Comments on the Draft Combined Environmental Impact Statement for The Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Subarea Plan*

BCC-DEIS Comments Comments on the Draft Combined Environmental Impact Statement for The Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Subarea Plan October 8, 2024 SUBMITTED BY BAINBRIDGE CONSERVATION COALITION On July 26, 2024 the City of Bainbridge Island released its combined Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS, for both the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Subarea Plan planning Alternatives. The DEIS is a long and cumbersome document that effectively creates a barrier to meaningful public participation in a planning process certain to result in serious adverse environmental impacts that will affect Bainbridge Island and its residents. Similar to the planning process conducted over the past year, the DEIS is heavily skewed in favor of unprecedented growth as provided for in planning Alternatives 2 & 3. These two “action” planning scenarios would provide over twice the capacity needed for Bainbridge Island to meet its official population allocation of 4,524 new residents by the year 2044: Alternative 2 – 11,601, and; Alternative 3 – 11,068. This would be achieved with significant density increases and expansion in Winslow and the neighborhood centers. To justify these historically unprecedented changes in Bainbridge Island’s zoning regulations the City erroneously claims that Bainbridge Island is mandated by the State to do it whether we want to or not. These supposed mandates, however, reside in a much more complex regulatory ecosystem than is being represented by the City. This amounts to a willful subversion of local control and the imposition of adverse environmental impacts on the Island and its residents, who are dependent on their sole source aquifer, a factor warranting historic limitations on growth. This and other shortcomings of the DEIS are discussed at length in BCC’s official response below. The DEIS is in need of serious revisions Like the planning process it’s a part of, the DEIS is heavily slanted in favor of accelerated growth with little regard for the adverse impacts certain to result from the City’s preferred high growth planning scenarios, Alternatives 2 & 3. To transform the DEIS into a serious and credible document the following issues need to be addressed: Page 2: The DEIS reflects a pronounced, un-mandated, pro growth bias regarding interpretation of State requirements and policies included in the City’s adopted plans: The DEIS treats HB1220 as if it overrides all local control and prioritizes the City’s Housing Action Plan as if it overrides conflicting policies in all other adopted City plans. This bias needs to be corrected. Page 7: Mitigation measures identified in the DEIS lack credibility: Weak regulations, things that are merely options that “could,” be done, while comprehensive plan policies with no regulatory effect are cited in the DEIS as so-called mitigation. Page 9: Understated impacts and flawed mitigation: Page 9: Treaty rights: Adverse impacts to tribal treaty rights, which BCC considers an issue of Environmental Justice, is conspicuously missing from the DEIS. Page 15: Natural environment: Impacts identified in the DEIS are reasonably complete but the effectiveness of identified mitigation measures is grossly overstated. Page 18: Climate impacts are intentionally obscured and trivialized. The DEIS also fails to acknowledge explicit commitments by the City Council to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions and ignores RCW 36.70A.070(9)(a) requiring our comprehensive plan to plan for an overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Page 25: Groundwater: The DEIS makes unsupported assertions about the capacity of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers and fails to acknowledge that Bainbridge Island is an EPA certified Sole Source Aquifer island (Appendix A). Hanging over the DEIS, and the entire planning process, is the conspicuous lack of an established Groundwater Management Plan, which has been delayed for years. Page 32: Displacement: The DEIS fails to consider the full range of impacts likely to cause displacement, including increased property taxes and impacts to quality of life. Page 33: Fiscal impacts to the City: The DEIS fails to consider the budgetary impacts of planning and providing adequate transportation and other infrastructure for the planning Alternatives, especially for high-growth “action” Alternatives 2 & 3. Page 34: Transportation system: Impacts identified in the DEIS are reasonably complete but the mitigation cited is unrealistic. The DEIS fails to acknowledge the inherent limitations of Bainbridge Island’s legacy system of roads and intersections. Page 36: Aesthetics: The DEIS minimizes aesthetic impacts by failing to recognize long-standing aesthetics standards contained in the City’s comprehensive plan. Mitigation measures are dwarfed by the shear magnitude of the impacts, especially those associated with high-growth “action” Alternatives 2 & 3.   THE DEIS CONTAINS A PRONOUNCED BIAS IN FAVOR OF GROWTH HB1220 and the City’s Housing Action Plan are improperly used to create a narrative that Overrides Local Control and Promotes Growth In 2020, as part of Kitsap County’s overall population allocation, the City Council approved an allocation for Bainbridge Island of 4,524 new residents by 2044. This was part of the current long-range planning process leading up to our updated comprehensive plan. Bainbridge Island’s current zoning, Alternative 1, has the capacity to accommodate this allocation but is consistently maligned as, “…not consistent with regional planning and land use goals to accommodate forecasted population and employment growth in the future.” By selectively citing “State mandates” and prioritizing the City’s Housing Action Plan over all other adopted City plans and existing limitations on development, such as adequate access to potable water, the current planning process has effectively been a campaign to promote historically unprecedented growth in Winslow and the neighborhood centers. Reverse engineered for this desired outcome, the DEIS is the latest iteration of the City’s current campaign for maximum growth. Here’s a comparison of the three planning scenarios: 4,524 is the Official, reasonable, 2044 Growth Allocation for Bainbridge Island Alternative 1: 5,640 new residents Existing zoning has capacity for 5,640 new residents by 2044. Alternative 2: 11,601 new residents Unprecedented increases in density in Winslow and the designated centers to accommodate 11,601 new residents. Alternative 3: 11,068 new residents High growth expansion and densification of Winslow and the designated centers to accommodate 11,068 new residents Alternatives 2 & 3 more than double the zoning capacity needed to accommodate Bainbridge Island’s official growth allocation of 4,524 new residents by 2044. The primary tools being used to promote this historic rate of growth are HB1220 and the City’s own Housing Action Plan. HB1220 is implemented by RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act, which directs comprehensive plans to include “A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods” followed by a long list of other requirements for housing elements, including: “… an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, as provided by the department of commerce …” On page 2-7 of the DEIS, the City’s Planning Department issues its legal interpretation of HB1220. This highly biased and prejudicial opinion has guided the current planning process for the past year: “HB-1220 – New Housing Affordability Growth Targets “Housing-specific growth targets are a new GMA requirement applicable to this periodic update for the first time. Previously, the Comprehensive Plan only needed to demonstrate that enough housing could be built within the City over the 20-year planning period to accommodate the population growth target. Now, the Comprehensive Plan must demonstrate that various housing types, including housing affordable to specific income brackets, can feasibly be built over the 20-year planning period.” Eager to override local control, City staff and consultants have enthusiastically embraced the new “State housing mandates”. Long-standing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies have been ignored or downplayed, including: Successive comprehensive plans that have recognized Bainbridge Island’s limited carrying capacity and the need to plan within those limitations. Bainbridge Island’s designation by the EPA as a Sole Source Aquifer island. The entire Island is classified as a critical aquifer recharge area (Appendix A). The absence of an established groundwater management plan, to provide for adequate monitoring of groundwater levels and stream flows, limiting our ability to track environmental changes and likely impacts to tribal treaty rights. Transportation constraints including: A legacy rural road network with finite capacity and limited access by ferries and a two-lane bridge. Bainbridge Island’s long-standing commitment to protecting and restoring ecological function and preserving the special character of the Island.   Putting HB1220’s housing mandates into perspective Over the years the GMA has required local jurisdictions to, “Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock”. As the result of significant in-migration and a national housing market that promotes housing as a “wealth builder” and commodity, facilitating the availability of affordable housing has proven extremely difficult for Washington cities. Faced with that reality the state legislature has recently ramped up pressure to override local control and effectively impose growth on cities with HB1220 and other housing related bills. An exemption for Bainbridge Island One such piece of legislation passed in 2023 is the Middle Housing bill, HB 1110, implemented by RCW 36.70A.635. HB 1110 attempts to force cities to increase zoning densities by mandating they allow multifamily housing to be built anywhere single-family housing is already allowed. In recognition of the limitations of island cities solely dependent upon groundwater, RCW 36.70A.635 was recently amended to exempt Sole Source Aquifer islands in Puget Sound from its requirements. This exemption from the requirements of RCW 36.70A.635 is recognition of one of Bainbridge Island’s main constraints to growth: Limited groundwater. This provides a basis on which to push back against all of the State’s “housing mandates”. This will require the City of Bainbridge Island to support local control as opposed to embracing unrealistic State housing mandates that come with serious adverse environmental impacts to the community.   A holistic approach to interpreting the State’s Growth Management Act HB1220 and RCW 36.70A.070(2) are just one of the many policies and requirements contained in the GMA. Here are other planning requirements from the Growth Management Act: RCW 36.70A.020 Planning Goals (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (emphasis added) (10) Environment. Protect and enhance the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. (12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.” RCW36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36.70A.140. Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: “(1) A land use element … shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. (9)(a) A climate change and resiliency element that is designed to result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions … (6) A transportation element … (C) If probable funding falls short of meeting the identified needs of the transportation system, including state transportation facilities, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met;” Infrastructure improvements are controlled locally Among its policies and mandates is the GMA’s basic requirement for zoning and development to be served by adequate infrastructure, something that is controlled by our locally elected officials. This is one of the controls local officials can use if they choose to. This needs to be recognized in the final EIS. The City’s Housing Action Plan The City recently developed a Housing Action Plan, which has been assigned an oversized role in shaping the current comprehensive planning process. The HAP, however, is just one of the City’s approved plans and should be considered within a mix of goals and policies contained in the Comp Plan and other plans such as the Climate Action Plan and Sustainable Transportation Plan. The Introduction to the Comp Plan’s Land Use Element explains how various policies need to be balanced: “The Land Use Element is one of the mandatory elements of the Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA). It addresses the general location and distribution of land uses within the City and, in combination with other Plan Elements, guides the use of land on Bainbridge Island. These other Elements include: The Environment and Water Resources Elements that address the protection and conservation of natural systems including the Island’s sole source aquifer, the quality and quantity of water, habitat, vegetation and air. The Housing Element that identifies strategies to increase the diversity of housing types and the supply of affordable housing on the Island. The Economic Element that encourages programs and policies to support economic vitality and opportunity for Island residents. The Transportation Element to provide mobility and safety for all users while respecting neighborhood character and climate resilience. The Capital Facilities and Utilities Elements to address the infrastructure needed to serve the planned land uses. Taken together, these Elements balance the Island’s highly held values of environmental stewardship with the needs of its people for housing, health, safety, economic opportunity and access to goods, services, recreation and cultural amenities. All of these Elements are guided by the eight Guiding Principles set forth in the Introduction Chapter of this Comprehensive Plan. These Principles emphasize the importance of shaping future growth and redevelopment in a way that retains the Island’s character and quality of life that its residents so highly value. ” (emphasis added) Contrast this approach with the current