Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog168 Page 1 of 5 David W. Johnson From: willi and/or janet [aloha@olympus.net] Sent: Friday, December 23,20059:27 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject: comments on MLA 05-00276 December 22, 2005 Janet Welch Box 194 Nordland, W A 98358 To Whom it May Concern This letter addresses some of my concerns about MLA05-276, the project to install a public water system on Marrowstone Island. Regardless of one's stance on the need for public water on Marrowstone Island, all Jefferson County residents must be assured that there is enough water available to not jeopardize development in the Tri Area (eventual) urban growth area, that the installation of the Marrowstone system does not adversely impact wetlands, shorelines and other sensitive areas, and that we have a unified understanding of what is being proposed/permitted. We have learned recently that, in the case of "Fort Discovery", the project applicant, the neighbors, and Jefferson County had minimal common understanding of the scope of the project. The unexpected consequences of a poorly defined proposal will likely place the County, the PUD and the public in adversarial roles. Lets not repeat that mistake. Not Exempt from Requirements. The UDC, Section 3.6.9 governs the protection of wetlands. Under 3.6.9 c (1) the installation of utilities is not considered an exempt activity. The installation of utilities, similarly, is not considered an exempt activity in the more general application of regulations in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, UDC Section 3.6.4. Nor is the project exempt from the Shoreline Management Master Program (Section 3.402) Thus, the proposal is regulated under these sections. Incomplete and Factually Flawed Application. The application is for the entire Marrowstone system, "Because this project is becoming time sensitive we are requesting to hold the public hearing for the entire island for the shoreline permit." Log item 108, pg. 1. The application is not a request for a permit to install a portion of the eventual system. However, the PUD has planned to install the system in phases and critical parts of the application are incomplete for portions of the project beyond the "phase 1". Reflecting their inconsistent use of phasing in the project application, the PUD submitted only the Phase 1 wetland delineation along with merely the scope of work for the Phase 2 delineation. In a disingenuous gesture, the PUD tried to assure the County that this hearing process will be repeated when they initiate future phases. "Before starting followup phases that are within wetland buffer areas, we would submit for permits from the County". Log item 108. The PUD cannot seek a permit for the entire project while failing to provide data needed for review of the entire project and while making false claims that there will be additional project permitting in the future. A complete review of the project, in its entirety, must precede the issuance of the permit to LOG ITEM # (CoS 12/23/2005 Page --L- ot5:- Page 2 of 5 construct all phases of the project. Neither the County nor the public can adequately review and comment where data is not available during the public comment period and certainly the County cannot issue a permit based on an incomplete application. In the project report, the POO states that the purpose of the project is to "solve seawater intrusion". Piped water can impact groundwater resources two ways. One, the beneficial one, is to reduce groundwater withdrawal in the service area. The other, the insidiously dangerous one, enables people to drink the piped water and continue to use the increasingly compromised groundwater for non-drinking consumptive purposes. The second outcome is almost guaranteed when, as is the case in this project, the hooking up to public water is not tied to the decommissioning of wells. If we are going to spend up to $10 million on piped water on Marrowstone under the guise of solving seawater intrusion, we cannot condone the continued or expanded withdrawal of groundwater to irrigate flowers or wash cars. Homeowners that choose not to hook-up must have their water rights protected from irresponsible well pumping after public water becomes available. The decommissioning of wells on parcels served by the pipeline must be required as a component of the project. Additionally, the application describes the Marrowstone system as being an 'extension' of the Quimper water system. It is not possible, however, to extend the Quimper system to Marrowstone because the Quimper system terminates miles from Marrowstone Island. Between the Quimper system and Marrowstone Island are two non-POO systems, one being the system owned by the US Government on Indian Island, and the other owned by the State of Washington serving Fort Flagler. The POO's liberal use of the term 'extension' was conceived when the POO was pursuing the purchase of the Indian Island and Flagler Systems. Efforts to purchase of the Indian Island system ended without the agreement of the government to sell the system or to enter into a MOU for POO control of the system. Thus, there is no 'extension' possible as applied for. The POO cannot propose to add 900 hookups to a military use system over which it has no control. A comprehensive description of the project is not included in the application. For example, installing a pipe to each parcel, as proposed, will require hundreds of branch pipelines which will cross the road to serve lots lying opposite the pipeline. The impacts from this element of the project are not discussed in the application. In addition