WSF must complete environmental study, examiner finds — UPDATE

Published 8:00 pm Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The state ferry system must complete an environmental review before it can complete upgrades of its Eagle Harbor maintenance yard, a city hearing examiner ruled Tuesday.

The ruling upholds an earlier determination by the city that the rehabilitation of maintenance yard structures could harm the harbor’s marine life, habitat and water quality.

The project “can rationally and reasonably be considered a major action which…could have a probable significant adverse environmental impact,” Hearing Examiner Meredith Getches said in her findings.

Getches also criticized state transportation agencies for not providing adequate information in their communications with the city. The state “made it difficult…to discern the true scope of the present proposal by providing ambiguous descriptions,” she wrote.

Members of Reclaim Our Waterfront, which favors removing the yard from the harbor, characterized the ruling as the long-overdue reprimand of an unresponsive bureaucracy.

“I’m very pleased,” said ROW member John Doerschuck. “The ruling appears to recognize that the ferry system has not been diligent or forthright.”

The $40 million maintenance yard project would include dock repairs, new buildings, expanded parking and revamped facilities, and was set to be completed in stages from August 2006 to December 2009.

Because Washington State Ferries considers portions of the overhaul to be maintenance and improvement rather than new construction, the agency had decided against a formal environmental impact statement. WSF declared the project “categorically exempt” from standard State Environmental Policy Act review, sparking the dispute with the city.

The city also objected to the state Department of Transportation’s determination in March that the project would have no significant “adverse impact” on the environment.

The city assumed “lead agency status” over the upgrades to initiate its own review. In April, the city planning department issued a SEPA “determination of significance” that questioned possible impacts to air, water quality, wildlife, transportation access, public services and other issues.

That ruling would force WSF to complete a more thorough analysis of the project.

Getches’ ruling denied WSF’s appeal of the city’s SEPA determination.

WSF director Mike Anderson disagreed with the decision but characterized it as “another step” in what he predicts will be a favorable ruling in Kitsap County Superior Court to close the matter, he said in a statement Tuesday.

ROW’s Doerschuck vowed that Anderson will need to climb more steps than he expects.

“I don’t think (Anderson) realizes how many flights of stairs he’s going to have on this one,” Doerschuck said, adding his prediction that the examiner’s decision will create a “sea change,” making WSF “more responsible and accountable.”

The ruling may also end WSF’s “pattern of bullying and outspending people when they don’t get their way,” he said.

Until the matter is concluded, the maintenance yard project will see further delays while taxpayers foot the bill on both sides of the legal fight.

“Each day of delay continues to add to project cost and prevents us from moving forward with critical repairs to the facility,” Anderson said.

Permit delays on the project have cost WSF approximately $700,000, according to WSF spokeswoman Joy Goldenberg.

Until another ruling by the court, the city will issue no permits for the planned upgrades.

“Our position is that they need permits from us,” City Attorney Paul McMurray said. “Until their SEPA is complete, there’ll be no permits. It wouldn’t be appropriate.”