Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog216 Irv Berteig Jefferson County Hearing Examiner ~\'{ ~t\\ ~t\\t~~~~ t~~ April 18, 2006 .. ~ l!eM In "II, rEu page---L-ot5: ~Cf, l\ \ Re: MLA05-00276 Shoreline Permit - Marrowstone Island Water System Construction Dear Mr. Berteig: I have already submitted fairly lengthy formal comment letters dated June 19, 2005 and December 23,2005, as well as a number of emails to DCD as this proposal has morphed into what you are now reviewing. Tracking the changes and evasions has been difficult, and I've learned not to assume that things are what they appear to be. This isn't just about procedural errors, but at least glaring errors can get someone's attention long enough to listen to larger issues. MissinQ JARPA: The public notice of this hearing included a statement that: 'VS Army Corp of Engineers and the Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources and Fish & Wildlife will have the opportunity to comment and determine whether permitting is required through their departments': The November 2005 Parametrix Wetland Delineation Report stated that: " Ecology is not requiring a water quality certification permit for this project", ... but Parametrix was wrong, because the PUD's signed and dated JARPA application in this project file was never even sent to the required agencies. No determination has yet been made about the necessity for water quality certification. This was confirmed in email messages from the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology. Those comments are crucial to your review of this permit, as explained in an additional email from Jack Kennedy, ACOE, who said: MLA 05-00276 Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 1 of 5 LOG ITEM # '-[~ pag '3,~, k.- ot.5:..- MLA 05-00276 Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 2 of 5 'We need a JARPA, and a good amount of our own careful considerations to the answers in its questions about location, description, purpose, and extent. If a water line runs from a new well, through "some jurisdictional ditches" and elsewhere in an upland distribution system, that is one thing, and relatively simple. If the water is being piped from off-island under navigable waters, that is quite another. For all the commentary, we have not received enough information to even set the boundaries for what we call "the total and complete proiect. " After that, we make some sort of jurisdictional determination about the various pieces it has been broken into, and THEN we decide how to proceed. None of that has happened. and it probably all should. Otherwise the project is vulnerable to being stopped by an activist opponent who discovers that a necessary permit requirement has been overlooked by project proponents. " [Attachment no. 2, emphasis added] His comment about boundaries for the "the total and comvlete vro;ect" reflects one of my concerns throughout this process - that the County review process be required to include all segments simultaneously, even if the PUD chooses to build the segments sequentially. What has happened instead, is that the review and approvals are being highly segmented, and worse, that they have all been declared to be SEPA-exempt, despite administrative rules to the contrary for projects involving lands under water, which are never SEPA-exempt. Attachment no. 3 is a photo of utility ditch construction that illustrates just what messy business this is, even with the best of BMP's. Roadways and adjacent stormwater ditches are notorious sources of pollution, so look at this picture and imagine this type of construction on Marrowstone within the shoreline jurisdiction and critical areas, and you will agree that this permit application should be remanded to the applicant and County for environmental review, including J ARPA. SparlinQ Water Ri9ht - LeQalitv and Impacts of Increased Pumping: The source of water for the proposed Marrowstone water system is the PUD's Sparling well, on Kennedy Road off Rhody Drive. This well is very close to and in known hydraulic continuity with Chimacum Creek [Attachment no. 4]. That means what happens at the well affects the Creek. That is the largest probable impact of MLA 05-0076. LOG ITEM # ~ _CC., pagl3._.4-ots=. MLA 05-00276 Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 3 of 5 Additional pumping at the Sparling well for the Marrowstone extension has never received programmatic environmental review by the PUD, the County, DOE, DOH, or the WRIA 17 Watershed Planning Unit for probable in-stream flow and habitat impacts to Chimacum Creek, which contains 4(d)-listed salmonids. That listing means special protection is needed, not further impairment. Nor has the increased pumping been analyzed for impacts on numerous shallower wells in the Chimacum basin that are also susceptible to the impacts of lowered static levels. The limits on the water right for the Sparling well should also be reviewed before any permits are approved. If an application for a single-family residence must show proof of water supply, so should