planning process that’s all about overriding local control and promoting historically unprecedented growth. The City’s Climate Action Plan – relegated to 2nd Class Status Another example of how the City’s Housing Action Plan has been given undue weight in the City’s the overall planning process, and in the DEIS, is relegation of the City’s Climate Action Plan to 2nd class status. The DEIS finds that all three of the planning scenarios fail to meet the Climate Action Plan’s greenhouse gas reduction goals and treats that failure as unavoidable. The DEIS also neglects to mention City Council resolutions that have committed the City to achieving an overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. One of those resolutions commits the City to meeting or exceeding the requirements of the Paris Climate Agreement. The other resolution directs the City to develop a climate lens to ensure all City plans and projects are consistent with the Climate Actions Plan’s goals for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the overriding weight given to the City’s Housing Action Plan in support of high growth planning Alternatives 2 & 3, the DEIS treats the Climate Action Plan’s goals with relative indifference. Prioritizing the Housing Action Plan over the Climate Action Plan, and over all other approved plans and policies, is highly inappropriate, prejudicial, and indicative of a planning process completely skewed in favor of unprecedented growth. This blatant bias needs to be corrected not only in the final EIS but in the current process to update our Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Subarea Plan. MITIGATION MEASURES THAT LACK CREDIBILITY Overall, the effectiveness of mitigation measures identified in the DEIS are grossly overstated. The DEIS cites as mitigation: Existing development regulations, some of which don’t even apply in the most affected areas of Bainbridge Island; actions that “could” be taken; comprehensive plan policies, which have no regulatory impact and are subject to change as part of the current update, and; future plans and policies that haven’t been developed and approved. Most of the DEIS sections conclude with this reassuring, yet unsubstantiated, statement: “Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts”: “No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.” City regulations cited as mitigation The DEIS cites seemingly relevant City’s regulations as mitigation for impacts, some of which don’t even apply to the most impacted areas. One example is the Aquifer Recharge Protection Requirement, ARPA, which requires the significant retention of native vegetation during development. The ARPA doesn’t even apply to areas most affected by Alternatives 2 & 3, Winslow and the designated centers. In addition, any expansion of Winslow via Alternative 3 would effectively remove any current ARPA protections for some important properties by enveloping them in higher zoning densities (currently, ARPA only applies to R-1, R-2, and R-0.4 properties). Other regulations that do apply would have minimal ability to mitigate the unprecedented growth provided for in planning Alternatives 2 & 3. Things that “could” be done In addition to existing regulations, the DEIS cites things the City “could do”, such as these items from section 3.7: “Water “Water conservation measures could be identified to reduce water consumption.” “Sanitary Sewer “Alternatives 2 and 3 could require development of additional wastewater treatment plant capacity at the existing facility and in the form of a new small package plant within the Winslow Subarea.” “Stormwater “Stormwater infiltration could be required, as appropriate, to supplement groundwater recharge for additional base flow to streams and wetlands and reduce runoff.”   Citing things that “could be” done as mitigation seems contrary to the whole idea of mitigation. These are things that might possibly happen with absolutely no guarantee they will or how feasible they are. In addition, these suggestions are not new. All three of the examples cited above have been talked about over the years at the City. They’re part of a larger lexicon of possible actions that are periodically resurrected to deflect, but not address, community concerns over growth, and limited water supply. The DEIS improperly cites Comprehensive Plan policies as mitigation. On page 1-47 there’s a long list of comprehensive plan policies cited as mitigation for impacts to the Natural Environment. A sampling of these from the Environmental and Water Resources Elements include: GOAL EN-1 Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island’s natural systems, natural beauty and environmental quality. GOAL EN-2 Encourage sustainability in City Government operations. Goal EN-3 Consider the impact on critical areas whenever land is subdivided. Goal EN-4 Encourage sustainable development that maintains diversity of healthy, functioning ecosystems that are essential for maintaining our quality of life and economic viability into the future. GOAL EN-5 Protect and enhance wildlife, fish resources and ecosystems. GOAL WR-1 Manage the water resources of the Island in ways that preserve, protect, maintain, and where possible restore and enhance their ecological and hydrologic function. GOAL WR-2 Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater on the Island to ensure clean and sufficient groundwater for future generations. GOAL WR-3 Achieve no net loss of ecological functions and processes necessary to sustain aquatic resources including loss that may result from cumulative impacts over time. Comprehensive Plan goals and policies have little regulatory effect Citing comprehensive plan goals and policies as mitigation for adverse environmental impacts is not substantive as: (a) Comp plan policies have minimal if any regulatory effect unless implemented by actual land use regulations. Rather, Comp plan policies are merely general statements intended to be a guide for actual legislation that enacts specific land use regulations; (b) The comp plan policies cited are not binding, as they can be changed during the current comp plan update process; and (c) If the City as an organization were honestly serious about implementing these eight-year-old comp plan policies with regulations they would have done it by now. SEPA’s fatal flaw: Sole discretion for determining an adverse environmental impact It’s important to be aware that procedures for conducting environmental impact statements are provided for in the State’s Environmental Policy Act, SEPA. Adverse environmental impacts are to be avoided, either by denying approval of a proposed government action, such as a permit or a city plan, or by actually mitigating those impacts. A key flaw in SEPA, however, is that the sole authority for determining what constitutes an adverse environmental impact is at the discretion of the “lead agency.” In this case that’s the City of Bainbridge Island. As part of its campaign to promote unprecedented growth with “action” Alternatives 2 & 3 the City has generally been reasonable in disclosing environmental impacts but has then identified and grossly overstated the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Typically, that’s followed by a vague statement, absent detail, that, “No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.” UNDERSTATED IMPACTS AND FLAWED MITIGATION IMPACTS TO TRIBAL TREATY RIGHTS ARE IGNORED References to Tribal treaty rights are absent from the DEIS. This omission needs to be corrected. Impacts to tribal treaty rights was discussed at length in scoping comments submitted by Bainbridge Conservation Coalition in October of 2023. Potential environmental impacts to tribal treaty rights were also cited in the Suquamish Tribe’s March 13, 2023 scoping comments for the Winslow Subarea EIS. As then stated by the Tribe: “The City of Bainbridge Island lies within the Suquamish Tribe's aboriginal homeland and treaty reserved fishing
area. The Suquamish people have lived, gathered plants, collected ceremonial and spiritual items, hunted, and fished since time immemorial in what is now western Washington State. The Suquamish Tribe (Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe and pursuant to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, the Tribe reserved the right to fish and gather shellfish at its “usual and accustomed” (U&A) fishing grounds and stations in Puget Sound. The Suquamish Tribe’s U&A extends well beyond the Port Madison Reservation boundaries and includes the marine waters of Puget Sound from the northern tip of Vashon Island to the Fraser River in Canada, including Haro and Rosario Straits, the streams draining into the western side of Puget Sound, including the area around Winslow, and Hood Canal. The Tribe also reserved the right to hunt on all “open and unclaimed” lands throughout the Washington Territory. The Tribe urges the City of Bainbridge Island (City) to avoid land use decisions that will impact natural resources within the Tribe’s homeland and U&A. This letter transmits the Tribe’s comments concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment for the ‘Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Winslow Subarea Plan Update’.” The Tribe’s comments go on to address the possible expansion of Winslow with planning scenario 3: “Alternative 3 will spread impacts over a wider area. Implementing growth is a balanced acting between development and critical area protection and the alternatives that limit the spread of impacts into less impacted areas should be a last resort. Even though the Winslow area is expected to absorb some growth, this growth must not occur at the expense of species that due to habitat requirements or the landscape position of their required habitats simply cannot move, such as habitat for salmonids and forage fish. This must be considered in the EIS.” Comments about nearshore habitats: “In addition to those elements already identified in the Scoping Notice for analysis in the EIS, both stormwater and stream/nearshore habitats should also be analyzed, including the species that use those habitats. To help ensure decision makers are aware of the site-specific nature of impacts to streams, nearshore habitats, salmonids, forage fish, etc., the EIS analysis must look at each stream and reach of shoreline individually to ensure the differences in impacts between Alternatives 2 and 3 (or any alternatives that are considered in the EIS) are determined, analyzed, potential mitigations measures discussed, and the effectiveness of those mitigation measures analyzed.” Adverse impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change: “The impacts of climate change must also be considered. The City contracted to have a climate change impact assessment conducted (Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment. 2016). Additional information is found in the Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment June 2020 Final Report. Any update to the Plan must include a review of these documents and analyze the extent to which each alternative might exacerbate the impacts of climate change upon aquatic and riparian habitats. The known impacts of development upon the stream hydrology and physical conditions are, in some cases, similar to that expected from climate change. Development and climate change will act additively to impact streams, wetlands, and the species that depend upon those habitats, as well as marine nearshore habitats. “The EIS should consider the impact of sea level rise, and climate change induced reduced low flows and increased stream temperatures in concern with development caused reduction in stream flow and groundwater recharge. Beyond looking at the generic impacts listed in the two cited reports, the EIS should consider the extent to which climate change and development, singularly or in concert, will reduce the period of continuous flow in intermittent or seasonal streams in its analysis of impacts to streams.” Regarding aquatic and marine habitat in the Winslow Area: “Both perennial and seasonal streams are found in the Winslow Subarea Plan area. Additionally, there are streams outside of the Plan area that produce juvenile salmon that use the nearshore habitats of the Plan area as migrate to the ocean. The EIS must consider the impacts of the any Action Alternatives upon streams and nearshore habitats in the Plan area, upon salmonids originating from the Plan area, and impacts on salmonids originating outside the Plan area that rear in the nearshore areas abutting the Plan area, as well as impacts upon forage fish. “Inside the Plan Area, Ravine Creek supports chum and coho salmon, as does Cooper Creek to the west of the Plan
area. Though several of the streams in the Plan area are considered seasonal, coho and chum salmon are known to use seasonal streams for spawning and rearing. In addition to salmonids, forage fish use the majority of the nearshore areas in the Plan area (Fig 1). Smelt spawning occurs in much of the area. Herring spawning occurs generally from Wing Point northward to Yeomalt Point. Additionally, Sand Lance spawning occurs along part of the Northeastern shoreline of the Plan area. “Beside often being used by coho and chum salmon for spawning and rearing, seasonal streams have other habitat values, even in the absence of fish spawning or natal rearing. The mouths of seasonal streams can function as pocket estuaries for juvenile salmonids as they physiologically adapt to marine waters. Point sources of freshwater input allow for greater flexibility to adapt as juvenile salmonids move along the shoreline. The EIS should compare the periods of flow in the seasonal streams in Eagle Harbor to the time when juvenile salmonids are expected in the nearshore
area. Without such a comparison, it will not be possible to determine the value of these seasonal streams to nearshore rearing salmonids.” Regarding assumptions on the effectiveness of mitigation measures related to streams: “Explicit and implicit assumptions and statements in the documents used by the City to protect the environment and mitigate impacts must be clearly identified at what these mean for the efficacy of mitigation measures
