HomeMy WebLinkAboutStampedLog Item 2 Pre-app OutlinePRE18-00017
Pre -Application Conference
Rocky Brook Hydroelectric, 3020 Dosewallips Road, Brinnon, WA
County & State Attendees: Kevin Hitchcock DCD, Austin Watkins DCD, Rick Mraz DOE, Chris
Waldbillig WDFW
Time & Date: — Tuesday July 3, 2018 1:00pm or -site at tri Pocky Brook Hydroelectric Facility
Owner/Applicant: Dell Keehn, Wayne Herr
Representative: Wayne Herr
Legal Description: S28 T26 R2W TAX 7
Description of Proposal: The applicant would like to replace the turbines and relocate the discharge of
an existing hydroelectric facility 200 -feet downstream. The facility was constructed in 1986 and has
an intake structure above Rocky Brook Falls that routes water to a powerhouse below the falls,
the water is then pumped 200 -feet to a discharge point closer to the base of the falls to be
returned to the stream. The proposal is to relocate the discharge from its current location 200 -feet
upstream near the base of Rocky Brook Falls to a new location immediately adjacent to the
existing powerhouse. The underground structure will be 5-7 feet deep and 8-10 feet wide and
will discharge directly into Rocky Brook.
Background information: The reasoning behind the proposed change to the discharge location as
stated by the owner of the facility is because the four turbines currently in use are inefficient,
failing or have failed already, and no longer available for replacement. Continued use of the
current turbines would mean the plant has reached the end of its useful life. Installing a new
Pelton style turbine requires moving the discharge to a new location adjacent to the facility or
there will be a risk of flooding were it to shut down. The efficiency gained by using this style of
turbine could result in up to 50% reduction in water utilized for power generation.
In 1986, after the facility's shoreline permit was issued a similar proposal to add a Pelton turbine
and move the discharge was discussed which raised concerns from Washington Department of
Fisheries (see attached letters from Department of Fisheries and Jefferson County regarding the
issue). Department of Fisheries states that the discharge location near the falls' plunge pool was
chosen to "preserve as much anadromous fish habitat as reasonably possible".! The Jefferson
County letter states that "a new shoreline permit will be required if a new discharge location(s) is
desired".2 The current proposal is very similar to the 1986 proposal, however it doesn't appear
reduction of water usage was considered previously. The fedxeed diseharge of-waier into •he
The applicants will be required to apply for a new shoreline permit to relocate the discharge
structure. The proposal will require a shoreline substantial development permit and cannot be
Washington De artonent of Fish and Wildlife letter to Jefferson County dated January 24 1986.
' Jefferson county letter to Mr. Tom Forbes dated April 8, 1986.
exempted using the maintenance and repair section because it is a change to the configuration
and location. A shoreline variance permit will likely not be necessary because hydroelectric
facilities are a water dependent use and require a location within the shoreline buffer.
Building Department — If you have any questions regarding the requirements of engineering for the
buildings contact Mary Blain, the DCD Plans Examiner at (360) 379-4461.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION — LAND USE PERMITTING — Kevin Hitchcock
• Zoned: Rural Residential 1:20
• SEPA review is required.
Shoreline Master Program (SMP):
• Shoreline designation: Above Ordinary High Water Mark - Natural, below Ordinary High Water
Mark — Priority Aquatic.
• The proposal will need to comply with all applicable sections of the SMP including Vegetation
Conservation (JCC 18.25.310); Fill and Excavation (JCC 18.25.370).
o A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for fill/excavation will be required.
• Power/tidal energy generating facilities are prohibited in both Natural Shoreline and Priority
Aquatic in the current SMP (JCC 18.25.220).
o The facility is legal non -conforming and was permitted as a Shoreline Substantial
Development in 1986 under permit SDP85-00015.
