HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog056
e
e
Page 1 of 1
Stacie Hoskins
From: Nancy Dorgan [ndorgan@waypt.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20,200512:13 AM
To: Stacie Hoskins
Subject: MLA05-00276 Marrowstone Comments.pdf
Stacie,
Please add the attached comments to the public record for this proposal.
Thanks,
Nancy
LOG ITEM
#- ~
Page 1 of.JY~
612012005
e
e
June 19! 2005
Oept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
Attention: Stacie Hoskins
Re: MLAOS..00276 Marrowstone Island Water System
Comments regarding Permit Approvals for
SDP05-0QO J4 and ZONOS-Q0027
Dear Ms. Hoskins,
This project is not as simple as it appears. It Is not just abaut laying same pIpe
in ditches. If it were only that! perhaps the lack af SEPA review would not be so
consequential. However, the Marrowstane water system continues to slip
fundamentally through the SEPA net at the programmatic levell and now at the
project level as well. Do nat assume that this praject proposal has had adequate
programmatic environmental review just because of the previous public process.
It is important that Inadequades of prior environmental review be recognized
befare any permits are Issued. It is crucial that OCD reverse its initial decision
that MLAOS-00276 be SEPA-exempt.
Before approval of the PUO's Water System Plan (WSP) on February 171 2005 by
the State Department of Health (DOH)! it had undergone two' separate public
comment periods by the PUD under different ReW's. The second review in
December 2004 was conducted under SEPA, with the PUD acting as Lead
Agency. SEPA documents prepared by the PUD Indicated that the plan-level,
programmatic review did DIll include the impacts of a future Marrowstone
expansion, even though the WSP contained information about a future service
area expansion on the island.
One example of how Marrowstone was excluded from the scope of the SEPA
review is found in the PUD/s answer to SEPA Checklist Question no. 9:
MLAOS-00276 Comment
By Nancy Dorgan
6-19-05
LOG ITEM
# S\P
Pags__l,.....- of (~
e
e
/lJ1Jl Do you know whether applications are pending for govemmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by
your proposal? If yes;. explain.
PUD's answtlc: 00 not know of any pending applications for govt
approvals of other proposals In the service area.
Because the PUD still had an important 2002 water right application pending with
the Department of Ecology for for Marrowstone, the answer to Checklist
Question no. 9 clearly indicates that the PUD did not consider Marrowstone to be
part of the "service area" referred to or, more importantly, to be within the scope
of the 2004 WSP SEPA review. The PUD also had other applications pending
during the time of that SEPA review for water rights transfers related to use of
the airport test-well to for the Qulmper Water System, which was to include
Marrowstone at some future time.
Another example from the 2004 SEPA documents showing that Marrowstone
wasn't part of the programmatic-level review is found in a PUD statement in the
\'I Ground' section:
"Implementation of the water system plan does not necessltim I~sed
withdrawals of ground water nor din;ctly result In increased di$,harge to
gr(lJJn,d water but Instead provides evidence that the utility can supply
water to meet additional demand projected In the County Comprehensive
Plan. II
[Emphasis added]
This statement COlIld only be accurate If Marrowstone were excluded from the
scope of the SEPA review, because to assume otherwise contradicts the PUD's
SEPA conclusions and the obvious: (t}." that the PUD had already asked DOE
for greater ground water withdrawals to be used for Marrowstone, (2)... that out-
of-basin water of the publiC system would increase overall consumption, 3)...
that greater consumption would result in overall increased discharge of ground
water, and (4)... that since neither the PUD nor Jefferson County require well-
decommissioning as a condition of public water service, people are allowed to
"double-dip" limited water resources, using unmetered groundwater for outside
irrigation and other uses, while stili on public water.
The importance of the limited scope of the programmatic 2004 SEPA allowed the
PUD to avoid any Marrowstone-related SEPA challenges. The PUD safely moved
the expansion process forward, converting Marrowstone from an undesignated
MLAOS-QOZ76 COmment
By Nancy Dorgan
6-1g..oS
2
#
Page
LC)G ITEM
5~
~ _of~
e
e
area of any kind in the CWSP to being designated as a PUO Future Service Area
in the amended WSP.
