HomeMy WebLinkAboutShineTermPt2nd.comm5_8_24 Jan Wold
P. O. Box 1340
Poulsbo, WA 98370
Email: j.creek@hotmail.com
5/8/24
Greg Ballard
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County, WA
gballard@co.Jefferson.wa.us
carolyn@co.Jefferson.wa.us
RE: Termination Point Application SDP 2022-00019, Stormwater Plan
Dear Mr. Ballard:
I have lived on Shine Road next to Squamish Harbor, Hood Canal, about a mile
west of this proposed project, for the past eleven years. I have college degrees
studying biology, aquatic biology and fisheries. I have worked in the fields of
hydrology, aquatic biology, fisheries and forestry for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Oregon State University and both the research and land management
portions of the U. S. Forest Service. I spent the last seven years before retiring as
Forest Supervisor in charge of a 1,000,000-acre national forest.
I have shared comments on this project in June of 2023. I have to repeat that there
are no good alternatives for a stormwater system in this location at this time. If
this site were in a natural condition it would be very difficult to find an adequate
solution for dealing with stormwater due to the extensive landslide area, numerous
threatened and endangered species and other environmental concerns in Squamish
Harbor. The present situation at this site has been made far, far worse by many of
the previous actions of the developer. There is a long history of documentation of
the many issues of the past. Many of these actions have been in violation of
numerous regulations as I document. The best alternative at this time is to let the
area heal before allowing any additional construction, removal of vegetation or
other disturbance. There should be no approval of additional homes or
construction until some healing of the site can occur. There should not be any
construction of any kind allowed below and to the east of Linda View Drive.
It is my personal observation after decades of working in natural resource
management and taking part in planning or supervising thousands of projects that I
have not seen projects that have anywhere near the number of threatened,
endangered and candidate species for listing (T&E) as in Squamish Harbor and
Hood Canal. I included two separate documents in June of 2023 that are part of
the record as comments on this stormwater project application. I included
discussions of the potential impacts of this proposal on the threatened, endangered
and candidate species for listing in this area. One document includes birds,
mammals and amphibians. The other document includes salmon, trout, other
marine fish, echinoderms and mollusks. I also discussed in those documents the
review that was taking place to consider listing bull kelp as a federal threatened
species and the proposal for the sunflower sea star to be listed as federally
threatened. This proposed stormwater project does have potential impact on a
number of T&E species.
NOAA Fisheries is proposing to list the sunflower sea star as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act. The sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) is the
second largest sea star in the world and can have an arm span of more than three
feet. From 2013 to 2017, Sea Star Wasting Syndrome caused a major die-off of the
sunflower sea stars. The species has suffered a 90% decline across its range,
pushed to the edge of extinction over much of the West Coast. Its range used to
extend from Alaska into Mexico, but it has apparently now disappeared from the
Washington coastline, Oregon, California and Mexico. Scattered populations can
still be found in Washington in portions of Puget Sound, including Hood Canal.
We have a photograph of a sunflower sea star from the area of the proposed
stormwater outfall location (see Marilyn Showalter’s input for more details).
Having the stormwater outfall dumping turbid and polluted water directly into the
known location of sunflower sea stars needs to have a review or consultation with
NOAA Fisheries. NOAA was also reviewing a petition to list West Coast bull kelp
as a threatened or endangered species. They have not moved forward with this
listing process. The section of Squamish Harbor directly below Termination Point
has the only remaining bull kelp in Hood Canal south of the Hood Canal floating
bridge. Apparently the amount of floating kelp has been declining for some time in
Puget Sound. It is very important to maintain healthy populations of bull kelp and
sunflower sea stars. Sunflower sea stars are an important link in saving kelp
populations by feeding on sea urchins, a primary consumer of bull kelp.
Bull or floating kelp faces several causes of mortality, many exacerbated by human
activity. According to the Center for Biological Diversity petition to list West
Coast bull kelp as threatened or endangered under the U. S. Endangered Species
Act (ESA):
Bull kelp requires high nutrient availability, cool water temperatures, and
high light availability to thrive and the effectively reproduce…Bull kelp can
also be harmed by chemical pollution, like heavy metals and petroleum…
Light availability is one of the most important environmental factors for bull
kelp growth and sexual maturation…Petroleum also damaged the part of the
kelp where the stipe and bulb connect, which is where the kelp grows from.
When bull kelp was exposed to unweathered diesel, photosynthesis in blade
stopped completely and photosynthesis in the stipe decreased by about 75%.
The stormwater plan seems to generally rely on the idea that dumping turbid and
polluted water into Squamish Harbor from this project will cause no impact. This
is certainly not the case, as I discuss here and in my two other comment documents
on T&E species.
