HomeMy WebLinkAbout053David W. Johnson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aftachments:
Andrea Mitchell [andrea88@embarqmail.com]
Monday, November 23,2009 10:26 AM
David W. Johnson
Fw: Comments on Statesman Water Quality Montioring Plan
Brinnon stormwater 12-06-07.pdf; Draft MPR Water Quality Management Plan
Comments.doc; Brin - Final Objection to G2-30436.doc
David. l'm enclosing the information I previously sent in July so that it will be included as part of the scoping for the
"programmatic ElS" on the Brinnon MPR. Thanks.
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
--- Original Message ---
From: Andrea Mitchell
To: David Johnson-LR Plan
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 5:31 PM
Subject: Comments on Statesman Water Quality Montioring Plan
David,
I have enclosed a letter commenting on two Statesman documents. My letter is entitled "Draft MPR Water Quality
Management Plan Comments". The other two documents are supporting enclosures.
I received the request for comment on the MPR documents from another source and am a bit confused because I'm on
the County MPR email distribution list. lf I need to be entered on another list, please do so. I am interested in all email
from the County regarding the MPR.
Thank you for your work!
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
1
David Wayne Johnson
Jefferson County Associate Planner
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
July 16,2009
Re:Draft Water Supply and Ground Water Analysis
Brinnon MPR Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan
My comments are based on the following
It's my understanding that the Draft Water Supply & Ground Water Impact
Analysis is a document that was submitted to the Department of Ecology in
reference to the developer's water rights application. The water rights application
is under protest by the Brinnon Group. I incorporate by reference the attorney's
letter outlining technical issues and specifics regarding water availability,
problems with salt water incursion and stormwater infiltration, etc. This letter is
written by Gerald Steel and dated January 19,2009.
The developer for the BP Master Planned Golf Resort has indicated to the public
in public meetings, media ads and presentations that it will build a "super green"
resort. The community has been promised that it will go above and beyond what
is understood as standard "green" construction practices to earn this status and
that the development will improve water quality in the area.
Protection of water quality is equally important to supporters and those opposing
the MPR. Differences of opinion exist largely on the developer's ability or will to
implement a development of this size and design (golf course, marina, large
conference centers, condos, etc) without affecting water quality.
Statewide, current stormwater control and treatment is failing to protect surface
and ground water from pollutants. This has been substantiated in a number of
ways locally and regionally. According to a recent National Academy of Science
report, urban areas cover approximately 3%o of the US, yet it is estimated that their
runoff is the primary source of 32%o of pollution to estuaries.
a
o
a
a The Brinnon MPR is by definition an urban density development with the added
environmental burden of a golf course, potential above and underground
fuel/pesticide/herbicidelfertilizer storage tanks, sewer treatment facilities,
timeshare/condo development, and stormwater infiltration basins; all of which are
listed by the EPA as potential sources of significant contamination to ground and
surface water.
I
o
a Sources of water pollution are difficult and expensive to prove. Frequently, the
burden of proof is that of taxpayers. If the testing in inconclusive, the damage
goes unmitigated, and if proof is obtained, there often is a lack of any adaptive
management plan or failure in implementation. The net result is a cumulative
increase in impact from development on the region's water quality and increased
financial burden on residents and taxpayers in the attempt to obtain compliance
from responsible parties.
o There is expert opinion that the developer's estimates of water usage are low. If
they are, it calls into question the ability of the water treatment, holding and
delivery systems to handle the additional volume. As, noted by Frank Meriwether
(Office of Drinking Water Regional Engineer, Department of Health) in his letter
dated April 19,2007), adoption of a daily water use rate of 70 gallons per minute
per residence per day is extremely low. According to Llyn Doremus, current
hydrologist for the Nootsack Tribe and former hydrologist for GeoEngineers, the
water usage estimates are unrealistic. Water usage, " ....should be considered in
light of the fact that conservation measures at this low use rate depends upon
typically require an educated water-user population. This assumes a local
residency that would be subject to ongoing education efforts by the water utility
or in this case the resort owner. Instead, these are primarily temporary use
occupancy units, and the water users do not typically have a vested interest in
continued water availability for the vicinity, nor the exposure to the education
necessary to understand why water conservation is important. Finally, many of
these are luxury units, which by definition encourages extravagant consumption,
of water as well as other amenities."
The draft plan introduces the development as, "not expected to increase pollutants into
the harbor or Hood Canal." I have included the Dr. Horner's comments on the Brinnon
MPR FEIS dated December 6,2007, regarding the proposed stormwater control and
treatment and adopt them by reference. The basis for the current draft water quality plan
is in part, the FEIS. Dr. Horner is well qualified on the subject and outlines shortcomings
in the FEIS stormwater information.
The photos below are from a recent storm in the Fish & Wildlife area next to the
proposed resort. The water is coming, in part, from one of the streams that flow across
the resort area. This was not a 10O-year nor even a 50 year storm and one can assume that
it was developed within the parameters of all current regulation.
