HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog178
December 23,2005
RECEIVED
DEe 2 3 2005
Dept. of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
JEffERSON COUNlY Den
Attention: David Johnson
Re: Comments for the Record - MLA 05-00276 Marrowstone Island Water System
SDP05-00014 and ZON0500027
David:
Environmentallmpacts/SEPA
MLA 05-00276 concerns me because of its environmental impacts to the hydrology of
Marrowstone and the Chimacum Creek Basin -- the future source of water for
Marrowstone. I am doubly concerned because SEPA has not been used to review or
mitigate probable impacts of the new water system on wetlands, shorelines, or
Chimacum Creek. The environmental impact questions the PUD left unanswered,
answered wrongly, or considered not applicable in its faulty its Water System Plan
(WSP) SEPA Checklist update remain unanswered.
The PUD then reneged on its multiple WSP SEPA Checklist statements to conduct
future SEPA for all capital projects (including Marrowstone) -- even those that were
SEPA exempt. Like the PUD, your department (DCD) has now twice refused to
conduct SEPA for the Marrowstone system and has twice noticed MLA 05-00276 as
SEPA-exempt. DOH has been less consistent, changing its mind several times about
whether or not to require a programmatic Marrowstone WSP amendment with SEPA.
Instead, DOH is now only requiring a Project Report sans SEPA.
Environmentally, MLA 05-00276 addresses some (but not all) water quality and
quantity problems on Marrowstone (saltwater intrusion, dry wells) by creating more
water problems in the Chimacum Creek Basin, the water source for Marrowstone. A
series of public agencies to date (PUD, DCD, DOH) have each in turn violated public
interest and public trust by narrowly looking at their respective areas of review and
finding such SEPA issues as wetland disturbance, Puget Sound pollution, impairment
of Chimacum Creek instream flows to be irrelevant to their particular decision-making.
MLA 05-00276 Comments
Nancy Dorgan
Page 1 of 6
LOG \TENl
# Lr~
Page._ \ _oth..
While the PUD may have sufficient inchoate water rights for Marrowstone, those water
rights are not an unconditional license to further impair Chimacum Creek.
Unmitigated use of inchoate rights for Marrowstone and other county development
was not factored into the WRIA 17 Planning Unit's recommended instream flows for
Chimacum Creek. Those 2005 numbers have not yet been adopted by rule by DOE
and need to be revised to reflect significantly increased future PUD withdrawals from
the Sparling well, only 750 feet from Chimacum Creek.
Moreover, the WRIA 1 7 Technical Assessment completed in 2000 predates and does
not include water needs analysis for subsequent land use changes such as the
Hadlockflrondale UGA, agricultural rezones for 220 parcels, or 2004 Comprehensive
Plan revisions for future increased commercial/industrial development at the airport.
Water within and in hydraulic continuity with Chimacum Creek is being tasked to serve
all these new development needs plus hundreds of exempt wells and water rights in
the basin. That amount of groundwater withdrawal is not possible while also
protecting instream flows in Chimacum Creek and other beneficial uses.
A legitimate and thorough SEPA process to identify impacts to the Chimacum Creek
Basin should precede final approval of MLA-00276.
Phasing
The County's two Notices of Application described the construction project as being
"throughout Marrowstone Island". The Notices did not describe a phasing process
whereby some permits for some areas ("Phase 1") are to be issued independently of
other permits for the rest of the Island ("Phase 2"). "Phase 1" and "Phase 2" are PUD
terms of convenience that are not clearly identified in the record for this project or the
WSP. Also, the PUD appears to be under the impression that the County will
cooperate and issue corresponding permits in "phases". For example, in his Oct. 25,
2005 memo to you, PUD Manager Jim Parker stated:
"We envision construction to be in phases, thereby allowing us to obtain
easements and permits for the more challenging areas as we are working on
the more straight forvvard portions of the project."
