HomeMy WebLinkAboutLPA05-00092 APPEAL riale 49
' Pope Resources
A Limited Partnership
' 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast
P.O.Box 1780
Poulsbo,Washington 98370-0239
(206)697-6626
(206)697-1156 FAX
' March 30, 1994
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
' PO Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
Re: "Creekside" Preliminary Plat, Application No. LP5-92: Appeal of Final Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance
Gentlemen:
' At your public hearing on Monday, March 21, 1994, the Olympic Environmental Council
(OEC), armed with exhibits prepared by the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council and
others, attempted to persuade your Board to withdraw its Final MDNS on "Creekside."
Since your hearing, Pope Resources and its consultants have listened to the verbatim audio
tape, and have carefully examined the exhibits provided to you by OEC. We have also
examined a considerable amount of our own data related to water supply at Port Ludlow.
OEC made generally two unfounded allegations:
1. Pope Resources does not possess legal water rights to provide domestic supply for
'
2. our collective projects past and present.
It is improbable that adequate groundwater sources exist to supply our projects past
and present.
We have outlined below in italics every OEC point intended to support its main allegations.
In bold are our responses.
Pope Resources has insufficient legal water rights to supply previous development projects as well
' as those now proposed (Creekside & Ironwood).
With a total of 465 acre feet per of water rights already issued, Pope Resources can supply
all previously developed lots; all lots within approved preliminary plats; the currently
' proposed plats of "Creekside" and "Ironwood" with a surplus of roughly 86 acre feet per
year. That surplus can and will be used to serve future projects not yet submitted for
County approval. Thereafter, Pope Resources can apply for additional water rights from
the State of Washington. EXHIBIT A attached confirms the adequacy of Pope Resources'
water rights at Port Ludlow.
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
March 30, 1994
' Page 2
It is likely that insufficient groundwater resources exist to supply all previous Pope Resources
' development projects, the two now proposed (Creekside & Ironwood), as well as remaining
projects portrayed in Pope's long range development program for Port Ludlow.
On the contrary, it is quite likely that sufficient groundwater resources do exist to supply
all previous, current, and future Port Ludlow development projects. EXHIBIT B attached
is a technical report entitled Evaluation of the Impact of Planned Future Development on
Port Ludlow Groundwater Resources. January 1993 prepared by Robinson & Noble,
groundwater hydrogeologists with extensive experience in the Port Ludlow area. That report
was the foundation of the Groundwater Resources element of the Port Ludlow
Programmatic Final EIS adopted by your Board on April 12, 1993. Said report is based
on available recharge-calculation technical studies and predicts that the South Aquifer
alone is capable of sustaining a yield of 492 gallons per minute (gpm) or 794 acre-feet per
year (af/yr). The most conservative standards within these studies were used for
calculation of South Aquifer recharge. Assuming a dramatic increase in proliferation of
single domestic wells and the utilization of the maximum permitted usage by all other
' users, a worst case usage rate of 448.6 gpm (723 af/yr) was calculated.
Mitigation Measure #10 is not adequate to insure the proposed development will not have a
' significant adverse effect on groundwater resources.
Hydrogeological experts have predicted adequate groundwater resources such that no
significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects should occur. As an extraordinary
' precaution, a comprehensive monitoring program was prescribed. Monitoring is
appropriate mitigation.
The present level of production is far below estimates of aquifer capacity. The development
of an ongoing monitoring program will allow the systematic collection and analysis of
scientific information necessary to evaluate long-term overall aquifer capacity. At this time,
' after 8 years of monitoring, the data from Wells 13 and 14 indicate no depletion of the
aquifer resources, but a wider array of monitoring sites is desirable. As demand on the
system is increased, the monitoring network will provide the data necessary to evaluate the
' long-term effects of withdrawal and provide any early warning necessary to preclude over-
production from the South Aquifer.
' Due to excessive drawdown in the North Aquifer, limits were put on the pumping and Well 13
was put into production to supplement the shortfalls in the North Aquifer. Well #1 and Well
#12 which is in the South Aquifer were both 'abandoned"in 1986. Water rights no longer exist
' on those wells. Ironwood and Creekside both depend upon Wells 13 and 14 only and there are
no other sources of supply in that area.
' Well 13 was drilled as a system supply well for the Port Ludlow development and was put
into production in 1986. The completion of an inter-tie between the north and south sides
of the Bay will allow water from this well to feed into the northern portion of the system
and reduce demand on North Aquifer wells.
1
1
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
March 30, 1994
' Page 3
Wells 1 and 12 have not been "abandoned." They still exist,although their water rights were
relinquished in 1986. New water right applications must be submitted to the Department
of Ecology to reestablish those water rights. Since "Ironwood" and "Creekside" are within
the Ludlow Water Company service area, they can receive water from any of the system
' wells. However, system hydraulics favor the use of Wells 13 and 14 as the source for these
two subdivisions.
The October 1993 Greater Port Ludlow Community Council compilation of building activity
is the only accurate one available for total building activity in Port Ludlow.
' The October 17, 1993, Greater Port Ludlow Community Council (GPLCC) data entitled
"Port Ludlow Community Development Growth Analysis" and submitted to your Board as
evidence contains many factual errors. In conjunction with Programmatic EIS monitoring,
' Pope Resources maintains the only accurate record of overall development activity and
water connections at Port Ludlow. Attached EXHIBIT C compares the GPLCC analysis
with Pope Resources' correct data.
' Wells #2 and #2 in the North Aquifer are only "seasonal."
Attached as EXHIBITS D and E are photocopies of the "Certificates of Groundwater
Rights" from the Washington Department of Ecology for Well #2 and Well #3 which state
that water may be withdrawn "continuously during the entire year for community domestic
supply."
' There is a total capacity of this entire system according to the Department of Health of 1,058
connections based on a State Department of Health standard of 400 gallons per day per unit.
' As of October 1993, there were already 951 water connections to the Port Ludlow system. From
the Department of Health's point of view, given existing connections as of October 1993, and
ultimate available connections, this system is already near capacity. This system is at capacity
' given its available legal water rights.
The Department of Health, WAC 246-290-200 requires historical water use be considered
as a system design factor. A higher water resource standard may be utilized in theoretically
' judging adequacy of water supply for new and expanding systems in the absence of
historical data. Ludlow Water Company has kept records of metered water consumption
on a per-connection basis (residential and commercial) for over 20 years. The average
' residential consumption is documented to be less than 160 gallons per day. That
consumption value was employed in the Port Ludlow Development Program Final EIS
without challenge by the Washington State Department of Health. Again, EXHIBIT A
accurately portrays the number of total existing connections and demonstrates the adequate
capacity of the system.
1
' Honorable Board of County Commissioners
March 30, 1994
Page 4
DOE comments on the Draft EIS in December 1992 suggest that the recharge rate is not
t adequate to sustain pumping. Since actual pumping from the North Aquifer source does not
allow full utilization of water rights, you must conclude that a similar correlation exists in the
South Aquifer. The situation is compounded in the South Aquifer by withdrawal by other
' parties which is not the case in the North Aquifer.
A response to the Department of Ecology letter was made a year ago and was adequately
' covered in Chapter 4, Pages 2 and 3, of the Port Ludlow Development Program - Final
Environmental Impact Statement - April 1993. Said Final EIS essentially stated that the
capacity of the North Aquifer is based on extensive records collected by Ludlow Water
Company. The estimation of water availability from the South Aquifer was, by necessity,
more theoretical than for the North Aquifer. Differences between the North and South
aquifers in variables such as depth, local geology, areal extent, topography, and surface
' coverage will lead to different recharge rates. Therefore, an exact correlation of aquifer
capacity cannot be made between the two aquifers.
' Subdivisions are being approved far beyond capacity of the aquifers.
EXHIBIT B presents the best scientific evidence available as to aquifer capacities. This
report, in conjunction with statistics presented in EXHIBIT A, demonstrate that the
' aquifers have adequate capacity to serve approved subdivisions.
The Port Ludlow system is "promising people water as they come in the door, is being run
' beyond its limits while Pope Resources waits for someone to call their bluff"
Such a slanderous allegation that Pope Resources is engaging in fraudulent business
activities is both unfounded and irresponsible.
1
Today, we received from Jim Pearson a memorandum dated March 22, 1994, asking for
t further clarification and information on several water issues. The majority of Mr. Pearson's
concerns were addressed in the foregoing responses to the OEC allegations. His remaining
question pertaining to "supplemental" water rights is addressed below.
' Total "primary" water rights allocated to Pope Resources equal 465 acre-feet/year. In
addition, Pope Resources was issued water rights within Well #13 and Well #14 that are
t "supplemental" to primary rights. Supplemental rights do not affect the total supply that
can be withdrawn (465 af/yr), but can substitute for a portion of the primary rights.
1
1
1
1
I'I
i
I
IHonorable Board of County Commissioners
March 30, 1994
' Page 5
We are confident we have responded with accurate data and documentation to testimony
Ioffered at your March 21, 1994, public hearing.
We trust you will uphold the decision of the County's SEPA Responsible Official and ratify
Iissuance of the "Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance" for "Creekside."
Respectfully submitted,
I
IDavid Cunning am
Vice President, Land Use
ph
' c: James Holland, SEPA Responsible Official
Jim Pearson, Associate Planner, Jefferson County Planning Department
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT A
' WATER RIGHTS VS. OBLIGATIONS
DWELLING DESIGN FLOW @ ACRE FEET •
UNITS t6O GPD P;ER PER YEAR"
Dl~Y�LOPMENT COMPONENT ,)MIT 1 !