The photo to the left shows water flowing
down the Fish & Wildlife public access road
toward the harbor.
The photos on the next page are of the silt
barrier failing with the resort marina in the
background and the scotch broom vegetation
2
on the shore. The parking lot is within a few feet of Pleasant Harbor.
As stated on page 3, the MPR is not expected to increase pollution to Pleasant Harbor or
Hood Canal. It is stated that stormwater will be treated for nitrogen. Nitrogen is one
element that is problematic in stormwater but not the only issue. Stormwater should be
treated for all elements considered pollutants.
On page 3, last bullet point, "lf water quality are identified and attributed to the project,
the resort will be required to notiff Jefferson County..." This statement should be
tightened up with deadlines for County notification and what standards will be applied
for attribution. "Exploring" BMPs as mitigation does not guarantee improvement of the
situation or the elimination of the pollution.
The goal as stated in the plan is for the MPR is to add no pollutants. By definition,
minimizing and mitigating do not reach that standard. On page 4, second bullet, the
statement should read, "Include an adaptive management plan to eliminate... ...."
The developer has promised the community zero discharge of stormwater from the resort
including the maritime village. To implement this promise, there should be no stormwater
outlet to the harbor. All stormwater should be collected and treated in the main treatment
facility.
The FEIS states full "treatment" of stormwater from the Maritime Village. The extent of
treatment is not outlined. The draft plan states it will be meet surface water standards set
by WAC 173-201a, but does not state which level included in that code it will use. The
Maritime Village is expected to have 22oh impervious surfaces, a high level of
commercial use and a high density of residential use represented by condos. The standard
for all stormwater released into the harbor should be held to the highest level of surface
water standards. While it is understood that some stormwater will originate from the
highway just above the Maritime Village and is not ultimately the resort's responsibility,
it should be noted that the resort is expected to double traffrc in the area. Given those
estimates, at least 50% of the highway stormwater runoff pollutants are attributable to the
resort. In addition, the high use in the Maritime Village, it's proximity to the shore, and
J
f.
a
lack of pervious surfaces between the condos and the shoreline offer a potential for a high
level of stormwater pollution. The specific goal should be zero pollution to the harbor.
On page 5, water-sampling locations should include a marine sampling point on the south
side of the point, near the developer's holdings and the Duckabush River estuary.
Baseline and continued well water sampling should also be included from residential
wells on each side of the resort to ensure that pollutants and salt water are not entering
the aquifer that these wells draw from.
Baseline and continued testing of water should be by period and also by event,
specifically after precipitation, or in the case of snow, shortly after snow melt. Below is a
statement from the Department of Ecology regarding water quality following rain:
lncreased pathogen and fecal bacteria levels in marine waters can come from both shore and
inland sources. lnland sources can consist of stormwater runoff, sewer overflows, failing septic
systems and animalwaste from livestock, pets and wildlife. Shore sources can be swimmers,
boats, marine mammals, birds and other wildlife.
ln general, the Ecology's BEACH Program recommends avoiding contact with marine waters 48
hours following rainfall, according to Jessica Bennett of BEACH.
The Brinnon MPR was sold to residents as being super green and as actually improving
water quality in the Black Point area. This is an impressive goal and we are fortunate to
have a developer who values the environment and it's protection. The implementation of
procedures that support these goals is regulated but relies heavily on the will of the
developer and the County. Unfortunately, in many actual cases, implementation and
stated goals have parted ways somewhere between the FEIS and the actual development
and operation of the facilities, one of the primary reasons residents object to the project.
I have shown a case in which BMP's have not protected water quality and will provide
more examples upon request. The statement that no water quality changes are expected to
occur because BMP's will be implemented is hopeful but does not necessarily protect
water quality. The statement, "Together the county and the Brinnon MPR will work to
find a mutually beneficial solution (to pollution attributable to the MPR). ...," does not
necessarily protect water quality.
I have included expert testimony that stormwater procedures and goals presented in the
FEIS will likely not meet the high standards presented by the developer to the community
to obtain approval for the development.
I would like to see strong, specific language that will show how the County and the
Brinnon MPR eliminate any pollution originating from the MPR or it's activities. This
has been implicitly guaranteed in assertions that the resort will not pollute.
Hand in hand with the above, tax payers have been told that they will not see their taxes
increase for oversight, water testing, and elimination of pollutants associated with the
resort. Specific language should be included that the developer/owner of the MPR be
4
responsible for all costs of testing and the associated development of solutions to
eliminate any sources of pollution.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
Included with this letter is a PDF of a signed copy of Dr. Horner's letter to the Jefferson
County dated 1216107.
5
Rrcruno R. HonxBR, PH.D.
