HomeMy WebLinkAbout061019_cabs01 JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Kate Dean, District 1 Commissioner
DATE: June 10, 2019
SUBJECT: Discussion re: Finalizing Navy FSEIS Letter
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The Navy is currently seeking comments on their Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the
Northwest Testing and Training Range. Many of the activities opposed occur in the Land, Water & Air
Space of Jefferson County. Commissioner Dean has worked with Staff to draft a response to the DEIS
regarding impact to the residence and environment of Jefferson County. The DRAFT Response is attached
& will be discussed & potentially finalized. Comment are due to the Navy by June 12, 2019.
ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Discussed & Potentially finalized,Navy FSEIS Letter
REVIEWED BY:
Philip Morley, County Administrator Date
BOCC LETTERHEAD
June 12, 2019
To: NWTT Supplemental EIS/OEIS Project Manager
3730 North Charles Porter Ave. Building 385
Oak Harbor, WA 98278-3500 I Project.Manager@nwtteis.com
RE: Comments regarding Northwest Training and Testing Activities Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for Northwest Testing and Training (hereafter referred to as DEIS). As evidenced in Figure 2.2-1:
Northwest Testing and Training Study Area, a majority of the study areas are on the land and immediate
coastlines of Jefferson County. Similarly,Table 2.5-1: Current and Proposed Training Activities, starting
on page 2-28, includes 67 proposed activities, 59 of which take place on the land and waters of Jefferson
County.Therefor it is with great interest that staff and elected personnel have studied the DEIS and
prepared comments in response, enclosed here. This letter represents the consensus of the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners.
Jefferson County and the US Navy partner on many important projects and operations, including
emergency response and marine spill response. We appreciate both the Navy's global mission of
national security as well as the added capacity that another government entity brings to our rural,
under-resourced region.
However, until recently, little collaboration or communication was initiated by the Navy while impacts to
the County and particularly to our East Jefferson County region have increased significantly. Examples
of these impacts include:
• The purchase of conservation easements on thousands of acres of land, permanently
extinguishing development rights without consultation with the county to determine long-term
land use planning and tax implications.
• Our transportation corridors are greatly affected by openings and closures of the Hood Canal
Bridge,seemingly with little regard given to the resultant traffic backups, timing during peak
usage, and impacts to local residents,travelers and businesses.
• High impacts with little benefit to our tax base. For a County that supports only a small
installation, Naval Magazine Indian Island, which houses no service members and employs a
very limited number of largely out-of-County civilians,these impacts are extraordinarily high in
proportion to the economic benefit provided. This is especially obvious when compared to the
boost to the tax base in neighboring Island and Kitsap Counties, home to the larger installations
performing the proposed activities.
This context is relevant to this letter as it represents how many of our constituents, residents and
workers of Jefferson County, experience the Navy's presence on a day-to-day basis, much of which is not
positive. While our neighbors in Island and Kitsap County see thousands of jobs and millions of dollars
added to the tax base,Jefferson County absorbs a bulk of the impacts (as indicated by the DEIS) with
very little of the economic advantage seen elsewhere. The comments included in this letter will reflect
this reality.
1. The recent increase in Growler activity warrants new and more accurate noise measurement,
monitoring and greater considerations to impact minimization. While the impacts of noise on
people and communities may be highly subjective,the use of night/day averaging for episodic
sounds is wholly ineffective in measuring impacts of jet flights. We receive complaints regularly
from residents of Port Townsend, Marrowstone Island and the Western coast who are
distressed by jet noise. The current 400% increase in Growler activity has increased the stress
response experienced by many. This is especially true in a region that is rural, and the
expectation of quiet is high. We request a departure from current modelling and averaging and
request accurate, episodic, on-the-ground monitoring to provide accurate data.
Additionally, we concur with and support the Washington State Department of Health's
substantial comments during the 2017 DEIS for the expansion of the Growler program calling for
updated and increased research on the public health risks of noise and a departure from
day/night averaging as a basis for measuring impacts and determining mitigation measures.
With the Growler's unique combination of high power, low-frequency sound, the human and
non-human impacts are even less understood.
2. Impacts to the highly endangered Southern Resident Orca are understated. While the DEIS
contains thorough research on marine mammals, the current crisis as identified by Governor
Inslee and his appointed Orca Task Force is not acknowledged, nor are the peer-reviewed
strategies considered. In fact, the word "Orca" is not found until page 306. It may be that this
draft was too far along to be inclusive of the now well-documented serious condition of
Western Washington's Southern Resident Orca population. In this instance, a Supplement would
clearly be warranted.
Orca survival requires a complex ecosystem approach to how we all use the maritime
environment. The food web that supports orca is linked to forage fish, small bottom feeders,
eel grass and other habitats that support healthy prey species like Chinook, Chum and Coho.