•
' Present Connections 2 860 137,600 154
Commercial & Misc. Use 3 • 36
' Unbuilt Lot Commitments 717 114,720 128
Programmatic EIS - Approved Preliminary Plats:
Ludlow Bay Village 58 9,280 10
The Inn 36 5,760 6
Deer Hollow 26 4,160 5
Springwood 68 10,880 12
' Commitments To Date 1,765 282,4001 351
Water Rights 465
1 Existing Surplus (Deficit) 114
Current Proposals:
Creekside 61 9,760 11
Ironwood 95 15,200 17
Commitments To Date Plus Current Proposals 192:1 307,360. 379
Remaining Surplus (Deficit) 86
NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS
Unit flow of "Gallons Per Day" (GPD) is from historical usage records.
I2 Connections as of 12/31/93.
3 Metered Commercial Usage plus estimated miscellaneous use.
° One acre foot equals 325,829 gallons.
I
1
I
EXHIBIT B
' EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF PLANNED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
' ON PORT LUDLOW GROUND WATER RESOURCES
January, 1993
INTRODUCTION
' Pope Resources authorized Robinson and Noble, Inc. to address the impacts of the Port
Ludlow Development Program on ground water resources for the Environmental Impact
' Statement. The water resources of the Port Ludlow area were evaluated by assessing the
occurrence and capacity of aquifers and determining the existing water system capabilities. Once
' the water resources were evaluated, the current and future water needs of Port Ludlow were
evaluated in three parts: present usage, usage for unbuilt lots, and usage for total buildout. For
' the present usage, the Port Ludlow system was evaluated on the basis of records up to December
31, 1991. Using the average usage figures from historical data, the projected use for 877 sold,
' but unbuilt, lots was determined. Also based on historical rates, the impacts of adding 700
domestic connections (531 single-family and 169 multi-family) and 47,500 square feet of
commercial space as part of the buildout program for Port Ludlow were evaluated.
' Robinson and Noble, Inc. has conducted several studies in the area in evaluating the
resources of Port Ludlow (Robinson and Noble, Inc. 1985; 1987; 1989). These studies were
' used as sources for water usage, well construction, pump test data, and principal aquifer
identification. The Port Ludlow Water Company has collected extensive data on historical water
' levels and well usage that dates back to 1972, as well as water usage data such as categorical
usage, metered usage, and total usage that dates back ;to 1985. The data from the
aforementioned sources were essential in the evaluation detailed below.
1
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
' 2
HYDROGEOLOGY
' In previous studies four principal aquifers have been identified near the community of Port
Ludlow (Figure 1). These are the North, South, South Valley, and Well 1 aquifers (Robinson
and Noble, Inc., 1987). Port Ludlow currently utilizes four wells; three wells in the North
Aquifer (Wells 2, 3 and 4N) and one in the South Aquifer (Well 13). Port Ludlow also has two
' more wells that are usable; one (Well 14) in the South Aquifer and one (Well 1) near the shore
in town. The following is an update and summary of the available hydrologic data for all the
above mentioned wells dating back to 1972 through the end of 1991.
Definition of the Aquifers
The four aquifers delineated in the Port Ludlow area were
defined using different methods depending on the type and amount of
information available. The North, South Valley and Well 1 Aquifers
' were defined using long-term pumping tests, withdrawal records and
water level information because this type of analysis provides the
' best assessment of water availability. The South Aquifer was
defined in a more theoretical manner because insufficient pumping
and water level data was available to allow an accurate assessment
' of water availability.
' The original definition of the North, South and South Valley
Aquifers took place in 1985 (Robinson & Noble, 1985) and was based
' solely on Port Ludlow production and test wells, the Paradise Bay
well, and six field located (Grimstad and Carson, 1981) domestic
wells. The aquifer definition was accomplished by examining
geologic logs, constructing cross-sections, and mapping the bedrock
(basalt) surface. For the North Aquifer in particular, mutual
' interference visible in Port Ludlow well hydrographs was the major
defining factor. At the time, the aquifer boundary definition was
rather incomplete largely due to the scope of the project, which
was to summarize ground water resources in the area rather than
1 Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
1
3
1 perform a complete hydrogeologic description of the area.
' Later work in 1987 and 1989 (Robinson & Noble, 1987, 1989) had
similar scopes of work, to evaluate ground water resource potential
1 in the area (the 1989 work also included constructing and testing
of Well 14) . To accomplish these scopes of work, redefinition of
the North Aquifer was not required because it was apparent from
1 pumping records that the withdrawal from the aquifer was at or near
the aquifer's potential yield. Further work was needed to evaluate
1 potential yields from the South Valley Aquifer, the South Aquifer,
and the Well 1 aquifer. The primary work accomplished during this
study consisted of pumping tests in the three aquifers in question:
Well 1 Aquifer: A seven day test at Well 1 showed that the aquifer
1 could not support a yield higher than the demonstrated capacity of
Well 1. This test data, coupled with the Well 1 geologic log
1 provided a relatively good definition of aquifer character
immediately surrounding Well 1. However, since Well 1 was the only
' well located in the aquifer, the aquifer boundaries are not well
defined.
1 South Valley Aquifer: A nine day test was conducted in the South
Valley Aquifer. The results of this test indicated this aquifer
' could not support significant long-term ground water withdrawal.
This testing, well logs, and the nature of the aquifer geology
1 (shallow permeable sediments lining the valley bottom) provided a
good definition of aquifer characteristics and a good definition of
the aquifer boundaries except for the southern end of the aquifer.
1 South Aquifer: Several tests were made in the South Aquifer,
including a 15-day pumping test. The results of these tests
1 indicated that the current and future (when Well 14 was put on-
line) levels of production would not exceeded the aquifer's
1 potential yield, however, aquifer boundaries could not be estimated
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
I
I
Ifrom the testing.
IThe work completed in 1992 as part of the DEIS called for a
study of the impact of planned developments on the ground water
I resource. Once again, to accomplish this scope of work, complete
aquifer definition accomplished through an extensive hydrogeologic
study of all four aquifers was not needed. The previous work in
I
1985, 1987 and 1989 provided good estimates of production capacity
for the Port Ludlow North, Well 1, and South Valley Aquifers.
IConsequently, impacts to these aquifers could be addressed without
further aquifer definition. Only in the case of the South Aquifer
' was further aquifer definition needed. It was necessary because
in su ff ici ent historical water level and production data was
' available for a good estimate of potential aquifer yield.
Additionally, questions were raised concerning whether the South
Aquifer extended into the Shine area. Therefore, fairly extensive
' hydrogeologic study was completed to better define the South
Aquifer. With the completion of the 1992 work, we believe the
I hydrostratigraphic and areal definition of the South Aquifer is
more accurate than the other three aquifers, however, the
111 production capabilities of the North, Well 1, and South Valley
Aquifers are better defined than that of the South Aquifer.
' To help in the South Aquifer definition, a database of records
from more than 200 wells in the Port Ludlow-Shine area was
I collected in conjunction with the DEIS to help in the South Aquifer
definition. Records were collected from , various published and
unpublished reports and from Department of Ecology (DOE) well
Irecords. Copies of 177 Water Well Reports in the DOE files for
T.28 N. , R. 1 E. were collected for inclusion in the database.
' Eventually the database contained records on 217 wells in T.28 N. ,
R. 1 E. Of these 217 wells, 147 wells were located south of Port
I Ludlow bay and were examined for possible use in the South Aquifer
definition effort. Of the 147 wells, 72 were selected to be used.
' These wells were selected because their locations could fairly
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
=i
I5
' accurately be found and for one or more of the following reasons:
.I 1. Complete geologic log information
2 . Available water level data
3 . Available pump test or bail test data
I4 . Good elevation control
5. Lack of other well information in the immediate area.
1 The remaining wells were not chosen for one or more of the
' following reasons:
1 . Outside the area of interest (too far west of the aquifer
Iarea, e.g. Section 31)
2 . Could not be accurately located
I 3 . Redundancy, data similar to other wells in the immediate .
area
4 . Lack of geologic log or water level information
I5 . Contradictory information on the record concerning location
or geology
I6 . Poor elevation control
I The first step in defining the aquifer was to examine well
logs and surface geologic maps and delineate hydrostratigraphic
units. In this case, eight hydrostratigraphic units were
I
differentiated, of which the South Aquifer is one. With the local
hydrostratigraphy established, various cross-sections and maps were
' constructed to help determine the spatial boundaries and
characteristics of the units. Specifically, three cross-sections,
I a bedrock surface map, and a potentiometric surface map were
generated.
IThis was the procedure used to define the South Aquifer. The
procedure does not incorporate a step-by-step checklist-type
' methodology, but rather is the synthesis of all known hydrogeologic
information to formulate a picture of the complete hydrogeologic
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
II
I
6
Isystem. More than the South Aquifer was defined; confining layers
and other aquifer systems were also noted and characterized.
IBesides the South Aquifer, a perched aquifer system (consisting of
several separate aquifers) and a deep aquifer system
I (stratigraphically below the South Aquifer) were described while
completing the work.
' The boundaries of the South Aquifer as shown represent our
best estimate of where the aquifer changes from relatively
Ipermeable sediments to relatively less permeable sediments, or
where the aquifer deposits lap onto the basalt bedrock.
I Consequently, the aquifer boundary as defined here represents a
change from aquifer to basalt, or a transition zone between
permeabilities (making the true aquifer boundary a gradational
' change rather than an exact line) . The boundary as shown is an
estimate because 1) , the exact position of the lapping of aquifer
' deposits on the basalt cannot be located precisely (i .e. it's
buried) , and 2) , the gradational nature of the of the boundary
' where the aquifer does not contact the bedrock.