to being incomplete, the application contains obsolete information, such as the parcel map. That map has a 'revision' date of 11/15/05 (apparently having been produced the day of submittal since it is the same as the date stamp received by the County). The actual age of the map, based on the pending short plats shown on the map, is 10-15 years old. The pending short plats, and many additional ones since that date, have resulted in numerous parcels which are not shown. Wetland Delineation Methodology. The wetland delineation methodology used by Parametrix does not accurately or sufficiently identify the wetlands and their buffers in the project area. The OOC 3.6.9 d (2) i. requires that "the location of the wetland and its boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation..." However, the Delineation Report states that the identification of wetlands was limited to wetlands adjacent to the right of way. "The wetland boundaries within approximately 20 feet of the edge of the pavement were delineated with sequentially numbered, bright pink flagging. Only those portions of wetlands within the utility right of way were delineated". (Delineation, page 2-1) With standard wetland buffer widths ranging from 25 to 150 feet (OOC Table 3-4), it would be necessary to investigate as least 150 feet from the road right of way to delineate buffers where high quality wetlands are suspected. One cannot state that the project is not in a wetland buffer if the delineation effort is limited to only the project footprint. As an aside, the delineatiot~er rr~at ~~ f -ote 12/23/2005 # Page Page 3 of 5 installation impacts to wetlands and buffers will only occur in mowed areas. "Wetland buffer impacts from the Phase 1 main installation will be limited to those areas that are currently regularly maintained (mowed) by County road crews." (Delineation, page 4-1) Besides being contradicted by the intention to install the pipeline, not on the mowed shoulder, but beyond the shoulder, this statement makes the assumption that an exempt activity literally paves the way for turning a blind eye to non-exempt actions. The UDC 3.6.4 f (1) v provides an exemption for mowing, "Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utility structures within a right-of-way or existing utility corridor or easements, including the cutting, removal and or mowing of vegetation above the ground." The exemption which exists to permit mowing does not provide a justification for treating non-exempt activities the same way. Similarly, the delineation report describes that the wetlands were classified based on the conditions found at the road right of way. Clearly, activities such as filling, grading, and alteration of vegetation-- activities which typically result in the downgrading of a wetland--are typical on or near rights of way. Accurate determination of the wetland classification requires that wetland conditions existing in unimpacted portions of the wetlands outside of the right of way be identified. The end result of the methodology used has been the failure to adequately identify wetland buffers which will be impacted by pipeline installation. The delineation is also internally contradictory. While stating "The project will avoid work in wetlands altogether." pg 5-1, it also states "HDD will be used for main installation in all sensitive areas where there is insufficient road shoulder width to avoid sensitive area impacts." pg. 4-1 The report also fails to include wetland buffers in most of the descriptions. See p.5-1 cited above and" ...the proposed water main installation will not include direct impacts (i.e., clearing, filling, or excavation) to any of the regulated wetlands in the Phase 1 project area." Note also that this statement, as is typical in the report, addresses only the water main installation and is silent on impacts associated with installation of the branch pipes installed to serve each parcel. Failure to plan for growth. The Shoreline Management Master Program, Section 5.200 (Utilities) Policy 3 states that "Utilities should be located to meet the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate this growth." Performance Standard 3 reiterates: "Utilities shall be designed and installed to meet future needs when possible" . The application avoids describing the capacity of the proposed water system, leaving us to read what we want to read. Although water right allocation is not under the jurisdiction of Jefferson County, planning for growth is. thus, when the application obscures the water allocation issue, it also obscures the data needed to determine whether the system is compliant with the Shoreline Program. It is a simple question but the application fails to state the most obvious aspect of a water system project: how many connections is the system designed for? Typically, water systems are designed to serve all existing parcels in a service area, and often have additional capacity for future lot creation. Marrowstone Island currently has 919 parcels, of which approximately 350 are currently built out. What does the PUD mean by proposing simply to "...make potable water available to all the residents"? Log item 26, reply #9. Every Marrowstone property owner has received preliminary assessment notices and will have to pay for the system, so the assumption is that the system is designed for at least 919 ERU. Planning for growth on Marrowstone Island would required that the system is designed for at least 900 ERD. However, we know that the Quimper water system does not have the capacity for 900 hookups, even if there were a morat01t~~ rrt!Ms in the t ~j ).:) . "'" f ..