That memo also requested that the shorelines aspects of both "phases" (areas) be
consolidated for the still-unscheduled shorelines hearing:
"Because this project is becoming time sensitive we are requesting to hold the
public hearing for the entire island for the shoreline permit. We also wish to
have the JARPA sent forvvard to the different agencies for the entire island less
those areas that were identified on the wetland reconnaissance that have not
been addressed by the PUD yet."
MLA 05-00276 Comments
Nancy Dorgan
Page 2 of 6
#
Page.
LOG \TEM
\~
L-. ot (y.
At an earlier point in the process, the PUD anticipated doing phase 1 and 2
construction at the same time. Section 3.3.3.3 of the Marrowstone Project Report
submitted to DOH indicates that phase 1 and phase 2 are integral aspects of one
project:
"During phase 2 of improvements, which we hope happens simultaneously with
phase 1, the system will be tied to the Quimper water system... via an 8 inch
line running the distance of the south end of Indian Island, or will connect to the
Indian Island 700,000 water tank via an 8 inch water line".
Similarly, the PUD's April 19,2005 cover letter to DOH for the submission of its
Marrowstone Project Report stated:
"The WSP shows the water main going down SRl16, however, fails to show it
going to other areas of the Island." "A/though the project is simply extending
water mains on Marrowstone Island, there are a large number of coordinating
actions that are involved" in "separate engineer report(s)", [e.g. acquisition of
the Flagler water system/storage tank] and "drilling of new wells to provide
additional source for the anticipated increase in connections. "
[Significantly, the April 19th letter also states: "Part of this report is a proposed
amendment to the WSP that was not submitted. It is now only to be used as a
reference for this project and not as an actual amendment to the WSP." The
PUD is hoping that such a "reference" will keep the Marrowstone system under
the SEPA radar.]
Please clarify DCD's intentions regarding phasing in your Staff Report.
Application Not Complete
Scheduling a January Shorelines hearing before the Hearings Examiner without a
complete application would be premature and inappropriate. The first comment
period for MLA 05-00276 earlier this year was faulty because the project file was
incomplete, lacking a DCD-requested critical areas analysis. When this comment
period ends, the file will still be incomplete, containing only the very faulty "Phase 1"
Wetlands Report. So DCD must eventually schedule a third comment period after the
remaining wetlands information is submitted. The completed file should also include
the Biological Evaluation (BE) being done for the Corps of Engineers permit.
The public must be allowed to review that information before any permit decisions are
made. A copy of DOH's still-pending approval of the PUD Project Report, including
approval of the capacity of the Quimper Water System to serve Marrowstone Island,
will also be a significant addition to the project file, as you will not be allowed to issue
permits until DOH finished its approval.
MLA 05-00276 Comments
Nancy Dorgan
Page 3 of 6
LOG ITElVi
# \~~
Page_ -'3 -ot~
Consistency of MLA 05-00276 with Jefferson County Code
And Comprehensive Plan
As I explained in earlier comments to the record, the PUD's Marrowstone service area
has not yet been properly approved as an amendment to the Jefferson County
Coordinated Water System Plan. MLA 05-00276 must be consistent with Code
Section 18.30.030(1) - Water Supplies:
"All development must conform to the requirements of the Jefferson County
health department and the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan
regarding the availability and provision of water".
The Comprehensive Plan also contains CWSP references relevant for MLA 05-00276
consistency:
· CP Environmental Element ENP 3.1: "Work with the Water Utilities
Coordinating Committee to revise the Coordinated Water System Plan for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, in order to provide a safe and
adequate water supply for County residents and other uses in balance with the
protection of environmental functions of water resources."
· CP Utilities Element UTP 5.4 "Update the adopted Jefferson County
Coordinated Water System Plan (1997) incorporating the adopted land use,
population allocations, and pertinent policy identified in the Comprehensive
Plan."
· CP Land Use Rural Element LNP 9.2 "Periodically review and update the
Coordinated Water System Plan (CWsP) to ensure consistency with the joint
population projection and all land use designations."