• The discharge meets the definition of an in -stream structure if any portion is on or below the
ordinary high water mark. In -stream structures are prohibited in Natural Shoreline (JCC
18.25. 100 & 18.25.390) under current regulations, may be permitted because the water dependent
use is already legally established.
o An engineered hydraulic analysis, site suitability analysis, and biological resource
inventory is required for an in -stream structure (JCC 18.25.390(3)(g). The county may
determine if the issues are adequately addressed through another regulatory review
process.
o An in -stream structure cannot be installed without obtaining federal, state, and local
permit approvals i.e. Hydraulic Project Approval from EDFW (JCC 18.25.390(3)(h).
• Utilities are prohibited in Natural Shoreline. Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed; provided
that the operator makes every effort to protect shoreline ecological functions and the natural
features therein. Removal of existing utilities is preferred over time (JCC 18.25.530).
o Removal of this utility is not recommended at this time because it provides merit and
value for the community.
• Though the proposal is within the 150 -foot shoreline buffer a variance permit is not required
because it is an existing water dependent use and requires a location within the shoreline buffer.
Only utilities that are not water dependent are required to be outside of the shoreline buffer (JCC
18.25.530(3)(b)).
• The proposal meets the definition of a shoreline substantial development, which requires a Type
III Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP). Relocating the discharge cannot be
exempted as maintenance and repair because it is not the same size, shape, configuration, or
location (JCC 18.25.560(2)).
o Process:
■ Type III permits require a public notice period. The County shall issue the public
notice of application within 14 calendar days of receiving a complete application.
■ The comment period will last 30 -days. Notice board to be provided and posted by
applicant per DCD instructions.
• Type III permits require a public hearing and decision from the County's Hearing
Examiner.
• DCD issues public notice of hearing — minimum 10 days in advance.
■ 21 day appeal period upon receipt of the hearing examiners decision.
Critical Areas:
Jefferson County is in the process of updating the current critical areas ordinance. The information
below is based on current regulations, which will be in effect until revised regulations are approved.
There is no vesting of this pre -application meeting and any submitted applications will be subject to
the critical areas ordinance in place at the time of application. Also, FEMA is in the process of
updating flood mapping, and any mapping revisions are likely to become effective by late 2018 or
early 2019.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA): Rocky Brook is a Type F fish -bearing
stream and requires a 150 -foot buffer. Per JCC 18.25.060 the provisions of JCC 18.22 Critical
Areas shall apply and a Habitat Management Plan/No Net Loss Report prepared by a qualified
professional will be required that meets the standards of JCC 18.22.440 and JCC 18.25.270, and
address no net loss requirements.
Geologically Hazardous Area: slight landslide hazard in project area, moderate landslide hazard
about 40 -feet away, high landslide hazard about 350 -feet away. A Geotechnical Report prepared
by a qualified professional with a state stamp that meets the specification of JCC 18.22.420 will
be required. Current standard buffer is 35 feet plus a 5 foot building setback. (Article V JCC
18.22). A waiver from this requirement may be approved for slight landslide hazard area and a
hold harmless covenant provided at the time of application review.
Application:
+ Complete Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development includes the following:
o Permit Application
o Supplemental Application Shoreline Development
o Site Plan: Please identify the following to scale:
■ Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) location and cross-section showing
discharge structure elevation in relation to OHWM.
• If the discharge is an in -stream structure (below OHWM) a hydraulic/site
suitability analysis is required
• Plans for decommissioning the old discharge structure
■ Lot lines for the entire property
• site topography
■ Materials/Equipment Storage location.
■ Construction access proposal and location
o Stormwater Calculation Worksheet
o Stormwater Management Permit Application AND Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) if 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity or grading 500 cubic
yards or more
o Temporary erosion and sediment control plan for any fill or grading OR stormwater site
plan consistent with JCC 18.30.070(4)(e) if stormwater permit required.
o Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report prepared by a qualified professional
identifying any necessary mitigation and cumulative impacts.
o Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application
o Geotechnical Report or waiver
o SEPA Checklist
2018 Permit Fees:
o Type III Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
o SEPA
o Notice of Application
o Notice of Hearing
o Notice Board
o Scanning Fee
Total Minimum Fee with SEPA
($2,300.00)
($ 920.00)
($ 149.00)
($ 149.00)
($ 10.00)
($ 23.00)
($3,551.00)
Any review over the minimum 35 hours of review time will be charged $92.00 per hour.