Section 33 provides a good example of how the aquifer boundary
was drawn. Most of the eastern-half of Section 33 is included in
the aquifer, while most of the western half is not included. The
boundary was drawn this way because the well records inside the
boundary line do not only show permeable deposits on their geologic
I logs, but they also indicate relatively high specific capacities.
The well records outside the boundary either show no aquifer
materials present on their geologic logs, or show low specific
Icapacities where possibly permeable sediments are noted.
Specifically, five Section 33 wells within the boundary line were
' examined, they had specific capacities ranging from 2 to 30 gpm/ft,
averaging 8 gpm/ft. Eight wells outside the boundary were
I examined, they had specific capacities ranging from 0. 02 to 5
gpm/ft, averaging 0 . 9 gpm/ft. Of these eight wells, only one had
a specific capacity greater than 1 gpm/ft. This well was
I
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
7
' surrounded by lower specific capacity wells, and therefore, was
left outside the boundary.
.1
North Aquifer
' Port Ludlow currently utilizes three wells in the North Aquifer: Wells 2, 3 and 4N. Well
2, drilled to 245 feet in 1968, has hydrologic data through 1991. The original static water level
at the time of construction was 67.2 feet. The hydrograph of Well 2 (Figure 2) shows that the
static water level (SWL) has dropped steadily to approximately 30 feet below the original level.
' The hydrograph also shows that during times of reduced pumping in Well 2 (1984 and 1985),
the SWL did not recover, but remained steady until withdrawal was again increased, at which
' time, the SWL continued to drop. Average withdrawals from Well 2 have remained relatively
constant at approximately 20 to 30 gpm, except for the above mentioned deviation. The pump
intake for Well 2 is below 180 ft, the top of the screen is at 214 ft. Therefore Well 2, with its
lowest pumping water level (PWL) of record at approximately 140 ft, currently has an adequate
reserve of available drawdown.
' Well 3, drilled to 257 feet in 1968, had an original SWL of 144.5 feet and has hydrologic
data through to 1991. Although Well 3 is in the same aquifer as Well 2, the hydrograph for
Well 3 (Figure 3) shows a different response to pumping. The SWL shows a steady decline as
pumping was increased until the end of 1980. Then, as pumping decreased through the end of
1 1982, the SWL recovered to approximately 162 feet. After 1982, the SWL of Well 3 shows a
corresponding response to increases and decreases of pumping. Withdrawals from Well 3 have
decreased since the end of 1988 to the present average rate of approximately 5 gpm. The SWL
appears to be recovering in response to this lower pumping rate. The pump intake and screen
are both below 240 feet. The well, with its lowest historical PWL of approximately 222 in 1980
and 1981, had only 15 feet of drawdown reserve at that time. Since then the pumping rate has
' decreased and, as a result, the water level has risen and the well presently has adequate
drawdown reserve.
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
1
8
tWell 4N, drilled to 546 feet in 1980, had an original SWL of 158.9 feet. The hydrograph
' (Figure 4) shows a decline in SWL which corresponds with an increase in pumping rate. The
SWL has dropped approximately 30 feet, to 190 feet, as the average withdrawal has increased
' from approximately 10 to 60 gpm. During a period of decrease in pumping rate in 1987, the
SWL appeared to recover until the pumping rate was again increased and the SWL began
' declining again. The pump intake is below 300 ft; the lowest recorded PWL still allows for 35
ft of drawdown reserve.
' In summary, the wells in the North Aquifer show a decline in aquifer water level of up to
' 30 feet due to the increase in total withdrawal rate which is presently about 85 gpm. The lowest
recorded pumping water levels in the wells still allow for adequate drawdown reserve.
' Recommendations for withdrawal rates from the North Aquifer wells are made later in this
report (see Table 1).
1
South Aquifer
The South Aquifer has one well that is presently being utilized. Well 13, drilled to 468 feet
in 1975, had an original SWL of 362.5 feet. The hydrograph for Well 13 (Figure 5) shows that
the SWL, has essentially remained steady, even with an increase in average withdrawal rate from
' 10 to 27 gpm.
Well 14, located within the South Aquifer approximately 850 feet east of Well 13, was
drilled to 527 feet in 1988. Because there is no present demand of water beyond what Well 13
can supply, Well 14 is not being used at this time. The well has been rated at 300 gpm. Wells
13 and 14 can be operated coincidentally with minor drawdown interference (Robinson and•
Noble, Inc., 1989).
There are at least 4 other major wells, as well as several domestic wells in the South
Aquifer. The major wells are Jefferson County PUD's Bywater Wells 1 and 2, the Jefferson
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
9
' County Water District #1 Paradise Bay Well and the Tala Point Partners well. The Bywater
wells are not currently in use. Well 1 is 299 feet deep and is rated for 150 gpm. The Paradise
' Bay Well was drilled to 466 feet and was tested at 100 gpm. The Tala Point well was drilled
to 325 feet in 1984 and was tested at 20 gpm.
South Valley Aquifer
' Numerous test wells have been drilled, including Well 12, in the South Valley Aquifer,
identified by Robinson and Noble, Inc. in 1985, but none are currently being utilized by Port
' Ludlow. Another hydrologic study (Robinson and Noble, Inc., 1989) concluded that the aquifer
is unable to support long-term ground water production. In the 1989 study, Well 12, drilled to
43 feet, was tested at 65 gpm.
Well 1 Aquifer
The Well 1 Aquifer is named for the only known well that is completed within it. As stated
' in earlier studies (Robinson and Noble, Inc., 1985; 1987; 1989), the Well 1 Aquifer is deeper
than and separate from the other aquifers. Well 1, drilled to 357 feet in 1945, had a SWL of
' 83 ft in 1965 and 79.9 ft in 1989. This well is presently unused, but could be put into service
at 50 gpm to augment the water supply of Port Ludlow.
1 1
1
1
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
I10
IGROUND WATER YIELDS IN THE PORT LUDLOW AREA
INorth Aquifer yield
IThe method selected to most accurately estimate the aquifer yield is to examine the historic
water level, production, and precipitation data and look for production rates that did not result
Iin water level declines. Figure 6, an overview of these three components, shows the almost
parallel trend of all three. The average SWL for the North Aquifer was calculated from Wells
I2, 3, and 4N by converting to water level elevation. The total annual withdrawal from the
North Aquifer was determined from the historical data of the same three wells as an average
Icontinuous rate. The precipitation plot is the cumulative departure from the average effective
precipitation at NOAA's Chimacum 4 S Station. Effective precipitation is herein considered to
Ibe the precipitation that falls during the water year other than the summer months of June, July
and August when the rainfall mostly evaporates or is transpired by vegetation. Between 1972
Iand 1991, there has been one period of time when static water levels, withdrawal, and
precipitation have all been steady: 1985 and 1986. During these two years, the average
Iproduction from the aquifer was approximately 70 gpm, the SWL was steady at approximately
213 feet MSL, and the precipitation was close to the average rate. This implies that 70 gpm is
Ithe rate at which water levels will remain steady with average precipitation or fluctuate with
deviations in precipitation.
ITherefore, it is recommended that the withdrawal from the North Aquifer be reduced from
I85 gpm to a range of 60 to 70 gpm, preferably averaging 65 gpm. After monitoring the water
level response in the North Aquifer at the reduced rate, the withdrawal rate for the aquifer can
I be adjusted accordingly. The recommended reduced rates for the individual wells in the North
Aquifer are given in a later section (see Table 1).
I
I
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
I
1 •
11
South Aquifer yield
' Unlike the North Aquifer, the South Aquifer lacks the historical data to directly estimate
aquifer yield. Therefore a hypothetical yield was developed for the South Aquifer. To
determine this value, an accurate assessment of the magnitude of ground water recharge per unit
area to the system must be made. Once the amount of recharge is determined and the area of
' recharge is delineated, the hypothetical yield can be calculated. The following sections elaborate
on the process of determining the hypothetical yield for the South Aquifer.
Hypothetical yield for the South Aquifer
' Recharge in the Port Ludlow area
' The ground water recharge to the aquifers were calculated using the equation:
' Recharge = Precipitation - Evapotranspiration - Storm runoff.
Precipitation: The value used for precipitation was based upon the average
rainfall at the NOAA Chimacum 4 S Station, located approximately 5 miles north
' of Port Ludlow. The average precipitation at this station, based on 30 years of
record, is 29.87 inches. Because the Chimacum station is located nearer to the
Olympic Mountain rain-shadow, the dominant influence of precipitation rates in
the region, the average at this station is most likely as much as 5 inches less than
the actual precipitation in Port Ludlow. Therefore, the 30 inches/yr used for the
precipitation at Port Ludlow should be considered a conservative amount.
Evapotranspiration: Evapotra.:.:4;:ration is the water that evaporates or is utilized
' by vegetation before it can enter the ground water system. The value chosen is
a conservative rate taken from the values derived in the Kitsap County Ground
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
I
12
IWater Management Project Report (Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.,
1991). The Kitsap GWMP report is the most comprehensive study of ground
' water resources in the region. Since the Port Ludlow area shares many
hydrogeologic aspects with Kitsap County, the Kitsap GWMP report was applied
Iherein. A range of 13 to 15 inches/year is given in the Kitsap GWMP report for
the "Hansville-Indianola" subarea (the nearest and most similar subarea). For this
report an evapotranspiration value of 15 inches/yr was selected.
' Storm runoff: Storm runoff is the amount of precipitation that does not enter the
groundwater system but is discharged to Puget Sound via the surface drainage
Isystem. The range of values given in the Kitsap GWMP report is 2 to 4
inches/year. The value used here is the highest value of 4 inches/yr.