230 NW 55'H SrRppr
SeerrLp, Wasuncrox 981 07
Tsrspuoue: (206) 782-7 400
E-uatl: rrhomer(Omsn.com
December 6,2007
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
To Whom It May Concern:
I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute to review the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR)
proposal regarding the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the project on the water quality of
Hood Canal and the groundwater in the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications
to perform this review.
BACKGROLTND AND EXPERIENCE
I have 30 years of experience in the urban stormwater management field and I 1 additional years of
engineering practice. During this period I have performed research, taught, and offered consulting
services on all aspects of the subject, including investigating the sources of pollutants and other causes
of aquatic ecological damage, impacts on organisms in waters receiving urban stormwater drainage,
and the full range of methods of avoiding or reducing these impacts. I received a Ph.D. in Civiland
Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1978, following two Mechanical
Engineering degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Although my degrees are all in engineering,
I have had substantial course work and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry. For l2
years beginning in l98l I was a full-time research professor in the University of Washington's
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. I now serve half time in that position and spend
the remainder of my time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. Serving as a principal or
co-principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has produced three books,
approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, over 20 reviewed papers in conference
proceedings, and approximately 100 scientific or technical reports. My consulting clients include
federal, state, and local government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that
work for these entities. My full curriculum vitae are attached.
FINDINGS
General Findings
As stated by section 3.3.7 of the Brinnon MPR FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the
basis of the stormwater management program is the Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE] 2005), together with the Low Impact
To Whom It May Concern
December 6,2007
Page2
Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT] 2005).
The proponent goes on to state that the stormwater management plan will be designed to meet the
project's requirement for zero discharge of water to the Hood Canal from the golf course resort area
and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the harbor. I now give
my general impressions of this basic plan, to be followed with more detailed observations on each
point.
It is first necessary to recognize that application of the WDOE stormwater manual in no way
guarantees reaching a goal of zero discharge. That manual does not feature management practices
having strong capability to achieve zero discharge. The PSAT low impact development (LID) manual
shows how to design drainage features that could reach zero discharge. However, that manual has
none of the prescriptive requirements of the WDOE manual and is just a "how to" guide to employ
once the components of the stormwater management system are selected. Hence, it does not appear at
all that the zero-discharge goal for the golfcourse resort has any force behind it.
Even if the resort can be held to zero discharge, the FEIS presents insufficient information, even for
the levelof a rezoning application, for a reviewer, and the public at large, to judge wellthe prospects
for achieving the goal. While I recognize that more detail will be presented at a later stage of project
development, the public needs some more information beyond that given in the FEIS to have any
confidence that the project will function as advertised and to countenance a major rezone.
The marina portion of the project will not be held to the zero-discharge standard. While the FEIS
states that its discharge will receive "full treatment," it gives no information at all on what that
treatment might be and what is meant by "full." As with the plan for the resort, the public must be
given a more complete basis upon which to evaluate the quality of the plan at this point in project
development.
Outside of the immediate project area, the FEIS does not assess the water quality impacts of
anticipated traffic additions associated with the development. The Transportation Impact Study
indicates increases on a number of local roads and highways of hundreds of cars a day on average.
Automobiles emit or mobilize numerous pollutants that enter water bodies and degrade aquatic
ecosystems. The FEIS is inadequate as long as it does not give the public a means by which to
understand the full environmental impact before being willing to see rural zoning changed to
accommodate this project.
Further Observations
Zero Discharge from Resort
Achieving zero discharge depends on effective implementation of the types of site design and
stormwater management practices presented in the PSAT LID manual. Fundamentally, these practices
come down to infiltrating rainfall into the ground or harvesting water from roofs and other surfaces for
a use such as landscape irrigation or "gray water" system supply (e.g., toilet flushing). The FEIS states
that both of these methods will be used but not the role each would play. The intention is to store
runoff in existing "kettles," use it to meet "water demands" , and direct the excess into the ground (by
To Whom It May Concern
December 6,2007
Page 3
what means is not revealed). Even though I did not have much information to go on, I feel safe in
assuming that the project will have to make substantial use of infiltration to reach zero discharge.
Successful water quality protection by infiltration depends of having soils that will percolate water
rapidly enough to drain surface holding areas in time to prevent various problems that can occur with
excessive ponding times (generally, within 72 hours), but not so fast that contaminants will reach
groundwater and pollute it. The natural soils do not necessarily have to possess desirable soil pore
storage space and hydraulic conductivities themselves, but can be amended (usually, with organic
compost) to function well. However, clays cannot be sufficiently amended to provide enough pore
storage and hydraulic conductivity to percolate rapidly enough; and, conversely, coarse sands and
gravels cannot be amended to slow percolation enough to ensure groundwater protection.