The assigned planner will communicate with you if review expenditure reaches this
limit to discuss invoicing.
2018 Building Permit Application Requirements:
2018 Building Permit Fees:
o Consistency Review
o Scanning
o State Building Code
($276.00)
($ 23.00)
($ 4.50)
• Building permit fees are in addition to the land use/zoning fees listed above.
• Contact DCD's reception desk at (360) 379-4450 to schedule an appointment for submittal of
application.
Attachments:
1. Email dated July 17, 2018, project narrative provided by facility owner and operator
2. Email chain from July 25, 2018 including agency responses to project narrative from Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife and Department of Ecology
3. Washington Department of Fisheries letter dated January 24, 1986
4. Jefferson County Building and Planning Department letter dated April 8, 1986
JCC 18.40.090(5) Assurances Unavailable. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive
review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the
administrator shall not bind or prohibit the county's future application or enforcement of all applicable
laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by county representatives shall in any way
relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements
of county, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
PRE18-00017
Pre -Application Conference
Rocky Brook Hydroelectric, 3020 Dosewallips Road, Brinnon, WA
County & State Attendees: Kevin Hitchcock DCD, Austin Watkins DCD, Rick Mraz DOE, Chris
Waldbillig WDFW
Time & Date: — Tuesday July 3, 2018 1:00pm on-site at the Rocky Brook Hydroelectric Facility
Owner/Applicant: Dell Keehn, Wayne Herr
Representative: Wayne Herr
Legal Description: S28 T26 R2W TAX 7
Description of Proposal: The applicant would like to replace the turbines and relocate the discharge of
an existing hydroelectric facility 200 -feet downstream. The facility was constructed in 1986 and has
an intake structure above Rocky Brook Falls that routes water to a powerhouse below the falls,
the water is then pumped 200 -feet to a discharge point closer to the base of the falls to be
returned to the stream. The proposal is to relocate the discharge from its current location 200 -feet
upstream near the base of Rocky Brook Falls to a new location immediately adjacent to the
existing powerhouse. The underground structure will be 5-7 feet deep and 8-10 feet wide and
will discharge directly into Rocky Brook.
Background information: The reasoning behind the proposed change to the discharge location as
stated by the owner of the facility is because the four turbines currently in use are inefficient,
failing or have failed already, and no longer available for replacement. Continued use of the
current turbines would mean the plant has reached the end of its useful life. Installing a new
Pelton style turbine requires moving the discharge to a new location adjacent to the facility or
there will be a risk of flooding were it to shut down. The efficiency gained by using this style of
turbine could result in up to 50% reduction in water utilized for power generation.
In 1986, after the facility's shoreline permit was issued a similar proposal to add a Pelton turbine
and move the discharge was discussed which raised concerns from Washington Department of
Fisheries (see attached letters from Department of Fisheries and Jefferson County regarding the
issue). Department of Fisheries states that the discharge location near the falls' plunge pool was
chosen to "preserve as much anadromous fish habitat as reasonably possible". The Jefferson
County letter states that "a new shoreline permit will be required if a new discharge location(s) is
desired". The current proposal is very similar to the 1986 proposal, however it doesn't appear
reduction of water usage was considered previously. The reduced discharge of water into the
creek could be considered to mitigate some of the negative impacts on fish habitat resulting from
relocating the structure downstream.
The applicants will be required to apply for a new shoreline permit to relocate the discharge
structure. The proposal will require a shoreline substantial development permit and cannot be
exempted using the maintenance and repair section because it is a change to the configuration
and location. A shoreline variance permit will likely not be necessary because hydroelectric
facilities are a water dependent use and require a location within the shoreline buffer.