I
Therefore, the recharge equation for the Port Ludlow area is as follows:
I
. Recharge = Precipitation - Evapotranspiration - Storm Runoff
IRecharge = 30 inches/yr - 15 inches/yr - 4 inches/yr
Recharge = 11 inches/yr
I
' Recharge to the South Aquifer
IThe recharge area for the South Aquifer is the area of ground above the areal extent of the
aquifer (see Figure 1). The boundaries of the South Aquifer have been modified since the
IRobinson & Noble, Inc. 1989 report due to the addition of new data from recently drilled wells.
The recharge area is approximately 4.5 square miles or 2880 acres.
I
I
I
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
.1
I
I 13
The total recharge for the South Aquifer is calculated as follows:
' South Aquifer Recharge = Area x Recharge
' South Aquifer Recharge = 2880 acres x (11 inches/yr x 1 ft/12 inches)
South Aquifer Recharge = 2640 acre ft/yr = 1640 gpm
' the system can be
Once the recharge to an aquifer is determined, the hypothetical yield of t e sys
g q YP Y
I determined. The Kitsap County GWMP report assumed that an acceptable range for the
percentage of recharge that can be utilized without imposing unacceptable impacts on the ground
I water system may be between 30 and 50 percent. These percentages were derived from the
most current literature on the subject of hypothetical yield. For the South Aquifer example, the
I conservative rate of 30 % was used. Thirty percent of 1640 gpm is 492 gpm. It should be
noted that this is an estimate and only by long-term withdrawal from the aquifer coupled with
I regular monitoring can the true yield of the South Aquifer be assessed. Currently, Port Ludlow
Utilities monitors the water levels in Wells 13 and 4N on a continuous basis with the use of an
I airline. Wells 2 and 3 are manually probed twice a month from May through September and
monthly from October through April. All of the wells are metered as well as each hook-up.
I This current monitoring program by Port Ludlow Utilities is excellent and should be continued.
Presently, average withdrawal from the South Aquifer by Port Ludlow (Well 13) is
I approximately 27 gpm. The present withdrawal rates from other users of the South Aquifer are
small (see page 16). Therefore the withdrawal from the South Aquifer can be increased
I significantly.
•
' EXISTING GROUND WATER RESOURCES
Iae eo w s hows the recommended usa e and eak ca acit
I use and Wells 14 and 1. The values for previously recommended usage are taken from the 1989
report by Robinson and Noble. Based upon additional information, we recommend that
Iproduction from the North Aquifer be reduced through time from 85 to 65 gpm as shown in
' Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I ._
' 14
' Table 1. Although the wells currently have adequate drawdown reserve, continuing declines in
North Aquifer water levels should be averted by reducing production. The existence of an inter-
' tie between the north and south delivery systems should allow for this reduction by making up
for the loss with increased production from the South Aquifer.
I
Table 1 . Existing ground water resources
IPreviously Revised
recommended recommended Peak
usage * usage * Capacity **
I Well 2 38 gpm 20 gpm 150 gpm
Well 3 15 10 100
Well 4N 57 35 130
' Well 13 135 135 140
Well 14*" 300 300 300
Well 1 * ** 30 30 50
ITotal 575 gpm 530 gpm 870 gpm
I * Continuous pumping rate.
* * Actual instantaneous pumping rate from recent test.
** * Wells not currently in use.
I
I
I
I
I r
1 Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
15
PRESENT GROUND WATER USAGE
' Table 2 shows the actual usage in the Port Ludlow system during the past 7 years. From
1989 to 1991, the peak day usage increased. From 1987 to 1991, the peak quarter usage has
increased and the number of services increased from 417 to 728. Although the data set is small,
it does show that the usage rate has steadily increased.
Table 2. Total ground water usage 1985 - 1991 as
continuous gpm.
Ave. Peak Peak
1 Year Yearly Quarter Day
1 1985 83 -- --
1986 82 -- --
I1987 91 134 --
1 1988 101 152 --
1989 119 178 280
1990 103 164 272
1991 112 182 --
1
1
1
1
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I {,: : .
16
' The rate of increase in total usage is less than the increase in hook-ups. This relationship
is reflected in Table 3. Table 3 shows that the water users in the Port Ludlow area during the
I five years shown are using, in general, less water per service than in the past. Note, in both
single- and multi-family services, there is a trend toward a decreased water usage per hook-up
' over the past 3 years.
Table 3. Usage rates, 1985-1991 , in gallons per day per service.
I
Average in gpd/service
Hook-ups ; Peak Peak
I
Yearly Quarter Day *
I Single-family 1985 417 152 -- __
1986 417 155
1989 353' 156 198 400 .
I 1990 471 129 163 330
1991 477 131 172 345
IMulti-family 1985 64 145 -- __
1986 64 177 --
1989 156 191 252 500
1990 156 148 224 450
1991 164 122 149 300
I Commercial 1989 16 752 856 1715
1990 19 573 692 1385
1991 32 791 1062 2125
IIrrigation 1989 29 492 872 1745
1990 30 298 775 1550
1 1991 49 414 1032 2065
I * Estimated values. Based on a multiplication factor
calculated from historical records of 2 times the peak
quarter for the year.
I } Number of active connections only.
I
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
I
_I
' �: 17
' POTENTIAL FUTURE CAPACITY OF EXISTING WELLS
I Table 4 shows the use, in gpm, of each well during the past 5 years. Comparing the year
of greatest use for each well with the recommended use, a deficit or surplus capacity was
calculated. The surplus capacity is the amount of water in reserve that can be used for future
I
development. Note that the production of Wells 2, 3 and 4 should be reduced, whereas the
' production from the other wells can be increased.
' Table 4. Average use of existing wells in gallons per
minute (1987-1991 ).
Average use in gpm 1 Deficit!
Recom. Surplus
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1 Use * Capacity *
' Well 2 29 25 25 18 21 20 (9)
Well 3 16 14 15 8 4 10 (6)
I
Well 4 32 45 66 61 60 35 (31 )
Well 13 14 17 13 16 27 135 119
I Well 14 -- -- -- 300 300
Well 1 30 30
' Total 91 101 119 103 111 550 403 ***
* Recommended use from this report (Table 1 ).
I ** Surplus equals recommended use minus highest rate.
* ** 403 gpm equals 212 million gallons per year.
I
I
I
I
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
I
18
' CAPACITY TO SERVE UNBITLLT LOTS
' To determine if the future capacity of the existing system can serve the 877 unbuilt lots,
Table 5 was developed. Table 5 compares the future capacity of the system with the future need
of the 877 sold, but unbuilt lots in the existing Port Ludlow developments. The peak quarter
and day rates are estimates based on the multiplication factors determined from historical data.
' The peak quarter rate is historically 1.5 times the yearly average rate. For the peak day rate,
the historic data shows a factor of 2 times the peak quarter rate. The comparison in Table 5
' shows that the existing system can adequately supply the 877 sold, but unbuilt lots.
Table 5. Capacity to serve sold, but unbuilt lots in gpm.
' Yearly Peak Peak
Average Quarter Day
Use Use Use
Projected use
for 877 lots 97 * 146 ** 292 * * *
Existing system 120 180 360 * *
' usage
Total 217 326 652
Presently 530 530 870
' Available _
Surplus 313 204 218
* Based on single-family rate of 160 gpd per connection.
* * Using a factor of 1 .5 times the yearly average rate.
* * * Using a factor of 2 times the peak quarter rate.
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
.1
I19
' IMPACTS TO GROUND WATER RESOURCE FROM BUILDOUT PROGRAM
1 Table 6 below shows the impact to the ground water resources from the buildout program.
The buildout program includes 700 domestic units, 531 single-family and 169 multi-family units,
Iand 47,500 square feet of commercial space. The projected usage rates for the buildout program
were based on 7 years of historical data. The yearly average rates for the commercial space
Iwas based on 250 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of commercial space (Larry Smith, Pope
Resources, personal communication). The peak quarter and day rates are based on the
1 multiplication factors footnoted in Table 6.
ITable 6 shows that when the entire buildout program is completed there will be a deficit of
53 gpm for peak day usage. This deficit is short-term and can be eliminated with the inclusion
Iof the unused Well 12. Well 12 is unused because it was showed that its yield of 65 gpm would
not be long-term. Since the peak day deficit of 53 gpm is only one-day occurrence, Well 12
Icould be used on a peak-usage basis only. An alternative to Well 12 is the drilling of a new
well. This new well would most likely be located in the South Aquifer through an exploratory
Idrilling program. The new well need only be utilized for peak usage or as a back-up supply.
The deficit can also be eliminated with additional storage.
I
I
I •
I
I
I
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
1 20
I Table 6. Impacts to ground water resource from buildout
program.
I Average use in gpm
Peak Peak
Yearly Quarter Day
1
531 Single- 59 88 177 *
Ifamily
169 Multi- 23 35 69 *
Ifamily
47,500 sq. ft. 8 ** 13 * * * 25 *
ICommercial space
Total program 90 136 271
I usage
Existing usage 217 326 652
' plus 877 lots
.Total future 307 462 923
I need
Presently 530 530 870
IAvailable
Surplus or 223 68 (53) ****
' (Deficit)
* Based on a factor of 2 times the peak quarter rate.
I .1* Based on 250 gpd per 1 ,000 sq. ft of office space.
*** Based on a factor of 1 .5 times the yearly ave. rate.
**** 53 gpm equals 76,320 gpd.
I
I
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
II
'' 21
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT AREA
I'
I Alternative 2, as stated in the Plan for Proposed Action and Alternative 2, would have the
same number and type of residential units as well as the amount and type of commercial and
I mixed-use development as proposed under the proposed action. However, development would
be on fewer total acres. Since the number of users would remain the same, Alternative 2 would
I not change the usage rates given in Table 6. Alternative 2 may, however, reduce the amount
of acreage that is irrigated due to the decreased lot size. This reduced amount can not be
' quantified due the number of variabilities that govern the amount of irrigated land.
