Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

The county published a notice about the East Orcas Water Supply (EOWS) report and its recommendations that it:
"...will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required."
The checklist is not posted on the county web site with the report, and it was not mentioned to the committee prior to publication.
Barbara Rosenkotter, the salmon lead entity, has now been added to email distributions for the EOWS committee.

WAC 197-11-390: (1) When the responsible official makes a threshold determination, it is final and binding on all agencies
This may be used to cover all water right modifications!

Here is the SEPA environmental checklist filled out by the county
Please review the checklist and the report carefully.

The EOWS report and the environmental checklist will be considered by the State Dept of Ecolology in water rights decisions in 2006.

Comments must be submitted in writing to Community Development and Planning no later than
(was February 15, 2006, but extended until) March 3, per phone call from Ron Henrickson.
Appeals must be submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department within 21 days following the date of this written decision.

Who to call to ask questions?
Blank Sepa checklist from the county web site (for copy and paste of questions

The State Dept of Ecology SEPA Handbook (Word version or PDF copy) states:
Section 4, Nonproject review:
The procedural requirements for SEPA review of a nonproject proposal are basically
the same as a project proposal. Environmental review starts as early in the process as
possible when there is sufficient information to analyze the probable environmental
impacts of the proposal.

"Nonproject review allows agencies to consider the “big picture” by conducting comprehensive analysis, addressing cumulative impacts, possible alternatives, and mitigation measures."

For example, environmental analysis of a zone designation should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone.
The water supply report must answer the SEPA check list taking into account the expected impacts of the plans it promotes, even though the report itself is a "nonproject."

But Ecology states modifications of water rights over 1 CFS are significant (These affect much more than 1 CFS)
On the Environmental Checklist, the county did not check off the boxes for birds(hawk, hereon, eagle, songbirds), deer, salmon, trout, or shellfish.
This is hard to believe after they have been provided with pictures and documents of natural salmon, and video of eagles feading on them.
The State Environmental Policy Act page includes a SEPA Guide for Citizens

SEPA applies to water right modifications. (there are exemptions for applications affecting less than 1 CFS) (Letter from Barbara Ritchie, Dept of Ecology)
The water supply report affects 3 CFS in Cascade Creek and more in Cascade Lake.
Steve Boessow stated:
The summer low flows are already so low that my predecessor agencies (Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife) recommended that no new diversions from Cascade Creek be allowed. Fish presence, including spawning, has been well documented by both biologists and residents. Reducing the summer flows will reduce the available fish habitat and cause undo stress to what may be San Juan County's only salmon bearing stream.

Return flow from the diversion ditch has been observed to be a significant contributor to the flow in Cascade Creek downstream of the two diversion dams in Moran State Park.  On June 7, 2005 I estimated about 4 cfs coming out of the Mountain Lake Dam and observed just a bare trickle of water over the Rosario Utilities Dam.  On that same day, with the Rosario Utilities diversion ditch running freely, I measured 1.25 cfs above the waterfall near Buck Bay.  The evidence is strong enough to warrant further study and to be very cautious when making changes that might reduce or eliminate flows when they are most needed by fish.

Steve Boessow, Water Rights Biologist
Department of Fish & Wildlife
Habitat Program
(360) 902-2410 voice
(360) 902-2946 FAX
boesssnb@dfw.wa.gov


Comments:
The EOWS report will be used by DOE to guide decisions on water right modifications in San Juan County. (per memorandum of understanding?)
It would be unethical to call this a "non-project action". It is intended to chart the course for pending water right modifications.
In suggesting sources of water and detailing water rights, and bragging about the pending EWUA/Rosario deal, the report will directly affect the flow of water and promotes the conversion of hydroelectric water rights to domestic use.
  1. When did DFW received a copy of the report and been asked to comment on the checklist? Was it sent to the correct person?
  2. Should the checklist be filled out accepting responsibility for the direction the report and the recommendations it contains?
  3. SEPA does apply to modifications of more than 1 CFS, per Barbara Ritchie, letter included in minority report
  4. What about what is not contained in the report by omission, such as the substantial return flow (also in minority report and water right mod protest)?
  5. How are questions A(9, 10) answered (other governmental applications ... such as water right modifications?) All should all be listed.
  6. How are questions in section B 3 a (surface water, streams, or wetlands in the affected area). answered?
  7. How was question 5 A answered? Animals, fish, birds? I would include a picture of the eagle feeding on salmon in the estuary from the DVD submitted to the council. Listing the natural salmon as food for the Orca might be reasonable.
I think submitting the OWU water right protest and the minority report as a comment/appeal is appropriate.


Questions about the East Orcas Water Supply Report
Bibliography




These are the personal notes of Sandy Taylor,
and have not been reviewed by the OWU board, or even checked carefully by me.