Building Department — If you have any questions regarding the requirements of engineering for the
buildings contact Mary Blain, the DCD Plans Examiner at (360) 379-4461.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION — LAND USE PERMITTING — Kevin Hitchcock
• Zoned: Rural Residential 1:20
• SEPA review is required.
Shoreline Master Program (SMP):
■ Shoreline designation: Above Ordinary High Water Mark - Natural, below Ordinary High Water
Mark — Priority Aquatic.
• The proposal will need to comply with all applicable sections of the SMP including Vegetation
Conservation (JCC 18.25.310); Fill and Excavation (JCC 18.25.370).
o A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for fill/excavation will be required.
• Power/tidal energy generating facilities are prohibited in both Natural Shoreline and Priority
Aquatic in the current SMP (JCC 18.25.220).
o The facility is legal non -conforming and was permitted as a Shoreline Substantial
Development in 1986 under permit SDP85-00015.
• The discharge meets the definition of an in -stream structure if any portion is on or below the
ordinary high water mark. In -stream structures are prohibited in Natural Shoreline (JCC
18.25. 100 & 18.25.390) under current regulations, may be permitted because the water dependent
use is already legally established.
o An engineered hydraulic analysis, site suitability analysis, and biological resource
inventory is required for an in -stream structure (JCC 18.25.390(3)(g). The county may
determine if the issues are adequately addressed through another regulatory review
process.
o An in -stream structure cannot be installed without obtaining federal, state, and local
permit approvals i.e. Hydraulic Project Approval from EDFW (JCC 18.25.390(3)(h).
• Utilities are prohibited in Natural Shoreline. Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed; provided
that the operator makes every effort to protect shoreline ecological functions and the natural
features therein. Removal of existing utilities is preferred over time (JCC 18.25.530).
o Removal of this utility is not recommended at this time because it provides merit and
value for the community.
■ Though the proposal is within the 150 -foot shoreline buffer a variance permit is not required
because it is an existing water dependent use and requires a location within the shoreline buffer.
Only utilities that are not water dependent are required to be outside of the shoreline buffer (JCC
18.25.530(3)(b)).
■ The proposal meets the definition of a shoreline substantial development, which requires a Type
III Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP). Relocating the discharge cannot be
exempted as maintenance and repair because it is not the same size, shape, configuration, or
location (JCC 18.25.560(2)).
Process:
• Type III permits require a public notice period. The County shall issue the public
notice of application within 14 calendar days of receiving a complete application.
• The comment period will last 30 -days. Notice board to be provided and posted by
applicant per DCD instructions.
• Type III permits require a public hearing and decision from the County's Hearing
Examiner.
• DCD issues public notice of hearing — minimum 10 days in advance.
■ 21 day appeal period upon receipt of the hearing examiners decision.
Critical Areas:
Jefferson County is in the process of updating the current critical areas ordinance. The information
below is based on current regulations, which will be in effect until revised regulations are approved.
There is no vesting of this pre -application meeting and any submitted applications will be subject to
the critical areas ordinance in place at the time of application. Also, FEMA is in the process of
updating flood mapping, and any mapping revisions are likely to become effective by late 2018 or
early 2019.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA): Rocky Brook is a Type F fish -bearing
stream and requires a 150 -foot buffer. Per JCC 18.25.060 the provisions of JCC 18.22 Critical
Areas shall apply and a Habitat Management Plan/No Net Loss Report prepared by a qualified
professional will be required that meets the standards of JCC 18.22.440 and JCC 18.25.270, and
address no net loss requirements.
Geologically Hazardous Area: slight landslide hazard in project area, moderate landslide hazard
about 40 -feet away, high landslide hazard about 350 -feet away. A Geotechnical Report prepared
by a qualified professional with a state stamp that meets the specification of JCC 18.22.420 will
be required. Current standard buffer is 35 feet plus a 5 foot building setback. (Article V JCC
18.22). A waiver from this requirement may be approved for slight landslide hazard area and a
hold harmless covenant provided at the time of application review.