IMPACTS ON SPECIFIC WELLS, IN THE PORT LUDLOW AREA
Impacts on the major wells owned by Jefferson County PUD (Bywater #1 and #2), Jefferson
I County Water District #1 (Paradise Bay) and Tala Point Partners in the South Aquifer will be
minimal. The wells in the Bywater system are not currently in use. There are 129 parcels
I slated to be served by the Bywater system (Ron Byers, personal communication). Using the
same usage rates applied in Table 6, this converts into 17, 25, and 50 gpm usage for yearly,
I peak quarter and peak day respectively. The Paradise Bay well has a maximum usage of 56
gpm, given for their water right. Assuming that rate the peak quarter and peak day would be
I 84 and 112 gpm respectively. The Tala Point Well is assumed to have a capacity of 20 gpm.
Adding the usage rates of the Jefferson County PUD well and Jefferson County Water District
#1 well together with the maximum of 20 gpm for the Tala Point well give an additional 110,
I129, 182 gpm for yearly, peak quarter, and peak day usage respectively. The additional yearly
I usage rate is well within the surplus of the water resource of 223 gpm. For the peak quarter
and peak day use, one must take into account the fact that with the inclusion of the Jefferson
I County PUD and the Jefferson County Water District's wells to the ground water resource one
must also add the capacities of the wells for the peak usage. In other words, adding these three
I wells to the water resource also adds at least 270 gpm of capacity for peak quarter and peak day
use. Therefore, taking into account additional users of the South Aquifer, there still is a surplus
' Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I ,
U
a) a) (1) (1) a) a) Q) a.) (.1) a) H
I 71. a. n. Ti. °) a. n n. .Ti a a °
. ) co .� n4
a a a a a a C a a a a a
o o
N V) V] •V) ^' a) V] V) C) v] VI y N
a) a) CU a) a E a) a) E a) a) C) a)
E E E E o E E o E E E E U
A A 0 0 0 0
A A Al A A A A A A A N
I
a
a)
a
N
dO C r v ° N '" Q°. 00 rn '" N .I-
' c
0
To
O' N v °o N C co o N -0. co
a
a
' a o
a
a x A A a") >
3 A Q 3 W o a
I •
zg'i z U ° C 0
C. n° C. ° °- 0 °
'
J p ,
c_, L-
a)
` G.
-,
ti ^ Cu
t
I o
a.
cJ crl M CT Cr N C CT C N Cr O O
A N N 00 CO '.p N 00 V) N N 00 O C L
-
rl Cl M O v c'7 Ss.D N 00 'C C-� cr1
O O N N C C) O C' O �-
•C-. 5— � � � a)
p O O N N O N O c'n N N c�'I N C^ Cu
. O O C O O O O
G. I. 1- >
Cr Cr I t
0
O
L=. CG L✓ G� N O C� CG (,l A Q ¢ w
C N N N N N N N cal C') C1 C M C'�') - O
' •-o W W W W W W W W W W W C. W
O O O O O O O O O O O O O. a o Z N
«c.
` a) y E
N
CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO N N N N N N N N N N N N C ,C aai
0
C
' U U * �� U U U U U * Ci a s d
N c' U G. u '0 ]n oo rn d N E E -
O ") In - a,N co M d4 N - 000 ' O' 'C 00 0 O� J 0•--+ 00 . N V -C} In Q O 'O 00 N
C N N O N O V N N N cn ,2 _,
p N N N N N N N N N N N N N y) N
U CO O C7 CN7 O O N 0 O O O CN7 3
* * 4*
1 •
I
L
23
Aquifer and are expected to use 212 gpm yearly (342 af/yr) if all
' lots for their future developments are sold and occupied. The 212
gpm figure comes from the total future need of 307 gpm (Table 6)
' minus the 65 gpm from the North Aquifer and 30 gpm from Well 1.
According to the Department of Ecology report on all ground water
' rights in Township 28 North, Range 1 East (Table 7) , the Jefferson
County PUD's Bywater Bay Well 1 has a maximum permitted use of 84 . 3
gpm annually (136 af/yr) , the Jefferson County Water District
' Paradise Bay Well has a maximum permitted usage of 55.8 gpm
annually (90 af/yr) , and the Tala Point Well has maximum permitted
' usage of 5 . 3 gpm annually (8 . 5 of/yr) . The total usage rate for
the aforementioned users of the South Aquifer is 357 . 4 gpm (576 . 5
af/yr) .
The exact number of domestic wells in the South Aquifer is not known. The
' Department of Ecology files contained reports on 224 wells in Township 28 North, Range 1
East. Table 8 was developed to show the 217 water wells used in this study taken from
' published and unpublished reports and water well reports in the Department of Ecology's files
for the area shown on Figure 1. Of these 217 wells, 147 wells are located south of Port Ludlow
' Bay. Of the 147 wells, there are 90 wells located within 1000 feet of the estimated boundary
of the South Aquifer. Of these 90 wells 8, are either Pope Resources' test wells or purveyor
wells covered in the previous paragraph. Some of the remaining 82 wells are not used, some
are abandoned, and some are completed in shallower or deeper aquifers than the South Aquifer,
however all 82 wells are here considered in use and withdrawing from the South Aquifer. Using
the Department of Health guidelines of daily usage of 800 gallons per day, the continuous usage
from these 82 wells would be approximate 45.6 gpm (73.5 af/yr). An increase of domestic well
usage in the future, say double the current population to 164 wells, gives 91.2 gpm annually
(147 af/yr). Therefore, the total yearly usage, assuming a dramatic increase in the areas
population, potentially would be approximately 448.6 gpm (212 + 84.3 + 55.8 + 5.3 + 91.2
gpm) of continuous use. This usage rate of 448.6 gpm should be considered a very conservative
and worst case rate. The resource, defined to have an estimated hypothetical yield of 492 gpm,
should be adequate to supply all currently known present and potential users. But only with
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
26
1
prolonged withdrawal from the South Aquifer coupled with thorough monitoring, can the true
withdrawal rate be determined.
POTENTIAL FOR SALTWATER INTRUSION
' There are two forms of saltwater intrusion. The most familiar
form is called saltwater encroachment. It occurs when the
freshwater-saltwater interface within an aquifer is drawn inland by
the lowering of the potentiometric head of an aquifer below sea
level. In the unstressed case, the freshwater-saltwater interface
is typically offshore because the potentiometric head in the
' aquifer is above sea level inland of the shoreline, with the
aquifer head offshore being at sea level. Therefore the positive
head difference between the inland and offshore portions of the
aquifer drives fresh water outward, keeping the interface at some
' distance offshore. This is why wells located at the shoreline can
' produce freshwater. When an aquifer becomes stressed, the
potentiometric surface is lowered, if the lowering causes the
' potentiometric surface to fall below sea level, the potential for
saltwater intrusion exists, because the head difference is now
reversed compared to the nonstressed situation and the freshwater-
saltwater interface is driven shorewards. If the inland
potentiometric surface remains below sea level for a long time, the
' freshwater-saltwater interface will migrate inland past the
shoreline. In this case, near shore wells may start producing
salty water.
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
' It should be noted that this process is not instantaneous, to
drive the freshwater-saltwater interface inland, a significant
volume of freshwater must be removed from the aquifer. Temporarily
drawing the potentiometric surface below sea level will not induce
saltwater intrusion, only when the surface has been drawn below sea
level for a significant length of time will saltwater encroachment
occur. Because of the length of time involved, saltwater
encroachment can often be prevented before it occurs by monitoring
water levels and making sure that the average long-term water level
does not fall below sea level.
Saltwater intrusion may also occur by a process known as
' upconing. This occurs when a production well is pumped at such a
high rate that saltwater is drawn upward from directly below the
' well. This type of saltwater intrusion may affect other wells near
the well causing the problem, but should not affect other wells at
distance from the offending well.
' North Aquifer. Saltwater intrusion is extremely unlikely in
' the North Aquifer. The aquifer itself is completely above sea
level at two of the three Port Ludlow wells completed within it.
The potentiometric surface of the aquifer at the three wells are
more than 200 feet above sea level. Because of the hydrologic
setting of the aquifer, both saltwater encroachment and upconing
are extremely unlikely.
1
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
' 5
Well 1 Aquifer. The Well 1 Aquifer is below sea level and the
unstressed potentiometric surface (at Well 1) is approximately 20
feet above sea level. When the well was pump tested at 30 gpm for
7 days, it experienced approximately 60 1/2 feet of drawdown.
Clearly, the potential for saltwater encroachment exists. However,
Well 1 is approximately 1000 feet from the shoreline, making it
distinctly possible that long-term pumping of Well 1 will not cause
the potentiometric surface at the shoreline to fall below sea
level. (The projected long-term production rate of Well 1 is 30
' gpm) • Well 1 is the only known well in the aquifer. If
undocumented wells do exist in the aquifer, it is highly probable
' that they would be more distant from the shoreline than Well 1 (see
Appendix E, Figure 1) . Therefore, should Well 1 cause saltwater
encroachment, it would likely be the only well affected by it.
' Upconing should not be a problem because of the small production
rate from the well .
South Valley Aquifer. There is no potential for sea water
intrusion in the South Valley Aquifer. The aquifer is completely
above sea level and distant from the shoreline.