The 1997 Jefferson County CWSP is still out of date. The multi-year Water Utilities
Coordination Committee/consultant update process stopped in April'04. Completion
of this update is still needed before MLA 05-00276 approval. As Judge Williams
ruled in the lawsuit over formation of the Marrowstone LUD:
"The Court finds that formation of the LUD is not precluded even though at the
time of the formation of the LUD the specific improvements contemplated were
not within the specific provisions of the public water system coordination act or
the PUD's own water service plan. Those plans must be amended, however,
prior to any construction of the proposed LUD."
Neither the County's Coordinated Water System Plan nor the PUD's Water System
Plan referred to in that ruling have yet been appropriately amended. The still-pending
DOH approval of the Marrowstone Project Report will be an "amendment" of sorts of
the WSP, but various CWSP text and map changes remain before MLA 05-00276
could be considered consistent with than plan:
MLA 05-00276 Comments
Nancy Dorgan
Page 4 of 6
LOG ITEM
# r:ro
Page ~ 4- otiL
· CWSP Section 10.8.3:
"Very little public water service exists on Marrowstone Island. While
significant new public water system might be possible. the addition of
only about 80 new dwellings to serve about 175 people over the next
20 years may not justify such a system. Consequently, the area will rely
on groundwater sources, which are already under threat by possible
overdrafting and seawater intrusion.
· CWSP Section 10.9 Planning AssumptionsJor Marrowstone:
"Can the Marrowstone Island aquifers continue to produce at the rate
they are currently producing? That question and others related to the
seawater intrusion or (naturally occurring) higher than normal salt
content of Island supplies will need to be addressed. It may be possible
for continued development at the rate envisioned by growth planners,
but perhaps not. Currently, not enough information exists to close the
aquifer to further withdrawals. Incremental additions to the population
appear to be the pathway for the future as new information is
developed" .
· Section 10.10 Jefferson County Water Supply strdtegy
"Rural Areas with Special Supply Problems (Marrowstone Island)
"Residents of Marrowstone Island should pursue evaluation of a
Restricted Flow Water System. In doing so, a variety of policy and
institutional questions will need to be answered. Among these are: Will
there be sufficient growth to support such a system? Who will manage
the system? What should be the design capacity of the system? Where
will the water come from? To answer these and other questions,
residents of Marrowstone Island should work with the City, the PUD, and
the County. With cooperation, the future character of, and water supply
for, Marrowstone Island can be determined.
...A Restricted Flow Water System, appropriately sized and supported by
County zoning, could provide a more certain future and adequate water
at a reasonable cost".
· The CWSP, p. 10-8, also contains detailed references to the
Dungeness/Quilcene Plan and its "Impact on CWsP Planninq and
Implementation: Adoption by Jefferson County, Port Townsend, and the
Jefferson County PUD",
"As such, the efforts, required by law, as part of the development of a
CWSP and individual system plans were seen as integral to the
implementation of the DQ Plan. Given the endorsements of the County,
City, and PUD, this process should include development of a CWSP that
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and tasks outlined in the DQ
Plan. Should any activity under this CWsP or a related planning activity
MLA 05-00276 Com ments
Nancy Dorgan
Page 5 of 6
LOG ITEIVI
# ~~B
Page ~ .5 otk-
require or couse a modification to any of these endorsements, then such
modification should be made or the DQ plan should be adjusted."
But instead of required actual coordinated countywide water resources planning, it
appears Jefferson County will allow a major new water system to be built without even
SEPA review.
.
Nancy Dorgan
2137 Washington St. #7
Port Townsend, WA (via email)
Cc: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
John Fischbach - Jefferson County Executive
Fred Brower, Bonnie Waybright, and Karen Klocke - WA State Dept. of Health
Jeff Davis and Shelly Ament - WA State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jeffree Stewart, Marie Peters, Phil Wiatrek, and Joe Stohr -WA State Dept of
Ecology
Jessie Winkler - US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch
Dale Severson - WA State Dept of Transportation
MLA 05-00276 Comments
Nancy Dorgan
Page 6 of 6
LOG ITEIVI
# {?-e
Page~ot~