Application:
Complete Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development includes the following:
o Permit Application
o Supplemental Application Shoreline Development
o Site Plan: Please identify the following to scale:
• Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) location and cross-section showing
discharge structure elevation in relation to OHWM.
■ If the discharge is an in -stream structure (below OHWM) a hydraulic/site
suitability analysis is required
• Plans for decommissioning the old discharge structure
■ Lot lines for the entire property
■ site topography
■ Materials/Equipment Storage location.
• Construction access proposal and location
o Stormwater Calculation Worksheet
o Stormwater Management Permit Application AND Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) if 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity or grading 500 cubic
yards or more
o Temporary erosion and sediment control plan for any fill or grading OR stormwater site
plan consistent with JCC 18.30.070(4)(e) if stormwater permit required.
o Habitat Management Plan and No Net Loss Report prepared by a qualified professional
identifying any necessary mitigation and cumulative impacts.
o Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application
o Geotechnical Report or waiver
o SEPA Checklist
2018 Permit Fees:
o Type III Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ($2,300.00)
o SEPA ($ 920.00)
o Notice of Application ($ 149.00)
o Notice of Hearing ($ 149.00)
o Notice Board ($ 10.00)
o Scanning Fee ($ 23.00)
Total Minimum Fee with SEPA ($3,551.00)
Any review over the minimum 35 hours of review time will be charged $92.00 per hour.
The assigned planner will communicate with you if review expenditure reaches this
limit to discuss invoicing.
2018 Building Permit Application Requirements:
2018 Building Permit Fees:
o Consistency Review
o Scanning
o State Building Code
($276.00)
($ 23.00)
($ 4.50)
• Building permit fees are in addition to the land use/zoning fees listed above.
• Contact DCD's reception desk at (360) 379-4450 to schedule an appointment for submittal of
application.
Attachments:
1. Email dated July 17, 2018, project narrative provided by facility owner and operator
2. Email chain from July 25, 2018 including agency responses to project narrative from Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife and Department of Ecology
3. Washington Department of Fisheries letter dated January 24, 1986
4. Jefferson County Building and Planning Department letter dated April 8, 1986
JCC 18.40.090(5) Assurances Unavailable. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive
review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the
administrator shall not bind or prohibit the county's future application or enforcement of all applicable
laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by county representatives shall in any way
relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements
of county, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
4ai'I�hT� Of
WILLIAM R WILKERSON YI
IM1RY ':
STATF OF WASHING I ON
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
11; General Administration Building . Olympia, Washington 911504 a (206) 753-6600 • {.S(0JgC�+V L.' Q
jEfFEpSON COUNTY
January 24, 1986
,IAN 2'
PLANNING �LPRiI�ENf
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department
Courthouse
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Gentlemen:
Rocky Brook Hydroelectric Project
Determination of Non -Significance
The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) has reviewed the Environmental
Checklist and description for the referenced project. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment on this proposal.
It was somewhat surprising to note that Jefferson County (County) classi-
fies this as "a low -head hydroelectric facility". The appended project
description shows an effective head of 433 feet. By way of comparison,
Grand Coulee Dam - the highest U.S. dam on the Columbia River - has a gross
head of approximately 350 feet, almost 90 feet less than the Rocky Brook
project. Perhaps the County should review their criteria for project
designation. The potential damage caused by a pipeline/penstock rupture
from a high -head project is significantly greater than a low -head facility.
Our specific comments below utilize headings and numbering as found in the
Environmental Checklist.
Schedule
Obviously, the December 1985 completion date will not be met. What is
the current projected date?
Overall Plan
We have had informal discussions with Mr. Forbes regarding the addition of
a variable flow pelton turbine and have recommended against such modifica-
tion. The project was approved by WDF based on the condition all
powerhouse flows be returned to a point just downstream of the falls'
plunge pool. This was done to preserve as much accessible anadromous
fish habitat as was reasonably possible.
4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reported land slide/slumpage
activity in the vicinity of the surge tank and adjacent penstock. The
slippage was significant enough to damage the penstock and surge tank.