The 2004 SEPA documents promised separate future SEPA review of all capital
projects in the WSP, even those categorically SEPA-exempt, so concerned
citizens had to wait on both counts for another SEPA process to comment on
and/or appeal SEPA condusions of a future process that hopefully would actually
study the impacts of the proposed system.
However, that anticipated programmatic review has subsequently been side
stepped. What is actually happening right now is a SEPA-",mpt review of
construction permits with no prior programmatIc basis, contrary to SEPA
requirements.
The PUD's 2004 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (ONS) for the adoption
of their WSP relied on a prior "approval" of its water service area maps under a
separate process to amend the CountYs Coordinated Water System Plan. The
DNS stated it was for:
ljq non-project action to update the Distrlct's 1998 Water System Plan for
Public UtIlity District #1 of Jefferson County (District) for all the District's
public water systems. The update Incorporates revisions to the Jefferson
County Coordinated Water System Plan that were approved in 2004. u
"Location of Proposal: All designated water service areas contained wIthin
the boundaries of the District (Jefferson County) as well as areas
undesignated as servIce areas within the remaInder of the District as per
the Jefferson COunty Coordinated Water System Plan. n
As discussed earlier, the scope of the 2004 SEPA excluded Marrowstone. The
revisions to the CWSP that the DNS referred to above are a set of maps,
including Marrowstone, that were approved April 2151: by the Water Utilities
Coordinating Committee (WUCC), whose job it is under State law to make local-
level approvals of proposed changes to the CountYs Coordinated Water System
Plan (CWSP) before the Department of Health makes its final approval. The
WUCC approval not involve SEPA review. Its members didn't even discuss the
"coordination" problem of the service area voids in the Quimper peninsula
caused by the PUD de-designating some areas without a replacement purveyor.
While the County had conducted SEPA of the present 1997 CWSP, the current
update process underway now for several years by the WUCC was stili not far
enough along for another County SEPA review, so the WUCC approved the PUDts
service area changes apart 'rom the update. On June Sthl WUCC Chairman Dan
Tittemess forwarded those maps to DOH for final approval. DOH Planner Karen
MLAOS..Q0276 Commen't
By Nancy Dorgan
6~1!H)5 LOG iTEM
# S\o
Page \..( _of ( <..f
3
e
e
Klocke then denied review of those maps in a July 28, 2004 letter to Mr.
Titterness, stating they were not detailed enough and that revised maps could be
included with the pending CS'NP update.
If that had happened as she requested, then the County as lead agency would
have conducted SEPA of the proposed water service area changes, and things
might have been back on track for programmatic review of the Marrowstone
system. Howeverl even at that, Marrowstone could still have only been
identified as a PUD Future Service Area. But at least there was stm the
pOSSibility that the County's SEPA Checklist and SEPA condusions might not have
excluded the environmental impacts of actually building the system, as did the
PUD's 2004 SEPA review of i~ WSP.
As things happened, however, the rejected maps were not returned to DOH by
the WUCC for approval as part as the CSWP update, but from the PUD, and DOH
assumed they had WUCC approyal. See attached 6-3-05 email to me from Karen
Klocke in which she mistakenly stated: "When Jefferson PUD updated their WS~
they (PUD) submitted improved maps that they received from the wucc,t .
That was a serious error on the part of both DOH and the PUD, because between
April 21,2004 when the WUCC approved the first set of maps and that emall,
there was no WUCC meeting in which the second approval could have occurred.
Nor has there been sincej making the DOH-approved WSP service area maps
inconsistent with the adopted CWSP service area maps approved by the WUCC.
Based on faulty information and the replacement maps, DOH subsequently
approved the PUD's WSP and its service areas.
Compounding that error and further removing Marrowstone from any substantive
SEPA review, DOH then made fundamental policy reversal about amending that
WSP to include Marrowstone. On April 30, 20051 I had a telephone conference
with DOH Regional Engineer Jerrod Davis and DOH Regional Planner Karen
Klocke about various issues I had raised with them about the PUD's WSP. Mr.
