%From: 'l-I-'I'l'[email protected] 2Sent: -u.Friday, MayJ1-In-u_|19, 2017 6:43 AM I.To: Jeff.1 Wilson j.Subject: II.J'I-F-ICityof DuPont Critical-'l—-I-IJ——Areas Ordinance _. *Attachments: .-|..CALPORTLAND'S_-..|..|J._-I.-.1PROMISESVS ITS PERFORMANCE.docx;THE-_._.....CONSEQUENCEOF. I’u'f-—II'EIf£ZIJ1—-I'£-'—uIu'TJf—ZDEWATERINGTHEVASHON AQUIFER.docx;WILLRESTORATION ACTIONS PROPOSED -IuIJu-I—I-':I:FIu1I-ASSUREATTAINMENT.docx;EDMOND MARSH FACT-'-u- VS FICTION.docx;u-2 THE'-IIu—_.POWER OFI 'A COMMONH SHARED'I—In'I'I'IIIIVISION.docx
Follow up Flagged
'I""""'-""'1l"My name is Don Russell. H-'E!"f-HIH-IIFIK-§We have not met so allow me to introduce myself.
I1--I1'IJI—I+am a retired fish biologist andd—l j*an Executive Committee member of the Chambers-Clover Watershed (WRIA—I- 12)I.'jCouncil. Ouru'P'u'EP'—'f|IEIZTICouncil has had a long standing interest—'—fH—-Iff—J—L'—in the restoration of the Sequalitchew Creek watershed——I for the'I'I-‘IIreturn of, and beneficial use by, Coho salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead. These threatened and endangered species once (up until the late 1990s) inhabited this watershed.
For the past eight years now I have monitored water quality conditions in the Sequalitchew Creek watershed, provided public comment throughout the Ca|Port|and/Environmental Caucus Memorandum of Understanding, Feasibility Study and 2011 Settlement process, responded to questions posed by concerned citizens about this process, and witnessed Ca|Port|and's heavy handed administration (under constant threat of "protracted |itigation") of this process. Allduring this21-.time the City of DuPont representative,jjjltjjj-—I much to the consternation of many residents, have played little to no role in *determining the outcome of this ongoing process.
HavingJ.--|:|-.l.l_|-.__|jJ.I.T.-.|:|..-|..-I.witnessed Ca|Port|and's past manipulation of City representatives (Ca|Port|and wins the City looses):__ and non participationrI—I-I-|-a-|-I-I--I|-I-I-|&r|rI-|-|l-I-|-|.I--.——Ir|-by City representatives over the past eight years in a process that will determine the fate ofr—.rI-—Sequalitchew Creek-_|_||.|—|.|_|and Edmond Marsh many--_..|__|_|.-longtime residents of theI.-I.a|.|__—City of DuPont are pretty upset.,_| Thisr_..j_l_upsetness manifests itself'I—fj-I'I—-'l'—'I—in push back on any apparent appeasement on'EX'I'£'fTI"IfI'Ibehalf of CaIPort|and's quest to dewaterIjfl the VashonZIJZII aquifer so as to-:2I—I-mine gravel under dry'IhhHhconditions in the South Parcel. This'I-j-2 concern is what isITIlIbehind Jthe non supportive behavior of one'ff'I"I'?IJ:ZT'I'fEIof the City's Planning Commission members and likelyZIIIFZIIZIJHZPEJwill be evident by some City Council members.
