702 Broadway, Suite 101,

Tacoma, Washington 98402

Phone: (253) 779-8890

Fax: (253) 593-8890

pcrs@pugetcreek.org

www.pugetcreek.org

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Steven Beckstead President

Scott M. Hansen Vice President

Twylia Westling Secretary

Phil Schneider Treasurer

HONORARY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

North End

Neighborhood Council

ADVISORY BOARD

Edward S. Winskill

Michael A. Corsini

Dr. Sherry Graham

Susan Penhale

Mike Webb

A tax-exempt nonprofit organization with

501(c)(3) status

March 25, 2015 Kurtis D. Kingsolver, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer Tacoma Municipal Building 747 Market Street Tacoma, WA 98402 RE: Parcel No. 8945003271 Dear Mr. Kingsolver, We recently received a copy of your response to one of our volunteers, Ms. Helen Harlow, dated January 12, 2015 in regards to Parcel No. 8945003271. We hope to share with the City our side of this issue, because it is clear after reading that letter that there is a lack of communication and understanding between our two organizations. The Puget Sounds iconic salmon populations are threatened. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife have determined that habitat degradation is one of the major contributing factors that reduce resilience of our salmon stock. Puget Creek, like many of the other waterways in the Puget Sound region, once had ample, yearly returns of Coho and Chum salmon. Many of the natural habitat features essential to supporting Puget Creeks salmon populations, such as estuaries, riparian forests and deep off-channel ponds, were damaged by the actions of the sawmill industry at Puget Creek in the early 1900s, and greatly impacted these salmon runs. Freshwater habitat like that of Puget Creek is essential to the recovery of our salmon species Coho usually spend up to a year in freshwater, growing and developing, until heading out to saltwater to spend the majority of their adult lives. Only about one individual out of every 1,000 eggs will survive long enough to return to their birth streams and spawn. The time that they spent in freshwater is a critical component of their development, but Puget Creek is still missing a key element of this habitat a pond. Rather than putting a halt to restoring salmon populations to Puget Creek, we should be trying to reverse the significant damage that humans have done. Since 1994 when the Puyallup Tribe analyzed Puget Creek and realized the potential for a salmon run in the heart of Tacoma, environmental groups, community members, and government entities have all collaborated to bring salmon back to Puget Creek. A fish ladder and fish way was built to allow salmon passage under Ruston Way to the spawning grounds of Puget Creek; people working with the Tribe and other groups have placed Coho and Chum eggs in the stream every year; students have raised salmon in their classrooms and released the fry into Puget Creek. If the City of Tacoma chooses to sell the property in question, it would not only be a major setback for salmon recovery, but also negate the extensive efforts that have been done by numerous agencies over the years to recover Puget Creeks salmon.