The authors of Chapter 3 of the FEIS made no reference to the site soil and hydrogeologic data in
Appendix 4 and did not use it to assess in even the most rudimentary way what it means for the
prospective success of their plan. The data are very sparse, with the soils information consisting of
only the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil survey results. Soil survey data are generally not site-
specific enough for conclusive determinations of infiltration potential, which often varies considerable
in quite small distances. The reported data show very gravelly loamy sand predominating, which if
actually the case would tend to encourage the belief that water could be infiltrated successfully but
could penetrate too rapidly. Nevertheless, an informed judgment requires more site-specific data.
The public cannot be expected to accept a major rezone in their county until they are told enough to
gauge potential success. Insufficient soil storage and hydraulic conductivity will render zero discharge
an illusion. Overly rapid percolation willthreaten groundwater, a potable supply source in a rural area,
and reach streams on the site and other nearby surface waters as seepage. There is heightened concern
about groundwater quality when a golf course is involved. Golf courses are large consumers of
fertilizer and pesticide chemicals, as well as irrigation water. The common water pollutant least
capable of interdiction in soils is nitrate-nitrogen, which is introduced to the surface in large quantities
with fertilization, from where it can be carried along with percolating irrigation or rain water to the
water table. Nitrate is the agent causing methemoglobinemia, generally in infants, when consumed
with drinking water. Pesticides reaching drinking supplies are obviously also a major health concern.
Treatment of Marina Discharge
The term "full treatment" as promised for the marina is simply meaningless. Different treatment
systems have varying efficiencies in treating different pollutants. In addition to terrestrialrunoff from
upland areas, marinas are sources of allthe pollutants associated with engines and petroleum products,
cleaning agents, and household chemicals, used right on the water. Their potential for release and in
what quantities depend on marina activities, particularly how much maintenance is performed, but they
are always a factor. Also, it can be expected that a resort of this size will lead to greatly increased use
of the existing marina, which would itself increase pollutant loading. Some treatment systems can do
an excellent job in capturing these various pollutants, others are poor overall, and some are mixed
depending on the pollutant in question. The project proponents must state how they would handle and
treat marina discharge before the public can consider their plan.
To Whom It May Concern
December 6,2007
Page 4
P otent ial Traffic Impacts
Table I I of the Transportation Impact Study shows the "Statesman" alternative to increase traffic by 6
to 89 percent on the various roads and highways in the project vicinity, with a 4l percent rise at one
point on highway U.S. l0l (near Woodpecker Road). However, the origin of these figures is unclear
and probably in error. My calculations do not agree when comparing the cited "Statesman" alternative
traffic volumes with either the "Without Project" or "No Action" columns. For example, I got
increases of 875 and 225 percent comparing "Statesman" Black Point Road traffic with "Without
Project" and "No Action," respectively. I found the "Statesman" increase on U.S. l0l near
Woodpecker to be 69 or 5l percent with the same respective comparisons. I was likewise unable to
reproduce Table 1 l's percentages for the "Brinnon" and "Hybrid" alternatives. It would be
inappropriate, in my opinion, to go forward on this major action with such anomalies in key
information supplied in its support.
Motor vehicles are responsible for water body contamination from many sources. Brake pad and tire
wear introduce copper and zinc, respectively, both highly toxic to aquatic life. Wear of engine parts
contributes these and other toxic metals, like lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. Petroleum
products leak from engines, transmissions, and braking systems. Sediments drop onto roads from
chassis and undercarriages. These pollutants wash immediately into receiving waters during rainy
periods but also stay on and around roads for later wash off when rains come. It is reasonable to
assume that the roads around the resort and marina complex would experience the most elevated traffic
in the summer months. Even though there is not much rain then, the remnants would be in
concentrated form in the first flush of fall rains. Concentration of toxic materials, such as the various
metals in road runoff,, is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life. The FEIS is an incomplete and
thoroughly inadequate document in not addressing these potential impacts at all.
SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the Brinnon MPR proponent
can provide convincing evidence that: (l) zero discharge from the golfcourse resort can be achieved;
(2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment;
(3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or result in below-ground delivery of pollutants to
surface receiving waters, with particular attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4)
marina discharge will be treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that
source to the greatest extent possible; and (5) increased traffic will not degrade the water quality of
Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well being of their resident and
anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence must be made available to the public for another review
of the proposal before its official consideration.
I would be please to discuss my comments with you and invite you to contact me if you wish,
Sincerely,
Richard R. Horner
,e*ZA*Xp, #n*r"**-
GERALD STEEL, PE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
7303 YOUNG ROAD NW
OLYMPIA, WA 98502
Tel/fax (360) 867-1 166
January 19,2009
Department of Ecology
Cashiering Section
PO Box 47611
Lacey WA 98509-7611
Re: Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition Objections to Approval of Water Right
Permit Application No. G2-30436
Dear Ecology Staff:
On behalf of Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition (collectively "Brinnon"), I submit
this Protest pursuant to the Notice of Application to Appropriate Public Waters published on
December 24,2008 for Water Right Permit Application No. G2-30436. Please find enclosed a
check for $50. This Protest is based on the following concerns.