•
South Aquifer. The potential for seawater intrusion does
exist in the South Aquifer. Much of the aquifer is below sea level
and the aquifer does extend near the shoreline at many locations.
However, it is unlikely that production by Port Ludlow will cause
' saltwater intrusion provided the hypothetical yield of the aquifer
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1I
I Zci
YI"
Iis not exceeded. The hypothetical yield was developed from
precipitation data and represents the best estimate of total
' aquifer production that will not cause adverse impacts, such as
Ideclining water levels or saltwater intrusion. In essence, it is
a portion of the amount of water flowing through the aquifer system
1 that discharges to Puget Sound. Hence, if the hypothetical yield
is removed from the aquifer by production wells, the potentiometric
Isurface will not be lowered significantly, flow to Puget Sound is
maintained, and saltwater encroachment should not occur.
I
' The hypothetical yield for the South Aquifer is 492 gpm
annually (794 of/yr) . This represents 30% of the estimated
of the precipitation in the region I recharge to the aquifer, or 11% p p g
(see section Hypothetical Yields in the Port Ludlow Area) . The
Itotal projected withdrawal from the South Aquifer should complete
buildout of the Port Ludlow Community occur is 307 gpm, well below
Ithe hypothetical yield (section Recharge to the South Aquifer) .
' Consequently, saltwater encroachment should not occur.
IAlternately, the drawdown caused by the Port Ludlow Wells can
be examined to see if they could cause thepotentiometric surface
Ito drop below sea level. A 15-day pumping test of Port ludlow Well
13 at 135 gpm caused 0. 38 feet of drawdown at Well 14 (located
Iapproximately 850 ft away) . Based on the results of this test and
Iproduction testing at Well 14 , the long-term (100 day continuous
pumping) projected pumping water levels in Well 13 and 14
I
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
I
I (including well interference) are 402 feet and 440 feet below land
surface respectively. These pumping water levels correspond to an
' elevation of approximately sea level to 20 feet above sea level
(well site elevation taken from USGS quadrangle) . Consequently,
Isince saltwater intrusion can only occur when the pumping water
Ilevel is below sea level, it is highly unlikely the pumping of
these wells (Well 13 at 135 gpm,. Well 14 at 300 gpm) will cause the
1 potentiometric surface at the shoreline (6000+ feet distant) to
decline below sea level .
II
A standard Theis analysis using aquifer values at Wells 13 and
' 14 (transmissivity = 60, 000 gpd/ft, storage coefficient = 0. 05, '
Ipumping rate = 435 gpm, time = 100 days, radius = 6000 feet) , which
assumes no recharge to the aquifer, found the projected
I - - interference at the shoreline to be approximately 0. 1 feet. A
potentiometric map of the South Aquifer completed during the
aquifer definition effort estimates the water level elevation near
the shoreline to be approximately 20 feet above sea level. Water
Ilevels in this range were confirmed in one observation well studied
I while completing the Bywater Bay Well 1 pumping
tests. At this
observation well, 250 feet north of the ' shoreline of Squamish
IHarbor, the water level elevation of the South Aquifer was measured
at 21. 6 to 23 . 3 feet above sea level, depending on tidal effects.
IWith normal water level elevations in this range, the projected
drawdown interference of 0. 1 foot will not cause saltwater
Iencroachment.
' Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
I
I 3•
29
I Upconing should also not be a problem at the Well 13 and 14
site. The aquifer at the site is underlain by basalt bedrock.
IBecause of the very large permeability difference between the
aquifer materials and the basalt bedrock, very little, if any,
Iupflow from the basalt should occur, even at the maximum production
rates of Wells 13 and 14 . Upconing cannot occur without
Isubstantial upward flow from below the wells.
I
ICONSERVATION ASPECTS
As discussed in previous sections, the per unit utilization of water within the Port Ludlow
Idevelopment has decreased. This decrease results from several areas such as a response to
Iclimatological changes, alterations in population, and a decline in usage based on Port Ludlow's
existing conservation plan. The monitoring of usage levels will continue to aid in the continued
Iassessment of this decline. Port Ludlow Utilities have developed a water conservation plan
Iaccording to Department of Ecology and Department of Health guidelines (DOE, 1990) and has
taken steps to reduce system losses through leaks and other unmetered water losses. Based upon
Ithe definition of the adequate, though limited, water resources of the area, it is suggested that
the water utility continue in the conservation plan and monitoring as described previously.
IThe data compiled on Table 3 documents the water usage for the various service connections
Iwithin Port Ludlow. The Department of Health, for planning purposes, has developed a design
guideline of 800 gpd for a single family dwelling, which constitutes the bulk of the development.
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
I
I
IThis guideline is substantially higher than the demonstrated use. We suggest that the 800 gpd
suggested by Department of Health be revised downward to reflect the demonstrated use pattern
' of the development. Port Ludlow records indicate a peak day use of 330 - 400 gpd over a three-
Iyear period, with a peak quarter use ranging between 163 - 198 gpd. The development has
demonstrated, with the addition of a peak-use well or storage, sufficient pumping and storage
Icapacity to supply in excess of the demonstrated peak day quantity at buildout. Additionally,
Iour evaluation of the aquifer demonstrates the capacity of adequately meeting the peak quarter
needs.
I
IAs a result of Port Ludlow's active conservation plan, it is our recommendation that the
gallons per day value utilized to define the appropriate level of permitted units be set at level
Iless than the typical Department of Health guideline of 800 gpd. We instead suggest that the
Ipeak day rates be based upon 480 gpd for single- and multi-family hook-ups. There is no
Department of Health guideline for commercial and irrigation hook-ups. We suggest, based on
' historical data (see Table 3), that the peak day rate be based on 2200 gpd for commercial and
Iirrigation hook-ups. As suggested previously, we strongly recommend an active water level
monitoring program to evaluate the effect of the pumping on the aquifer and a continuation of
IPort Ludlow's existing conservation plan for the 10-year buildout program. When Well 14
Icomes on line, it should be monitored on the schedule now being implemented for the other
wells in the system.
I
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
•
I 0 _
CO rn
rn Cr)
1 P ^ W
c i � ? o
I P C. -
J
6 co ID
I (sea)) slang; uasDN, 6uiowne
I ) if) Lf) Lf) A.r) •L')
N '_) - Lf) CD h-
N N N N :1 N
Iis1 : i I 1•
•
1 _ �- -- --=_- -- se
I ilt ..1TLT I -- ---I LB
1 JL l- - -.- i I -► - -- I SE
-T` - - ./- � - �'
c- fi 7..-. I _ I I \ - I l'2
I Z2
.) L I-- I - I --- I OB
1 Es `o ---- L__— ----- 164 . .
it-E., -------- ----- -------- I ------- - I I BL
1 _ —
; L ; - - ' L1
1 C I - I ---- --- I - I SL
i ZL
1 ^
v - r \/ V
L L �� M. V V c'\' C L 1 n
V
1 ,sag:; mans- Jasoh• cc.clz (weE' uD 7nDn:c '.,.X(ualicn:
•
I
r
in
en
. in
0 or N.
N 1t) LD
J
T LU 1°1 Di esi
co
vr Ca
to
J e
1 1 I I II
{]aaj) rranzi nipN, buiowr
' p C N J O C
c
N.- c c c -t- •c--
,, ii i -/ - I ob
�; L i--z----- — --,--_— — _-----i 6a
rC:VI i
— I ; se
3 s- - = — - --,--�_—y �— LB
j c = - —i sa
I - _ -----------_--- -I Z2
-- ---_� ze
oa
I G > - I t t
° `0 6L
= i: z, I
=c= lI; I I I BL
Gup1 I t LL
L
d Tr-� 1 SL
c >.p
I
I
.
° t
•
•
. ZL
' Y c _ 1 "� c L^
;::a;: Sin;- ..1a=A, 0.=17. (wCS, uo.onno._ riuct..:on-
I
I
I
1
o
a •
u
01 L
a-P
I a
> o
>
:.= a,
U p
> o
11)». >
0 0
o
7cEE
0
' *
*
*
(wd6) Japnby 47JON 041 *
W0.1) 1OM0J1)0M lonuuo io;ol * cayaul w
I uopot!dloaJd ani;Oai;a 6�JOa,1
0 0 0 0 0 W 0 in O if) O n O
0 N mt tD CO "'h •- r7 r') 1 N N +— n
' I I I I t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I I I ' G III .
•
•
•
• * 16
* O6
u * 68
•
vt�• 'E¢'v o,
° EZ3 °- SB
- o._ vin L8
I "_ ° •° 0 0 c •
c ; = - o- ° t 98
--6-o=••• c an °.O - *
` 39
Ty 3 a».) a, .