When the Puget Creek Restoration Society (PCRS) was given six months to develop the details of the Salmon Pond project at Puget Creek, we were asked to provide (1) BNSFs written project support and permission to use their property, (2) Written commitment from potential applicable granting agencies, saying they believe this project is highly ranked and has a high probability to get funded, and (3) Engineering feasibility study/strategy performed by a qualified licensed engineer. PCRS did everything we could to meet the Citys requirements, and yet the tone and content of the letter that you are sending out to our supporters seem to grossly misrepresent the situation. (1) You stated that PCRS did not obtain the required property rights from BNSF to construct on BNSF operating right-of-way. We were in contact with the regional property managers for BNSF, Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, and submitted copies of the email evidence that they were willing to lease the property to us. BNSF is notoriously difficult to work with in regards to their land, but that does not mean that we did not do everything in our powers to meet this requirement. To move forward with the right to construct on their land, we would need to pay a $600 application fee. As a small nonprofit, our organization just didnt have the $600 needed without additional grant support and we faced difficulty in gathering additional grant support without securing their written agreement to let us use the land. We were faced with a serious Catch-22 in this instance. We emailed, called, and left messages for them multiple times a week, but unless we paid the application fee, they refused to talk in more detail or sign any landowner agreements for our grant applications. Evidence of their willingness to lease was as far as they could commit to in this situation. (2) You stated that PCRS had not provided documentation showing guaranteed project funding or the likelihood of receiving funding for this project and that PCRS did inform the City that it had applied for grant funding, but PCRS did not submit evidence of these grants. Our major issue with this statement is in regards to the evidence portion, which indirectly indicates to the recipient of your letter that we did not apply for the grants that we claimed we did. We submitted our reports to the City naming which grants we had applied for, and yet the City never requested any additional information or evidence from us in regards to these grants; we would have gladly provided proof if it was ever asked of us. If you look at the current funding landscape, you may not have noticed that grant applications open at various times throughout the year, usually accept applications for a couple of months, and can take up to a year to determine which projects to fund, especially for a large project like the Puget Creek Salmon Habitat Pond. The six month timeline that PCRS was given to meet the Citys requirements only allowed for a limited chance of securing funding; the largest grant that we had applied to from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board had many stages spread out throughout the majority of 2014, and despite the fact that we had started the application process as soon as it was available in January, funding recipients werent notified until late fall, well past the unreasonable timeframe that the City would have liked. Granting agencies do not let the applicants know the standing of their grant applications until they have made their final funding decisions. Inquiries into our standing resulted in the same response that we would be notified of their decisions with all the other applicants. They do not provide letters to applicants discussing the ranking system or probability of getting funded. This would go against the confidentiality of the decision-making process and would provide an unfair advantage to the applicants that know their likelihood of receiving funding ahead of time. Consider the position that the granting agencies would be placed in, were they to send out letters discussing ranking before decisions are made it could put both the grantors and grantees in an uncomfortable place if the projects that were given that information were not chosen as funding recipients. It seems that the Citys requirement for PCRS to either secure funding or provide letters of high project ranking/probability of funding were set without taking into account the timeline of most funding processes and the extent that grantors are able to commit to projects before funding decisions are made.

(3) In your letter, you stated that PCRS likewise did not submit engineered drawings, [] staff concerns regarding the constructability and location of the habitat pond had also not been adequately addressed and based on preliminary concept sketches submitted to staff, the PCRS project has the potential to cause significant structural damage to the abutting property owners buildings. When the original letter outlining the Citys terms was delivered to PCRS, we were asked to provide an engineering feasibility study/ strategy performed by a qualified licensed engineer. We worked with the engineering and design firms AHBL and Tahoma Design Group to develop the project strategy. This proposal for architectural design, civil and structural engineering, and land surveying services was provided to the City, along with pond concept drawings, in our second update on April 22, 2014. Dave Mason provided his engineering services from AHBL, while Jim Carleton was the architect on the project from Tahoma Design Group. PCRS never received any feedback on the documents we provided to the City, and so far as we understood, we were in compliance with the Citys requests. To address the potential for structural damage to the abutting property owners building, our engineer proposed building a concrete retaining wall to protect, strengthen, and support the primary buildings so that the pond would not cause any damage. Retaining walls like this have been used throughout the City, and these matters would have been addressed in the permitting process for the pond. The City never communicated these concerns about building damage to PCRS, which means we were not able to adequately address these staff concerns. Engineered drawings were neither requested in the original letter outlining the Citys terms, nor were they requested of us during the six month window we given. We did submit to the City a concept sketch of the pond that was created by an engineer at AHBL, and as far as we understood, this was suitable. We will continue to fight for this project because we believe it is a necessary, missing element in Puget Creeks habitat that can eventually lead to the goal of self-sustaining yearly salmon runs in Puget Creek. The threatened Pacific Salmon populations deserve this pond. The numerous individuals and groups that have put their time, effort, and money into restoring the Puget Creek salmon deserve this pond. And the people of Tacoma deserve this pond. Looking at the evidence outlined above, it seems that the City of Tacoma set the terms of project feasibility to see the Puget Creek Salmon Habitat Pond fail. We urge you to reconsider the sale of this parcel - to stop the declaration of this land as surplus and to not recommend this sale to City Council. This small, 4,000 square foot parcel itself is only worth $1,800, but the costs to our salmon population would be so much more than that. This would be a devastating loss for a menial benefit. Sincerely, Scott M. Hansen Acting Executive Director, Ecologist Puget Creek Restoration Society