Please Require A Complete Application And New Notice
The Applicant Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort ("Resort") seeks permission for
withdrawal at 300 gallons per minute from three points of withdrawal. The location of the
proposed wells is not specified in the application as required by RCW 90.44.060 and there is
no map of the points of withdrawal. This prejudices Brinnon, because it cannot be determined
with the necessary accuracy to identifu adverse impacts, what the magnitude of those impacts
is without knowledge of the location of where the withdrawal points (impacts) will occur. The
Department of Ecology ("Department") should require a complete application to be filed and
Notice to be republished with adequate information made available for review.
The water right application includes by reference the o'Water Resource Management Plan"
(Mgmt Plan) prepared by 2020 Engineering and dated March 22, 2007. The water uses
described in the Mgmt Plan are thereby incorporated into the water right application, and the
consequent impacts of those uses must be considered in the evaluation of the water right
application.
Current and Projected Water Use
Before this water right application can be analyzed, approved, denied, or conditioned, the
Resort must decide what development it proposes and which optional supply and reuse water
plan it is committed to use. The Resort has proposed a number of optional plans for water
supply and development levels. In some places in the documents, water is being supplied to
Cell D by this project and in other places there is no water for Cell D.
For example, the Mgmt Plan states that the project is on 250 acres, will have 940 residential
units, 34,500 square-feet of commercial, and an lS-hole golf course on page l. Elsewhere in
the Mgmt Plan on pages l0 and 26, it states the project will have 890 residential units.
The Mgmt Plan on pages I and26 asserts that29 AF/yr will be allocated for commercial uses
of 34,500 sq. ft of developed area. In contrast, the DEIS specifies a 60,000 sq. ft. resort center,
a200 seat community center, a 3000 sq. ft. restaurant, a 33,161 sq. ft. management center, a
community chapel, and 16,000 sq ft. commercial at the marina. In further contrast, Appendix 5
of the DEIS, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort - Water Supply and Groundwater Impact
Analysis, by Subsurface Group LLC (*2007 Hydro") on page l3 states there will be 79,000 sq.
ft. of commercial developed area that will use 28 AFlyr. The actual commercial use and its
water needs must be more carefully defined before any water right permits are issued.
According to the Mgmt Plan on page2, the Black Point peninsula is approximately 710 acres
on Hood Canal and there are 107 permanent residents in 57 full time dwelling units, and 101
seasonal dwelling units on 246 platted lots. If we assume that each permanent dwelling unit
uses 175 gallons per day (ADD from DEIS atpage 3-32) md each seasonal dwelling unit uses
one fourth of that amount, the water usage for these dwelling units is estimated to be just over
l6 Acre-Feet ("AF") per year. It is our understand that the existing water right for Pleasant
Harbor Beach Tracts (Sam Boling Water System) ("Pleasant Tides Water System") is for 145
AF/yr with claimed use of 38 AF/yr and may have inchoate rights for 107 AF/yr depending on
Court decisions (this should be determined by Ecology). The difference between the estimated
use of l6 AF/yr and the claimed use of 38 AF/yr should be resolved.
The Mgmt Plan states the Resort is seeking 45 AFlyr. of unused water rights from Pleasant
Tides. The Application states the Resort is seeking 12 AFlyr. of unused water rights from
Pleasant Tides. Ecology should include an analysis of Pleasant Tides unused water rights as
part of the water rights application evaluation. The water rights summary in the record shows
that Ecology requested Pleasant Tides to establish its water use by August, 2008 (for G2-
27964P). Water not put to beneficial use should be relinquished to the State.
Relinquishment of Unused Rights
To accurately assess water availability, the existing claimed, permitted and certificated uses
must be considered, and those not in use abandoned and relinquished. Without a determination
of relinquishment by Ecology, any Resort water right application would have to be conditioned
on the higher priority right of existing water systems being kept whole, regardless of the
quantity of the water demand by the Resort.
There was an American Campground RV Campground on the peninsula that has been
abandoned, which has an approved water right (in G2-20465) for 55 gallons per minute and25
AF/yr. Brinnon requests that the Department consider the portion of that water right to be
relinquished to the State under RCW 90.14.180 considering the past five years of water use for
the American Campground. This same evaluation should be made for the Black Point Water
2
Company (G2-21134,G2-23623) which I understand is an abandoned project and the Pleasant
Tides well(s) (G2-27964P) which is underutilized as described above.
Is There Water Available?
An accurate plan for where water will come from and how it will be used should be included as
part of the water rights application evaluation. The Application requests 131 AF/yr to be used
for building supply and another 108 AF/yr for irrigation for a total groundwater request of 239
AF/yr. This is inconsistent with the DEIS, with 2007 Hydro, and with the Mgmt Plan. In all of
the documents in the record, the potable building supply comes from wells or clean rainwater.