The DEIS does an inadequate job of including these well-established facets of the local
environment. Again, a Supplement is strongly called for and should consider these impacts as
well as the stated impacts to prey.
Page ES-10 states:
"The use of explosive munitions in the water or near the water's surface present a risk to marine
mammals located in close proximity to the explosion, because the resulting shock waves can
cause injury or result in the death of an animal. If a marine mammal is located farther from an
explosion, the impulsive, broadband sounds introduced into the marine environment may cause
permanent or temporary hearing threshold shifts, auditory masking, physiological stress, or
behavioral responses. Because most estimated impacts from explosions are behavioral responses
or temporary hearing threshold shifts, and because the numbers of marine mammals potentially
impacted by explosives are small as compared to each species'respective abundance, long-term
consequences for the species or stocks would not be expected... The use of explosive munitions
in the water or near the water's surface present a risk to marine mammals located in close
proximity to the explosion, because the resulting shock waves can cause injury or result in the
death of an animal. "
Given the critically low population of orca and existing stressors imperiling their ability to
reproduce, loss of even one orca hastens the demise of the species. Stresses may also alter
feeding patterns which are already precariously dependent on Chinook salmon, a federally listed
endangered species. It is imperative that the Navy as well as the private and public sectors,
impose no further threats to this iconic population.
Further, the DEIS appears to operate from the assumption that testing and training activities can
minimize impacts to orca and other marine mammals by not performing operations where they
are visible. Given the wide distribution of marine mammals, and the varying depths at which
they are found, relying solely on sightlines is outdated, of very limited efficacy and seems wholly
inadequate.
Explosions: Page 3-26 "Explosions in Water" states,"Explosive detonations during training and
testing involving the use of high-explosive munitions, including bombs, missiles, and naval gun
shells, could occur in the air or near the water's surface. Explosive detonations associated with
torpedoes and explosive sonobuoys would occur in the water column;mines and demolition
charges could be detonated in the water column or on the ocean bottom. Detonations would
typically occur in waters greater than 200 ft. in depth, and greater than 50 NM from shore, with
the exception of mine countermeasure and neutralization testing proposed in the Offshore Area,
and existing mine warfare areas in Inland Waters (i.e., Crescent Harbor and Hood Canal
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Training Ranges").
All of the horizons affected by these activities are used by Orca and other whales for feeding,
mating and communication. With 400 explosive detonations/year, including Naval Gunfire
Muzzle Blasts at 200 dB and high energy lasers, ensuring these will not directly nor indirectly
impact exquisitely sensitive orca and other marine mammals is paramount. The DEIS does an
inadequate job of assessing these impacts..
3. Sediments and Water Quality regulatory frameworks not identified
Jefferson County and its businesses and residents are required to maintain high water quality
standards via a strict federal and state regulatory framework to maintain public and
environmental health. In the Executive Summary, page ES-7, section 3.1, the DEIS states:
"Explosives and explosives byproducts, metals, chemicals, and other materials expended during
training and testing described in this Supplemental could result in short-term and long-term
impacts on sediments and water quality. Some chemical, physical, or biological changes in
sediment or water quality could be measurable, but most would be negligible. Regulatory
thresholds and guidelines established for measuring impacts on sediment and water quality
would not be exceeded."
The Navy, through this DEIS, is held to the basic framework of the National Environmental Policy
Act whose policy is to assure the people of this nation that the environmental will be protected
from environmental impacts of proposed federal activities. Publishing an analysis of possible
environmental consequences using words like "could result" and "could be measurable" is
unacceptable and does not met the requirements of NEPA, particularly Section 1502.2(d) the
requirement of environmental studies to evaluate environmental impacts. It is unclear which
regulatory thresholds would not be exceeded, nor which guidelines would be followed for the
myriad components of explosives, metals and chemical and the myriad infauna, epifaunal and
benthic communities of affected marine environments. A Supplemental EIS is clearly warranted
to assess impacts and analyze mitigating factors for impacts to sediments and water quality.
4. Assess and Include Carbon Emissions in FSEIS
As stated on page 31 of the Executive Summary, Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of
Alternatives and Mitigation Measures, "Resources that will be permanently and continually
consumed by project implementation include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels;
however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant
environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources."
This County and many residents are deeply concerned about the local impacts of climate
change, particularly sea level rise to our coastal communities, the impacts of ocean acidification
on the shellfish industry, and increased risk of wildfire to our forested region. While the NEPA/
EIS process does not yet require the consideration of impacts of burning of fossil fuels and
resulting addition of carbon to the atmosphere,Jefferson County has, and continues to,
inventory its greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce them given the harmful and
detrimental impacts. Similarly, we request the Navy report use and emissions in the FSEIS.