Having the stormwater outfall dumping potentially turbid and polluted water on the
shoreline directly above the location of sunflower sea stars and the only bull kelp
located in Hood Canal needs to be thoroughly analyzed. A Biological Opinion
may also be required with NOAA to avoid being in violation of the ESA. It is
apparent that dumping stormwater in this only location of bull kelp would have a
significant impact from the reduction of light penetrating the water column due to
increased turbidity. One requirement by the Hearing Examiner could be to require
documented communication with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) about the need for a Hydraulic permit (HPA). This will ensure a
thorough evaluation by WDFW on the location and design of the outfall. Another
potential mitigation measure would be to require a sampling system set up to
periodically test the water being released into Squamish Harbor.
Apparently the proposed stormwater pipe is eight inches in size. If my
understanding is correct, it seems like it will be undersized for the volumes of
water that will be draining off the developed areas.
The Termination Point stormwater plan (section 4.1) discusses the expected
increases in stormwater and some of the pollutants that will be contained in the
stormwater. These listed pollutants include oil, pesticides, fertilizers sediments and
other pollutants. The proposed stormwater plan states in section 4.1 that:
Much of the pollution in Puget Sound now comes from stormwater flowing
off developed areas, and this influx of water carrying pollutants from
developed areas can be damaging to aquatic life and ecology (Hinman et al.,
2013).
This discussion in section 4.1 continues to go through the problems with dumping
stormwater into Squamish Harbor, including the impact of suspended sediment to
salmon and other species. It does not consider the addition of the pollution from
tires (6PPD and 6PPD-quinone). 6PPD-quinone is deadly to salmon, steelhead
trout and other aquatic wildlife. Coho are especially sensitive.
There have been numerous problems through the years with this Russell Trask
development beginning around 1995. These have included unpermitted drainage,
clearing, cutting of new roads, removing earth and stumps while leaving swaths of
bare ground, removing large trees around an eagle’s nest, grading and tree cutting,
including removal of trees at the base of the unstable bluff. Some of these actions
endangered neighbor’s properties. The eagle nest tree next to and just south of
Linda View Drive snapped off during a storm two years ago, likely caused by the
removal of most of the trees around it and causing it to suffer higher wind
velocities. There have also been botched attempts at drainage. The area below
Linda View Drive is a well documented unstable landslide area at high risk of slide
activity. Russell Trask has been issued citations by the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson County
and the State of Washington.
The WDFW cited Russell Trask in October, 2000, for unlawfully undertaking
hydraulic project activities, culvert replacement without a permit and land clearing
and stormwater construction adjacent to marine waters without a permit. The
WDFW thought at the time that the perennial stream, now proposed for the
stormwater system, was cutthroat trout habitat. The documentation for the citation
stated that much of the vegetation had been cleared from the project site, leaving
the entire property susceptible to significant erosion. The biologists were
especially concerned with trenches that had been dug to facilitate stormwater
runoff. The trenches had been dug to the shoreline of Squamish Harbor, with some
earthen outfall directly onto the beach. The biologists state that the trenches
presented serious impacts to the adjacent marine habitats.
A geotechnical engineer hired by neighbors reported that neighbor’s homes would
be safe only if the forestry and vegetation of the entire area was not irresponsibly
disturbed. The engineer also reported that the entire location was “dynamic,” and
that any new instability in one area would eventually be transmitted to other areas.
Under a natural situation the tree and vegetation root systems would aid in
lessening the chance of landslides. However, much of the trees and vegetation has
been cut and apparently some of the stumps and roots removed. Even after a tree
is cut, if the roots are left, they still help hold the soil for some years until they
eventually rot and no longer provide this soil stabilizing function.
Dr. Derek Booth has done a significant amount of research on Puget Sound and its
tributaries. He concludes in his article, “Forest Cover, Impervious Surface Area,
and the Mitigation of Urbanization Impacts in King County, Washington, 2000.”
On page 3 he states as follows:
Modifications of the land surface during urbanization produce changes in
both the magnitude and the type of runoff processes. In the Pacific
Northwest, the fundamental hydrologic effect of urban development is the
loss of water storage in the soil column. This may occur because the soil is
compacted or stripped during the course of development, or because
impervious surfaces convert what was once subsurface runoff to Horton
overland flow. In either situation, the precipitation over a small watershed
reaches the stream channel with a typical delay of just a few minutes,
instead of what had been a lag of hours, days or even weeks. The result is a
dramatically changed pattern of flows in the downstream channel, with the
largest flood peaks doubled or more and more frequent storm discharges
increased by as much as ten-fold.