discussed. Particular attention must be given to ensure the measures designed to protect one environmental value and/or function are not assumed to protect other environmental values in the absence of evidence. “An example of assumptions about the efficacy of mitigation measures can be found in stormwater management. Explicit and implicit assumption and statements found in the various stormwater manuals indicate that some impacts to the instream biota, such as salmonids, will not be mitigated by following the guidance or implementing mitigation measures noted in these manuals. The City adopted the 2019 “Stormwater Management Manual of Western Washington” for all future development, re-development, and construction projects effective June 30, 2022. The limitation of this manual need to be discussed in the EIS to ensure decision makers do not come to incorrect assumptions. While analyzing stormwater issues, the City should bear in mind, stormwater flow control management looks at the potential of water to erode the stream channel or cause flooding. It does not consider direct impacts to fish or other biota present in the streams. Stormwater not only impacts channel form through erosion and sediment transport, it also affects the velocity of the water throughout the water column, even if there is no flooding, erosion, or change in channel form. Therefore, though stormwater flow control measures might reduce the potential for flooding or erosion in the stream, it cannot be assumed these measures are protective of aquatic life during and following storm events. The reduction in peak velocities of storm flows in the stream channels comes at the expense of extending the duration of higher than normal lower velocity flows before the channel returns to the pre-storm flow rates. Direct impact to the aquatic life (arising from either point and non-point sources of stormwater), such as downstream displacement, increased energy expenditures to maintain position, or reduced feeding as fish shelter from high flows will occur at lower stream velocities that those need to cause channel erosion – the threshold targeted by stormwater manuals. Less hydraulically complex channels are more vulnerable to the altered spatial-temporal distribution of acceptable velocities than more complex ones. Drainage analyses and environmental review or of stormwater management must acknowledge this. “To avoid assumptions or misunderstandings and to highlight the current stormwater flow duration controls target geomorphic thresholds - not biological thresholds - drainage and stormwater reports should include the following caveat in 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: ‘Maintaining the naturally occurring erosion rates within streams is vital, though by itself insufficient, to protect fish habitat and production.’ The 2021 Kitsap County Stormwater Design Manual is even more explicit and to the point: ‘While employing a specific flow control standard may prevent stream channel erosion or instability, other factors affecting fish and other biotic resources (e.g., increases in stream flow velocities) are not directly addressed by this manual.’” Specific Issues of concern “Ravine Creek has numerous stormwater outfalls. A regional stormwater facility is required to reduce peak flows to a more natural level and then instream restoration work is needed to increase the stream’s hydraulic complexity to better support salmonids. Increasing instream complexity is also essential to other streams. “Look at habitat restoration plans. The section dealing with ”Land Use/Relationship to Existing Plans and Policies” must consider current and contemplate habitat restoration plans and any constraints adopting each Alternative might place on those plans.” The DEIS includes information regarding nearshore and stream ecology, but does not specifically address the Suquamish Tribe’s concerns. BCC supports the Suquamish Tribe’s scoping comments BCC fully supports the Suquamish Tribe’s comments and concerns submitted in their 3/13/23 scoping comments. The potentially negative, irreversible impacts cited also affect all life on Bainbridge Island. Land use policies and regulations on Bainbridge Island do impact local tribal treaty rights. The following impacts to tribal treaty rights were included in the scoping comments submitted by BCC for the combined EIS in October of 2023: Reduced natural stream flows due to increased groundwater pumping; Adverse impacts to natural stream flows due to a lack of special protections for high aquifer recharge areas; Untreated and undertreated storm water, which adversely impact fresh and marine water quality; Substandard storm water facilities adversely impacting both natural surface water flows and aquifer recharge; Undertreated sewage adversely impacting the waters of Puget Sound, including excess nutrients, contaminants of emerging concern, including artificial fibers from clothing, and pharmaceuticals; Bainbridge Island’s increasing greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in acidification of marine waters, reduced rainfall for streams, and warming of streams throughout the greater Puget Sound ecosystem; Increased recreation by a growing population that adversely impacts traditional hunting and fishing habitat; Shoreline development, impacting juvenile salmon and forage fish spawning grounds. A matter of environmental justice Comprehensive, genuine acknowledgement and consideration of the adverse environmental impacts on the Suquamish Tribe’s treaty rights was recommended in BCC’s scoping comments as a matter of Environmental Justice. BCC recognizes that our region’s tribes have been historically marginalized and their treaty rights severely impacted by ongoing ecological damage to the greater Puget Sound ecosystem. Those impacts, which Bainbridge Island has contributed to and continues to contribute to, have the effect of diminishing the Suquamish and other local tribe’s ability to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places as guaranteed by the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty and other similar treaties. The lands ceded by the Suquamish as part of Point Elliott Treaty include Bainbridge Island. Despite the detailed scoping comments submitted by BCC and the Suquamish Tribe, the City has refused to acknowledge the ongoing impacts to tribal treaty rights in its DEIS. This is not only counter to the science regarding the continuing decline in the health of the greater Puget Sound ecosystem but contradicts the City’s professed commitments to racial equity and good relations with our Suquamish and other tribal neighbors. The following is from the City’s Comprehensive Plan’s Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #5 The use of land on the Island should be based on the principle that the Island’s environmental resources are finite and must be maintained at a sustainable level. Guiding Policy 5.5 Recognize and protect the Usual and Accustomed fishing areas of neighboring Tribes. Indigenous Peoples Day In 2016 the City Council expressed Bainbridge Island’s solidarity with the Suquamish and other local tribes with unanimous adoption of the Indigenous People’s Day Resolution. An observance of Indigenous Peoples Day is held each year. Joint committee with the Suquamish In 2020 the City Council proudly announced a joint committee of Council members from Bainbridge and Suquamish to meet and discuss issues of common interest. In a presentation to the BI city council later that year Suquamish Tribal Chairman, Leonard Forsman, stressed the importance to the Suquamish Tribe of healthy ecosystems. BCC would encourage the City to correct its DEIS by, at a minimum, acknowledging and recognizing the impacts that identified planning scenarios are likely to have on tribal treaty rights. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The DEIS does a good job of providing background information on Bainbridge Island’s natural environment, including lists and descriptions of its native plants and animals. It also does a reasonable job identifying the adverse impacts associated with the planning Alternatives. As with most of the impacts identified in the DEIS, all impacts are greatest with high growth Alternatives 2 & 3. From page 3.8-17 of the DEIS, impacts common to all planning Alternative to the natural environment include: “Development activities, including clearing, grading, expansion of impervious surfaces, and related erosion, sedimentation, and contamination would have the potential to impact earth resources.” “Reduction in vegetative cover and an increase in impervious surfaces, primarily related to roofs and pavements.” “Soil disturbances resulting from these activities could lead to erosion, sedimentation, compaction, removal, and contamination, increasing the risk of landslides and other geologic hazards.” “Groundwater withdrawals would result in impacts to the hydrologic system in which they occur. In most cases, the hydrologic impacts from groundwater pumping to supply potable water would be reductions in storage (declining water levels in the aquifer over time) and reduced discharge (decreases in the amount of water flowing out of the aquifer).” Impacts to streams and wetlands water levels and flow from groundwater pumping, accentuating summer drought conditions. “Despite the concentrated development, direct and indirect impacts could occur on natural resources through removal of vegetation … increased habitat fragmentation, soil compaction, vegetation trampling, increase in impervious surfaces, changes in drainage patterns, potential contamination of water bodies via runoff, increased activity levels, and potential collisions with wildlife, including birds.” “Conversion of habitat to impervious surfaces or to a more landscaped setting can increase flooding, reduce the functions and values of wetland and riparian habitats, decrease water quality, and affect natural processes overall. These changes, in turn, affect the plant and wildlife species that depend on habitat from direct alteration of the habitat, but also indirectly from a reduced availability of food resources, vegetative cover, and appropriate breeding locations.” “All designated Business/Industrial and Neighborhood Centers have portions of wetlands and streams and their buffers. Construction activities that would remove or degrade these features could result in increased impacts to wetland and riparian habitat functions and values. This would have an effect, not only on the natural resources, but also on the new and existing infrastructure and safety of the people, as wetland and streams provide important protection against flooding, erosion, and water quality degradation.” “Additionally, erosion and sedimentation as a result of construction and overall increased activity due to an increased population on the Island could result in adverse impacts to aquatic resources and wetlands should sediment runoff into these resources. The use of pesticide and herbicide could impact groundwater aquifers and subsequently adversely affect water quality in aquatic areas.” “Reduction of vegetation and appropriate wildlife habitat would occur under all of the alternatives due to the common potential for growth. As noted previously, development would be concentrated in the designated centers, allowing for fewer impacts on natural resources in the Conservation Area. In the short-term, human disturbance would also affect wildlife during construction activities. “Over the long-term, there would be a permanent loss of habitat and restoration of areas disturbed during construction (but not permanently impacted) could take years to decades, depending on the habitat type. Biodiversity would likely be affected due to the greater levels of development and human disturbance associated with the planned growth under each of the EIS alternatives.” “In addition to development, human disturbances to wildlife would include increased noise, increased traffic resulting in an increase in encounters with wildlife, potential increases in light, and an overall further encroachment on wildlife habitat.” “The increased population on the island would inevitably result in an increase in domesticated animals such as dogs and cats. When domesticated animals are allowed to roam without restriction, they can become predators of native wildlife and create conflicts with native wildlife and humans. Cats in particular are known to decimate bird populations when they are not kept indoors. Bainbridge Island code 6.04.0300 prohibits domesticated animals to run at large. “Additional development within the Winslow Subarea would primarily occur in the vicinity of the Winslow Ravine. Very little development in the Winslow Subarea would occur along the existing eastern boundary near the shoreline. The additional development surrounding the Winslow Ravine could result in impacts to wetlands and their buffers. Impacts to the natural environment not identified in the DEIS: Impacts to human mental health due to loss of trees, vegetation, and overall reduction and degradation of Bainbridge Island’s natural environment. Impacts to storm water quality and streams due to increased motor vehicle traffic and roadway deposits of oils, brake dust, 6PPD-Quinone from vehicle tires, and other pollutants. Increased building windows, with tall buildings often lit at night, thereby increasing light pollution and posing an increased danger to birds. Impacts associated with sewage effluent: Bainbridge Island’s sewage treatment plants currently do not remove a significant percentage of contaminants of emerging concern, such as pharmaceuticals and man made fibers. They also discharge nutrients that adversely impact water quality. Increased development will exacerbate this impact, which will in turn impact the ecology of Puget Sound. Greenhouse gas emissions: The planning Alternatives fall far short of meeting the City’s GHG emissions reduction goals, with all three Alternatives amplifying, rather than reducing, GHG emissions. The highly probable adverse local and global environment impacts on humans and the natural environment are well documented. This is a matter of Environmental justice. It is well established that high levels of consumption and energy use in developed countries contributes to the adverse environmental atmospheric conditions on our entire planet. Traffic impacts: The impacts on various animal species are numerous, the most obvious being on their ability to safely cross roads and the increased exposure to road residues, including 