HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog214
Message
David W. Johnson
.. L~I!~
#
Page~-I-ot ltQ
Page 1 of 10
From: Paul Anderson [panderson@parametrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 200611 :21 AM
To: David W. Johnson; jparker@jeffpud.org
SUbject: Re: FW: COE/JARPA Review - Marrowstone
Jim and David:
I will be available to attend the shoreline hearing on Tuesday. Please provide the time and location of the
meeting to me by Monday morning.
I am not exactly sure of the best course of action. I think it would be advisable to meet with Ms. Cronin, if
possible to discuss the permitting issues. My main concern at this point is that the Corps will want to
review/permit the entire project including the Nordland Mystery Bay wetlands and SR 116 causeway rather than
permitting these sensitive areas as a separate project. If that is the case, then I believe the entire project is
subject to SEPA review, not just the sensitive areas that we were hoping to permit separately.
I can send Ms. Cronin a copy of the impact assessment memo and would be glad to meet with her and discuss
the project, if she is willing, to clarify how the Corps will view the project.
As for the HPA/JARPA, I would be glad to complete the application for the crossing of the unnamed stream.
The stream would likely qualify as a jurisdictional water (Corps jurisdiction), but hopefully by constructing during
the dry season and complying with the HPA terms, they will not require a Nationwide permit.
I will be in the office today (except for 1130 to 1230) and tomorrow if you want to discuss these issues.
Paul
Paul S. Anderson
Wildlife Biologist
Parametrix, Inc.
Email: panderson@parametrix.com
Phone: (425) 458-6279
Fax: (425) 458-6363
>>> "David W. Johnson" <dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> 04/13 10:44 AM >>>
Jim & Paul,
Please read and respond.
From: Cronin, Koko Z NWS [mailto:Koko.Z.Cronin@nws02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:32 AM
To: David W. Johnson; Nancy Dorgan; Kennedy, Jack NWS
Cc: Ochoa, Lori; Jeffree Stewart (E-mail)
Subject: RE: COE/JARPA Review - Marrowstone
To all:
I'd like to put an end to this string of emails.Mr. Johnson, if you have a USACE Ref# for the project, please
email it to me so that I may investigate. Otherwise, there is not nor has been an application in this office and
since you say you sent it (the PO Box is correct), then it didn't get here. If there is a pipeline going into wetland
or crossing them and the project is more than 500 feet long (among other things), then it is the project
4/17/2006
IVlessage
Page 2 of 10
proponent's responsibility to procure all necessary permit, or jurisdictional determinations - neither of which are
completed over the phone. USACE is never either a proponent or an opponent to any project for which a DA
permit is required; our agency facilitates coordination and consultation with the public, other Federal agencies,
fulfills our Tribal Trust responsibilities and make a final decision that is the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative.
4/17/2006
LOG ITeM
# 2- {~
Pag'3 __~V('rO
If we do not issue a permit for which may be later determined work that did require a permit, then the project
proponent is potentially opening up their agency to a lawsuit (by other parties) in addition to our agency
conducting investigations to determine the extent of unauthorized impacts (if any) to all waters of the United
States.
Our available resources generally prevents us from being able to comment on projects that do not have an
active application on file with our office, hence the low to nil number of comments that are received due to SEPA
documentation, public hearings, etc. That said, if I had a copy of the plans and the existing environmental
conditions, I may be able to provide the project proponent with comments to apply to the hearing record. No one
or agency can force the proponent to submit an application to our office. I have searched our database for all
projects with "Jefferson County" as the proponent back through 1996 and there is nothing associated with a
pipeline (water treatment or otherwise).
I hope this settles all the comments. The proponent knows what they need to do to finalize any questions on
jurisdiction and the citizens' groups can file a complaint through our Enforcement Section if they believe there
are unauthorized impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States. When or if we receive an application for
the project, the Permit Processing Section will then proceed appropriately.
