possible options at this time. John Miller stated that the National Park has done a good job. Marilyn Hill asked why wells for the City are being proposed for the west side of the river, to which Mr. Winter replied that this was to address the possibility of the river meandering away from the City's Raney well following dam removal. MAYOR'S Mayor Ostrowski then read a prepared statement of the City's position. He stated that STATEMENT the City has not opposed dam removal as long as the water supply of the City and the two mills is protected. He further stated that the City was concerned about any proposals to limit the mitigation measures that would protect the water supply. The City's consulting engineer, CH2M Hill, is concerned that removing the dams sequentially could result in two hits of sediment release rather than one and recommends installation of a permanent treatment-filtration facility rather than a temporary one to deal with the lingering sediment in the river following dam removal. Finally, Mayor Ostrowski stated that the City would continue to diligently pursue whatever actions are necessary to protect its water supply and the best interests of its citizens and businesses. COMMISSIONER/ Commissioner Ireland asked several questions regarding the loss of wetlands and COIYNCILMEMBER funding for dam removal. Brian Winter stated that lost wetlands adjacent to the QUESTIONS: reservoirs would be compensated for by the creation of new wetlands that would follow dam removal. Superintendent Morris anticipated that Congress would provide the necessary funding. Mr. Phillips stated that the best way to assure the necessary funding was to do the project in phases so that the funds could be provided incrementally. Mr. Chastain stated that REAL's proposal is the only one that could realistically obtain the necessary funding. Councilman Doyle asked about flood control, the current oversupply of salmon in other locations, and the effect of fish hatcheries and weather patterns such as El Nifio. Mr. Winter replied that the dams are not designed or operated to provide flood control but that dam removal would increase flooding potential due to substrate increase from the sediment release. He further stated that the oversupply of salmon is due to abundant Alaska returns and fish farming operations. With regard to weather patterns, he indicated that they are cyclical and he did not anticipate that they would prevent the anticipated fish return following dam removal. -3- 3310 SPECIAL MEETING June 25, 1996 Councilman Wiggins asked Mr. Chastain if there was anything other than dam removal in the committee's report that would be beneficial. Mr. Chastain replied that he was confused by the report but that it appeared to omit consideration of certain short-term measures that are needed to restore the fish runs and that are incompatible with dam removal. Councilman Braun asked about the effect of foreign fishing on the return of fish to the Elwha, to which Mr. Winter responded that foreign fishing has been monitored and restricted in recent years but would still result in some Elwha fish being taken. PUBLIC COMMENT: Larry Leonard asked Brian Winter if he could absolutely guarantee the return of 100- pound salmon if the Elwha River dams are removed, to which Mr. Winter replied that his personal opinion is "yes". Jancee Bock asked Brian Winter about the release of sediment into the river, to which Mr. Winter replied that the government decided not to artificially remove the silt from the river due to cost and lack of need and that the sediment release could cause short-term impacts in the Strait of Juan de Fuca close to shore but in the long term the silt would be disbursed throughout the Strait. Dick Fournier stated that putting fish carcasses in the river for food is important. David Anders stated that dams aren't the cause of the fish decline in recent years and blamed the Indian net fishing at the river mouths instead. Jeff Boheman stated that it no longer makes economic sense to keep the dams, because BPA power will be much cheaper than the power generated by the dams, so that no one wants to keep paying to operate them. He also asked Commissioner Duncan why the County didn't raise the property tax issue earlier, to which she replied that the County did bring the issue up but somehow it didn't get into the Elwha Act. Mr. Boheman then suggested that the lost property tax revenue could be made up by the County receiving some of the utility tax revenue that the City would get from the mill acquiring its replacement power from the City. Dr. Erran Seaman stated that fish won't have a problem getting up the river without the dams in place and that using Indian fishing as a scapegoat is mean spirited, to which Chairman Kitchel concurred that everyone is part of the problem. Cat Hoffman asked if the committee had addressed the lack of habitat if the upper dam isn't removed and the second hit of sediment that the City was concerned about if the dams are removed sequentially. Mr. Phillips clarified that if the first dam removal weren't successful, then the upper dam shouldn't be removed. He also noted that he thought the second hit would be different than the ~rst but that the committee was not a group of engineers so that he was really not sure of such details. In response to Ms. Hoffman's question about the committee's phased funding proposal, Superintendent Morris stated that the National Park would prefer that Congress appropriate as much of the money up front as possible. SUMMARIES: Chairman Kitchel then asked each of the three presenters to summarize their positions. Superintendent Morris stated that he thought there was a need for everyone to work toward compromise and to look at the issue from the economic point of view. Bart Phillips thanked the National Park for its willingness to keep discussing the issue, thanked the elected officials for wanting to learn more about the issue, and thanked his committee for its efforts. He thought that any other group of thirteen reasonable people who went through the same process would come to a very similar position as the conclusion reached by the committee. Marv Chastain stated that we should do what we can do and stop dreaming about what we can't do. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Kitchel then closed the ~ly after 9:~,~ -4-