6PPD-Quinone from vehicle tires, a substance fatal to young salmon. The lack of adequate stream monitoring compromises our understanding of adverse impacts Only 50% of BI streams and required stormwater facilities have been mapped according to a September 24, 2024 Public Works presentation to the City Council. In addition, we know that most of the streams that are mapped are not being monitored for flow and water quality. This lack of monitoring needs to be acknowledged in the DEIS because it is limiting the City’s ability to understand impacts to our streams, a vital component of the Island’s natural environment. Changes in stream flow and water quality not fully known due to inadequate monitoring include: (a) pumping from shallow aquifers; (b) leaching from failing septic systems; (c) contaminated stormwater runoff, and; (d) inadequate storm water facilities, including legacy development with no stormwater facilities. All adverse environmental impacts to the natural environment are accentuated by high-growth planning Alternatives 2 & 3. MITIGATING IMPACTS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Mitigation measures identified in the DEIS The DEIS identifies the following as mitigation for impacts to the natural environment: Incorporated Plans Features: Comprehensive goals and policies from the Environmental Element and the Water Element, and the future Groundwater Management Plan. Regulations and Commitments: Critical areas regulations; Shoreline regulations, Washing Department of Ecology; Bainbridge Island tree regulations. The Endangered Species Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act These transparently insufficient mitigation measures cannot even provide the appearance of a credible attempt to prevent the extensive damage to the natural environment posed particularly by the historically unprecedented growth accommodated in Alternatives 2 & 3. Incorporated Plans Features Policies from the comprehensive plan and other approved plans have no regulatory effect on development. Unlike “regulations,” the goals and policies contained in the City’s approved plans can be easily ignored. Consider how the City has prioritized the Housing Action Plan goals over the GHG reduction goals of the Climate Action Plan. Similarly, the Groundwater Management Plan is now being rolled out for show - just in time for the final steps in approving a new comprehensive plan. City Regulations Some of these wouldn’t apply in the areas most affected by the high growth planning Alternatives, 2 & 3, Winslow and the neighborhood centers. Most would have little effect, if any, on impacts triggered by major up zoning and expansion of Winslow and the neighborhood centers. Depart. of Ecology, Endangered Species Act, Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Act These have minimal or no impact on development activities in the most affected areas where major up zoning and expansion is being planned for. The unprecedented growth in “action” Alternatives 2 & 3 cannot be significantly mitigated All indications are that the City is determined to accommodate historically unprecedented growth on Bainbridge Island via its preferred high growth “action” planning Alternatives. Mitigation measures, including additional measures that BCC recommended in scoping comments, might have some minor positive impacts. However, there is no basis for concluding that the identified mitigation measures might prove to be anywhere near sufficient to significantly mitigate the adverse impacts to our natural environment posed by the City’s preferred high-growth planning Alternatives. Repeating them in this document does not alter that fact. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE THE DEIS ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE RELATED IMPACTS IS DEEPLY FLAWED The City’s approach to evaluating impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is a study in obfuscation. To clearly frame this discussion we’ll start by citing greenhouse gas reduction commitments made by the City. In 2017 the City Council approved Resolution NO. 2017- 20, "affirming the City of Bainbridge Island' s commitment to meet or exceed goals established in the Paris Climate Agreement". In 2020, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2020-05, declaring the existence of a Climate Emergency, "reaffirming the City’ s commitment to Climate Action, and to establish a program and procedures to ensure future City plans and City approved projects and actions are evaluated consistent with its adopted climate goals and policies.” [emphasis added.] As part of Resolution no. 2020-05, the City Council directed that: Section 2. The City commits to take immediate actions to safeguard against the current, inevitable, and potential consequences of climate change and to encourage the full participation of the entire Bainbridge community in climate mitigation and adaptation efforts; [emphasis added.] Section 3. The City commits to developing a procedure and process whereby the City’ s plans and City approved projects will be evaluated through a “Climate Lens”, such as through a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Certification, or similar process, prior to approval to ensure they are consistent with the City’ s adopted climate goals and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our vulnerability to climate change; [emphasis added.] Here is the most relevant and important language from section 3: “…the City’s plans and City approved projects will be evaluated through a “ Climate Lens” … to ensure they are consistent with the City’ s adopted climate goals and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our vulnerability to climate change" These are City Council approved resolutions and yet the climate commitments they make are completely ignored in the DEIS. Did someone not tell the DEIS authors about these commitments previously approved by our elected officials? They were in the scoping comments submitted by BCC a year ago. It appears they were ignored. Climate related requirements of the GMA The Growth Management Act requires the City to include a climate change element in our new comprehensive plan designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions: RCW36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. (9)(a) A climate change and resiliency element that is designed to result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions …. This requirement in the GMA is also COMPLETELY IGNORED in the DEIS. Arbitrary and prejudicial thresholds in the DEIS for climate impacts From page 3.6-10 in the section on Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. The DEIS authors have arbitrarily asserted that, by projecting lower Vehicle Miles Traveled emissions per capita than “no action” Alternative 1, the so-called “action” Alternatives, 2 & 3, are not expected to have any GHG impacts. “As shown by Table 3.6-2, above, under Alternatives 2 and 3, citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita are expected to decrease compared to Alternative 1 No Action. Accordingly, there are no expected GHG impacts under the Action Alternatives. The Action Alternatives would likely result in higher total VMT and emissions as the City plans for overall greater population and job growth compared to the No Action Alternative; however, normalizing by total residents and jobs result in lower VMT and emissions per person, so no significant adverse impacts are identified.” From section 3.10 Transportation “Thresholds of Significance This section defines a significant adverse transportation impact used in the evaluation of the Action Alternatives. “Transportation Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions An impact is defined if the Action Alternative results in a 1% or more increase in transportation GHG emissions per capita compared to Alternative 1 No Action.” Biased and arbitrary These artificial thresholds are intended to trivialize the difference in overall greenhouse gas emissions between the respective planning Alternatives, especially between the “action” Alternatives and the “no action” Alternative. This is unacceptable. These arbitrary threshold standards fail to recognize the City’s commitments to reducing overall greenhouse gas emission and fail to recognize RCW36.70A.070(9)(a) and the GMA’s requirement to plan for greenhouse gas reductions. The DEIS’s reluctant admission that none of the Planning Alternatives achieve the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals: 3.6.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The growth capacity under all alternatives increases energy needs and impacts VMT usage. GHG emissions will increase under all the alternatives. While the alternatives can manage population growth to minimize GHG emissions as a priority, none of the alternatives eliminates a net increase over the next 20 years. The DEIS intentionally obscures the respective climate impacts of the planning Alternatives: The DEIS finds that none of the three planning scenarios can achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan. But what those goals are, how they compare to the planning scenarios and to each other, and what each of the three scenarios might (or might not) achieve, is obscured or not referenced by the DEIS. The City’s greenhouse gas reduction targets from the Climate Action Plan are: Compared to 2014 levels: 2025 emissions reduced by 25% 2035 emissions reduced by 60% 2045 emissions reduced by 90% The following GHG emissions data from the 2019 Green House Gas Inventory for Bainbridge Island provides benchmarks: 2014 overall emissions: 214,245 MTCO2e 2018 overall emissions: 233,998 MTCO2e Here are some greenhouse gas emissions numbers provided in the DEIS: Table 3.6-2 on page 3.6-2: Annual transportation ghg emissions in 2044: Alternative 1: 52,650 MTCO2e, with per capita emissions of 1.3 MTCO2e. Alternative 2: 54,390 MTCO2e, with per capita emissions of 1.1 MTCO2e. Alternative 3: 52,650 MTCO2e, with per capita emissions of 1.2 MTCO2e. Page 3.6-21 of the DEIS Total annual citywide aggregate GHG Emissions Alternative 1: VMT MTCO2e– 52,650 Direct MTCO2e – 2,411 Indirect MTCO2e - 24,678 Alternative 2: VMT MTCO2e – 54,390 Direct MTCO2e – 2,446 Indirect MTCO2e – 44,937 Alternative 3: VMT MTCO2e – 54,250 Direct MTCO2e – 2,305 Indirect MTCO2e – 36,518 The GHG emissions numbers from the DEIS are not comparable to the City’s 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory, making it nearly impossible to compare them to the reduction goals in the City’s Climate Action Plan. This creates yet another obstacle to understanding the relative climate impacts of the three planning scenarios. Specifically, the DEIS obscures the significant difference in GHG emission increases between the high growth “action” Alternatives 2 & 3 and “no action” Alternative 1. This deficiency in the EIS needs to be corrected to make information regarding GHG emissions accessible and understandable to our elected officials and to the average Bainbridge Islander. Adverse climate impacts reasonably identified in the DEIS When is comes to identifying adverse impacts related to climate change, the DEIS does a somewhat reasonable job. However, the DEIS authors would clearly prefer to focus on how the respective planning Alternatives are impacted by climate change, rather than how the respective Alternatives, in fact, exacerbate climate change via increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts from climate change include: Heavier rains and runoff in the Winter and less rain in the Summer: Stream biota are adversely impacted by Increased stormwater runoff, runoff contamination, and natural stream flows. The greater intensity of Winter rains and resulting increased runoff is also likely to cause a decrease in the rate of aquifer recharge, thereby placing additional importance on the need to pro-actively protect and enhance natural hydrological function by retaining native vegetation, installing rain gardens and supporting other stormwater bio-retention green infrastructure. Warmer temperatures are impacting stream health throughout the Puget Sound basin. Elevated levels of CO2 are impacting marine waters with acidification. More frequent heat waves are a threat to human health. Longer, hotter and drier Summers, resulting in decreased aquifer recharge and increased water demands. Simultaneously, stream and surface water levels are reduced, vegetation and tree losses increase, and the danger of wildfires grows. Additional climate impacts that need to be included in the DEIS: A contribution to adverse environmental impacts worldwide through Bainbridge Island’s disproportionate GHG emissions. This is an issue of environmental justice. Climate Change Mitigation identified in the DEIS The minimal measures identified as mitigating climate change in the DEIS are no substitute for the City prioritizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change impacts mitigation identified in the DEIS: “Incorporated Plan Features Mitigation measures provided by the existing Comprehensive Plan include goals and policies in both the Environmental Element (EN-1 to EN-16) and the Capital Facilities Element (CF-1 to CF-13) that address climate change, air quality and greenhouse gases. Under the action alternatives Environmental Element and Capital Facilities Element actions, goals and policies will be reviewed and updated to ensure consistency with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, and the Groundwater Management Plan.” Regulations and Commitments • Under each alternative, new development must comply with the regional environmental health standards, as well as local, state, and federal regulations protecting air quality, including that of the Clean Air Act (CAA). • All alternatives would continue to optimally implement the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce GHG emissions, ensure that Bainbridge Island can withstand the impacts of climate change and take meaningful and equitable climate change mitigation and adaptation actions. • The City is currently conducting a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Risk Assessment for the Island. This project will result in an online GIS-based map showing more specific existing and future sea level rise vulnerability. The final report will be used to inform capital facilities planning. 
Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update & Winslow Subarea Plan Update Section 3.6 Draft EIS Page 3.6-22 Air Quality/Climate. • The City is currently completing a Groundwater Management Plan to ensure clean and sufficient groundwater for people and the natural environment now and into the future. The plan includes the identification of climate change impacts to the groundwater supply, and strategies to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and improve climate change indicator monitoring. • The City’s 2022 Sustainable Transportation Plan (STP) is aligned with the CAP goals to reduce transportation-related emissions and support safe mobility for all. The STP establishes the long-range vision for a comprehensive transportation system (streets, transit, trails, etc.) that improves mobility and safety for all users while respecting the character of neighborhoods and maintaining a climate resilient environment. Scenario 2, Connecting Centers, in the STP was adopted by City Council as the preferred implementation plan. All alternatives would continue to optimally implement the STP. 
Additional regulations and commitments to manage climate change and reduce GHG emissions include the following: • The Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) 2019. The CETA commits Washington State to an electricity supply free of GHG emissions by 2045. • Washington Energy Code (SB 5854) • Washington Clean Buildings Act • Washington Clean Fuel Standard • PSRC Vision 2050 Regional Transportation Plan This list includes the City’s Climate Action Plan According to the DEIS the City’s commitment to the Climate Action plan is going to mitigate the effects of climate change: “All alternatives would continue to optimally implement the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce GHG emissions …” The DEIS also stated under 3.6.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts that, “GHG emissions will increase under all the alternatives”. Both of these statements cannot be true. This discrepancy needs to be corrected in the final EIS. BCC’s recommended mitigations for climate impacts Though not explicitly stated, the DEIS reluctantly determines that all three of the planning Alternatives fall short of the City’s GHG reduction goals. Actually, they would render it increasingly difficult for the City to meet the GHG emission reduction goals contained in the Climate Action Plan, reduction goals the City is committed to through two City Council resolutions. Were the City serious about meeting its GHG emissions reduction targets, it would adopt the following mitigation measures recommended by BCC: Apply a simple climate lens to the planning scenarios as called for in Resolution 2020-05. Given that all three planning Alternatives fail to reduce overall GHG emissions, it’s time to “go back to the drawing board”. Time to develop new planning scenarios that make a good faith effort to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. This could include down zoning or requiring zero emissions development in the Island’s Conservation Area and redeveloping already developed areas in the Winslow with new standards designed to reduce GHG emissions, without intensifying or expanding its boundaries.  Require COBI to limit the size of new housing units island-wide to minimize embodied and operational greenhouse gas emissions associated with new construction. Require the City to create a street tree program as recommended in the 2006 Community Forestry Management Plan: Carbon sequestration, shade, additional habitat for birds and other wildlife, and enhanced aesthetics. Strengthen the City’s Tree preservation regulations. Consider working with tax officials to offer property tax reductions for establishing and maintaining urban forests. Require the City to budget substantial funds yearly to purchase carbon offsets, such as forest preservation. The idea of selling carbon offsets for preserving state forests is currently being discussed. Require the City to lobby for it. Require all new single family housing units to be solar ready for the installation of photovoltaic systems. Professional services for an ordinance requiring this were allocated in 2018. Require all new public and commercial buildings to include installation of photovoltaic systems with minimum size requirements. Professional services for an ordinance requiring this were also allocated in 2018. Require installation of methane capture at both of Bainbridge Island’s sewage treatment plants. Require the City to institute mandatory composting of organic household and commercial waste. Require the City to create an aggressive photovoltaic array program to assist property owners in installing solar panels. Establish a program for installing photovoltaic systems over existing parking lots within the city. Require development of a highly functional Transfer of Development Rights program, to send density from the Island’s Conservation Area to Winslow, reducing miles driven and retaining more native vegetation in the Island’s Conservation Area. Require the City to explore the possibility of “eco villages” to replace conventional subdivisions. Eco villages would be designed to minimize the footprints of housing units and would be limited to people and families willing to forgo ownership of motorized vehicles and live a more “spartan” and less consumptive lifestyle. Prohibit the use of gas powered lawn and vegetation maintenance equipment.   GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The lack of an established Groundwater Management Plan seriously compromises the City’s ability to identify and mitigate impacts It’s scientifically unfounded, and lacks a sound planning basis, for the City to be engaging in long range planning prior to development and implementation of a Groundwater Management Plan. The City’s Housing Action Plan was recently developed and approved in less than two years. Development of Bainbridge’s Island Groundwater Management Plan has languished for eight years. The City’s priorities speak for themselves. A high priority action item in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Development of a Groundwater Management Plan was a high priority action item in the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Eight years later there is no Bainbridge Island Groundwater Management Plan. It’s currently in the works, but with the current process for updating the comprehensive plan well underway. The following is from the Land Use Element of our current comprehensive plan (approved in early 2017) and was carried over from the 2004 comprehensive plan: GOAL LU-2 “This Comprehensive Plan recognizes and affirms that as an Island, the city has natural constraints based on the carrying capacity of its natural systems. The plan establishes a development pattern that is consistent with the Goals of the community and compatible with the Island’s natural systems. Policy LU 2.1 “Recognizing that the carrying capacity of the Island is not known, the citizens of Bainbridge Island should strive to conserve and protect its natural systems within the parameters of existing data. Revisions to the Plan should be made as new information becomes available. “The carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island is determined by many factors including the supply of limited resources (particularly water), changes in patterns of consumption and technological advances. This Plan acknowledges that with current information, the carrying capacity of the Island is unknown. During the timeframe of this Plan, additional information on the carrying capacity of the Island should be developed. “The plan takes a balanced and responsible approach to future development. As our understanding of the Island’s capacity changes, the recommendations of this Plan should be reconsidered to ensure they continue to represent a responsible path for the long-range future of the Island.” Other Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies related to groundwater: From the Guiding Principles found in the Introduction to Bainbridge Island’s Comprehensive Plan: Guiding Principle #2 Manage the water resources of the Island to protect, restore and maintain their ecological and hydrological functions and to ensure clean and sufficient groundwater for future generations. Guiding Policy 2.2 As part of long-range land use planning, consider the impacts of future development to the quality and quantity of groundwater that will be available to future Islanders and to the natural environment. To that end, strive for sustainable groundwater withdrawal, conserve aquifer recharge, guard against seawater intrusion and prevent adverse impacts to ground water quality from surface pollution. Guiding Policy 2.3 Preserve and protect the ecological functions and values of the Island’s aquatic resources. Guiding Policy 2.4 Climate change may reduce the volume of our finite groundwater resources. Anticipate and prepare for the consequences of sea level rise, altered precipitation patterns, as well as any other changes in climate and community response to climate in order to ensure ample quality and quantity of groundwater for future generations. Guiding Policy 2.5 Create a Bainbridge Island groundwater management plan for the purpose of maintaining the long-term health of our fresh water aquifers. Guiding Policy 2.6 Recognize the importance of our water resources to present and future generations of Bainbridge Islanders, and apply the precautionary principle. (emphasis added) From the Environmental Element of our Comprehensive Plan: HIGH PRIORITY ACTIONS EN Action #1 When updating the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, integrate the precautionary principle and mitigation sequencing to protect and preserve natural resources The precautionary principle The precautionary principle takes into account what we don’t know and the unintended consequences of our actions by erring on the side of protecting finite natural resources. This is especially important when it comes to managing the use of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources, especially considering the lack of a Groundwater Management Plan and adequate monitoring of wells and streams. The City’s commitment to the precautionary principle needs to be acknowledged in the EIS. The City’s obligations under the Growth Management Act: RCW 36.70A.020 “Planning Goals "(5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (emphasis added) “(10) Environment. Protect and enhance the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. (emphasis added) RCW36.70A.070 “Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. “(1) A land use element … shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies.” Impacts to groundwater resources identified in the DEIS: Impacts to groundwater identified in the DEIS are reasonably complete but are compromised by the lack of an established Groundwater Management Plan and adequate monitoring of wells and streams. The DEIS focuses mainly on the loss of groundwater recharge and declining levels in aquifers, while also mentioning stormwater borne pollutants and impacts to streams and wetlands from pumping. Impacts cited in the DEIS are greatest for high growth Alternatives 2 & 3: Page 1-25 of the DEIS “The overall increase in impervious surface areas would increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes and pollutant loading in stormwater runoff and decrease groundwater recharge areas. “ Page 1-26 Stormwater “Under Alternative 1, there would be an increase in areas covered by impervious surface areas in the Subarea, thereby increasing stormwater runoff rates and volumes and pollutant loading in stormwater runoff and decreasing groundwater recharge areas. Stormwater management facilities would be installed in the Subarea to address potential impacts to water resources, per applicable regulations and requirements. “Alternative 2 - Same as Alternative 1; however, impervious surfaces in the Subarea and associated impacts on stormwater would be greater. “Alternative 3 - Same as Alternative 1; however, impervious surfaces in the Subarea and associated impacts on stormwater could be greater but less than Alternative 2 due to the larger designated centers and the increased allowed maximum lot coverage.” Page 1-27 “Alternative 1 - Groundwater withdrawals would result in impacts to the hydrologic system in which they occur. In most cases, these impacts would be expected to cause declining water levels in the aquifer over time and decreases in the amount of water flowing out of the aquifer. Stream and wetlands are expected to be impacted by greater pumping and consumption of groundwater under this Alternative. “Alternative 2 - Same as Alternative 1; however, the increased development on the Island and associated groundwater pumping would have more potential for hydrologic impacts. “Alternative 3 - Same as Alternative 1; however, the increased development on the Island and associated groundwater pumping would have more potential for hydrologic impacts but less than Alternative 2.” Page 3.8-21 “Soil compaction from development activities alters soil drainage and can lead to increased surface water runoff, downstream flooding, erosion, water quality problems, and habitat degradation. Compacted soil and impervious surfaces also reduce stormwater infiltration into the ground, affecting groundwater recharge. “Groundwater withdrawals for potable water under all the EIS alternatives would result in impacts to the hydrologic system in which they occur. Although most individual withdrawals are relatively small and frequently undetectable at the basin scale, each new withdrawal adds to the total being consumed. In most cases, the hydrologic impacts from groundwater pumping to supply potable water would be reductions in storage (declining water levels in the aquifer over time) and reduced discharge (decreases in the amount of water flowing out of the aquifer). Because streams on Bainbridge Island are a natural drain for shallower aquifers, pumping and consuming groundwater from shallow aquifers almost always impacts nearby streams and wetlands. Some streams being impacted by pumping do not have water available without negative consequences to existing in stream resources or impairment of senior water rights. (See Section 3.8, Utilities, for details on potable water.) “Late summer streamflow in Bainbridge Island streams is dependent on groundwater draining into the streambed. During the drier summer months when flows are typically the lowest of the year, groundwater flowing into streams frequently provides almost all the streamflow. Groundwater also provides a source of cooler water which is critical to fish reproduction and survival. It is widely known and accepted by hydrogeologists that use and consumption of groundwater typically results in decreases in streamflow.” Existing impacts need to be considered. Given the amount of development and human activity that’s taken place on Bainbridge island over the years, we