� av
•
•
•
�o� anoo�� • 48
•m
o c.c > 0 ,...=--r.,"
am dE *
aO c c 7'0 ZB
°1- co V O 7 U c - �---
I- cv,--Do0E •
o O _ E o tB° p ._
02
•E •C 0-co-a:1 l J l _-J __J l l
Cr - E ii. -NN -
¢ v, o o- � h * EL
_mod
•
•3 `.� „
o E z - 0.3 -
m 7 vw c O�J° *
•Yn N 0 c•°i; - ----- LL
•
I •- ..co c O V - ,
•
°ryw ��'a � c_ ` 9L
m PE-.o—v. T * SL
•Z E5 u v .•
, : EN m °nom - - ' r
' 4L
v t
6
tO • 7_-' .- v 7 , 1 I *
¢ uu ; ; EL
dA
_000.Couou 1 I t
L. 3ZCO 0 W %¢ ZL
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•a- M N 0 0) N — N
I N N N N N r-
(;aa)) Ja)InbY WON °I-Ii
UI UO110n919 1MS 060Jany (sayau!) uogo11d■ aJd angoaj;o
a6DJano w0.1) ajnyodap and;ojnwno
I
•
1
I
' CONVERSION TABLE
Conversion table for water flow
UNIT GPO GPM AF/YR CFS
Gallons per day -
gpd + 1440 gpd + 892.8 gpd * 646315
(gpd)
Gallons per minute gpm X 1440 - gpm + 0.62 gpm + 448.83
(gPm)
Acre-feet per year of/yr X 892.8 at/yr X 0.62 - of/yr + 722.62
(af/yr)
Cubic feet per cfs x 646315 cfs X 448.83 cfs X 722.62
second (cfs)
I
t
1
i
i
1
I
1
1 3
' SUMMARY
The ground water resources of the Port Ludlow area were evaluated for three phases of
development: present connections, adding of 877 domestic connections, and the projected
addition of 700 domestic connections and 47,500 square feet of commercial office space. To
' evaluate and project usage for these phases of development, the data collected by the Port
' Ludlow Water Company was systematically compiled. From this compilation, hydrographs were
generated. Using all the available data, the rate of usage in a variety of categories and time
' frames for the three phases of development were identified.
1
The evaluation of the existing ground water system and the present rates of usage showed
' that the ground water resources are available to meet the needs of Port Ludlow. However, the
hydrographs of wells in the North Aquifer show a decline in water levels that can be remedied
by changing the distribution of supply. The withdrawal from the North Aquifer should be
' reduced from its present level of an average rate of 85 gpm to 65 gpm. The reduction of
' withdrawal from the North Aquifer can be made up by increased production from the South
Aquifer. This can be accomplished utilizing the inter-tie that is in place.
' The capacity of the existing system appears adequate ;,r the 877 unbuilt lots and the
additional 700 lots and 47,500 square feet of commercial development in all time frames except
peak day use. The deficit for the peak day use with all developments completed is 53 gpm.
' This deficit can be eliminated by putting the unused Well 12 on-line for short-term usage.
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
1
' ROBINSON & NOBLE, INC.
Joel W. Purdy
Hydrogeologist
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
Robinson & Noble, Inc.
I
' ;4
' REFERENCES
' Department of Ecology, 1990, Interim guidelines for public water systems regarding water use
reporting, demand forecasting methodology, and conservation programs, July, 1990:
I
prepared jointly by Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Health,
IWashington Water Utilities Council.
' Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., 1991, Kitsap County ground water management plan,
' Grant no. 1, volumes 1 and 2.
' Grimstad, P. and Carson, R.J., 1981, Geology and ground-water resources of eastern Jefferson
' County, Washington: Washington Water Supply Bulletin No. 54, 125 p., 2 plates.
' Robinson and Noble, Inc., 1981, Report on Shine test hole #1, Jefferson County PUD.
I
1 Robinson and Noble, Inc., 1985, Summary of ground water resources, Port Ludlow area.
IRobinson and Noble, Inc., 1987, Evaluation of ground water resource potential, Port Ludlow.
Robinson and Noble, Inc., 1989, Water resource evaluation for Ludlow Utilities and
Iconstruction of Well 14.
Robinson and Noble, Inc., 1992, Testing of the Pope Resources Bywater Bay Well No. 1.
IRobinson & Noble, Inc.
1
I
o •[ TAK•M rp0s ON° awc. .........,..... - ._.
i -1--.
1 '. ?I }. Mill 1.111:.�.`.•
", 'N' WELL 3 11 N
1 NORTH H AQUll- H I..:1s 'r� �`,: +1-I �' j
tl . +
`" . r :�1 WEK,�.•, • I N. • •`�I•.UI1r. •�•1 ..,' i ••I III �. (/�� W 'CIAI A.1 ".... • • y' - .,r . ^- . WELL. 1 AO. " ---.i;tr..•V.Ir.• .1:. ^1., .._,_,{ �• TALAPOII'IT
1a'•ih ft ��:��� �.r +/ ay t _/1'
; ts� , t ;!!
Ii+'•'1(J' I;,, a 1,1. ._ . T... r . 15'
� r: I
/ ,y! { 1
� �.�: EI'!•I ;.‘e-'7';-1.f) •4.•r.,'V. •L 1i7,.I J•.,.:. 1; r r`S°, .a ! •' 't r ..7. j .
3 1 f . 1•'~• * :L,• . 1t7N. V . I` :(t• .. / ,• I. �1, . .' . %:�,•I 'i �.r. ', ., -.; :♦,-- - ,� 7-Y�`,J-.., JI SOUTH 1 • AQ 1•`-!{�
,f (-.,r.., ,l7 ..,„ •. - • -f� ( 1
►C.i_..` j L.1�- WE3L 13� wE11.1�IP
' ••••,_.;",,: r - :rte` •�' }
1 y. P •. Tr.;Loire 1 .r. �l
•.1 4 •� WELL 72.}i. \
I I ` j I. ,fl;(9q. /...,'r
-\ '\ 23 1 . PARADISE B .
` $OUTHr (VALLEY ':f.. `; ' �'. '
1 , . .' 1 k AQUIFER' . -\y . .',t. •.. .
I I 3, , ..r x` •r' 32 '1..``I �i�/7 . ••r r 33 '. , ' • +.' ••
a.: ... ; Y ' : J- e Pup •.,-i
I `'•:3t 1 .'. �. \ 32 ;ti .. • r •�� B1�WXT•EAf ' ,•�,:, _ lir f: :(( { _1111 ....r� •r fib" - '4.•.�•I
(((,', .J• 'li r I• •`y •.Ili' 1 '` '_-1j_ t f '•‘•
::y. � :• ,.,11+;:' 1 11.. :\ .1
• \ '-, 111'1. II♦
• WELL IOATION PRINCIPAL AQUIFERS OF THE
Ic_1 APPROXIMATE AQUIFER BOUNDARY PORT LpDLOW AREA
1
1
® "7 w
' d o, Cr) c
r L
o ` O Z
CO ti L
I m
N N N
J
3 r 1 11_ I.
(iaa;) lane, JalaN, b-!° •c
I 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 r- N in L`]
•
' c — — ' --- 1 ----- - — I as■
1 i Lg•
^ : i ; 9a
I i I , Se
•
o- _
'-: :. j i I rE
/ : I - "-})... I i C.•
I
— O co.-��----___•• —_�_-- — ._.
r L I i c — I B,
I _c c
--c-
...- up I >.. I \:j• S i L
u - ^y
1 3 3 L .._____4________C._ --. -_--_
•
•
•
' . IB•/\-c- wn;. ':7-..
- 1.:J7° Lam.C._ ` i.'u�., ..•
.__
I
1 P
CD 0
0 0 W
P P
LC) O
O T z
W
G
b N N
J
J
1
0a2,) Si;AE, Ja1DN, Es ulownd
O 0 O O J J
O •— N P.) 'C' L7
C V N S I N I C N I N I
I r 1 . 1 , 1 , 1 , t ,
111 c v i i I—\ l c•
■ •
•
P Y i ! E=•
I 3^ 7_ j I — -- '
•! 2 I 9E
r = = 1 ( `l I ZE
.2.._ts:s. ! i _,— _,I________—__ _,___L_,___.____,..___ --
DE
II Z v> Y6I I— — I ,/ /
•
•
' I ry� � _■
•
,
, r
I
• - • t , . , •
;.EE.:' s; AE— Ja:af:. D:.Dac lwe.5; uo DnnD._ Auo.JDr.`
I
.1 <?
`Gr✓-\
1 Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
in the Port Ludlow area.
Owner Location South Aquifer
I
Study Use
SIMPOKES, GEORGE W. -04B 0
' LUNDBERG, HAROLD E. -04B 0
HAMBLEN, CYRUS H. -04M 0
IHAMBLEN, C. H. -04M 0
FRENZEL, WINSTON W. -04N O
IOLYMPUS BEACH TRACTS, INC. -04N 0
OLYMPIC BEACH TRACTS, INC. -04N 0
ITUTTLE, ROBERT L. -04P 0
I MURRY, JOHN -04P 0
WASHBURN, LINCOLN -04P 0
IMORRIS, JACK -05A 0
ANDERSON, JAMES L. -05H 0
IKAVARAS, PETER -05L 0
ROTHEROCK, ARTHUR -05L 0
' ANDERSON, JIM -05L 0
COHEN, GREGORY -05H O
IELBERT, CLIFFORD -05 0
HALL, FRANK -05 0
IHOLTH, FRED -05L 0
HUTCHINSON, LAURA & CARL -05H 0
IMOE, HAROLD E./H.M. CONST. -05A 0
SIMON, STEVEN -05P O
ITOEPPER, RICHARD -05P 0
TOEPPER, BERTA -05Q 0
ISHEEHAW, JOHN -06 0
1
I
I _
c,.
`. '. '\1
. Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
I in the Port Ludlow area.
6.