Jefferson County
January 24, 1986
Page 2
The applicant has been contacted and has agreed to review the situation
with his contractor to determine the potential extent of the problem.
We expect to meet with Mr. Forbes in about two weeks to discuss his
findings.
5. What is the origin of the material used to bury the return flow pipe?
6. This item requires further clarification and discussion, particularily
in light of recent events.
8. Replanting will only start to become effective during the growing
season. It appears some short-term measures may become necessary
pending the outcome of the geotechnical investigation and review.
13. In addition to the intake and discharge structures, the powerhouse, a
portion of the low pressure pipeline and the entire return flow pipe-
line were constructed within 200 feet of Rocky Brook.
16. This statement appears inaccurate. Both the intake (within the
streambed) and the discharge structure (along the stream margin)
would be subject to rigors of a 100 -year flood, and possibly suffer
some damage.
20. What will preclude surface drainage lines from forming along the
penstock route?
33. What thermal resource (particularily coal) will this project be
displacing?
We suggest it may be prudent for the County to withhold its Determination
of Non -Significance until such time the applicant and his contractor have
completed their investigation of the slide along the pipeline route. The
forthcoming discussions with the agencies and tribes may lead to measures
that should appear in any permit the County may issue. Perhaps a County
representative would care to participate in the meeting.
Please contact Mr. Kevin Bauersfeld (206) 753-6502) if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,(
William R. Wilkerson
Director
cc: Grandstaff-WDG, Aberdeen
Fenton-WDG, Olympia
Stout-USFWS
Groves-NMFS, Seattle
Ralph -Point No Point Treaty Council
Simmons -Hood Canal Environmental Council
�•+��!' Jefftrson County
Planning and Building Department
county courthouse
T` port townsend,washington 98368
telephone 206 385-1427
,Fay
.� q,�•---- david goldsmith, director
April 8, 1986
Mr. Tom Forbes
Weatherly Private Capital
2020 Skyline Tower
10900 North East 4th Street
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SH15-85
Dear Mr. Forbes:
I am sure you would like to see the power start to flow as soon
as possible now that you have received a shoreline permit from
Jefferson County for the Rocky Brook project,
I have received a call from the Washington State Department of
Fisheries expressing a concern about the potential addition of a
pelton turbine at the site. The shoreline permit that Jefferson
County has approved does allow the addition of up to five turbines
at the site. The type of turbine is not specified in the permit.
In our opinion, the type of turbine does not matter provided all
provisions of the permit are followed. The concern the department
of fisheries has expressed is related to the location of discharge
from a pelton unit. They are concerned that fish habitat not be
reduced or negatively impacted.
The description and drawings upon which your permit was approved
does not provide for the discharge of water at any point other than
the discharge location at the end of the discharge pipe. The end of
the pipe is up -stream from the powerhouse, near the base of the falls.
The discharge from a pelton unit near the powerhouse is not allowed
under Permit SH15-85. I can understand the desire to maximize the
head of a hydro power facility; however, the current permit also
provides for the protection of fisheries resources. Of course a
discharge properly located and using the approved facilities creates
no permit violation. To be clear, a new shoreline permit will be
required if a new discharge location(s) is desired.
One of the shoreline permit conditions is that the erosion
control measures for the project must be completed prior to the
issuance of certificate of use and full operation of the project.
Page 2
We intend to work with you and all concerned agencies to ensure
erosion problems do not reoccur at this site. Please let me know
when all erosion control measures have been completed. I will
then check the site, and if all is ready, give the building
official my approval for the use certificate.
Last, I would like you to firm -up the public access provisions
of the project. Are you going to post a public access sign at the
road? Are you going to grant a public pedestrian easement to the
falls? When will the viewing platform be completed? While the
permit does not specify particular methods or time frames, it
would be helpful to get these details resolved so our files may be
completed.
Please contact me if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Duffy
Associate Planner
BD:wmc
cc: Washington State Department of Fisheries
Washington State Department of Ecology
Point No Point Treaty Council