can assume our groundwater resources are not in a pristine condition. Additionally, the City has gone years without a Groundwater Management Plan and without adequate monitoring of wells and streams, contributing to uncertainty about the state of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources. It therefore shouldn’t be assumed that our groundwater resources are currently being managed sustainably as required by the GMA and Comprehensive Plan policies. Limits to the City’s understanding of the state of our groundwater resources, including the extent of legacy impacts, needs to be acknowledged in the final EIS. Legacy impacts include but are not limited to: Extensive filling of wetlands, which in their natural state helped filter and regulate stormwater important for optimal aquifer recharge. Plumes of toxic waste from various sites, including: Wycoff; Vincent Road transfer station; former gas stations; former dry cleaners. Impacts from pollution associated with SR 305, a high volume road lacking adequate stormwater facilities. Degradation of watersheds from houses and other buildings that lack any stormwater facilities, such as rain gardens. Legacy increases in impervious surfaces: Roads, parking lots, buildings. Compacted soils from past development activities. Loss of native vegetation. Groundwater pumping. Assumptions in the DEIS that seem to contradict the identified impacts: The DEIS acknowledges the serious impacts to groundwater resources associated with the three planning Alternatives, yet it assures us there is an adequate and sustainable supply of groundwater to accommodate even the unprecedented growth provided for in “action” Alternatives 2 & 3. Page 1-24: “The City and KPUD water systems have sufficient capacity and the Island aquifers are expected to be sufficient to supply water for Alternative 2.” Page 3.6-23: “The City is currently completing a Groundwater Management Plan to ensure clean and sufficient groundwater for people and the natural environment now and into the future. The plan includes the identification of climate change impacts to the groundwater supply, and strategies to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and improve climate change indicator monitoring.” Page 3.7-23: “Updated groundwater modeling is likely to indicate that the Island’s aquifers can provide a reliable source of domestic and municipal water for the growth in the Subarea under Alternative 2 through 2044. The results of the updated groundwater modeling will be reported in the Final EIS.” MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS RELATED TO GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Mitigation needs to include consideration of streams and wetlands The Island’s streams and wetlands are connected to shallow aquifers in addition to being fed by storm water. Current comp plan policies call for protection of ecological functions and values of the Island’s aquatic resources in addition to planning for the sustainable use of groundwater for human use: Guiding Policy 2.3 Preserve and protect the ecological functions and values of the Island’s aquatic resources. Given the lack of adequate well and stream monitoring, and a yet to be finalized Groundwater Management Plan, there’s all the more reason to employ the precautionary principle when making assumptions about the long range health and capacity of our groundwater resources, including the ecological functions and values of the Island’s aquatic resources. MITIGATION IDENTIFIED IN THE EIS FOR IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The mitigation measures identified in the EIS, individually or taken as a whole, are not a substitute for a Groundwater Management Plan with adequate monitoring of wells and streams. This is analogous to the City’s missing “climate lens”, intended to ensure that all City plans and projects are consistent with the City’s adopted climate goals”. Mitigation identified in the DEIS: From section 3.7: “Regulations and commitments” including: Provisions for adequate public facilities and services as required by the State of Washington Growth Management Act. Requirements of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA)
and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for new construction. Requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for new construction. Local regulations of the City’s 2019 Stormwater Management Manual of Western Washington (SWMMWW) for all future development, and Ongoing stormwater facilities improvement, budgeting, and operational planning by the City of Bainbridge Island. These regulations and commitments are not a substitute for a Groundwater Management Plan and adequate monitoring. “Other Potential Mitigation Measures” The groundwater model could be periodically updated to ensure the model’s reliability and evaluate potential water supply and mitigation measures. The groundwater monitoring well network on the Island could be expanded/refined to better understand groundwater elevation changes and groundwater quality. A citizen volunteer groundwater monitoring program could be initiated to help involve and educate residents about the importance of the Island’s groundwater. Beneficial use of reclaimed water could be implemented for irrigation or recharge to reduce groundwater withdrawals and supplement baseflow to streams and wetlands. (The updated groundwater model will help in identifying which areas on the Island may be more suitable for further consideration, exploration, study, and planning of the use of reclaimed water.) Water conservation measures could be identified to reduce water consumption. Stormwater infiltration could be required, as appropriate, to supplement groundwater recharge for additional baseflow to streams and wetlands and reduce runoff. These other “Potential Mitigation Measures, is a list of ideas periodically trotted out to deflect concerns over Bainbridge Island’s finite groundwater resources. There’s absolutely no guarantee any of these “mitigation measures” will ever happen, or that they would be feasible and effective. BCC recommends the following mitigation for impacts related to groundwater The following is needed to help ensure the responsible management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources: Completion of the Bainbridge Island Groundwater Management Plan prior to issuing of the final EIS, allowing time to implement its policies and identified actions, and to sort out wrinkles. Identification of planning Alternatives that pose reduced adverse environmental impacts to our groundwater resources. Development of new regulations focused on reducing the amount of water used to irrigate landscaping in new and existing development. Limits to water usage by nonessential facilities such as car washes and swimming pools. Establishment of a household hazardous waste facility adjacent to the Vincent Road Transfer Station to reduce improper waste disposal. A requirement tying the Island’s zoning directly to the sustainable use of groundwater resources. A partnership between COBI and the Suquamish Tribe to jointly develop strategies and measures to protect stream flows and overall water quality. A more aggressive program by the City to improve the Island’s green and built storm water facilities, including lobbying of the State to improve such facilities along SR 305. Documentation and monitoring of hazardous waste sites by the City, including a plan for cleaning them up with proper maintenance to meet regulatory health and safety laws and requirements. Development of a greywater program for irrigation. DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS ARE UNDERSTATED The DEIS cites redevelopment as a major cause of possible displacement. This analysis reflects a very limited understanding of the Island’s history. As recently as the 1980s Bainbridge Island was a diverse community, with significant populations of Islanders of Filipino, Indipino, and Japanese heritage, a thriving working class, and a higher percentage of young people. Artists, writers, and musicians were a prominent part of our social fabric. Those demographics have changed significantly. So what happened and is it relevant today? Here are a few factors: Gentrification: The development sector on Bainbridge Island has catered to wealthy clients, building larger, more expensive housing, and has used every means at its disposal to facilitate an influx of more affluent buyers. More affluent newcomers have bid up the cost of land and housing and have supported voter approved levies that increase property taxes. Increased property values in comparison to the rest of Kitsap County have also contributed to higher property taxes on Bainbridge Island. A change in culture: Bainbridge Island has changed culturally, contributing to the decision by some to sell their property at higher prices and move to more rural or affordable locations more similar to the “Old Bainbridge” they fondly remember. The loss of affordable rentals, resulting from higher prices driven in part by globalization and commodification of the housing market. Increased taxes and properties inherited by multiple offspring forced to sell out is also a factor.   Compared to historic changes we are now looking at much more pronounced changes in land use on Bainbridge Island than we’ve ever seen in the past, particularly with high growth planning scenarios 2 & 3. BCC believes the following displacement factors will result from Alternatives 2 & 3: Rising property taxes resulting from zoning changes: Planning scenarios 2 & 3 call for unprecedented zoning changes in Winslow and the designated centers. These changes will add development potential to certain properties, which will increase both property values and property taxes. For Islanders on fixed incomes this will create a strong incentive to sell and effectively be displaced. Increased utility fees: Projected population, housing, associated goods and services, and the need for additional infrastructure capacity will add financial burdens to Island residents. This is especially true for high growth Alternatives 2 & 3. The capital projects needed to support Alternative 2 & 3 include additional capacity for: sewer, water, transportation, and storm water facilities. This is likely to be funded at least partially through hikes in utility rates. Cultural changes: With the significant increases in development and population envisioned in Alternatives 2 & 3, there will be considerably more traffic congestion, noise from human activities, crowding in parks, and competition for space on ferries. Winslow, with its small-town atmosphere, and the overall special character of the Island, will be a fading memory. This will cause a significant number of people to cash in on higher property values and activate their escape plans. They will be replaced by an ever more affluent population who have little knowledge of the Island’s history and traditions. FISCAL IMPACTS FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY AREN’T INCLUDED IN THE DEIS As already mentioned, along with the significant increases in population and development envisioned in Alternatives 2 & 3, there will be a requirement to accommodate that growth with increased infrastructure and services including: sewer, water, storm water, transportation, fire, and police. The DEIS mentions a new pocket plant for sewage treatment. To extract more water from our aquifers expensive funding for new wells would be needed, with some of that drilling resulting in unproductive wells. New intersections will be needed, along with non-motorized transportation facilities, all as non-motorized levels of service are adversely impacted by increased motor vehicle traffic. Ultimately, it’s Bainbridge Island residents who will bear this financial burden, all as they are adversely impacted by a more populated, more urbanized, Bainbridge Island. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS TO BAINBRIDGE ISLAND’S TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The DEIS does a relatively good job of identifying impacts to the Island’s transportation system associated with the planning Alternatives. Curiously, though, the DEIS did not consider roadway levels of service in its calculations. While there is considerable discussion about non-motorized levels of service, and the need for additional non-motorized facilities, the DEIS failed to recognize a couple of important impacts to non-motorized users: Increased motor vehicle speeds, and; Increased motor vehicle volumes All three planning Alternatives will increase the volume of motor vehicle traffic, and given a constant percentage of drivers who will exceed posted speed limits, will also increase the incidence of speeding. These a known impacts to non motorized users. The impacts from high growth Alternatives 2 & 3 will be significantly greater than those associated with Alternative 1. Fiscal impacts to the City The DEIS also fails to mention the substantial financial impacts to the City associated with funding transportation facility improvements needed to mitigate failed levels of service at intersections, additional non-motorized facilities, and other deficiencies that would result from all three planning Alternatives. Those deficiencies are significantly greater with “action” Alternatives 2 & 3. Intersection Levels of Service DEIS discussion of transportation impacts focuses mainly on intersection levels of service (LOS). Four major intersections currently operating above the established LOS would fail under all of the planning Alternatives. Delays are significantly longer with high growth Alternatives 2 & 3. Alternatives 2 & 3 would result in the failure of four major intersections, while Alternative 1 would result in the failure of one major intersection, Madison Ave N & New Brooklyn Rd. Vehicle Miles Travelled Vehicle miles driven are greatest with Alternatives 2 & 3 but with a lower per capita VMT due to a much larger population that’s more centralized on the Island. Overall GHG transportation emissions are significantly higher with “action” Alternatives 2 & 3. MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Mitigation identified in the DEIS for impacts to transportation facilities High growth “action” planning Alternatives would accommodate more than twice the additional population of “no action” Alternative 1, and by extension many more additional motor vehicles using Bainbridge Island’s constrained system of roads and intersections. Attempting to mitigate this impact with the goal of maintaining acceptable levels of service is impossible. Nonetheless, the DEIS purports to identify mitigation that will address the identified impacts to the Island’s transportation system with: Improved signal timing on SR305 Improvements identified in a “SR 305 Needs and Opportunities Study”, which isn’t included in the DEIS appendix. By revising established levels of service By establishing nonmotorized LOS and making it part of concurrency, and Through a Transportation Improvement Program to “address LOS gaps for all modes … to maintain compliance with the City’s concurrency LOS standard.” Some impacts can’t be mitigated Bainbridge Island’s roads and intersections have a finite capacity It is not possible to fully mitigate the impacts associated with the planning Alternatives, especially “action” Alternatives 2 & 3. Levels of service will continue to be impacted as more population and motor vehicles are added to the Island’s roadways. Transportation permeability for motor vehicles is limited on Bainbridge Island Trying to add more and more cars to Bainbridge Island’s roadways, while promising to maintain reasonable levels of service, is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It’s just won’t happen. We’re already witnessing increasing congestion on our roads and at our intersections. A system of roads inherited from our rural past The City of Bainbridge Island has inherited a rural system of roads and intersections from what once was a farming community. While traffic signals and stop signs have been added, the Island’s system of roads and intersections haven’t changed significantly over the past 60 years. Wherever you go on Bainbridge Island, there are limited ways to get there by car. Therefore the wait times at intersections steadily increase as more motor vehicles are added. So now think about adding what’s referred to as “transportation permeability” to accommodate a significant increase in motor vehicles that will accompany significant increases in population. Increased transportation permeability can only happen by adding roads and intersections. Where would those new roads and intersections be built? During those 60 years, when our farming community became a suburb, then a city, properties have been developed, parks established, schools built, while land prices have soared. The cost of taking property for new roads has become prohibitive and unpopular. It’s not going to happen, especially not on the scale needed to accommodate the unprecedented growth provided for in “action” alternatives 2 & 3. BCC rejects the notion that the adverse impacts posed to Bainbridge Island’s transportation system, particularly by high growth Alternatives 2 & 3, can be mitigated. Those impacts cannot be mitigated. AESTHETICS IMPACTS TO AESTHETICS Planning Alternatives 2 & 3 call for major up zoning and expansion in Winslow and the neighborhood centers, which would have a considerable impact on aesthetics. Discussed are visual elements including visual character, height, bulk, scale, views, shadows, light, and glare. What the DEIS completely ignores, however, are the long-standing aesthetic standards prominently featured in all of Bainbridge Island’s comprehensive plans beginning in the early 1990s. From page 1-39 of the DEIS regarding impacts to aesthetics: “EIS Alternatives could incrementally change the visual character of the Island. Some might view these changes in visual character as positive, others as negative. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.” According to the DEIS, aesthetic impacts are basically in the eye of the beholder and that any impacts likely to happen can be mitigated with design review and a few regulations, including some that don’t even apply in the most affected areas of the Island (Winslow and the designated centers, per Alternative 2 & 3). The Comprehensive Plan’s First Guiding Principle provides guidance related to aesthetics that need to be considered by the final EIS: “THE FIRST GUIDING PRINCIPLE Preserve the special character of the Island, which includes downtown Winslow’s small town atmosphere and function, historic buildings, extensive forested areas, meadows, farms, marine views and access, and scenic and winding roads supporting all forms of transportation.” The theme of preserving the Island’s special character goes back to the City’s first comp plan shortly after voter-approved incorporation of the City in 1990. Sustainability and preservation of the Island’s special character were the driving forces behind the Home Rule movement that was responsible for creating the City of Bainbridge Island. By failing to disclose the potential for serious aesthetic impacts to Winslow and the designated centers, particularly in Alternatives 2 & 3, the DEIS trivializes those irreversible impacts on our community and intentionally ignores Bainbridge Island’s longstanding aesthetic standards explicitly set forth in all of its comprehensive plans. MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO AESTHETICS The adverse aesthetic impacts related to Planning Alternatives 2 & 3 cannot be significantly mitigated Clearly, planning scenarios 2 & 3, with their unprecedented increase in the size and density of Winslow are not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan’s First Guiding Principle shown above. There is no way to mitigate the impact of taller buildings spread over a larger area in a way that’s consistent with Bainbridge Island’s long-standing standards for aesthetics and the preservation of the Island’s special character. This concludes Bainbridge Conservation Coalition’s comments on the Draft combine Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan and Winslow Master Plan Submitted by the Governing Board of Bainbridge Conservation Coalition: Lisa Macchio Melanie Keenan Malcolm Gander Ron Peltier Kent Scott Supported and endorsed by: Mark Hoffman Marie Pence Jane and Stan Rein Sally Adams Mary Hekkman APPENDICES Appendix A - EPA Sole Source Aquifer Designation Definition and Links https://www.epa.gov/dwssa What is a sole source aquifer? EPA defines a sole source aquifer (SSA) as one where: The aquifer supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water for its service area There are no reasonably available alternative drinking water sources should the aquifer become contaminated What is the SSA program? The SSA program enables EPA to designate an aquifer as a sole source of drinking water and establish a review area.  EPA then reviews proposed projects that will both: Be located within the review area Receive federal funding The review area includes the area overlying the SSA.  It may also include the source areas of streams that flow into the SSA's recharge zone. EPA's review is intended to ensure that the projects do not contaminate the SSA. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/03/29/2013-07409/safe-drinking-water-act-sole-source-aquifer-program-designation-of-bainbridge-island-washington-as-a Safe Drinking Water Act Sole Source Aquifer Program; Designation of Bainbridge Island, Washington as a Sole Source Aquifer A Notice by the Environmental Protection Agency on 03/29/2013 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h3(e), Public Law 93-523 of December 16, 1974) states: If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, could create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish a notice of the determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for Federal financial assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer. On August 5, 2009, EPA received a petition from two citizens of Bainbridge Island requesting designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System as a Sole Source Aquifer (SSA). On April 20, 2012, EPA published a notice in the Bainbridge Islander newspaper and mailed fact sheets to island residents which served to announce the public comment period. The public was permitted to submit comments and information on the petition from April 20 through June 4, 2012. Public comments received by EPA were generally in support of the designation. II. Basis for Determination EPA defines a sole or principle source aquifer as an aquifer or aquifer system which supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer, and for which there is no alternative source or combination of alternative drinking water sources which could physically, legally and economically supply those dependent upon the aquifer (U.S. EPA, 1987, Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision Process, Petition Review Guidance). Among the factors considered by the Regional Administrator in connection with the designation of an area under Section 1424(e) are: (1) Whether the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System is the area's sole or principal source of drinking water and (2) whether contamination of the aquifer system would create a significant hazard to public health. On the basis of technical information available to the EPA, the Regional Administrator has made the following findings in favor of designating the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System a SSA: 1. The Bainbridge Island Aquifer System currently serves more than 23,000 residents of Bainbridge Island. One hundred percent of the current population obtains their drinking water from the petitioned aquifer system either from individual wells or from one of the more than 150 water systems on the island. 2. There is no existing alternative drinking water source or combination of sources which supply drinking water to the designated area, nor is there any available cost effective future source capable of supplying the drinking water demands for the population served by the aquifer service area. No potential surface water bodies exist to provide a source of drinking water, piping water from the Kitsap Peninsula across Agate Pass Bridge to Bainbridge Island is cost-prohibitive and installation of a desalination plant is too costly. 3. Since groundwater contamination can be difficult or sometimes impossible to reverse and since the Bainbridge community relies on the Bainbridge Aquifer System for drinking water purposes, contamination of the aquifer system would pose a significant public health hazard. The legal and technical basis for the proposal was outlined in an EPA publication titled: “Support Document for Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System”. III. Description of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System The petitioned area includes all of Bainbridge Island. The island is a mix of developed land and forests. Six principal aquifers make up the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System. On island precipitation recharges the aquifers and is the only source of recharge for lakes, ponds, and streams. The island has a total of 53 miles of seawater shoreline and the aquifer area is bounded on all sides by Puget Sound. Interior plateaus reach maximum elevations of 300 to 400 feet above mean sea level. The island can be divided into 12 drainage basins. Large volumes of unconsolidated glacial and interglacial materials from at least six advances and retreats of Pleistocene continental glaciers over the last 300,000 years has shaped the present-day landscape and underlying hydrostratigraphy of the island and are host to the aquifers on Bainbridge Island. The aquifer system is vulnerable to contamination from potential seawater intrusion, accidental spills, petroleum projects, small hazardous waste generators, household hazardous waste disposal, leachate from the closed island landfill, leachate from the Wyckoff Superfund site in Eagle Harbor, failing septic systems, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and improperly abandoned wells. Bainbridge Island's hydrogeologic characteristics are similar to the following Puget Sound islands whose aquifers have already been designated as SSA's by EPA: Camano, Whidbey, Marrowstone, Guemes and Vashon-Maury. Please see the Support Document for a more detailed hydrogeologic description. IV. Information Utilized in Determination The information utilized in this determination include the petition; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, Conceptual Model and Numerical Simulation of the Groundwater-Flow system of Bainbridge Island, Washington, Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5021, 96 pages; Washington Department of Ecology, 2011a, Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List, Bainbridge Island City Strawberry Plant Site, August 16; EPA guidance documents and the City of Bainbridge Water Resource Study (2000). For a complete list of references used by the petitioner see the Support Document. V. Project Review Publication of this determination requires that EPA review proposed projects with Federal financial assistance in order to ensure that such projects do not have the potential to contaminate the Bainbridge Island SSA so as to create a significant hazard to public health. Proposed projects that are funded entirely by state, local, or private concerns are not subject to SSA review by EPA. EPA does not review all possible Federal financially-assisted projects but tries to focus on those projects which pose the greatest risk to public health. Memorandums of Understanding between EPA and various Federal funding agencies help identify, coordinate and evaluate projects. VI. Summary Today's action affects the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System located on Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. Projects with federal financial assistance proposed within the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System will be reviewed to ensure that their activities will not endanger public health through contamination of the aquifer. A public notice regarding the SSA designation request was published in the Bainbridge Islander newspaper on April 20, 2012. Seven comments were received all in general support of the designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System. Authority: Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h3(e), Pub. L. 93-523 of December 16, 1974 Appendix B - Aquifer Conservation Zones https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.550 RCW 36.70A.550 Aquifer conservation zones. (1) Any city coterminous with, and comprised only of, an island that relies solely on groundwater aquifers for its potable water source and does not have reasonable access to a potable water source outside its jurisdiction may designate one or more aquifer conservation zones. Aquifer conservation zones may only be designated for the purpose of conserving and protecting potable water sources. (2) Aquifer conservation zones may not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within aquifer conservation zones qualify for critical area designation and have been designated as such under RCW 36.70A.060(2). (3) Any city may consider whether an area is within an aquifer conservation zone when determining the residential density of that particular area. The residential densities within conservation zones, in combination with other densities of the city, must be sufficient to accommodate projected population growth under RCW 36.70A.110. (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to modify the population accommodation obligations required of jurisdictions under this chapter. Appendix C - GWMP WAC 173-100-100 Groundwater Management Program Content https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-100-100 WAC 173-100-100 Groundwater