While the DEIS does not include such figures, it is estimated that Growlers use approximately
1300 gal/flight. If 2300 flights are flown in a year, that equates to 2,990,000 gallons of jet fuel
consumed annually,just for the Growler program alone. If using standard jet fuel, which emits
21 lbs.of carbon/gallon,this represents the addition of 62,790,000 pounds of carbon into the
atmosphere locally. This is a significant contribution to a major environmental threat that
should be assessed in this DEIS.
5. Aircraft Transit Map does not include Jefferson County International Airport
Figure 2.3-1, on page 2-18, does not include Port of Port Townsend Airport,Jefferson County's
only international and FAA-regulated air field. Please include it in future versions.
6. Socioeconomic Resources, including tourism and transportation, are impacted
Section 3.12 on page ES-24 states, "Impacts on socioeconomic resources are expected to be
minor because inaccessibility to areas of co-use would be localized and temporary, the Navy's
strict standard operating procedures would minimize physical disturbance and strikes of
commercial and recreational watercraft, most airborne activities would occur well out to sea far
from tourism and recreation locations, aircraft activities in the Olympic MOAs are expected to
have negligible impacts on socioeconomic resources, and impacts to commercially important
marine species are not expected... There would be no disproportionately high impacts or
adverse effects on any low-income populations or minority populations."
Jefferson County requests ongoing consultation to discuss impacts to socioeconomic resources.
Navy Testing and Training represent significant challenges to both local tourism and
transportation sectors, neither of which are adequately represented in the DEIS.
With increased Growler activity in Port Townsend, over the Olympic National Park and at the
Pacific Coast, tourists who frequent these areas (and locals alike) are experiencing unexpected
levels of jet noise. This is particularly felt where there is an expectation for quiet, such as in
wilderness areas and at night. While impacts from Growler activity are difficult to link to
decrease in tourism revenues, constituents in the tourism industry have complained that
customers are deterred and choose to leave prematurely due to noise. With tourism one of the
largest sectors of the economy here, this impact is critical to assess and mitigate.
Additionally, closures of the Hood Canal Bridge for the passage of submarines seems to be
increasing and continues during high traffic periods, such as Sunday afternoons when thousands
of vehicles are attempting to leave the Olympic Peninsula. As injury traffic incidents increase on
State Route 104, long back-ups and delays due to submarine closures are less tolerated and
further implicated in the inaccessibility of Jefferson County,a huge blow to both doing business
and tourism here. We request further collaboration to limit bridge impacts and to mitigate
impacts to tourism in Olympic National Park and its 4 million visitors annually.
7. Discussions regarding the No Action alternative.The DEIS dismisses wholesale the concept of a
No Action alternative other than maintain existing levels of testing,training, explosions and
warfare exercises. In 1981,the Council on Environmental Quality published guidance on the "no
action' alternative to include such cases meaning the proposed activity would not take place and
any benefit or consequence of this "no action" alternative should be included in the analysis.
"This [no action] analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decisionmakers to compare the
magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives." (Yost, Nicholas, General
Counsel. "Memorandum for Federal NEPA Liaisons, General, State and Local Officials and Other
Persons Involved in the NEPA Process.40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.1981 CEQ. Washington DC). We
believe the DEIS does not provide sufficient discussion of the no action alternative such that the
magnitude of environmental effects is available regarding all action alternatives. Once again, a
Supplemental DEIS is warranted.
Mitigation measures. Since this is a Phase 3 DEIS we believe it is important to summarize the
methods and outcomes of mitigation measures deployed for Phase 1 (2010-2015) and for Phase
2 (2015-2020).This would greatly illuminate the more or different mitigation measures that
Phase 3 should address.The DEIS discusses mitigation basically in two categories—procedural
mitigation measures and mitigation areas. Procedural mitigation is described in lengthy detail
across all training and testing activities. Mitigation areas are discussed in Appendix K and
describe geographic areas in which more procedures would be followed during training and
testing in these areas (coastal, Puget Sound and Straits). We are confused how a mitigation area
that triggers more procedures differs from procedural mitigation and moreover what if any
impact avoidance technique beyond "obtaining permission from the appropriate designated
Command authority prior to commencing the exercise" is going to be included. We find the
•
mitigation areas not materially different from procedural mitigation and are concerned that
fauna of the littoral zone will experience significant negative impacts through procedures that
do not avoid or minimize impacts. Other mitigation referred to is "through the permitting
process" ostensibly in consultation with the NMFS and USFWS. We understand however that all
permitting decisions are to be based on mitigation measures published in the EIS so are not able
to assess what, if any, additional impact minimizations from permitting there are.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. Jefferson County is absorbing significant
impacts for our Navy partners. We request responses to our concerns included here and ask to be
included in future long-term planning. We commend Admiral Grey, Captain Arny, CO Rocky Pulley, CPLO
Lynn Wall and PAO Sheila Murray for their efforts to improve collaboration in recent months, and we
look forward to furthering our shared interests for the region.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Kate Dean, Chair
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Cc: Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Representative Derek Kilmer
Governor Jay Inslee