Dr. Booth continues on page 16:
• Land development that eliminates hydrologically mature forest cover and
undisturbed soil can result in significant changes to urban stream hydrology
and, in turn, to the physical stability of stream channels.
• Land development modifies streamflow patterns; even with stormwater detention
ponds, it can produce seasonal and stormflow patterns that are substantially
different from those to which native biota have adapted.
• Although factors other than hydrologic change can undoubtedly affect the
magnitude of urban impacts, the breadth of the existing data suggest that
improvements in these other factors (e.g., riparian buffers) cannot fully
mitigate the hydrologic consequences of overly intense urban development.
… Even the largest detention ponds, however, have been recognized as
limited in their ability to mitigate all aspects of hydrologic change.
• Twenty years of empirical data display a good correlation between readily
observed damage to channels and modeled changes in hydrology that
correspond to loss of about one-third of the forest cover in a “typical”
western Washington watershed. A similar degree of observed damage also
correlates to a level of watershed effective imperviousness of about ten
percent.
Forested areas also provide evapotranspiration which leads to some of the
precipitation evaporating and not reaching the ground. When trees are cut, the
amounts of stormwater and runoff are increased. This is the opposite of what
would be desired above a slide area.
When houses are built there are large roof areas and pavement for patios, walks
and driveways that no longer allow infiltration of precipitation, leading to even
more runoff. The runoff then occurs much more rapidly with higher peaks of
runoff than occurs in a natural forest. There have already been some houses built
in this development, yet there is no approved stormwater plan and no stormwater
system. There has also been recent ground disturbance taking place. One option
for examination by the Hearing Examiner is a requirement to use pervious
surfaces, but only if reviewed by an expert in the potential to influence the
potential of slides.
Normally, if there were no slide area, the development could use pervious surfaces,
rain gardens and settling ponds as much as possible to infiltrate precipitation and
avoid sending high volumes of water to the perennial stream and the sensitive
marine waters below with so many T&E species. However, in this case there is a
slide area below the proposed development area. The area has been made much
more unstable due to the many past unnecessary problems created by improper
developer actions. Even if the construction on the lots were kept to the smallest
impervious footprint, there will still be a large volume of turbid and polluted water
entering the perennial stream. The developer’s report already states that the
perennial stream is scoured out. This is normally due to an already larger than
normal volume of water being sent to the stream. This scouring has direct
downstream impacts carried into Squamish Harbor.
The only hope of avoiding further destabilization of the area and preventing impact
to the perennial stream, tideland, marine waters and numerous T&E species would
be to NOT approve building any additional houses until after the improperly
cleared areas are adequately reforested.
The WDFW report of violations lists the perennial stream as being cutthroat
habitat, but the stormwater plan states that there are no fish. Even if the perennial
stream does not have cutthroat trout, it still has a number of aquatic species that
should not be eliminated by turning it into the equivalent of a storm drain. There
may also be western toads in this area. The western toad, a state candidate for
T&E listing, has been observed recently about two miles south of this proposed
project.
If the waterfall is piped, or if a stormwater pipe is run down the face of the cliff
next to the waterfall, then the visual impact needs to be determined. The outfall of
the proposed stormwater system is located in waters of statewide significance,
including all the marine areas but also includes the shoreline areas.
The county needs to have a wetland expert evaluate the proposed development
area. Some of the area appears to have wetland species. There has been a new
building permit approved by Jefferson County for a home at 122 Linda View
Drive, on the north side of Linda View Drive. The County has approved
infiltrating all stormwater into the ground at this lot. I assume there will also be
infiltration from a septic system. All of this infiltration is located due north of the
slide area. To further impact the area, it appears there are (were) two small
intermittent streams shaped like a “Y” that come together at the middle area of
Linda View Drive (see photographs). There does not appear to be an onsite review
of wetlands and temporary streams, both of which would require buffers. The
Hearing Examiner needs to mitigate this situation by requiring the developer to
submit a wetland and critical area analysis and map those areas before approval of
any construction for stormwater, driveways, houses, etc. of any kind is allowed.
In summary, there is not an appropriate or workable solution for the stormwater in
this development until the damage that has already taken place has more time to
heal and for trees and other plants to reclaim the disturbed areas. The present
situation is very problematic. Although the existing “stormwater system” is
terrible and the new improved stormwater system may be better, it still also has
many problems. The county should not be approving more clearing and
construction in this area. The county should not consider approving any home or
building construction south and east of Linda View Drive under any circumstances.
My understanding is that there is a moratorium on any construction in this area, but
this needs to be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner.
Thank you,
Jan Wold