management program content. The program for each groundwater management area will be tailored to the specific conditions of the area. The following guidelines on program content are intended to serve as a general framework for the program, to be adapted to the particular needs of each area. Each program shall include, as appropriate, the following: (1) An area characterization section comprised of: (a) A delineation of the groundwater area, subarea or depth zone boundaries and the rationale for those boundaries; (b) A map showing the jurisdictional boundaries of all state, lo- cal, tribal, and federal governments within the groundwater management area; (c) Land and water use management authorities, policies, goals and responsibilities of state, local, tribal, and federal governments that may affect the area's groundwater quality and quantity; (d) A general description of the locale, including a brief de- scription of the topography, geology, climate, population, land use, water use and water resources; (e) A description of the area's hydrogeology, including the de- lineation of aquifers, aquitards, hydrogeologic cross-sections, poros- ity and horizontal and vertical permeability estimates, direction and quantity of groundwater flow, water-table contour and potentiometric maps by aquifer, locations of wells, perennial streams and springs, the locations of aquifer recharge and discharge areas, and the distri- bution and quantity of natural and man-induced aquifer recharge and discharge; (f) Characterization of the historical and existing groundwater quality; (g) Estimates of the historical and current rates of groundwater use and purposes of such use within the area; (h) Projections of groundwater supply needs and rates of withdrawal based upon alternative population and land use projections; (i) References including sources of data, methods and accuracy of measurements, quality control used in data collection and measurement programs, and documentation for and construction details of any computer models used. (2) A problem definition section that discusses land and water use activities potentially affecting the groundwater quality or quantity of the area. These activities may include but are not limited to: Commercial, municipal, and industrial discharges Underground or surface storage of harmful materials in containers susceptible to leakage Accidental spills Waste disposal, including liquid, solid, and hazardous waste Stormwater disposal Mining activities Application and storage of roadway deicing chemicals Agricultural activities Artificial recharge of the aquifer by injection wells, seepage ponds, land spreading, or irrigation Aquifer over-utilization causing seawater intrusion, other contamination, water table declines or depletion of surface waters Improperly constructed or abandoned wells Confined animal feeding activities The discussion should define the extent of the groundwater problems caused or potentially caused by each activity, including effects which may extend across groundwater management area boundaries, supported by as much documentation as possible. The section should analyze historical trends in water quality in terms of their likely causes, document declining water table levels and other water use conflicts, establish the relationship between water withdrawal distribution and rates and water level changes within each aquifer or zone, and predict the like- lihood of future problems and conflicts if no action is taken. The discussion should also identify land and water use management policies that affect groundwater quality and quantity in the area. Areas where insufficient data exists to define the nature and extent of existing or potential groundwater problems shall be documented. (3) A section identifying water quantity and quality goals and objectives for the area which (a) recognize existing and future uses of the aquifer, (b) are in accordance with water quality standards of the department, the department of social and health services, and the federal environmental protection agency, and (c) recognize annual variations in aquifer recharge and other significant hydrogeologic factors; (4) An alternatives section outlining various land and water use management strategies for reaching the program's goals and objectives that address each of the groundwater problems discussed in the problem definition section. If necessary, alternative data collection and analysis programs shall be defined to enable better characterization of the groundwater and potential quality and quantity problems. Each of the alternative strategies shall be evaluated in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, cost, time and difficulty to implement, and degree of consistency with local comprehensive plans and water management programs such as the coordinated water system plan, the water supply reservation program, and others. The alternative management strategies shall address water conservation, conflicts with existing water rights and minimum instream flow requirements, programs to resolve such conflicts, and long-term policies and construction practices necessary to protect existing water rights and subsequent facilities installed in accordance with the groundwater management area program and/or other water right procedures. (5) A recommendations section containing those management strategies chosen from the alternatives section that are recommended for implementation. The rationale for choosing these strategies as opposed to the other alternatives identified shall be given; (6) An implementation section comprised of: (a) A detailed work plan for implementing each aspect of the groundwater management strategies as presented in the recommendations section. For each recommended management action, the parties responsible for initiating the action and a schedule for implementation shall be identified. Where possible, the implementation plan should include specifically worded statements such as model ordinances, recommended governmental policy statements, interagency agreements, proposed legislative changes, and proposed amendments to local comprehensive plans, coordinated water system plans, basin management programs, and others as appropriate; (b) A monitoring system for evaluating the effectiveness of the program; (c) A process for the periodic review and revision of the ground- water management program. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.44.400. WSR 86-02-004 (Order DE 85-24), § 173-100-100, filed 12/20/85.] Appendix E - Closed Stream Basins Email correspondence with DOE June 4, 2024. The streams flowing into Fletcher Bay as well as the stream flowing into Murden Cove are closed under chapter 173-515 WAC. The rule closes surface water bodies and groundwater pumping that can impact surface water. In other areas of Bainbridge new water rights can be issued but impacts to the closed streams will determine whether a permit can be issued. For instance a well in downtown Winslow can impact flows in both the Murden Cove creek and Springbrook Creek even though the area around Eagle Harbor is not closed under chapter 173-515 WAC. If impacts can be quantified and mitigated a new right might be approved. The same might would hold with new wells in the Manzanita Creek watershed. The evaluation of impacts applies to impacts that affect the closed creek. Depending on the groundwater regime, the watershed boundary is not the limit of those impacts. It makes for a handy visual threshold though. Water Resources Program 
Dept. of Ecology - NW Region PO Box 330316, Shoreline, WA 98133-9716 Phone: (425) 577-0173 Appendix F - Conceptual model and numerical simulation of the groundwater-flow system of Bainbridge Island, Washington, March 2, 2011 https://www.usgs.gov/publications/conceptual-model-and-numerical-simulation-groundwater-flow-system-bainbridge-island Groundwater is the sole source of drinking water for the population of Bainbridge Island. Increased use of groundwater supplies on Bainbridge Island as the population has grown over time has created concern about the quantity of water available and whether saltwater intrusion will occur as groundwater usage increases. A groundwater-flow model was developed to aid in the understanding of the groundwater system and the effects of groundwater development alternatives on the water resources of Bainbridge Island. Bainbridge Island is underlain by unconsolidated deposits of glacial and nonglacial origin. The surficial geologic units and the deposits at depth were differentiated into aquifers and confining units on the basis of areal extent and general water-bearing characteristics. Eleven principal hydrogeologic units are recognized in the study area and form the basis of the groundwater-flow model. A transient variable-density groundwater-flow model of Bainbridge Island and the surrounding area was developed to simulate current (2008) groundwater conditions. The model was calibrated to water levels measured during 2007 and 2008 using parameter estimation (PEST) to minimize the weighted differences or residuals between simulated and measured hydraulic head. The calibrated model was used to make some general observations of the groundwater system in 2008. Total flow through the groundwater system was about 31,000 acre-ft/ yr. The recharge to the groundwater system was from precipitation and septic-system returns. Groundwater flow to Bainbridge Island accounted for about 1,000 acre-ft/ yr or slightly more than 5 percent of the recharge amounts. Groundwater discharge was predominately to streams, lakes, springs, and seepage faces (16,000 acre-ft/yr) and directly to marine waters (10,000 acre-ft/yr). Total groundwater withdrawals in 2008 were slightly more than 6 percent (2,000 acre-ft/yr) of the total flow. The calibrated model was used to simulate predevelopment conditions, during which no groundwater pumping or secondary recharge occurred and currently developed land was covered by conifer forests. Simulated water levels in the uppermost aquifer generally were slightly higher at the end of 2008 than under predevelopment conditions, likely due to increased recharge from septic returns and reduced evapotranspiration losses due to conversion of land cover from forests to current conditions. Simulated changes in water levels for the extensively used sea-level aquifer were variable, although areas with declines between zero and 10 feet were common and generally can be traced to withdrawals from public-supply drinking wells. Simulated water-level declines in the deep (Fletcher Bay) aquifer between predevelopment and 2008 conditions ranged from about 10 feet in the northeast to about 25 feet on the western edge of the Island. These declines are related to groundwater withdrawals for public-supply purposes. The calibrated model also was used to simulate the possible effects of increased groundwater pumping and changes to recharge due to changes in land use and climactic conditions between 2008 and 2035 under minimal, expected, and maximum impact conditions. Drawdowns generally were small for most of the Island (less than 10 ft) for the minimal and expected impact scenarios, and were larger for the maximum impact scenario. No saltwater intrusion was evident in any scenario by the year 2035. The direction of flow in the deep Fletcher Bay aquifer was simulated to reverse direction from its predevelopment west to east direction to an east to west direction under the maximum impact scenario. Appendix G - USGS Kitsap Groundwater Model, January 1, 2016. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/washington-water-science-center/science/kitsap-groundwater-model The Issue: Groundwater provides a major source of drinking water for the population of the Kitsap Peninsula. Consequently, as the population grows, so does the demand for groundwater. However, the quantity of usable groundwater is limited, largely because the Peninsula is bounded by seawater and the potential for water-level declines and seawater intrusion increases as groundwater usage increases. How the USGS will help: The major objectives of the study are to characterize the groundwater-flow system on the Kitsap Peninsula and its interaction with associated surface-water features, and to integrate this information into a numerical groundwater flow model to assist water resource managers in the development of a long-term watershed management plan. 9722-CWQ - Characterization and Numerical Simulation of the Groundwater Resources on the Kitsap Peninsula, Kitsap, Mason, and Pierce Counties, Washington - Completed FY2016 Problem - Groundwater provides a major source of drinking water for the population of the Kitsap Peninsula. Consequently, as the population grows, so does the demand for groundwater. However, the quantity of usable groundwater is limited, largely because the Peninsula is bounded by seawater and the potential for water-level declines and seawater intrusion increases as groundwater usage increases. Objectives - The major objectives of the study are to characterize the groundwater-flow system on the Kitsap Peninsula and its interaction with associated surface-water features, and to integrate this information into a numerical groundwater flow model to assist water resource managers in the development of a long-term watershed management plan. This study also will create project management tools to facilitate communication between project partners and stakeholders, and to establish consistent methods and practices among project participants for project data collection, QA/QC, and archiving. Relevance and Benefits - This study is consistent with the national USGS mission and goals and to water-resource issues identified in the USGS Science Strategy. The study addresses groundwater availability and sustainability, which is a priority issue under the Water Census of the United States as outlined in Facing Tomorrow's challenges: USGS Science in the Decade 2007-2017. This study also will provide resource managers on the Kitsap Peninsula with a numerical flow model to assist in the development of a long-term watershed management plan to meet the needs of current and future water demands within the watershed, while also working to protect and improve its natural resources. This study is appropriate for inclusion in the USGS Cooperative Program because it will provide information that advances understanding of hydrologic processes. Approach - A project website and a quality-assurance/quality-control plan will be developed to facilitate communication and methods between project partners and stakeholders. Existing and new groundwater and surface-water data will be compiled and evaluated to characterize the flow system, and entered into the National Water Information System data base. A numerical groundwater-flow model will be constructed to simulate potential anthropogenic and climatic impacts on groundwater and surface water resources, and the model will be transferred to the Planning Unit for assisting development of a long-term watershed management plan.