I thoughtI'ZII—I’I'IJIEET—uI'fZI—fIEEu'X'fZ—it might be helpful to provide you some background on why many longtime residents'—'Iffu'IuIIn'?IJof the City of DuPont are suspicious?m? of City staff's motivations inl‘u#h"ILhhthe drafting of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Their—I'fI'IfP'fI'IZffIview is that the language of the current'I'I'u'In—TI’TIfI'—'fIZuCAO that prohibits alteration of Class 1 EdmondI'I'I'Zf'IfIMarsh is the onlyI'IfI'Tleverage I-F—I?-jllzl-I—u'I-I—Iu'j _ thatI—Iuthe City has left to prevent dewatering of the South Parcel. ShouldIjljlul-II-I1Iu'jdewatering of the South Parcel be permitted :|-rr-I—I-—I—I-I-—-there will be an adverse environmental impact on-Ir-r—-Irrl-I-I-I-I-.|rI-I-H--1-I-1Kettle wetland (it will be removed), Edmond Marsh, Riparian seeps, a. _l__|.l_-:l.|_|_|-I.significant reduction in Sequalitchew Creek flow, pollution_|.|_a|.|.|—|_.:of Puget Sound Springs and the-.._---__..legacy of a mined out pit (Sequalitchew'fEI'I'fI Village)—TIfZTIfIu'ZI'IEIZIfIfX'f-IffIIT’Iuunsuitable and unsafe for occupancy by either residents or industrial firms. -j-HjYou might find the attached papers useful in understanding why the misplaced push jhback the City isTreceiving on the 'I"I'l|l'Il-|"l'l'i"Il"C'?lIcurrent draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance.:HMy opinion: They?lI|"II'I|!IIIIIl?Ill|.lI|lh|llllIIIuare well written with minor exception. igl-Best regards,
ATTACHMENT 56 (CA0 TEXT 6-04)
WILLrug RESTORATION|.I.|.-Ina ACTIONSIjf?uf?léilfl-q‘PROPOSED ASSURE ATTAINMENT -l"f"&.-"'OF THE VISION? "I-I-IPreface
This'—22'——II--—-Iu'£u'JJ-LITI--I—Ipaper recites the Sequalitchew Creek Restoration Plan’s Vision, examines the extent to'- which-1-I-I--—‘?-I—'-II-rlthe ?ve action elements speci?ed by the 2011' Settlement'-I-1--.l-jlijAgreement as ?eshed out—r|- by the SouthI.-.-.F|_l.|.l_||.I_|.I_|-_..Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (and_II..-.-—its advisors) _|and publishedI'll"-"H-Z'ljI-j.'Zin the Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Restoration Plan: Publicr—.I'-—.:Review Draft will,I-I if|a.|.I.|._I|.aj|.-I.-.|.|_executed, result in attainment of the Vision.
“The"-'-I—':-—Sequalitchew Creek Restoration':I—I'-I--I-I-HPlan will identi?zactionsl—I andrII-I-I-Irjprobable project .-.-|.|.l.r.|._l.|-__|_|..|_|_—__|._|__|:-costs necessary to restore flowsand ecological conditions for native salmonid n'f*'fI—'Ipopulations in the Sequalitchew'ff—'fPu'EIf- Creek Basin. ”
TI‘ ,5 ""_':.n.-'-""_What are the requisiteflowsand ecological [i.e., physical, chemical and biological] conditions for native salmonid'*£populations in the Sequalitchew Creek Basin? The -é--1Restoration Plan is silent in regard to providing|.--l.||.--|.-.-|.|.—|-an answer to this question.
%r?jhi—What are the jcurrent ?ows and wet and dry season physical, chemical and biological conditionsjl-1‘?-I-IT-II-'1'-'-I""I-I-'-E-|&jhin Edmond Marsh and Sequalitchew Creek? The Restoration Plan is silent in regardju-L-j-—jto providing an answer to this question.
Third Question
Whatr|.u.I_|_.|__|._.I.||_|_..:|I__|g..—|.|:restoration actions are required to change current ?ows and physical, chemical and_| biologicalrl-11::-jl conditions in the Sequalitchew Creek.:j.II-L111:watershed so as to assure attainment of theI.-.-—..Vision, i.e.,flowsI__|_|..|_|and ecological conditions_|—;.jj....:..-for native salmonia’populations?
Rather'-'-I-jjhthan acknowledging the currentfl‘-'d'l'l"'I'l-l'l'I'I'condition of the watershed (answerrI-I-l- to the second1: ...-_|question) J.|I.|.|__|_l.||.|_I.and proposing restoration actions that willJ'I-'-Ibring it|.|._..|—.-.|.into compliance with the -I-I-'-||'|—rI|-I-I-uju-jlspeci?c flowsand ecological conditions required to sustainjljl-jjx. a native salmonid population j|.|.r.|._|__J.I:|_-I.(answer to the first question) the Restoration Plan responds.._..|.-J...:.|.l,_-to this question by ?eshing out1---Jju.-.|r.I.—the ?ve action elements speci?ed by the 2011 Settlement|.jJJ..I.-muslinAgreement that assume that ‘—'-ilil--I.l—-I-I-I.-in-I-Fthese ?ve action elements will, if executed, realize the Vision.
