Chehalis River Council
P.O. Box 586
Oakville, WA 98568
July 10, 1997
Chehalis River Council
P.O. Box 586
Oakville, WA 98568
July 10, 1997
To:
Board of Zoning Adjustments
City of Chehalis
1321 S. Market Blvd
Chehalis WA 98532
From:
Chehalis River Council
P.O. Box 586
Oakville WA 98568
Re:
Record of Decision
File #97-E048
Chehalis Landing Site
My name is Merrily Knutsen. My address is 3414 Centralia Alpha Rd.,
Onalaska, WA 98570. As a member of the Board of Trustees, I am here to
represent the Chehalis River Council in the matter of this decision.
The Chehalis River Council is comprised of, and represents, citizens
from all of the counties that are included in the Chehalis River Basin.
We dedicate our efforts to public education about, and the restoration
and protection of, water quality in the Chehalis River Watershed.
We contend that the procedural process leading to the MDNS and the
Record of Decision was flawed and that a proper decision can not be
reached with the information as provided to the decision maker, to the
public and to agencies of jurisdiction. Furthermore, having not been
provided with complete and accurate information, valuable input from the
public and involved agencies has been denied the decision maker and the
proponent. For this reason, the decision should be withdrawn until
critical information from these sources can be incorporated, and
cumulative effects with other landfill projects in this same region
considered by the appropriate agencies and jurisdictions.
This appeal comes before you tonight after having been rescheduled from
June 26th. As Mr. Nacht has informed you, we requested a change of date
on June 23rd. The reason for our request was that we, and the public,
had not been given sufficient public hearing notice under SEPA (WAC
197-11-502) and City of Chehalis (Chapter 17.44) regulations, which
require publication at least ten days prior to a hearing. We thank Mr.
Nacht and the board for correcting this oversight, and rescheduling this
hearing.
The SEPA Handbook states: "The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
Chapter 43.21C RCW, is intended to ensure that environmental values are
considered (in addition to technical and economic considerations) by
state and local government officials when making decisions." It states
four primary purposes: "1) to declare a state policy which will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their
environment, 2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and biosphere, 3) to stimulate the health and
welfare of the people, and 4) to enrich the understanding of ecological
systems and natural resources important to the state and the nation."
And further, "Prior to taking any action (issuing permits, approvals,
etc.) on a nonexempt project, agencies must follow specific procedures
to assure that appropriate consideration has been given to the
environment."
Under PART SEVEN -SEPA AND AGENCY DECISIONS: WAC 197-11-650 "...The
purpose of this part is to: 1) Ensure the use of concise, high quality
environmental documents and information in making decisions. 2)
Integrate the SEPA process with other laws and decisions. 3) Encourage
actions that preserve and enhance environmental quality, consistent with
other essential considerations of state policy." We find that this
purpose is not being fulfilled by the SEPA process in this department.
Our comment letters of April 30th and May 26th, and the comment letter
of Lois Lopez of April 30th, pointed out that the information upon which
the threshold determination was based was neither "properly defined" nor
"reasonably sufficient" as defined in WAC 197-11-060 and -335. In
particular, the Environmental Checklist was found to be incomplete and
inaccurate.
On July 1st we requested, and were granted, a review of "all files"
pertaining to SEPA #97-E049.. Only one file was produced and there have
been no substantive additions to this file other than the initial
comment letters from DOE, State Fish and Wildlife and Wash. DOT. There
have been no additions and/or corrections made to the proponent's
Environmental Checklist since the MDNS was issued on April 15th. A
follow-up request for information from the minutes and other records of
the Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings did not produce anything
other than brief minutes. A completed Application Status Report from
the DRC is missing from this file. Comments from the DRC are found only
in the form of abbreviated notations in the margins of the Environmental
Checklist in the MDNS.. This means that other agencies and the public
who read this document are left without the information that this review
process is meant to convey. It would appear that it would be equally
confusing to this board in its effort to make a considered decision.
The SEPA process of consultation with other agencies depends upon the
lead agency's intent to make use of that consultation. When public
notice procedures are ignored, timely exchange of information cannot
take place. On June 5th , during the appeal hearing on SEPA #97-048,
the lead agency, upon being asked by the board what public notices had
been sent, replied, "to DOE and the SEPA register any interested agency
can pick it up from the SEPA register." This is in violation of WAC
197-11-510 Public Notice (3) "Documents which are required to be sent to
DOE...will be published in the SEPA register, which will constitute a
form of public notice. However, publication in the SEPA register shall
not, in itself, meet compliance with this section." The State
Department of Fish and Wildlife found it necessary to request a copy of
the SEPA checklist for #97-E048 during the comment period for #97-E049,
too late to comment on #97-E048 (FAX transmission from Andy Carlson,
dated 4/28/97, #97-049 file).