-- _""> 0 _..tL- 12/23/2005 # Page Page 4 of 5 Hadlock (future) Urban Growth Area. The application must state what the capacity of the system is so that it can be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Management Master Program requirements to plan for growth. Even though the application implies that it is designed for future growth, we know that the allocation of water resources means that, in addition to having inadequate capacity for ongoing buildout of existing parcels, the Quimper system could not even serve existing residences. Furthermore, the application does not address whether the system capacity includes non residential uses such as irrigation to the existing golf course or the agricultural uses which are currently serve by wells on the island for which there are water rights? In short, the application does not provide a clear accounting of how many hookups in the Quimper System will be allocated to Marrowstone versus Hadlock, other communities, and non-residential uses? Conflicting information on water resources. Although the governance of water resources falls to the Departments of Health and Ecology rather than Jefferson County, this application cannot fail to make a connection between project scope and water availability. Yet. the PUD's accounting of the availability of water resources is so poorly compiled that it is virtually impossible to understand water availability to the Quimper system. The Department of Health Office of Drinking Water (ODW) approved the PUD Water System Plan in a letter dated February 18,2005. ODW cites the Water System Plan analysis of system capacity, which says there are 1621 existing connections and 2438 approved connections. However, the approval letter, page 2, acknowledges the Department of Ecology's finding of 'discrepancies with the water right self assessments included in the WSP". The letter then states "ODW's approval is subject to subsequent determinations by Ecology concerning the water rights for this system, which may require submittal of additional planning documents or other submittals to ODW." Concurrently, on February 17, 2005, the PUD submitted a report to DOH to consolidate and rename the Tri-Area system (Quimper System). The 'final approval' letter from ODW to the PUD dated March 8, 2005 updates (and reduces) the total system capacity "On the basis of the design analysis for this project, which was prepared by your engineer and approved by this department, the Quimper water system is approved to serve 2,200 equivalent residential units (ERUs)." (bold original) Subsequent to the March 8 letter, the PUD updated it Water Facilities Inventory Form, and claimed that it had 2038 installed service connections and a total of 2626 approved connections. The inventory materially conflicts with the Water System Plan produced only a few months prior. Even though the number of existing connections allegedly increased by 25% in the inventory, the ERUs were still under- reported. The inventory form said that there were 2828 single family connections---but that there were no multifamily service connections, only 1 school, and no agriculture in the service area. Numerous apartment complexes exist in Port Hadlock, and all of them would have many ERU's per service connection. The same is true for the missing school, agricultural enterprises, and many commercial activities. Thus the 2038 service connections equates to a higher number of ERUs. The mounting evidence that the system is currently near capacity (without consideration of the Marrowstone connections) is obscured by both the constantly shifting system capacity analysis and inconsistent application of ERU's vs. connection. The PUD continues to claim a system capacity higher than the 2200 ERU approval, even reiterating the obsolete 2626 capacity in a letter to Jefferson County this month. Log item 141, pg 1. In addition to its failure to submit, in its application to the County, an accurate accounting of the number of connections in the approved system, the PUD failed to provide documentati(e~''1'!!fE1fce of # {Cog 12/23/2005 Page3-otS==: Page 5 of 5 water rights needed to serve additional connections. In the 12/1/05 letter to Jefferson County, Jim Parker states 'We were going with our new airport well, which can produce 180 gpm, but alas DOE has not yet approved (sic), so we are going with 600 gpm additional treatment at the Sparling. DOH has reviewed and OKed our plan." Log item 141, pg. 1. The approval Mr. Parker references is a letter from ODW dated 10/27/05 which states the opposite of Mr. Parker's claim "If this project is intended to increase production of the Sparling Well #2, please complete and submit the enclosed Water Rights Self Assessment form." Log item 141, pg. 4. Par from approving a 600 gpm increase from the Sparling well, the ODW made it very clear that the PUD did NOT have approval. It is not the responsibility of Jefferson County to assure that Marrowstone residents will have water flowing in the pipes that we are paying so dearly for, but neither can the County abrogate its responsibility to be very clear in the issuance of the county permits for this project. We cannot have a repeat performance of the County issuing permits for a project of one scale and then have the activity grow (or shrink) out of proportion with the permit as has been the case with Port Discovery. We residents of Marrowstone need to know that the water will flow to each and every parcel. If this project is of a smaller scale, we need to know. If it a larger scale, the Hadlock UGA needs to know. Thank you for considering these matters, Janet Welch. R.S. 12/2312005 LOG ITEM # [C-. 8 Page . ~of... ;-...