HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog188
.
<:.c. '.!)cD tP {I' !oL-/
c .~'
t
'I
Hi Folks, , " Junl _; f1' "I r:'-:l .,::" .
, O~ E.I ~ I! ~II{ jr[::l II"'n
-. '-!J L,iJ \~ '_ I,
I recently submitted comments on the Draft Supplemental EI .J~.t e~Po~- L..: L.:::l IIJ/
Ludlow Resort Plan Revision. JUN 1 02004 -'
. ... . _.. _ J.EFFER_s..O~J;OUNTY
FI~t let me paste In my prevIous emad because I have not rece~t}~~ISSIONERS
receipt, and Al Scalf, director of COminunity Development has
acknowledged he recently "lost" substantiating documents from a separate
communication. i
Notice of an extension has been received so I want to augment my letter
with the following;
Paragraph 3 on page 3-17 beginning with '7he North Aquifer" makes claims
that are not documented, as well as excluding mention of the current clear
cut logging operations, which DNR can validate as a type 4 conversion. A
big percentage of the watershed is being denuded as well as prepared for
development. This oversight alone is sufficient to require a new DEIS.
The following paragraph (paragraph 4) is similarly flawed because there is
neither proof nor documentation to support these claims. My claims that this
information is not accurate should be perceived as equally valid unless there
is documented proof of statements presented. How can I respond to claims
that appear erroneous unless I have real information to respond to?
I take your invitation to offer comments as a sincere desire to improve the
development process. Don't insult the public with gobbledygook.
3.2.2.3. Mitigating Measures
Same complaint here, lets see the data!
3.2.2.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
L~G ITEM
#.J <6 _
Page -L- of3..,~._
.;
Come on! Do not accept this statement.
water.
And my final comment concerns 3.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts.
f' '. '" "
Grandiose claims are made about the water rights of Olympic Water and
Sewer inc. but a few questions I directed to DOE about the OWS combined
allotment returned the following email:
Larry,
These three are under Olympic Water & Sewer:
(37) G2-29104 Applicant submitted a new application
for 50 gpm. (Pending
approval)
(47) CG2-21542 Applicant submitted a change
application on Certificate
G2-21542 to add a well. (Pending approval)
(48) CG2-21543 Applicant submitted a change
application on Certificate
G2-21543 to add a well. (Pending approval)
In effect there are no current water rights available to pledge to this project.
Maybe they are in transition. But there are rumors of bankruptcy within PLA
and granting any further build out on hopes and unsubstantiated claims of
abundant water rights for this company is totally irresponsible. It appears we
are being conned. Until legal documentation is offered to substantiate all
claims contained in this document it is merely an attempt to coerce the
County into granting developmental rights that mayor may not be deserved.
I suggest you start this entire process over.
Sincerely, Larry Lawson
(See bottom of endnote 1 for address etc.)
"
,
#j#GITEiVI
Page~__ o~~-:~
I1
4 ..
Subject: comments and requests
Date: May 28, 2004 1 :09:26 PM PDT
To: developmentreview@co.jefferson. wa.us
To whom it may concern,
I request that you start this entire process over in order to include pertinent
information that has been excluded.
Dealing with drinking water there was a reference to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement from the early 90's but the document does
not seem to be at hand, and is probably superseded anyway.
Statements of water rights are claimed but not verified nor is there a County
provided document showing essential figures of the total volume of drinking
water granted to all local users by DOE or allowed by Jefferson County
through historical usage. To reply to this current DEIS the public needs to
know of the total water allocated currently, via the vehicles of water rights
and historical usage. We also need to know what the total available
sustainable usage is in each of the referenced aquifers, and the actual
recharge rate. It is not ethical and perhaps not even legal to have the
company selling the water to customers doing the verifications of aquifer
health and recharge. Shouldn't this be a County responsibility?
Even in the abbreviated version included within this DEIS one footnote is
missing. I question why there is a lack of open information provided in
useful format when the document is offered to the public for serious
comment? This is our home and these issues concern our future health and
well-being.
/
The public finds ourselves in a vulnerable situation when our County does
not advocate for our community essentials. Water being one of the most
precious. Hearing only the focused concerns of a developer should not be the
primary purpose of a Government which is responsible to all of its citizens.
But based on the previous DEIS process my impression is that the County
actually advocated for the allocation of public resources into private use,
LOQITEM
# lQ<6"
Page ~ ~ of1:l......
~
(i ~ I-
Z
ill
.~
~ n.
0
>--'
~ >-_. u.J
~ z>
.- u.J
00
= "'d" 0>-
zt=
f!dldI - OZ
(/)::::>
c:c~
y % Itt:~
:;) 1~8
~ ~ -, 1.1-
0
l-
n.
~~ UJ
0
"
'.. ..
including our water, without concern for long term conservation. My
cautions about the previous developer abnegating their stated responsibility
to maintain public services is quite substantiated by the need to create a local
drainage district. Shoddy development causes the people of this County to
pay for these oversights in the future. A PUD is a tax supported venture to
unravel the disasters of poor planning. The requests by the proponent may be
valid and supportable but it seems the least the County can do is require that
all of their claims are proven and documented. In fact the County should be
responsible to the public to assure a continued supply of healthy drinking
water and even now be using an unbiased third party to assure the level of
water available in our aquifers. It only makes logical sense to know what the
limits of our public resources actually are, before we approve utilization.
Allowing a corporation to have access to water may be taking it from current
users, and the information provided in this public DEIS is not adequate to
sustain the proponent's requests.
Also, the County is our only agency able to manage oversight of all events
likely to effect future quality of environmental health. But even today (May
28, 2004) there is a clear cut logging operation in progress on top of the
north aquifer, but no mention is made about the effect on recharge into the
future from this event or other types of further development.
~.-
As stated above, this process needs to be started over with clear and useful
information so that all of us in this County are able to understand what
resources we are allocating to who, and how future public use will be
sustained. Citizens should not feel forced to take legal action to protect our
future health. The County should be the public agency protecting our public
resources.
Thank you for the invitation to respond by email.
Since~
Larry LaW~
10140 Oak Bay Road
Port Ludlow W A 98365
3604379143
LOG ITEIVI
#_1 <3~ ___
Page ~__ of _.fJ---