-"IWhy ShouldE'-——I—l--I-IJ-I-I-I—rI-I:j-:-j-the Plan Set Forth Answers to the First and Second Questions? hasBecause the-2|-I-Ilnrunjnxla-.—I.I.l.—:_answers to the ?rst and second questions provide the foundation and I:|.|.j.J..|——.|.-|._._.:._...... |....framework for evaluating the relative merit of all proposed restoration actions being
“Therur-_|.Iproposed mining facility-|.—-._|._-__|.|.I.-would continue and reinforcetheIii current nature ofIn-land use—-‘-in the City-I-rlofDuPont.— The"I-inoverall characterrI-I-I-J--III.-jr|.q.I_-.ofthe City would not be ajfected. No developedr|.|—-— uses would_|.|..|:|..p_-...:j-..j,_._._..|be adversely affectedby construction or operation ofthe proposed facility..-I-I-I Future-I-I-|—.-j-I.|--1JIJJa-..|.l.|-..l.._l.|..-uses planned in LID I aajacent to the site are generally compatible with theI._|.|.|._._.—|industrial use proposed. Some|_:_....._futureindustrial uses within:,:..,....1.-portions ofthe reclaimed J-J-—r-2:.area could be limited due toIII.-.r.|.I.proximity to the groundr_|._|.I_|. water table. ”-
J.rI-||r.l.|.I|.I_||.|.-In 1994 CalPortland entered into an Agreement|.j|.-I.rI..--|.I-__-with the City of DuPont, et -'al, thatI. -I---I-I-h-I-'|—-rI-Zcontained the following provisions:
"Lonebk-3'3Star and WRECO, in cooperationT with Ecology,T agree to placej; educational. signs “"F1-H-éll-r?Ti-jgi-H-?ljraand native vegetation adjacent to the trail in the location ofthe salt marsh to educate the public_qFujuZZIuZ-I-I‘and discourage physical intrusion into the marsh area.”
-I-j”WRECOand Lone Star agree to seek .||.-.lno permit in thefuture‘PHto mine... inhi.a manner Ethat A wouldI-Hsignificantly impact theflowofSequalitchew Creek. " Duringu-I. the-:.|1:.p.1|r|.I.|_l.....|:l_|..|__.:|period 2000 through 2006 CalPortland engaged consultants whose assignment was*l'I'I'l"d'l"fl"l-l'l"I'-—'l'f-to conduct studies of the Edmond Marsh/Sequalitchew Creek watershed11-11; and come up with.-...|. a plan that|.|_|.I_Iwould avail CalPortland.|-.l_|.|I. of the unmined_|,.|-..|_...|-I.Vashon aquifer saturated1" (wet)__ gravel—-I-II in 117‘HIacres of--the existing3 360-acre-—ul site as well—Iu-jlapuas the saturated (wet) gravel contained_|—|---:-.,_.—|_'_.j_in 177 acres of a proposed south expansion area. I.|.J...... '-._..Both these areas are leased fromI-.- the Weyerhaeuser|rj.1—.|1|a.p.I Real Estate Company. CalPortland.-.-_|.|.I.-.|.|..|_ also intends to mine unsaturatedj'.—IrI-I (dry) gravel fromI-—180-'rI--acres in a-I-I-rj:—lr—.north expansion area that it owns. Ther miningI.-.._|.I.-|.|_|-_|.|.scheme that evolved was to-|_|.I.-_|_...l.-.J.J._|.dewater the Vashon aquifer in the vicinity ofan.the 'I'EIIexisting and proposedI'—u' 177 acreI south2‘ expansion areaII-IZIZIn'I—*II?so that more extensive mining could 2-occur in the|._|..—-existing mine as well_|_I_.|_J.-I-.__|.-..