Davis told me during that conversation that DOH had decided not to require a
Marrowstone amendment for the PUD's WSP. Instead, he said DOH only
required an '"Engineering Report", a lesser procedure used for projects not
already covered in a water system plan. This decision was contrary to his earlier
email to me on February 28,2005, in which he specifically stated:
liThe details of the proposed Marrowstone Island water system are not
Included in the Water System Plan. The PUD is required to submit il
Water S~ Plan Amendment that will include the engineeri~
Including an updated capacity analysl$ and construction documents for
the proposed system. "
MLAOS-00276 Comment
By Nancy Dorga n
6-19-05
4
#
Page
LOG ITEM
~
s:.o~
e
e
Later, in an April 19, 2005 email, he had also stated:
tires" we will be taking another look at the capadty when the PUD
submits fl1I1 W$P Amendment for NilIT9t'l6t9ne Island. However, I
am not sure if this Amendment would trigger SEPA. Since the PUD Is the
lead agency.. they will determine whether this is necessa~ We only
receive SEPA comment letters If they are sent to us by Individuals or
organizations. n
Amendments to water system plans now require SEPA review, but under its
agency WAC's, as you know, DOH does not require SEPA review for Engineering
Reports for major extensions using 8ft or which is the case in
MLAOS-00276. In the conference caU on April Davis also told me that
DOH considered the Marrowstone information already in the WSP, combined with
the recently received Engineering Report, to be sufficient for their review and
approval. That approval is also part of MLAOS-00276, and that is the same
Engineering Report that citizens were nQt able to obtain from the PUD during this
public comment period. I am unable to comment on lts contents as they relate
to the issues of programmatic SEPA or the various permits under MLAOS..,00276.
For that reason alone, the public comment period should be re-noticed
after all documents, including the wetlands delineation and analysis
that you requested of the PUD in April are available to the public as
well as DeD for review and comment, but the comment period sbould
also be renoticed as a SEPA review I
DOH's approval of both the WSP and now the pending approval of the
Engineering report do not Include any SEPA review of the environmental impacts
of the Marrowstone system. DOH merely accepted the PUlYs DNS! WSP! and the
replacement maps. We don't even know If the PUD forwarded to DOH any of the
public's WSP SEPA comment letters.
To recap, no Marrowstone SEPA has ever been conducted by the PUD, the
WUCC, Jefferson County DCDI or DOH. NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED NARROWSTONE SYSTEM HAVE BEEN STUDIED YET.
ceDIs review of MLA05-00276 is now based on the faulty assumption that proper
programmatic SEPA review of the Marrowstone System has been conducted. It
has not, and it would be totally inappropriate now to declare that project SEPA-
exempt even if none of the Bit pipes were going to be underwater! which is not
yet known because the PUO has not provided the DCD-requested wetlands
MLAOS-00276 Comment
By Nancy Dorgan
6~19-05
5
LOG ITEM
# S1t:'
Page (e . Of-Li
.
e
e
delineation and analysis. AlsoI SEPA-exemption for MLA05-002761s inappropriate
because of the no work that has not yet been done to identify, anatyze1 and
mitigate the broad impacts of a Marrowstone water system within the broader
context of watershed planning for Jefferson County.
Accordingly, one of the most significant probable impacts of the project is
stealing water from already water-impaired Chimacum Creek Basin - taking it
from endangered salmonspedes. Imported Chimacum water will to fuel growth
on Marrowstone, bringing with it the attendant impacts of growth such as traffic,
polhition, and habitat loss on Marrowstone as well as in the Chimacum BaSin.
On the basis of a WSP that has ngt studied any of these impacts! Chlmacum
water is also to be pumped out-of-basin contrary to the Department of Ecology's
draft In-stream-f1ow WAC for a "Reserve" Water Right, which ratchets down
other state regulations that altow a purveyor to transfer sources throughout its
service area and would now limit use to within the basin of origin:
WAC J73-5J7-080
ReservatiDIf$ of ground water for future domestic uses.