Sincerely,
Koko
Koko Zadfe Cyomn
BiologisVProject Manager
South Application Review Section
Seattle District Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
4735 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98134
P: 206.764.6878
F: 206.764.6602
From: David W. Johnson [mailto:dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:17 AM
To: Nancy Dorgan; Kennedy, Jack NWS
Cc: Ochoa, Lori; Cronin, Koko Z NWS; Jeffree Stewart (E-mail)
Subject: RE: COE/JARPA Review - Marrowstone
The Causeway has been removed from the proposal as well as the jurisdictional ditch associated with the
wetland at the south end of Mystery Bay. Most of the construction will not take place within shoreline
jurisdiction. The shoreline hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday.
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Kennedy, Jack NWS
Cc: Ochoa, Lori; Cronin, Koko Z NWS; Jeffree Stewart (E-mail); David W. Johnson
lVlt::ssage
Page 3 of 10
Subject: COEjJARPA Review - Marrowstone
Jack,
It sounds like a few phone calls quietly disposed of J ARPA without the necessity of
applications and a paper trail. No agency is going negative on this one, so COE has
company.
As a follow-up to your email, if you're curious about the area, ESA, etc., I've attached a
few docs that give a snapshot of environmental concerns regarding this project, which in
its entirety is planned to run the length and width of Marrowstone and loop across the
causeway to connect with the Navy's Indian Island system. A significant portion of the
construction will happen within the shorelines jurisdiction, including boring in the
causeway, because that's where the roads are. Adjacent wetlands both in and outside
of the shorelines jurisdiction will be affected by construction, and all construction is to
occur within existing roadside drainage ditches. Four feet of soil will be removed,
stored, and then replaced during pipe installation. It didn't seem too much to
require water quality certification for this.
Attached:
· Shorelines map of Marrowstone Island, which is wholly classified as "Conservancy"
· NOAA map of the Hood Canal Summer Chum ESU, which includes Marrowstone
Island
· Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan Update Inventory, Shoreline Inventory
and Analysis, 2005. Pages 52-57 will give you a quick read of environmental issues
in this area, e.g. eelgrass, juvenile salmonids, causeway, etc.: .. Between the two
islands is Kilisut Harbor and Scow Bay with rich shellfish beds, herring
spawning grounds and large concentrations of over wintering waterfowl'.
We have some ducks here.
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: Kennedv. Jack NWS
To: Nancy Dorgan
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: WSDOT Funding
It doesn't walk like a duck. It doesn't swim like a duck. It doesn't quack like a duck. My guess is that it is not a
duck.
4/17/2006
# L0111~..
Pag'3. _ :~_})t L9
IVlessage
Page 4 of 10
I, too, took a phone call on this a year and a half ago, and I forget its substance.
Sure looks like no action, no ESA, and at the worst, coverable by the "non-reporting phase" of NWP 18.
JK
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 20069:15 PM
To: Cronin, Koko Z NWS
Cc: Ochoa, Lori; David Johnson; Jeffree Stewart (E-mail); Kennedy, Jack NWS
Subject: Re: MLA06-00044
Koko,
I don't know of any DOT funding, but the PUD got a whopping Public Works Trust Fund
allocation (attached) for the system that might be relevant to your search. Legislators
thought they were voting for a public system intended to replace private wells and address
(unquantified) issues of saltwater intrusion. The PUD, however, consistently states that the
purpose of the proposal is not saltwater intrusion, but because residents asked for public
water. No wells are required to be commissioned after public supply is available.
Nancy
----- Original Message __on
From: Cronin. Koko Z NWS
To: Nancy Dorgan
Cc: Ochoa, Lori; David Johnson; Jeffree Stewart (E-mail) ; Kennedy. Jack NWS
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11 :05 PM
Subject: RE: MLA06-00044
Are there WADOT funds for this proposal? We have a separate WADOT team for applications that have
state funding. I've cc'ed Jack Kennedy, he would be a person to contact if there is state funding. That still
would not explain why it isn't in our system; either the JARPA got lost getting to our office or it was never
sent to us directly.