the PUD, but so far no capacity approval has been issued by the State Department of Health for the Marrowstone extension. In fact, the PUD has not yet even responded to DOH's August 4, 2005 request for information regarding options for additional source capacity. [Attachment no. 5] DOH Project Report approval should be a condition of approval for MLA 05-0076. Attachment no. 6 regarding the Sparling well water right indicates that increased pumping of Sparling Well for Marrowstone or any other place is a huge legal issue that could go to court. The Department of Ecology's 1997 change order approval allowed a change in the status of the Sparling water right from a supplemental reserve relative to corresponding reductions in Quilcene withdrawals to a primary water right for groundwater withdrawals of 2,250 gpm. This certificate improperly authorized additional withdrawals beyond the original water right, something a change order may never do. Also, the certificate issued with the erroneous change order heavily conditioned the new allocation with monitoring requirements and the requirement that static levels in the well be maintained as a protection of the aquifer. That requirement has not been met, and the PUD's own consultant identified a 12-foot drop in Sparling static levels between 1998 and 2003. [Attachment no. 7] Failure to Properly Amend CWSP. I would also like to add to the record an email I received from the BOCC's clerk Julie Matthes confirming that the BOCC never received or conducted any kind of legislative review of the PUD's revised service area changes, including Marrowstone. Local legislative review is a requirement of the Public Water System Coordination [Attachment no. 9] Act and the County's Coordinated Water System Plan. [Attachment no. 8] RCW 70.116 contains numerous references to "local legislative authority' that should be part of your MLA 05-0076 review. Judge Williams' Memorandum Opinion on Summary Judgment regarding the formation of the Marrowstone LUD stated: "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". That has not been done. Please also review my June 19, 2005 comment letter, p. 3- 5, regarding the additional process errors concerning the second batch of further- revised service area maps that were forwarded to the Department of Health without a second WUCC review and recommendation. Looking at watershed-scale impacts of moving water out of the Chimacum basin to Marrowstone is something that still needs to be done, especially because WRIA 17 is one of the State's 16 Critical Basins, and because Jefferson County has been designated a Critical Water Supply Area under RCW 70.116. Per Judge Williams' ruling, the CWSP must be properly amended, and that programmatic amendment process must involve SEPA. The existing procedural errors must be addressed and rectified before any permits can be issued. Environmental Imoacts of Construction. Unfortunately, you will be reviewing this project under the out-of-date requirements of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. The SMP update is now underway, and Neil Harrington has completed the new inventory. _I am attaching some Marrowstone information from his August 2, 2005 Shoreline Inventory and Analysis [Attachment no. 10], which clearly shows the ecological significance of Marrowstone's shorelines. These are the shorelines that would be impacted by contaminated sediments in runoff from disturbed ditches during and after construction of the water system, in addition to changes in island hydrology and septic discharges from the proposed public water supply. LOG ITEM # '1tro Pagt3-.- ot~ MLA 05-00276 Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page4of5 .. LOG ITEM 11:_ 71 (", Pag'3._~of r;:=- MLA 05-00276 Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page5of5 These are the issues that need SEPA review, and no permits should be issued without SEPA. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of my comments and submitted materials. I would like to receive a copy of your decision by email when it is issued. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan 2137 Washington St. #7 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ndorQan@waypoint.com Attachments: 1. Email exchange ACOE and DOE re missing J ARPA application, lOp. 2. Email exchange ACOE re missing J ARPA, Ip. 3. Photo of ditch construction, 1 p. 4. Excerpts from Pacific Groundwater Group, Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Four Corners Well, 5 p. 5. Emails regarding DOH capacity approval for Marrowstone Project Report, 4 p. 6. Sparling water right information, 13p. 7. Pacific Groundwater Group August 3, 2005 Sparling report to PUD, 7 p. 8. Email from Julie Matthes re records request, Ip. 9. Memorandum Opinion on Summary Judgment, 2p. 10. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update: Shoreline Inventory and Analysis by Neil Harrington, 7p. Cc: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (w/o attachments) Jeffrey Stewart, Gretchen Lux, Pery Lund, Department of Ec-ology (w/o attachments)