—_.as throughout the 177 acre south expansion area under,- Jjjdry mining conditions. Dewateringjig the Vashon||.|.|.|_— aquifer to|.I.ua.-r|.|.-_mine under dry conditions 1'-I—Fwould require pre-, ‘|—I-I-I'I—j-I-I--Iduring and post-mining operation disposal-I-I-I of-'-I-I-I---from 6 to 9 cfs .1.-.—.|.|:_..l.|._|_|.-.|_||.|.J__(approximately 6.5 million gallons per day) of groundwater either into Sequalitchew|_._l.|_ --ICreek or-I--I-I-I-j:-by in?ltration into the minejré pit ?oor. Ther 1993-I-II EIS study11.1.- speaks to the s_l_dif?culty ofaJ—|...-_l_:_|.-I-..disposing of surface water runoff by in?ltration.-:_|.— into the mine pit_|_ ?oor. Add.|. I'Z-jI_'.IZ—I'uZuI-to this the impact of in?ltrating 6.5 million gallons per day|_I:.I.|.||.I.|.|.|.-of breached Vashon aquifer l—':--"?-I-Igroundwater. CalPortland and consultants-l'*'l"l'l'I'lisettled on the notion that—I-I-pre-, -I-IIIduring and post-mining—jj.|.-.|.I.|-_l.J_l._|.operation breached Vashon aquifer Water could be|.J.q_|.||.disposed of by means1.-. of a -1-I-I--rtmine Waste water drainage ditchedjun-1-I-I-.-1——z—.r-.Idug in impervious Olympia Bed soil and discharging -.|—|.._|.|.|_.|_|into lower Sequalitchew Creek. This-|_.|__|._|.a.|.__._|J.jmine waste water ditch was assigned the attractive title of North Sequalitchew Creek.
Inaz.r-.-J|.|.|.|.|.I.2006, for reasons unknown, the CityI.J-||.r.Iof DuPont City-I-.|—I...|—l.-—Council approved a Mineral Resource‘I15-r-int-—-i1—r-Ijr-12Overlay that included both the North and South Expansion Areas apparently - notuI.|.I..I._|_.:aJ_|.|..I.realizing the consequence of dewatering the Vashon.-.|_...l._|.I:r.|_|.aquifer on Edmond Marsh, Kettle,In-'I.ZZ—ffSeep and Riparian Forest Wetlands,rjjzu.-— Sequalitchew Creek, Pugetr.—|.—J-.1:Sound Shoreline Springs,'|—I- potentialI—'-'-I—-‘-impact on the City"l"_'.-I‘of DuPont‘s domestic‘tr water1-I15supply andFlt significant costIJZI.--rimpact on the City for-z,.|.|.|designing, permitting,I‘ constructing,J—I-—-| operating,+-.I.._|.|.|_.maintaining
I-|HI.—I'F |'|-1
51;.-.|..|.||_|.|__|_._..|..:..|.|.h... —'-I-H-I-I--I-H —jIj -I.$.|IJ-.-. |.|_-:'.- :2‘ I.-I.I.._|._|..-.|..:-J.:.I I.-.— ._,.....__ r_._|..r—. "J2?"-T-"".='.=?"..:.."'_=;'.
h|.j.—..|.|.|. I.-I—l. -._|I.r.|_|.._-|...... _ 1.. —"'I"'-I"'I".l——-j.rI— xajl-_-.|.I. |— u|.I—-.|_|
"-"1-"--'1 4'-'— -I-I-I-I-I-II‘—I—-.1: jru.-—-J|.|.|_||.|.l..|.|._l_ |_|._ .|__|.I.I _: l—' -I—I--r- -I—|--1-. II jjnjj jrh j—
I'l-'-H-II Ijj I1.
hni-jrjl.I.I.I..-a.|.I.|a_| |—|.||_ |._q_| I—I—"-'3-'—-I—-rl -I-.-I-—-$.rIlI.I.—J: -.-—jI1u|.|_..|.| .|_-_|j|_._a_J._..... ZI”II'I'IfI'—P-'—uI--II?J-IZ-I—II- .|.I_l.I-..__I.Jj|I..l,.ar.|_ |_i._.|, |._..._ Jujtl-I-I.|J-.-I_|.l-.|..|.|.|..|.I|.l.|_|._._|. '----I—I-'-I-I-Ir-'——?-I-- I-lj -I-j jj.I.l.|JrI.|.-. I.-I--——.-_..J—I.-. I-'-'-‘--'---I-I:-I Z -Zjr-Jr1.Jz.|.|.I. Ia-.-.|.I I._I _ ..____.-j._...-.-..