(5) ThIS reserve of ground water shall be allocated based on the
7-090. [Note:
Chimacum is a management lIrea In K1RlA 17] These reservations of
watershall only be put to beneficial use within the reservation
management areas as defined by this chapter. Domestic reserve
water withdrawals for purposes outside of WRIA 1 ~ Including transfers
between reservation management a~ are RDt allowed. If an
entity using water under these reservations permanently ceases use and
notifies the department within five years of the last use, the water may be
credited back to the appropriate reservation. H {Emphasis added]
Only Fort Flagler State Park on Marrowstone Island is currently served by the
waterline that crosses under Kilisut Harbor from Indian Island over to the park~
where Chimacum water is stored in the new reservoir built for the Park and the
Marrowstone expansion. According to the WSP, the PUD also anticipates
building a 1.5 million gallon reservoir on Indian Island to store even more
Chimacum water. Whether that storage capacity is for replenishing Navy ships
and/or for Marrowstone at build-out~ we don't know, because of the scope of the
2004 SEPA. However, The line between Indian Istand and Ragler is old and has
been described by locals as leaking, thus wasting precious water that should be
retained as salmon habitat in Chlmacum Creek. That undefllVater line needs
replaCing now before it is pressed to supply the entire island. However, the
PUD/s piecemeal phasing of Its permit applications for the overall Marrowstone
MLAOS-D0276 Comment
By Nancy Dorgan
6-19-05
6
LOG ITEM
# S~
Page-l-ofJ.,<:L
e
e
system has kept that pipe-replacement project out of public review, contrary to
SEPA's requirement to include all known aspects and impacts of a proposal in a
cumulative, not sequential manner. If an underwater pipe had been part of
MLA05-00276, there would be no SEPA exemption for any lines, which is why It
was left out of the proposal.
While excluding all of the Marrowstone system from its programmatic review, the
SEPA Checklist simultaneously stated that future SEPA review for all capital
projects would be done by the PUD, even those projects that were classified as
SE PA-exem pt. But now, the PUD Commission has refused to honor that promise
and direct its staff to conduct project-level SEPA on the Marrowstone pipeline.
That, however, does not exempt the County from following its own SEPA rules
for its review of this project.
Disturbing and displadng that much soU in dry or watered ditches adjacent to, or
leading to critical areas Is not an activity that should be exempt from SEPA,
especially given the nasty pollutants associated with roadways where the
construction will occur and where contaminants will surely be dislodged into the .
environment. W~t are the pOSSible impacts to shellfish beds, wetlands, distant
springs, and existing wens from the soil and water disturbance of this
construction project? It is now the County's job to find out.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I would appreciate receiving
notices of any future hearings and copies of future decisions.
Sincerely f
Nancy Dorgan
2137 Washington St. #7
Port Townsend, WA 9836
Attachments:
1-21-03 Email from Karen Klocke to Nancy Dorgan
3-04 PUD Map no. 2 of 2 for Proposed Quimper Service Area Boundaries
7-28-04 Letter from Karen Klocke, DOH, to Dan T1tterness, WUCC Chair
2-28-05 EmaU from Jerrod Davis to Nancy Dorgan
+ 19-05 EmaU from Jerrod Davis to Nancy Dorgan
6-3-05 Email from Karen Klocke to Nancy Dorgan
MI.AOS-0027& Comment
By Nancy Dorgan
6-19-05
LOG ITEM
p~ge i~Of.J4-
e
e
ofl
Nane~DorQ.n
From:
To:
Cc:
"Klocke, Karen" <KarertKJocke@DOH,WAGOV>
'.Nancy Dorgan'" <ndorgan@waypointoom>
'Vazquez, Michele" <Michele,VazqueZ@DOHWA.GOV>; "Davis, Jarrod"
<Jerrod.Davis@DOH.WA.GOV>
Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:43 PM
SEPA
$ent:
Subject:
Recently you raised a question regarding SEPA review. You questioned
whether or not a system submitting WSP amendments for systems of 1000 or
more connections needed to go through the SEPA process.
