Programmatic EIS Update Icicle Work Group Meeting September 27, 2018 Note: Collation and response to comments is ongoing; results in this presentation should be considered draft work product.
Icicle Strategy Environmental Review and Permitting Programmatic Environmental Review Project Design Project Environmental Review Permitting If Fatally Permitting Decision Flawed If Project Implementation Permitted
Process for Selecting a Preferred Alt Decision Making Process Public Comments on DPEIS Input from Icicle Work Group As the SEPA Responsible Officials, Co-leads Will Select Preferred Alternative considering: Potential environmental impacts and mitigation Costs / benefits Long-term resiliency Constructability / Fundability Public comments received Icicle Work Group Support under Operating Procedures
Operating Procedures for Decision Making Decision on key points and for the final project list will be made by consensus. If consensus cannot be met, objections must be clear and those objecting must help to offer other solutions that will meet the guiding principles. If full consensus cannot be reached, a formal dissenting opinion can be filed.
Comment Demographics Category Totals IWG Members 10 Agencies (non-IWG members) 2 Non-Governmental Organizations (non-IWG 11 members) Individual Comment Emails 173 Individual Comment Letters 17 Public Hearing Comment Forms 3 Public Hearing Transcript Comments 7 Form Letter Comment Emails (online templates) 8582 Total 8805
Comment Demographics IWG Members Bureau of Reclamation US Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington Office US Fish & Wildlife Service, Leavenworth Fisheries Complex US Forest Service, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest WA Department of Fish & Wildlife Icicle Creek Watershed Council & Trout Unlimited Washington Water Trust Daryl Harnden Yakama Nation Agencies (non-IWG members) WA Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water WA Department of Agriculture
Comment Demographics Non-Governmental Organizations (non-WIG members) Group Letter 1 (ALPS et al) Alpine Lakes Protection Society; The Wilderness Society; American Whitewater; Aqua Permanente; Center for Environmental Law & Policy; Conservation Congress; Doug Scott Wilderness Consulting; El Sendero Backcountry Ski & Snowshoe Club; Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs; Friends of Bumping Lake; Friends of the Clearwater; Friends of Enchantments; Friends of Lake Kachess; Friends of Wild Sky; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; Icicle Creek Watershed Council; Issaquah Alps Trails Club; Kittitas Audubon Society; The Mazamas; Middle Fork Recreation Coalition (MidFORC); North Cascades Conservation Council; North Central Washington Audubon Society; River Runners For Wilderness; Save Our Sky Blue Waters; Seattle Audubon Society; Sierra Club; Spokane Mountaineers; Spring Family Trust for Trails Washington Wild; Wild Fish Conservancy; Wilderness Watch Group Letter 2 (WTA et al) Washington Trails Association; The Mountaineer; Access Funds Alpine Lakes Foundation Chelan-Douglas Land Trust Great Old Broads for Wilderness North Central Washington Audubon Society Olympic Park Associates Pacific Crest Trail Association Pacific Law Group (on behalf of the Wilderness Society) Washington Native Plant Society Wise Use Movement
Comment Demographics Form Letter Comment Emails (online templates) Wilderness Watch 6666 Sierra Club 483 Washington Wild 184 The Wilderness Society 230 Washington Trails Association 996 UNKNOWN 23
Types of Comments Received Comment Category Examples Wilderness Values General Support for Wilderness Values; No Action in Wilderness Area Recreational Impacts Concern over access to sites; trail impacts; campsite impacts Concern about water rights relinquishment; requests of extent and Relinquishment validity review to be included in PEIS Water Rights Additional comments about water rights, such as federal water rights Easements/Ownership Concerns over IPID Easement; Ownership of lands Concerns over violations of the Wilderness Act (tool use and if Wilderness Act modifying existing storage is permissible) SEPA Process Concern over SEPA process violations No Eightmile Lake Stated opposition for Eightmile Lake Restoration project Restoration No Alternative 4 Stated opposition to Alternative 4 Preference for Alternative 5 Stated preference for Alternative 5 Alternative 1 Preference Stated Support for Alternative 1 Full IPID Pump Exchange Stated support for the Full IPID Piping and Pump Exchange Project Support Alpine Lakes Automation Stated support for Alpine Lakes Automation Support
Types of Comments Received (Cont.) Comment Category Examples No/Pro Alpine Lakes Automation Stated opposition to Alpine Lakes Automation project Eightmile Lake Restoration States support for Eightmile Lake Restoration Project Support Concern about impacts of climate change; concern about efficacy of Climate Change program with climate change LNFH Issues with LNFH operations, water use, or proposed projects Opposition to increased agricultural water supplies; concern over Agricultural Water Use agricultural water use Residential Development Opposition to or concern about residential development Supplemental DPEIS Requests that a supplemental/revised draft PEIS be prepared General support for water conservation; Request for more water Conservation conservation USFS Statements about USFS jurisdiction No New Dams General opposition to new dams stated Stated support for a different alternative then those analyzed in the New Alternative DPEIS Impacts to Tributary Streams Concerns over impacts of releases on tributaries General Support General support for the Icicle Strategy Goals
Example Comments Co-Leads are currently evaluating appropriate response comments. Example comments here are intended to provide an indication of the types of comments received, but is not intended to generalize or depict the entirety of public comments. Note: Collation and response to comments is ongoing; results in this presentation should be considered draft work product.
Relinquishment
How Extent and Validity Fits into Environmental Review – DRAFT Proposal Development Programmatic Environmental Review Project Environmental Review Permitting (Water Right Change Application) Extent and Validity Review If Fatally Permitting Decision Flawed
Extent and Validity Policy Water Resources POL-1120
Tentative Determinations What triggers a tentative determination? • A water right change or transfer • An application for new water right or water right change on a property with a appurtenant water rights • When evaluating water users that may be considered as potentially impaired by a water right permitting decision • When there is a pending departmental order on a water right Under POL-1120, RCW, WAC and Case Law, Environmental Review is Not a Trigger for Tentative Determination
Timing of SEPA vs. Water Right Review WAC 197-11-055: Integrating SEPA and agency activities. The SEPA process shall be integrated with agency activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems. Ecology PRO 1000 – SEPA is triggered when an application for a new use or a change to an existing use is filed.
Wilderness Values
Recreational Impacts
Water Rights
Easements/Ownership
Wilderness Act
SEPA Process
No Eightmile Lake Restoration
No Alternative 4
Preference for Alternative 1
Preference for Alternative 5
Full IPID Pump Exchange Support
Alpine Lakes Automation Support
Eightmile Lake Restoration Support/ General Support for Storage
Climate Change
LNFH
Agricultural Water Use
Residential Development
Supplemental DPEIS
Conservation
USFS
No New Dams
New Alternative
Impacts to Tributary Streams
General Support
Questions?
Recommend
More recommend