—-I——' '—I-I-I---'-- II-I-rrl I- I-rj -.I-jl |.rI-IIa—|—.|_:|.:Jl. |—||.|.J_|,.|-I...-.|_.-_| -I'I-"I-I—"'|-Ll-rl tit-—I'j-—-I1.|.I-— -.|_l.I_||.I.|_|--|.._l.|_r—r_._
-.|p.p...|.I“West Edmond Marsh isI-I-IZ-IHZjZ——an approximate I 35—acre wetland with a hydraulic regime dominated by surfacewater1.1:-?j:'j-II.'lI-I-Hinputs to the south and east. ” Alternative 2.1.6 would 1impact this Class 1 wetland by lowering the groundwater level 1.5 feet beneath West -_Edmond ;Marsh. The City of DuPont’s municipal code DMC 25.l05.070.l(f) states that alterationj-I.— of Class 1--1-I-rl-I-'-I-I.Wetlands is prohibited.
“A 0.13-acre seep wetland complex oftwo long, very narrow, and non—contiguous wetlands is located just above the trail along Sequalitchew Creek at about RM 0.75 to 0.85. ” Alternative 2.1.6 would disconnect this wetland complex from the groundwater source that sustains it. The elimination of this seep wetland complex would be in violation of DMC 25.105.070.l(f). Since the water that ?ows from this wetland discharges into Sequalitchew Creek such an act would be in violation of the 1994 Agreement.
“The underlying zoning ofthe mine site is a mix ofresidential (North Expansion Area) and manufacturing and industrial (South Expansion Area) designations, and the mine is included within a mineral resources overlay. Mining activities are considered a temporary1'2‘ use— andxxzlzare consistent with“A the underlying zoning,——- FIJI:Future land—J—IIJuse is an '” important—.rI.-L1-.llJconsideration in any alternative—--rI--I—-II-proposed for this study. RCWI. I 78.44.03"-'-' 1(1'-1) states_..J...-|_.i_..|_|J._||.j|_|.-I.a_|_|_that “Although both the need for and practicability of reclamation will|.I_|_ control theI. typeMini)‘and degree of reclamation in any speci?c surface2 mine,mm" the basic objective shall be tof'I'I'l'I'lIfl'l'l'I.'l'll'reestablish on a perpetual basis the vegetative-I-I-I-—.-'-'-H-.-'1cover, soil stability, and water conditions_-_..:|_-I...:|I.|_|.u|_II.|.r|.|appropriate to the approved subsequent use of the surface mineIn and—Ip-I-rto prevent orI-1-Imitigate future environmentalI-rj degradation.”-1-‘ "l"l'l'6 to 9 cubic feetI-I-rl-—I-I-'per second of discharging;_|_....—|::l..|_|._|groundwater emanating from the east sloping faceI_aI.|_--.|.|.|.|of the South Expansion Area|.I_ur.-. and ?owing out-J. onto exposed122-: impervious Olympia1-: Bed IIsoil and-1-I-—-Inits commingling with_.,_._..—I.—,stormwater runoff poses an in.._._a,.,_|_I__l__|_.|j-perpetuity problem that neither industrial tenants or the|.|l..|I.l.|a—|.u-.City of DuPont should have to face.|_ -J|_l.-.Such a scenario seems2a1-.:.lIl-in clear violation of the -1.r1-I-1-1-I-I-I-I-I-I‘.-"basic objective of mine reclamation as cited in RCW 78.44.031(l1).'-'-' ' '- Furthermore‘H?- to :.convey this|-,_I..-..—|_|._|_|.|.|..|.|J._l.-|_I|.I..:.quantity of groundwater and commingled stormwater runoff to the central mineIJ——1.—||.1.|.-.-ur-—-Iirjjl-I-I-I-rarea and North Expansion Area for treatment and in?ltration seems incongruous with_.|__._:.._.._.-|_—.-.|..._—the intended residential use of these areas of the spent mine as._I well.
