HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog188
Page 1 of 4
David W. Johnson
From: bill graham [bgraham@jeffpud.org]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 3:34 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: General responses to Marrowstone questions
Response To Citizen Comment Themes
Aquifer
1) The EPA designated Marrowstone Island a "Sole Source Aquifer" in 1994. The level of soil
disturbance this project would create would prevent and/or damage the recharge
of ground water by blocking and disrupting the natural hydraulic flow.
Soil disturbance can actually enhance the infiltration of water locally as it aerates the soils and if they
are not compacted. Since the soils that will be temporarily disturbed will be within existing ditchlines,
surface and subsurface drainages will not be appreciably disturbed. The curved cylindrical surface of
the water pipelines and pervious bed of the ditch does not pose an appreciable impervious barrier or
disturbance to natural flow.
2) Protection of the Aquifer supersedes installation of a water system.
The statement implies that aquifer protection and the development of a water system are somehow
incompatible. This is of course is not true. It is the proliferation of unregulated, permit-exempt private
wells that has led to the degradation of the aquifer. The aquifer protection regulations promulgated
through Growth Management as well as Sole Source Aquifer Designation are designed to protect
drinking water sources of private wells and public water systems, and in this case the protection scheme
has failed necessitating a the development of the water system. This question is not particularly
pertinent to the shoreline permit application.
3) It is questionable whether a water system will solve the sea water intrusion problem unless existing
wells are to be decommissioned.
This assumes that the purpose of the public water system was intended to remedy the seawater intrusion
problem on Marrowstone Island. It is not, but it should help alleviate the problem. The primary purpose
of the system is to bring potable water to Marrowstone Island residents. Each individual private
property owner is responsible for the reasonable and lawful use of their wells. The P UD has no legal
authority over the usage of their wells. Regardless, the need for decommissioning wells, whether it
exists or not, is secondary to the pending shoreline permit.
4) The impact to the Chimacum Creek Basin Aquifer where the water for Marrowstone will come is
unknown since no environmental review (SEP A) was done.
The environmental impacts to the Chimacum Creek Aquifer would be the impact from the withdrawal of
water that is essentially transferred consumptively out of basin onto Marrowstone Island. This
withdrawal of water is regulated under the water code and its use permitted by the Department of
Ecology. Ecology had already approved these out of basin transfers to Marrowstone Island and Indian
Island in the original certificates as these were already within the City of Port Townsend service area.
In 2003 municipal water laws were reformed allowing for the PUD' s place of use for its water tjg,hts to
LOG ITeM
lB&
\. ot~
1/912006
#
Page
Page 2 of 4
be its approved senJice area, which now includes all of Marrowstone Island. Once the PUD senJice
area was approved by the Department of Health and Ecology, the issues involving the impacts of
withdrawals were then decided.
Wetlands. Soils & Shorelines
5) The accuracy of the wetland delineation for Phase I is in dispute.
We do not know of any evidence that the potential adverse impacts from the "disputed" wetland
delineation will adversely impact actual, functional wetlands outside the utility corridor or ditchline.
(check with Parametrx)
6) Only buffers adjacent to the right-of-ways were identified. Buffers for the entire wetland were not
identified as required.
For the purposes of the shoreline permits, in the County UDC '''Wetland' means those areas within the
shoreline jurisdictional boundaries that are not continuously dry and are defined as marshes, bogs, or
swamps in Chapter 173-22 WAC." These would be the wetlands within 200 ft of the shoreline only. Of
these wetlands, their buffers need to be defined based upon the areas which would be "disturbed" (ie in
the ditch or utility right of way). Only the buffers that would be affected needed to be defined. In order
for the buffers for the entire wetland to be defined, the entire wetland itself would need to be delineated.
This was, to the best of our knowledge, not required. (check with Parametrix)
7) The effect of trenching and drilling for pipes needs to be addressed for the entire wetland, not just the
buffer area.
The impacts of trenching and drilling (if any) would be within the buffer and in the right of way. The
wetland buffer "is the area immediately adjoining and contiguous with the wetland" (UDC). We can
find neither requirement nor demonstrable need to address the effects upon a sensitive area (wetland)
that is fully outside the area that will be potentially impacted, in this case, wetland buffers within the
utility corridor or ditchline.
8) Because the proposed installation will occur in the "mowed" area of the right of way (this being an
exempt activity) does not mean that the installation of pipes is exempt.
The water lines are defined in the UDC as a minor utility subject to Shoreline Conditional Use and
Substantial Development Permit which is why the PUD is applying for a shoreline permit in first place.
The installation of the pipes are not exempt from the permit process.
9) The delineation is incomplete (Phase II) and only addresses water main installation and not water
lines to individual parcels.
Phase II wetland delineation is incomplete, but currently underway and should be completed within a
few months.
10) The water will pass through the Indian Island system near a Super Fund Site area which could result
in contamination to Marrowstone water.