Koko
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Wed 4/12/2006 8:32 PM
To: Cronin, Koko Z NWS
Cc: Ochoa, Lori; David Johnson; Jeffree Stewart (E-mail)
Subject: Re: MLA06-00044
Koko,
Thanks for "setting the record straight". This proposal has been an extreme case of PUD
bob and weave that has made it difficult to know what is in or out of the proposal at any
particular time (e.g. causeway). We thought JARPA was "in" because of the signed and
dated application in the file.
JARPA and COE contacts were included in the attached pre-app summary, which is the
reason you received all those comment letters.
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: Cronin. Koko Z NWS
To: Ochoa, Lori; David W. Johnson; Nancy Dorgan
LOG ITEJVi
# ?,lS ,~
Pag'3._~}Jt,Lo
4/17/2006
lVlessage
Page 5 of 10
Cc: James parker; Paul Anderson; Stewart. Jeff R. (ECY)
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 20068:10 PM
Subject: RE: MLA06-00044
To all:
I did not receive a JARPA nor is there an active application pending in this office. I review all applications I
receive within 10 days and make contact with the applicant regarding completeness. What I did receive are
about 15 comment letters from citizens, which is why I called about the project. If there is a question of
Corps jurisdiction, then the application must be sent to our office is Jefferson County PUD wishes to have
in writing any documentation from our office.
I hope this clears up some questions regarding what we have or don't have.
Koko
From: Ochoa, Lori [mailto:loch461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Wed 4/12/2006 4: 12 PM
To: David W. Johnson; Nancy Dorgan
Cc: Cronin, Koko Z NWS; James parker; Paul Anderson; Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject: RE: MLA06-00044
Hi David,
Just to clarify roles a bit, any review that Jeff Stewart provided was done in the context of shoreline
permitting. I am the Federal Permit Coordinator for the Southwest Regional Office and am responsible for
review of applications for 401 Certifications. I would be happy to talk with you or Parametrix about this
further.
Lori Ochoa
Federal Permit Coordinator
Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program
Southwest Regional Office
(360) 407-6926
-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Johnson [mailto:dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 20063:39 PM
To: Nancy Dorgan
Cc: KOko.Z.Cronin@nws02.usace.army.mil; Ochoa, Lori; James parker; Paul Anderson
Subject: RE: MLA06-00044
That's interesting since Koko actually called me in December and told me that the PUQ needed to
check with the Coast Guard to see if they had jurisdiction over the Causway (since then, the
Causeway has been removed from the project). So, she did receive the reviewer materials that
included the JARPA (but never processed them) and this was also sent to Jeff Stewart.
Parametrix's impact assessment reviewed these requirements and states, "Ecology is not requiring a
water quality certification permit for this project." The only jurisdictional ditch that was identified is at
the Southern end of Mystery Bay and the water line will not be installed at that location.
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 20062:50 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: MLA06-00044
LOG ITEM
# L.-{ 5
Pag'3._..E:uf.lO
4/17/2006
lV.lt::s:sagt:
4/17/2006
Page 6 of 10
David,
The PUD has intentionally broken up its Marrowstone project into bits and pieces
for stated and unstated reasons. MLA06-00044 is the first bit, but probably the
most significant. In the context of the constellation of related PUD permits, I would
like to note on the record that neither the Department of Ecology nor the Army
Corps of Engineers has a record of ever receiving a JARPA application from the
PUD for the Marrowstone system. Please include following messages in the record
for MLA06-00044.
Thanks.
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: Cronin. Koko Z NWS
To: Nancy Dorgan
Cc: Ochoa. Lori
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 20064:23 PM
Subject: RE: COE - Marrowstone Water System Construction Review
Nancy, we do not have anything pending or final under "JCPUD" or anything with a project name
including the word "Marrowstone."
Koko
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:18 PM
To: Cronin, Koko Z NWS
Cc: Ochoa, Lori
Subject: CDE - Marrowstone Water System Construction Review
Importance: High
Koko,
Lori Ochoa gave me your name and email address so I could check with you
whether COE ever received an application from Jefferson County Public Utility
District no. 1 for review of their proposed Marrowstone Island water system
construction. The pipeline route includes adjacent wetlands and construction will
excavate existing roadside ditches that drain to saltwater. DOE does not have any
record of any such application, and I need to know the status of an appligation at
COE.