“MiningIn isIrl--I-I.permitted only abovel— the-I-|'-I-I'I"-I--I?aquifer and a 25-footseparation (10-foot"—-I—'-separation ;._._|.j-j.|.|..-J.-..|.II._|—|-J.-_l.|.—for slopes) is required between mining activities and the seasonal high groundwater ” level.r. Stormwater-.-.—IjJrI.lr—-I-H-1is managed onsite through in?ltration..-—[Page 25,'.--"lines 19 — .'I'l-22] This is-.jj-..l_|_|-.._....:"—|a current restriction in CalPortland’s aggregate mining permit. ThisI__|.-.|.|_|_restriction makes good|1I—J—2-—Iu—Ienvironmental sense in that: “...surfaceJn'X1'I?fI"fIu'—'I'water featureswithin the Sequalitchew ” Creek.-I-I-I-I--I-I--?l-I-I—'I-j—‘-.I:'—basin are hydraulically connected and interact with the groundwater system.1 Alternative|.|—l_|--_I.l—|. 2.1.6 would adversely impactin.-.||.IJ:.-.a|.:.|authe surface water features of Kettle, Seep and Edmondjr-I-I-j— Marsh wetlands and Sequalitchew-j.-I-—-I-I--I-I-I--I"-I-'—I-'rCreek since they are all hydraulically _|_I. connectedj_ and interactturn with the-..—I—groundwater system that CalPortland-I.I_|g...|.I.|.proposes to dramaticallyI.-.l.|.|..|.I alter byI dewateringr|:.|—-2-——.j1the Vashon aquifer that sustains these criticalr-.l— and sensitive-I-I-I- surface'I'I'I-l'II-|'Iwater bodies.
key to sustainability is providing adequate water quality treatment to avoid impacting the long—termfunctionofthe in?ltrationpond. The type ofwater quality pre-treatment necessary would depend on whether the collection system also intercepts stormwater. ” I would disagree with the word modest. As mentioned previously a surface water management system that complies with NPDES requirements for the discharge of surface water runoff (discharging groundwater now on the surface being a component thereof) by infiltration into an underlying aquifer and thence to Puget Sound and the operation, maintenance and requirement for the periodic replace of the requisite facilities to handle the quantity of water described herein will overwhelm the very limited ?nancial capacity and staff of the City of DuPont.
Option 2.1.6 Illustrated
Va“?-1.j - mllmm?jj'
Outlelbiversaun Weir
Em-v211.15 _ _
Note that the surface water level at the extreme east end of Edmond Marsh (lower left) is higher (212.27) than the Sequalitchew Lake controlled water level at the outlet diversion weir (211.47). Also note that the arrow at the east end of Edmond Marsh shows ?ow from the Marsh through the beaver dam eastward toward Sequalitchew Lake. Contrary to the 2011/2012 Settlement Agreement’s and Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Restoration Plan’s assertion, this is proof that surface water ?ow from level controlled Sequalitchew Lake into Edmond Marsh is not the source of Edmond Marsh’s water, nor has it been since construction of the diversion canal, Sequalitchew Lake surface water level control weir and cross over culverts in the mid 1950’s.
The beaver dam shown above at located SG-SCM-1, which is at the extreme east end of Edmond Marsh, is preventing water in Edmond Marsh from ?owing eastward into the diversion canal outlet of Sequalitchew Lake rather than preventing surface water from Sequalitchew Lake ?owing into Sequalitchew Creek. Former Sequalitchew Creek located westward of this dam is now inundated by the several feet of groundwater ?ooding that is occurring in Edmond Marsh as a result of a series of beaver dams that block east to west ?ow through Edmond Marsh.
The diversion canal whose bottom is several feet below Sequalitchew Lake’s controlled surface water level functions to dewater groundwater beneath what is shown on this illustration as “Sequalitchew Creek”, thus it has become a losing reach rather than gaining reach. What is the source of Edmond Marsh’s water?
The below Aspect ,,_,.__-.--_ -__-.- illustration clearly -__- .....-.__- indicates that V. 4.... A4un;;v;;u LVJ.|J.lLlLL the v...... -. ,4 source of water in Edmond Marsh isAu groundwater that is discharging into Edmond Marsh. You will note that the groundwater level along the southeast shore line of Edmond Marsh is at an elevation of 215 feet whereas the surface water level in central Edmond Marsh is at approximately 213 feet due to beaver dam impoundment. Water level in Sequalitchew Lake is controlled at approximately 211.5 feet. Surface water ?ow from Sequalitchew Lake into Edmond Marsh is not and cannot be the source of water in Edmond Marsh since water does not run uphill.