Reclaimed water and treated stormwater are used for irrigation.
The Mgmt Plan calculates 65 AF/yr needed for potable demand and 108 AF/yr non-potable for
irrigation, primarily on the golf course. This plan provides two options for providing potable
water: clean rainwater or wells. This plan calls for reclaiming the potable water and adding
treated stormwater to get the water necessary for landscaping. This plan collects extra
stormwater and infiltrates the extra water into the ground.
There are a number of conflicting estimates in the record for the potable water requirement of
the Resort. The DEIS states at page 3- l5 that the maximum annual water utilization is 137 AF
(but this number is not supported in the analysis). The DEIS states at page 3-18 that the
maximum annual water utilization is l2l AF, directing the reader to 2007 Hydro where at page
13 it states that the potable water demand is 121 AF/yr, which is twice that estimated in the
Mgmt Plan provided with the Application. There should be analysis of comparable
developments with existing vacation homes in similar weather to determine likely residential
building water consumption for the mix of units proposed. The current estimates that vary
between 70 and 175 gpm per unit are not based on reliable data. The project assumes 2
persons per unit but two, three, and four bedroom units will likely have more than2 persons
3
The Mgmt Plan on page 22 claims that the property has existing ground water rights of 28
AF/yr. Apparently the Resort is claiming existing water rights from the RV Campground (25
AF/yr. and 55 gallons per minute - G2-20465) and the existing marina (3 AF/yr and 60 gallons
per minute - G2-24359) These water rights have not been transferred to the Resort use where
they would serve different uses in a different area. Brinnon objects to such a transfer without
the full analysis discussed in this Objection.
Before Ecology can determine if water is available, it must determine the senior water rights on
the peninsula from the wells on the peninsula whether or not water rights certificates are on
file. This has not been adequately done. Next, it must require the Resort to define its water
system and proposed development sufficient to determine how much water it intends to put to
a beneficial use from which sources. Only after there is a clear analysis of the proposed ground
and surface water systems, can it be determined how much water is needed and then whether it
is available.
per unit. The analysis must consider that people on vacation are likely to use water more
extravagantly. There also needs to be a water supply analysis for the boats in the marina.
2007 Hydro states that the water supply will be from existing groundwater rights, rainfall
harvesting, and wastewater reclamation. 2007 Hydro at l. Figure ll in2007 Hydro shows
how clean rainfall collection on built roofs and 28 AF lyr of well water used with water storage
is sufficient to meet the short term and long term needs of the Resort. As a consequence, there
is no justification for ground water rights of more than 28 AF/yr
However, 2007 Hydro at page 14 also states that need for any well water may be eliminated if
rights are acquired for rainwater harvesting. If this is the proposed scenario, no permanent
ground water permit should be needed.
More complicated is the actual availability of groundwater in the aquifer below the peninsula.
The information provided in the Subsurface Group reports ("Draft Geotechnical Report" by
Perrone Consulting Inc (7-21-06);2007 Hydro, and "Soils and Geology" (8-10-07)) is not
sufficient to determine that there is actually water available. There is a lot of confusion in their
description of the geology and the groundwater aquifer configuration. They note that the
system is complicated, and that they invited Derek Booth and Kathy Troost (recognized experts
on Puget Sound Glacial stratigraphy) to the site to assist in the interpretation of the site
geology. However, nothing of Booth and Troost's interpretation is actually included in the
reports. The Geotechnical Report is missing the three boring logs in appendix A for the
borings from which any subsurface interpretation should be made. Without them, it is difficult
to assess the accuracy of the interpretations presented. Additionally, the B 1, 82 and 83 boring
numbers and locations are mixed up on Figures I , 8 and 9, and page 7 . This confusion elicits
MANY questions about the reliability ofthe information presented with respect to groundwater
availability. The April25,2008 Phase I Report ("Phase l") by Pacific Groundwater Group
states in Section 3 "Additional Analysis Required for Water Rights Processing" that the
following studies are needed in order to accurately assess this water right application:
1. Document Ll/ater Budget to Determine Water Riqht Request: A projectwater budget
was completed by the Subsurface Group (2007). PGG's preliminary review of this
water budget suggests that more detail is required to document all the associated
terms and assumptions. The woter budget should estimate the net impactfrom both
rainfall harvest ond groundwater withdrowols, and should include termsfor: change
in evapotranspiration due to construction of buildings, impervious surfaces and
storage ponds; total rainfall horvested; water use and re-use; and "direct
infiltration" recharge to the production aquifer. The woter budget should be
performed for " average " , "wet " and " dry " yeors to estimate how apportionment of
water supply between groundwater and rainwater harvest might change with
climatic variation.