In the past, we (DOH) have not required SEPA review for an amendment
Lilia Lopez (our Assistant Attorney General) indicated that the requirement
for SEPA review applies to 'approval' of plans should also apply to
amendments of those plans, 1f this didn't apply. then someone could work
around the SEPA process by not initially including something in the WSP and
later putting it into an amendment
>From this date forward, we wil be requiring systems with 1000 or more
connections to submit SEPA documentation for both WSPs and amendments.
Thank you for raising this question. If you have any other questions,
please feel free to cail or e-mail me.
Karen J. Klocke
Regional Planner
WSDOH, Div. of Drinking Water
Southwest Regional Office
P.O.B.47823
Olympia! WA 98504-7833
(360) 664-2999
FAX 360-664-8058
** The Department of Health works to protect and improve the health of
people in Washington State-
LOG ITEM
# ,5 to
Page-J_of~
o
I
:
SCAlE IN FEET
H'}() 00
I
ITllIIJ
LOG ITEM
# SCo
of2
e
e
Dan
Jefferson
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend. Washington
Dear Tittemess:
Subject
The June 8, 2004,
lack sufficient detail
names of the streets and state \\'hether
service area maps and include
Water Regional Planner
cc: Marc Horton, EES
Jim Parker, F.E.,
lerrod Davis, ODW
Michele Vazquez. ODW
LOG ITEM
# (')~
Page -J l_ of (~
e
e
Page 1 of 1
Nancl Dorgan
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Oavis, Jerrod" <Jerrod.Davis@DOaWAGOV>
"'Nancy m>
Monday, PM
RE: DOH approval of Jeffoo PUO draft WSP ... and Marrowstone
PM
PUD draft WSP ... and Ma~
Have you had a chance to find oot wl1e1her DOH's approval of the PUD's Plan included 00 analysis for the n.ew
Marrowstooe Island he Plan was sent to DOH for rwiew befo ally 'II'ded (April) for
the $tatu:s is now. That Feb. '04 draft had a tot of referenCM to a Marrowstooo system, but
is it officially in the plan flOW as far 8$ DOH Is concerned, Of wtll It have to be added later as an amendment iffwhen the PUD
increases its capacity?
I need this information ASAP
busy couk:! you forward the
Many thanks,
Nancy
LOG ITEM
# ,)(0
Page ~ _of11-
e
e
Page 1 of4
Nanc~ Do~~n
From:
To:
Cc:
nOaviS, Jermdn <Jerrod.Davis@DOH.WAGOV>
n'Nancy Dorgan""
; "Klooke, Karen"
<Karen. H.WAGOV>
Tuesday, April 19, 20058:48 AM
RE: DOH approval of Jeffoo pun draft WSP ... and Marrowstone
you.
Jf?frod
]
OBi 2005 10:05 PM
To: Davis, Jerrod
ley, .:lames:
. Re: DOH approval of Jeffco PUD draft WSf> ... and Ma~one
Hi Jerroc:l,
I've been out of k:Mm for a few: days, and was ~ to find your ~t email when I ~med. The the 4,906
population number. I think, is the difference between the "TriArea'" and the 00
only a bl~afea USA. Including Chimac::um was
tram the Mal adopted boundary. The ~e ~~tmt 2 of the CP usOO a 25% "matket-fa.otor" to super-size the bi.area
#_ .S~ 6119/2005
Page-C~ofl~
e
e
Page 1 of2
Nancy Dorgan
From;
TO':
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Klocke, Karen" <Karen. Klocke@DOH.WA.GOV>
"'Nancy rom>
OHWAGOV>
From: Nancy Dorgan [maHto:ndorganOwayplrom]
Sent: friday, June 03, ;mos 2:13 PM
To: KlO<::ke, Karen
Subj<<t: Re: Jeffco CWSP revision scope
Nancy
Original Message -
From: Klocke, Karen
To: 'Nancy Dorgan'
Cc: Davis, Jerrod
Sent: Friday, June 03. 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: Jeffee CWSP revision scope
LOG ITEM
# Sl.o
Page~-LS{__ of ll{
611712005