Groundwater is entering Edmond Marsh all along its southeastern shoreline. Beaver dams, culverts and the railroad berm obstructions to east to west water ?ow through Edmond Marsh has resulted in inundation of former Sequalitchew Creek, its adjacent wetlands and caused extensive ?ooding of areas of former dry land. These same obstructions to east to west ?ow have created stagnant pools of water that have high dry season Water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, low pH, high concentrations of dissolved methane gas and in West Edmond Marsh high concentrations of dissolved and particulate iron and a recipient (i.e., detention and in?ltration pond) of storm water runoff from Palisades Village.
What are the action elements of a fact based restoration plan?
A restoration plan for the Sequalitchew Creek watershed that is based upon an understanding of the hydrology of the area, native salmanid habitat requirements and the conditionsthat now
of Sequalitchew Creek”, thus assuring enhanced surface water ?ow through this “dry” drainage ditchi.'a:.%L—------mid reach of Sequalitchew Creek.
Phaser|.|. 3.I Ij_|._|.-_q_i....—...-h—Remove south end of railroad trail, span with bridge
E‘-j-""*I'*HZ*hIZEjOnce water levels are lowered in East and West Edmond Marsh as a result of beaver dam ?|$II:-removal and existing culverts are cleaned out, the south -I-nu-I-||—-|=|nend of the railroad berm trail should be removed and the gap spanned by a pedestrian bridge. This is the one major capital project that will require design, HPA permitting and construction. When this ?nal obstruction to east west ?ow in ._...-_-= E?iEdmond Marsh is completed historic groundwater-.:-.-;-fed, gravel bed, meandering Sequalitchew Creek (as described in The 1997 Chambers-CloverCreek Watershed Management Committee Watershed Characterizationreport) will reestablish itself along the southeast shoreline of Edmond Marsh and native salmonid will once again inhabit the low gradient glacial ?ood plain upland portion of the Sequalitchew Creek‘ Fu.?watershed.
The???hhj-IZEthree illustrationscontained in this paper are from CalPortland’sconsultants Anchor and Aspect. These131 consults have been providing technical advice to thehil-xiiSouth Puget Sound Salmon EnhancementmiGroup representative Lance Winecka "and Core Group members. They are well 13-?aware of the correct interpretation of the meaning— of the data contained in these illustrations.Yet hithey have advised SPSSEG’s Lance Winecka and Core Group members that increasing surface ——H-rah-w—water ?ow from Sequalitchew Lake into Edmond Marsh and down Sequalitchew Creek will— —_jHH*restore ?ow and ecological conditions for native salmonid populations.
-|I._l.I|_Why would they advocate.|_|._|-|.|_- such ?ction? Because|..—.:.-. it serves their client’s1. (CalPortland’s).u...__"— best -I-—interests in- obtaining-I-j|jaJ|.—J-Ju|I..-|.r_-J:.J.._..a conditional use permit from the City of DuPont to dewater the Vashon aquiferL:-.-j.r|_-_.-_to access millions of tons of now saturated21-: (with Vashon.2—J.p.|_:.-._|aquifer groundwater) gravel undertr: dry gravel mining conditions.
CalPortlandconsultant’s motive, as they have in?uenced the drafting of the 201 1/2012 Settlement***??+*Agreement and Sequalitchew Creek Watershed Restoration Plan, is to provide surface water1 augmentation from Sequalitchew Lake as an offset (mitigation) for the diminished groundwater dischargeI-?=1L?hinto the canyon reach of Sequalitchew Creek bk-I‘I'that will occur as a result of =—'tJ-Edewatering the Vashon aquifer and mining the South Parcel. ‘jh'I*I—ZJThe restoration of native salmonid populations in Sequalitchew Creek and Edmond piMarsh requires increased,not diminished,groundwater discharge into Edmond Marsh and Sequalitchew Creek and its unimpeded east to west ?ow through Edmond Marsh and down Sequalitchew Creek. The restoration plan incorporated into this paper, if implemented, will result in E~E==realization of the Vision. The SPSSEG/CalPortland/Environmental-7.:-“TCaucus Restoration.—_-._,Plan, if 'I'f-Iu—implemented,will notE'- result inInrealization ofII-III-—-Ifllthe Restoration Plan’sul-I-Ifjstated Vision. DonI-I1.Russell JanuaryIrlr-II 23, 2014