As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of, or
information from, consultations with other agencies in order to identify
the potential effects of fill on the Dillenbaugh Creek area, adjacent
wetlands, salmon spawning areas, an identified fish and wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area, GMA critical area, Chehalis Indian Tribal Rights, or
the loss of flood storage capacity in the Chehalis River floodplain.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Chehalis Tribe were not sent
notices or requests for consultation on either #97-E048 or #97-E049.
The Record of Decision (Item G) states: "The city's Development Review
Committee (DRC) comprised of the building, zoning, environmental, fire
and police divisions, public works department, city attorney, city clerk
and city manager have reviewed this proposal on at least two occasions,
and has determined that the application of existing statutory
requirements and certain conditions to the proposal would eliminate
potential impacts. ...Existing regulations will eliminate any possible
significant adverse environmental impact of any future development, and
the mitigating conditions identified on this proposal are adequate to
address any future development." This is contrary to WAC 197-11-660(b):
"Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental
impacts clearly defined in an environmental document on the proposal and
shall be stated in writing by the decision maker." It is difficult to
understand how it can be determined what the possible significant
adverse environmental impacts will be from an as yet undefined future
development.
Without access to the information provided on the applications for the
various regulatory permits, such as JARPA, and the responses from the
agencies involved, the board will not have knowledge of the mitigating
conditions to be applied and their applicability to the protection of
any particular environmental concern. How does this relate to a
monitoring plan? Who will be in charge of the total project as the
protector of the public s interest? Can a decision be made before this
is known?
The apparent disinterest in information and consultation, described
above, can only mean that the value of this property for private
development overrides all consideration for its environmental worth as
habitat for anadromous fish and other protected species, as wetland
habitat, and its flood storage capacity as a wetland. The public s
interest in Dillenbaugh Creek and its confluence with the Chehalis River
is far-reaching and of inestimable value. Public and private funds have
been expended to protect its environmental integrity. The value of the
salmon, shellfish and recreation industries in the basin and the Grays
Harbor estuary is estimated to be in the millions of dollars. The
present and future value of retaining flood storage capacity in the
upper basin must be considered.
I would like, at this time, to introduce into the record the following
communications that I have received concerning these issues:
Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District,
Hydrology and Hydraulic Branch
Letter from Friends of Grays Harbor (FOGH)
In addition, the following representatives from other agencies are here
to present testimony on behalf of this appeal:
Mike Kelly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike McGinnis, Chehalis Tribe, Fisheries Dept.
Dr. Sodhi, Chehalis Tribe, Natural Resources Center
Do each of you on the Board of Adjustment feel that you have enough
information at this time to make the decision to grant this permit? Has
the SEPA process provided this agency with enough expert consultation
concerning each potential environmental impact concerning these critical
areas for control of flooding, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat,
and tribal treaty rights? Are you willing, at this time, to turn the
responsibility for this development over to a list of mitigators without
knowing what provisions will be made for monitoring? Where will any
liabilities for failures lie? As provided in City of Chehalis, Chapter
18.04.230, is the city fulfilling "the responsibilities of each
generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations"?
In closing, we would like to propose the following alternative courses
of action:
In the "best of all possible worlds," the city, county, state and
federal governments would pool their resources to purchase the American
Crossarm and the Chehalis Landing properties and their attendant
development rights from the proponents, so that these areas might retain
their public value as wetland, salmon spawning habitat and flood storage
areas.
A lesser alternative would be to combine the two fill proposals on the
American Crossarm Site and the Chehalis Landing Site (which have
proponents and/or contractors in common). Then, request, under City of
Chehalis Chapter 18.04.70, the transfer of lead agency status to a state
agency with jurisdiction which will be capable of addressing the
multi-faceted environmental concerns for this area, including the
cumulative effects of the two projects.. This alternative has the
additional advantage of eliminating any suggestion of bias in the SEPA
process for these developments.
Finally, the Chehalis River Council demands that the process as it is
presently proceeding be brought into compliance with SEPA intent and
law, and that decisions on both #97-048 and #97-049 be deferred until
that has taken place.
Signed: ________________________________________________
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, Chehalis River Council
Merrily Knutsen, Trustee
3414 Centralia Alpha Rd
Onalaska WA 98570
Ph: 360-978-4132
cc: The Chehalis Tribe
EPA Region 10
Dept. of Ecology
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Lewis County Conservation District