This is a time sensitive question, as the comment period for one of the three
permits closes today and another next Tuesday for the shorelines permit. Could
you quickly check your database for me? As I noted to Lori in an email (below), the
county's project file includes a signed PUD JARPA application dated 5-03-05, but
there's nothing in the file from COE regarding a jurisdictional determination. Is that
decisions still pending? Did you receive the application??
Thanks so much,
LOG 'T~
.. /) It;
~ L--
Pag~'_<t~~yf [()'
lV~v;:);:)abc;
4/17/2006
page 'f ot 10
Nancy Dorgan
Port Townsend
----- Original Message -----
From: Ochoa. Lori
To: Nancy Dorgan
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:19 PM
Subject: RE: More Questions Re: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone
Pipeline Permits
Hi Nancy -
In response to your questions:
· JARPA entries are never deleted from our database. If the Corps makes a jurisdictional
determination of no-jurisdiction, then that is the federal action and gets entered into the
system with the rest of the project information. My question to you is: Was that the federal
action in this case? If so, do you know what the basis for a no-jurisdiction call was? (Ecology
still has regulatory authority over isolated wetlands even though they are not under Corps
jurisdiction.)
· It is the applicant's responsibility (or their agent) to submit an application for a401 Certification
to Ecology. They are not forwarded to us by the Corps.
· I found nothing in the database under the last name of Parker.
Sometimes, the applicant waits for the Corps decision to see if they need to come to Ecology for a
401 Certification. For Nationwide Permits (NWPs), the Corps has the ability to determine if the
project is in compliance with state water quality standards. When the Corps is unable to make that
determination, they will send the applicant to Ecology to make that determination. Not all NWP's
require a 401 Certification. It is not unusual for Ecology to not receive an application until after a
Corps decision has been made.
Lori Ochoa
Federal Permit Coordinator
Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program
Southwest Regional Office
(360) 407-6926
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Ochoa, Lori
Cc: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject: More Questions Re: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone
Pipeline Permits
Lori,
Thanks so much for researching this so quickly. It's puzzling to me that your
database doesn't show a 401 application for Marrowstone, because our local
project file includes a 12-page JARPA application signed by PUD Manager
James G. Parker on 5-3-05. The file also contains a 11-14-05 memo from
Parker to County about needed studies for the JARPA permit.
More Questions:
· If the Corps made a subsequent determination that the project was not
jurisdictional, would the initial JARPA application still show up in your
LOG lT~'
.- 'L-Cj
# --
Pag~._~..~yf,[u
..1.V.L......~~a.5v
4/17/2006
page ~ ot 10
database or would it have been deleted?
. Do you know if it is the applicant's responsibility to send a JARPA
request to DOE?
· Would you do a search under James G.Parker as applicant just in case
it didn't get entered for the PUD as applicant?
Thanks for Koko's email. I'll ask her if she ever received anything.
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
rom: Ochoa, Lori
0: Nancy Dorgan
c: Stewart. Jeff R. (ECY)
ent: Wednesday, April 12, 200610:49 AM
ubject: RE: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone Pipeline Permits
i Nancy,
am still not seeing anything in our database for a 401 Certification Application for this
roject or applicant. Our database covers submittals of JARPA's as a request for a 401
ertification, as well as any federal action on a project that would potentially trigger the
eed for a 401 Certification. You may want to check with the Corps of Engineers to see if
hey have a pending application for this project. The Corps Project Manager that covers the
efferson County area is Koko Cronin at Koko.Z.Cronin@nws02.usace.army.mil. Please
eel free to give me a call if you would like to talk about this further.
ori Ochoa
ederal Permit Coordinator
horelands & Environmental Assistance Program
outhwest Regional Office
360) 407-6926
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:49 PM
To: Ochoa, Lori
Cc: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY); Lux, Gretchen; Lund, Perry
Subject: Re: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone Pipeline
Permits
Hi Lori,
Thanks for your reply. The applicant is Jefferson County Public Utility
District no. 1, which has three permits now pending review with
Jefferson County Department of Community Development for the
construction of a new water system. One is a Shorelines permit, and
the other two are for construction in areas outside that jurisdiction.