There is no longer a Superfund site on Indian Island or in Jefferson County, although the Indian Island
Naval Installation has had a history of contamination which it began cleaning up in 1977. According to
the EPA, Institutional controls have been implemented and the site was deletedfrom the NPL (National
Priority List) in June, 2005. Here is a link to an article about the site in the PL Leader.
http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp ?Search= 1 &ArticleID= 12652&SectionID= 1 O&SubSectionID=&S= 1
11) The soils in the ditches that will be trenched are contaminated from road run-off and should be
LOG ITEM
Lf)R
'2-. ot~
1/9/2006
J1.
Page
Page 3 of 4
tested and treated to prevent run-off into Mystery and Scow Bays.
We do not know of any evidence that soils are contaminated in Marrowstone Island ditches and would
not responsible to test or remediate the contamination if it does exist. Testing and treating of soils for
the development of a public water system would be an excessive, onerous burden for the PUD and the
Marrowstone Island residents who have to pay for the cost. Soil that is removed in trenching will be
replaced where it was found. Erosion prevention measures will be in place and monitored by an on-site
project inspector during the course of the project to prevent sedimentation into the seawater.
12) The proposal is inconsistent with the shoreline Conservancy designation.
According to the definition of Conservancy under the Shoreline Master Program, the proposal is
entirely consistent with the Conservancy designation. Low density residential use is pennitted within the
Conservancy designation provided that it "do( es) not significantly degrade or deplete resources and
respect limiting environmental condition". Low density residential use includes the use of utility
services such as public water and is therefore consistent.
Water Rights & Capacity
13) It is questionable whether there is adequate capacity to serve existing parcels, let alone future
growth.
The PUD Water System Plan was approved by the State Department of Health to serve Marrowstone
Island in February 2005 based upon existing water rights and its ability to meet projected demand. It is
not apparent to us that our capacity to serve is somehow gennane to this shoreline pennit process. The
PUD is planning for a 50 yr horizon. The PUD continues to research and develop additional sources of
water though wholesale purchase, property acquisition (Peterson Lake), drilling additional wells,
applying for additional water rights, peiforming reverse osmosis and aquifer storage and recovery
studies, acquiring and consolidating existing water systems, as well as reuse and conservation.
14) Service to the planned golf course has not been considered.
The PUD stated in its water system plan that it will serve Marrowstone Island according to how it is
currently zoned. Regardless, service to the golf course is not gennane to this pennitting process.
15) The number of available connections is in dispute.
See Answer to No #13.
16) There are no provisions to decommission existing wells once the water system is in place. What are
the water rights of existing well owners?
This would only be an issue if the PUD were to consolidate the water rights of well owners. Exempt
well water right consolidation allows a water right holder to fold the water right of a pennit exempt
well owner into an existing water right or certificate. A condition to being able to use that water right is
a requirement to decommission the well. The PUD DOES NOT plan on using this method to procure
additional water rights. The water rights of existing well owners are covered in the state water code
RCW 90.03. We do not offer legal advice regarding water rights nor do we quantify people's water
rights. To the best of our knowledge we do not have the authority to order the decommissioning of
private wells. This question is not gennane to the shoreline pennit application process.
17) The PUD does not currently have water rights for Marrowstone Island.
The PUD does not require water rights for Marrowstone Island, but has the water rights to serve
Marrowstone Island as a place of use. In 2003, the state refonned municipal water law that made the
1/912006
#
Page ~
LOG ITEM
t,B'6
'3 otL
Page 4 of 4
PUD eligible for municipal water rights which allows the place of use for all our water rights to be our
approved service area. Marrowstone Island is a part of our service area in our State-approved water
system plan as of February 2005. This issue is not germane to the shoreline permit process.
18) The proposed water system is not an extension of the Quimper system since there are two water
systems (Indian Island and Fort Flagler) between that are not controlled by the PUD.
The water that serves the Indian Island and Fort Flagler water systems comes from the PUD wells.
Negotiations are underway for the purchase of both the Navy and Fort Flagler water systems. Both are
close to being finalized.
19) Number of proposed fire hydrants is inadequate.
It has been argued that fire hydrants are not appropriate for rural levels of service and should not be
installed at all. No criteria for what is "adequate" existfor a rural area such as Marrowstone.
20) Eight inch water lines are inadequate. Fort Flagler recently installed a ten inch line. The eight inch
lines are proposed to avoid SEP A review.
Hydraulically eight inch lines are only needed to provide fire flow, which are not required for the
system. This issue is not germane to the shoreline permit process. The Fort needed to provide
commercial levels of fire flow to get the building permits for their historical upgrades. This issue is not
relevant to the shoreline permitting process.
Thanks for the opportunity to answer this summary of questions.
Sincerely,
PUD Staff
Jim Parker, Manager
Bill Graham, Resource Manager
1/912006
LOG ITEM
# t~<6
Page__ 4-. ot~