2. Further Hydrogeologic Characterization: PGG's initial analysis (above) notes the
need for a groundwater level map using available data from wells on Black Point
Peninsula and developing a better understanding ofwhether observed groundwoter
4
responses to rainfall events mqy represent a hydraulic connection to the Duckabush
River or its tributaries. The apparent contrast between dampened hydraulic
responses to tidal fluctuations and accentuated responses to rainfall events should
also be resolved. Better documentation of the connections between the glacial
aquifer system beneath the peninsula ond marine water bodies would also be
helpful. As PHMGR's consultant performs various technicol analyses, other areas
requiring further hydrogeolo gic characterization may be come apparent.
3. Document the Avqilabilit.v o.f the Groundwater Resource: Processing the
groundwater right requires proof that the water is availablefor withdrawal. This is
typically performed by constructing and testing supply wells or test wells. However,
if enough is lcnown about the aquifer system, hydrogeologic characterization can be
used to establish available groundwater supply. Unless the Subsurface Group report
is updated with more information, installation and testing of wells would likely be
required.
4. Document Lack o.f Imoairment.from Groundwater Resource Development: Existing
water rights in the project vicinity should be catalogued. The conceptual model of
the hydrogeologic system should be used along with appropriate analytical or
numerical methods to document that existing water rights will not be impaired due
to interference drow down.
5. Sallwater Intrusion Analysis: Availability of groundwater resources for PHMGR
requires that groundwater pumping will not cause saltwater intrusion into the
proposed productionwells. In addition, the impairment anolysis (above) should also
address whether the proposed pumpingwould cause saltwater intrusion in existing
groundwater rights.
6. Develop Plan.for Monitoring and Documentation: If Ecolog issues awater right, it
will likely require that monitoring be performed to document the amounts ofwater
harvested from various impervious surfaces, pumped from groundwater, and
recharged back to groundwater via direct injection. Monitoring for saltwater
intrusion and aquifer drawdown may olso be required. PHMGR's consultant may
wish to propose such a monitoring plan.
Groundwater availability is contingent on the capacity to infiltrate water captured through their
system (as described in the Mgmt Plan and 2007 Hydro) into the aquifer. This supposes that
there is a high infiltration capacity in the vicinity of the infiltration galleries (which has not
been demonstrated). In fact, the infiltration rate will have to compensate for all of the natural
infiltration to the aquifer that would normally occur over the impervious developed areas and
pond areas in addition to the infiltration from their wastewater systems. It will require a rate of
infiltration hundreds of times greater than the natural infiltration rate ofthe native sediments to
handle the infiltration capacity needed to get 792 acre feet of water (49 AFlyr generated from
runoff from impervious surfaces * 83 roof runoff + l2l wastewater from gtoundwater + 47 net
5
direct pond precipitation minus 108 for inigation) infiltrated into the ground over the relatively
small area of the infiltration galleries annually.
Is The Application For Beneficial Use Of Water?
Water use for residential, commercial and recreational purposes is recognized as a beneficial
use under Washington water law.
Will Granting the Application Adversely Affect Existing Rights?
Without a comprehensive list ofthe existing water rights claims, certificates and applications
this question cannot be accurately addressed. It appears that the PGG Phase I analysis of
existing applications and rights is incomplete because their list (presented on Table 1) does not
have all water rights on or near the peninsula. The water rights that have been compiled by
Amy Neilson as illustrated on the second page of the packet of materials titled "Well locations
and Owners" provides the numbers of many water rights documents that should be considered
in the PGG assessment of impacts to existing water rights. There must be an analysis that
identifies all existing rights before it can be determined if the existing rights are adversely
impacted.
However, Brinnon is very concerned about salt water intrusion impacts to existing water rights.
Consider, for example, the test reported in Phase I that the American Campground Well
completed in the glacial aquifer system was tested at 307 gpm with 43 feet of drawdown.
Phase I at 4. Figure 8 in 2007 Hydro shows that this well had a measured groundwater
elevation of about 12 feet above sea level on June 21,2006. This suggests that pumping at307
gpm would have taken the freshwater elevation down 43 feet to an elevation of 31 feet below
sea level. 2007 Hydro states:
A reduction of head below sea level could cause sea water intrusion, which is a
poor practice for maintaining an aquifer (as it takes many years to recover from
the effects of sea water intrusion), and would also violate State and County
policies.
2007 Hydro at 10. Other references state that sea water intrusion impacts once established can
be permanent. Attachment 4 at page 5.
We note that an additional pump test was conducted for the Black Point Water Company (as
reported in the Water Right certificate (G-21 l34P), which also showed a drawdown of 30 feet
over a 4-hour period. It is likely that allowed pumping of the Pleasant Tides well(s) could
cause salt water intrusion and any further pumping in that area by others would fuither impair
the existing water rights by unacceptably increasing salt water intrusion. To the degree
possible in water management in the peninsula area, there should be no further water
drawdown that takes the groundwater surface below about 5 feet above sea level to minimize
salt water intrusion.