I hope that will help you narrow your search. Would your database
include all certification applications or only those going forward in the
process? I'm trying to find any kind of paper trail regarding possible
DOE review in a CWA certification process.
Thanks again.
Nancy
LOGIT~\
# CZ-l0
Pag'3.-fL"mco
.J..Y..a..V~~LL6."..
t'age ~ or 10
---- Original Message -----
rom: Ochoa, Lori
0: ndorgan @waypoint.com
c: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
nt: Tuesday, April 11 , 2006 6:04 PM
ubject: FW: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone Pipeline
ermits
ello Nancy,
could not find anything in our database for this project. If you have an applicant
ame that I could query, that may be helpful.
ori Ochoa
ederal Permit Coordinator
horelands & Environmental Assistance Program
outhwest Regional Office
360) 407-6926
----Original Message-----
rom: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
nt: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:58 AM
0: Ochoa, Lori
c: Lund, Perry; Lux, Gretchen
ubject: FW: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone Pipeline
ermits
YI Marrowstone
effree Stewart
horeline Specialist
ashington Department of Ecology
60-407-6521
----Original Message-----
rom: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com]
nt: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:01 AM
0: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
c: David Johnson
ubject: DOE Water Quality Certification Process for Marrowstone Pipeline Permits
4/1712006
an you tell me whether DOE is doing a water quality certification
rocess for any of the three pending Marrowstone permits or whether
hey have been given a State/Federal pass? I found the following
verall description of DOE's process from your website:
Conditioning Proiects: The agency issues water quality
certifications and Coastal Zone Management Act consistency
eterminations for water-related construction projects. Staff
provide early review on projects whenever possible (e.g.
through State Environmental Policy Act review and
LOG ITEM
. ~~
:ag'3_ .utLQ
.lV~\.o""aoc;
Page 10 of 10
preapplication meetings) and provide project guidance and
technical assistance through phone calls, e-mails, site visits,
and workshops. Projects are approved, denied, or conditioned
to protect water quality, sediment quality, and fish and shellfish
habitat. This activity allows the state to actively participate in
federal permitting activities to ensure state interests are
adequately represented and considered. (Authorizing Laws -
Federal Clean Water Act and 90.48 RCW)
Result: Review and certify projects to protect water quality,
habitat, and aquatic life. Review and certify projects in a timely,
efficient, consistent, and thorough manner. 0 90% of applicants
are notified within 14 calendar days (10 working days) when a
Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application is received. 0 90%
of routine 401 water quality certifications are issued within 90
days.
I attended the Toxics in Puget Sound forum last week in Seattle, and
the research on environmental consequences of contaminants in
sediments was chilling The information and presentations made me
even more concerned than before about accumulated pesticide,
fertilizer, fecal, and automotive-related toxins now in Marrowstone
ditches either in or near the shoreline jurisdictions. The proposed
pipeline construction will excavate 4 feet of soil from the bottom of
miles of existing stormwater drainage ditches, pile that material
alonside the road while pipes are being installed in the ditches, and
then redeposit contaminated soil in the ditches.
At every step of the process, there is a significant possibility that
pollutants either long buried or already at the surface will be be blown
off the piles or transported through stormwater runoff to waters of the
State and critical aquatic habitat despite the best of intentions and
required BMP's.
So,
· Has DOE concluded that the Marrowstone permits are exempt
from DOE water quality certification?
. If so would you send me a copy of that determination?
. Would you send me the criteria DOE uses for determining
whether or not certification is required?
· Without a proper water quality certification process of water
quality conditions before construction, how will we ever know if
impairment has happened as a result of the construction?
Public comment on one of the permits ends April 14, and it would be
very helpful if you could clarify this today or tomorrow.
Thanks so much for any help with this.
Nancy
4/1712006
LOG IT~N~
# ''2LC;:
Pag '3, _lD.)JITlS'