5
The location of any wells used for the project must be evaluated with consideration of the
maximum permitted pumping rates allowed for wells in hydraulic connectivity to determine if
combined pumping would have an adverse impact on groundwater elevation in September such
that sea water intrusion might occur.
WAC 173-150-030(8Xd) requires pumping facilities to be properly sized to the ability of the
aquifer to produce water and this must be done in full consideration of the existing pumping
rights associated with senior water rights.
WAC 173-150-050requiresanapplicationtoberejectediftheproposedappropriationwould
impair any existing water rights.
While water quality impacts arising from the use of water are not typically considered in
processing water rights applications, here the re-use of water on the golf course could create a
plume of groundwater with nitrogen exceeding drinking water standards of l0 ppm. This
polluted groundwater from the project could impair existing water rights if the plume reached
other wells.
Will Granting The Application Be Detrimental To The Public Interest?
The consequences to the local aquifer from seawater intrusion and to Hood Canal from
groundwater discharge emitting from the Resort that would result if water were used as
described in this water right application must be considered in assessing the Public Interest. A
water right certificate that allows the239 AF/yr of groundwater with a 300 gallon per minute
pumping rate as requested in the Application is sure to cause salt water intrusion and impair
senior water rights on the peninsula; mandating that this request be denied. Further, water
withdrawals from the aquifer that in a series of years of low rainfall could pollute the public's
aquifer by salt water intrusion must be taken into account in assessing potential impacts to this
sole source aquifer and the public interest.
There must be an evaluation of nitrogen and chemical loading on the essentially sole source
aquifer from the golf course and other development before a water right permit is given that
would permit the development to proceed. Nitrogen-loading is a serious problem for the Hood
Canal, causing dangerously low dissolved oxygen (Mgmt Plan at 4-5) and most of the flow
from the sole source aquifer is into Hood Canal. Others with similar problems have put strong
limits on nitrogen-loading from new development. See Attachment I hereto. While l0 ppm is
the allowed nitrogen content for human consumption, 0.38 ppm has been established as the
limit for salt water to protect the marine environment See Attachment 1. There should be
required to be an analysis to determine the expected nitrogen level in the groundwater in the
peninsula after the peninsula is built out to its maximum density and intensity currently
allowed (considering input to the ground water from rain and from all development). At
buildout, the maximum nitrogen level in the ground water should not exceed 0.38 ppm in order
to not be contributing to a salt water nitrogen level that exceeds 0.38 ppm. A golf course like
that at Martha's Vineyard (see Attachment l) sends water into the ground water with nitrogen
at l0 ppm. If this is too high to achieve the 0.38 ppm standard at full development, then the
7
golf course should be required to have a flexible membrane under the golf course to catch the
water and treatment must be required before it is infiltrated into the ground. Discharge of
stormwater and wastewater to the Canal is considered unacceptable. Mgmt Plan at 5. This
must include the nitrogen from the project that enters the Canal in groundwater flow.
As previously noted, a peninsula-wide water budget should be created that includes time series
analyses of water levels in all wells on the Black Point Peninsula. An example of a
Hydrogeologic Assessment done in the Sequim-Dungeness area is provided (portions only) in
Attachment 2 hereto. This analysis plus the analysis in Attachment 3 hereto together define
the minimum level of Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground Water Analysis that should be
required for this project. Attachment 3 analyzes an8.2 sq. mile (5,248 acre) Island that gets
an annual rainfall of about 25 inches per year and has total groundwater withdrawal of about 65
AF/yr (half of the withdrawal proposed for the instant 710 acre peninsula). There are
substantial saltwater intrusion problems on this Island. An example of an analysis forthe same
Island of wells failing from saltwater intrusion is provided in Attachment 4 hereto. The quality
of analysis done in the attached studies is the minimum quality that must be required for the
instant ground water right application.
The results of the analysis of locations and amounts of groundwater withdrawal and water
reintroduction into the ground to evaluate impacts on the groundwater quality and water table
must be considered in evaluating this water rights application.
In summary there needs to be significantly more data collection and analysis. Based on that
information, the Resort should submit an updated proposal for its water system to better
determine its likely water needs before any permits are considered. The impacts of new
withdrawals added to full allowed withdrawals for existing water rights must be evaluated to
evaluate likelihood of salt water intrusion problems. A determination of what existing water
rights must be relinquished should be made before any new permit decisions are made. With
the uncertainties in the available information, the lack of preventative or mitigation measures
to deal with water quality degradation, the impacts to senior water rights holders, including
from seawater intrusion, make it evident to Brinnon that this application cannot be approved.
Please keep me informed of any decisions made, any notices, and the beginning of any appeal
periods for any water permits granted to the Resort.
Respectfully,
Gerald Steel P.E.
Attorney for the Brinnon Group and
Brinnon MPR Opposition
I