Owner Location South Aquifer
'
Study Use
LOVE, LEO F. -06 0
ILOCKHART, CHARLES -06M 0
HEITE, BRIAN -06 0
ICOUNSELLOR, BOB -06 0
LOPEMAN, CARL -07 0
I
WALLACE, RICHARD -08D O
I ALTIMUS, ELGIE -08C 0
ALTIS, RUTH 08L 0
IKAYONEN, ROYNOLD W. -08G 0
MORAN, R.T. -08 0
IPOPE & TALBOT DEV. -08P 0
POPE & TALBOT DEV. -08H 0
IPOPE & TALBOT DEV. -08Q 0
SWANSON, JEAN -08B 0
' THOMPSON, PAT/ DAN YOURA -08M 0
THOREN, FLOYED -08F 0
IWERNER, JOHN ..-08K 0
WERNER, RICHARD -08K 0
IWITTER, ROSS -08K 0
WITTER, ROSS -08K 0
IWOODRUFF, FRANK -08L 0
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -08Q 0
IPOPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -08K 0
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -09P 0
ITALA POINT PARTNERS -10P U
I
I
,r " Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
Iin the Port Ludlow area.
c Owner Location South Aquifer
' Study Use
MIFFENDORF, BERT -15B U
IFARLEY, RAY -15H U
CALLAHAN, DAN -15H U
IBRYANT, JAN -15M U
BRYANT, MAURICE B. -15FL U
RODEN, VICTOR G. -15R U
SHELTON, RICHARD D. -15R U
IHABICH, KATHRYN -15R U
BORDEN, AL -15R U
' PETERSON, AL -15R R
.' BAINTON, GEORGE -15R R
BENCE, PAUL -15 L
I DOLEZAL, HOWARD -15 L
SORG, JIM
-15Q R
I SMITH, PATRICIA _ -15H R
GALLAGHER, PATRICK &
-15J R
ARLENE
IPAYNTER, SUSAN -15 L
PETERS, PETE -15J R
OMODT, STEVE -1.5 L
I MARKLUND, SWEN & AILI -15 L
FOSS, RALPH -15 L
I EDWARDS, ROLAND -15 L
DOUGLAS, BOB -15 L
IRANDAL, JACK -15Q R
ROBECK, ROY J. -15R R
I
I
I
I
Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
I _ in the Port Ludlow area.
Owner Location South Aquifer
IStudy Use
ROBERTS, FRAN -15Q R
IROBERTS, FRAN -15Q R
FISH, ROBERT -16J
' DUGGAN, FRANCIS X. -16L
PETERSON, LENARD -16M U
' CURTIS, H.P. -16M U
WHITE, EUGENE -16M R
IMEYDENBAUER BAY YACHT -16M R
CLUB
IAMICO, JACK D. -16F' R
MORRISON TEST WELL -16P R
IMORRISON -16P R
WASHBURN, LINCOLN -16P U
' WASHBURN, LINCOLN -16P R
MIDKIFF, CECIL -16P
IMERLIN, SHELLY -16Q
PINGREY, CARL -16Q U
IGARNEY, RAY -16Q R
I PETERSON -16Q R
HERZER, CHARLES J. -16 L
ISODERLIND, GUY -16 L
DEVINE, DAVE -16 L
IBRADLEY, ROBERT J. -16 L
BLUM, BILL -16 L
ICOOK, JOHN -16 L
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL -17Q 0
I
I
•
Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
' in the Port Ludlow area.
Owner Location South Aquifer
IStudy Use
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -18B 0
' VODDER, HANS JR. -18M
BREWER, SAM -18M
• FOX, S.R. -18 L
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -20R R
' POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -20R 0
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21C 0
IOLSEN, DICK -21D
I POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21F R
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21F R
I POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21F R
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21L U
' POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21N U
POPE& TALBOT DEV. CO. -21R R
' POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -21F U
POPE AND TALBOT DEV. INC. -21R U
ILUDLOW UTILITIES -21R U
BRODEN, KENNETH -22B U
ISEWELL, BOB -22B U
EDWARDS, R. -22B U
IHASTING, JIM -22B U
ERICKSON, E.T. -22G U
IWEST, HERB -22J U
JEFERSON CO. WATER DIST. -22R U
I
McEVERS, JAY -22 L
I
I
I
1
Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
Iin the Port Ludlow area.
Owner Location South Aquifer
IStudy Use
JOHNSON, C. MONTGUMERY -22 L
IGORDAN, ROBERT -22B R
EMERY, CECIL -22 L
IPETRENCHAK, DAN JR. -22B R
STEADMAN, SHIRLEY -22 L
ISTIDHAM, JIM -22 L
ANDERSON, GLEN -22B R
IPARKER, JOHN D. -22B R
LAKE, NORM -22 L
ILAKE, NORMAN -22 L
GALES, L.E. -22G R
IBRODEN, KENNETH -22 L
I BURANDT, NORMAN -22
-22Q L
CARTERMAN, JACOB 2Q L
I PLASKETT, JACK -22G R
HOSELTON, JAMES -26F U
ISINCLAIR, MICHEY -26Q U
GRUBER, FRANZ -26D L
IHOGUE, DUANE -26N L
PERHACS, LESLIE -27A U
ICRITTENDEN, BRUCE -27A U
DEDERER, BILL -27A U
' DEDERER, WILLIAM -27A R
PARADISE BAY -27G U
SEATTLE SYMPHONY -28 U -
I
I
I
I
Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
' in the Port Ludlow area.
Owner Location South Aquifer
I Study Use
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -28J U
IPOPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -29A U
POPE & TALBOT DEV. CO. -29A U
IFRED HILL MATERIALS -31R 0
GRAVES, TOM -32H 0
ICUNNINGHAM, DAVID -32R 0
ANTON, DON -33J U
IBENCHOOF, MERVIN -33K U
OLYMPIC LAND & INVEST. CO. -33M U
IOLYMPIC LAND & INVEST. CO. -33M U
OLYMPIC LAND & INVEST. CO. -33M U
IPIERCE, MILES -33M U
I REED, BOB -33M U
SMITH, LARRY
-33N U
I SCHWARZ, FRANK -33N U
SHINE PROPERTY OWNERS -33N U
ASSN.
IBOYD, KEN -33P U
I BRYAN, A.C. -33P U
NOONAN, CLAYTON 33P U
I PETERSON & GILBERT BONLEE -33Q U
BOYD, KENNETH -33Q U
I GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. -33Q U
OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS -33Q U
IEDMONSON, KEN -33J R
WALLACE, RICHARD -33 L
I
I
I
I
Table 8: List of wells used in the in the analysis of the aquifers
Iin the Port Ludlow area.
Owner Location South Aquifer
' Study Use
HARRIS, MIKE -33 L
' JELLISON, BOB -33K U
MERRIDITH, W. K. -33P R
ICHURCHILL, M. J. -33Q R
KRUTENAT, ROBERT A. -33R R
IHODGES, MERRIL -34H U
GRAVES, LEON -34L U
I .
HUBARD, GEORGE J. -34L U
I JEFFERSON COUNTY PUD -34M U
GARTEN, MRS. GEORGE
-34N U
I LYTLE, HUGH -34 U
THOMAS, GEORGE
-34P U
DOUGLASS, JESSE -34P U
I HALVORSON, BILL -34P U
IBOYD, B. A. -34Q U
GARTEN, GEORGE -34Q U
ISMITH, LEONARD -34Q U
LINNER, DENNIS -34 L
' HENDRICKSON, ERIC -34M U
HILL, FRED -34 U
IROOSE, DON -34N R
ROOSE, DON -34N R
ISTROUD, DAVID -34 L
SWILLEY, JOHN -34L R
IRICE, RICK -34N U
I
I
. .
IFIGURE 4
4.1
t
V to) c4 0 I I 0
I i i I I 1 i
i
_ .
1. .03 0 - -
CI ;:-•,•;
I LW
ZNS E CO el
L.") .,•..... -,- ..
. -:•'• Z
0
KC 3d0c1
II . ... , .
-,---7--,-.•- -: l'' s
.. .
I . .. . .
. ..-.. . ..
. . . , - .. . :;.%.,.,,,...
. - ' ea
. ...._...,.
.-- . li Co
. . . .
. .
. . . . . : .....
I 0)
...F.-...5.-AL....:-.177..f....,-.3--......:,:tr.2-•_••... cc
I C13-
1 — .. ..t. . . . .....----.7-t...:::
4-..4t.:::-.p,.. 1
.
1-1-117S
. .
CO S39COH .
- -...; •!--.1:-":14.'•-iivs. .:an.zi
. . .
-.....-.....L"'...4,....7............J .
•
I . .
. .. . . V--•=o; . -•--.-ar -'t-1"+,.;r0-0..-,••-:-,f2 -•
• -••.•.••.•• '.c.7t-1,:-.,.. ,-T,-.Z.T,.-:;.0:-:•
-z••.7 .1.*:M;_-r•..-w .
... .i
'• .4":4-447.:X;4 ilt.4i--1 Fr4—4•47:,:.,----1
' > -:-.Z:--- 4.1°4=':'4' . .?"--:.1:•:.:•11. ,...::
I a .---iNt
-4: -.'.3...7 -3- ...1:4-11F-16•-•.:-.:':I'L":11.*:,Ytf
...gal.--";On'---: ••ar•:':•= --- '
I I-Vill € (9) ... '.--41"..•.. .
iel!hilvit=zr-aiibill*t_- _,1,:-.-Z_•
DI "...-:...;. -‘...-.„ .•-5-1..:me-v' .
, :-.. • • • --"-•••••=--'---'. ..-7- .
-.,....,-.---r-.-.... '".--`•••--
I .
_.A_.,,,..._._.:.L' '•----___....- .
7:71:-.-- .-•
. .
. .
.. „
4:C- . .
-
. , . .
.,.
e0Ce ', . • -
irv.17,,- -.4F-i
•
I —
aolOG .:- . --
•
I <
•
, . Virt .-;t•-...":47:;-4 --%.
: ...... • -.
- .• ••-•- '. - -
I . .
. . .
rtAralltali
_ ..
IVACS r '- - • - 1 .
,
.... 4,-......-t4.2,1 .- . .
.•
. .
. . . ..,
I 0
,„.(L) (,) -
..
II I I I . 1 . I
I
.
j
EXHIBIT C
' DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY & WATER CONNECTIONS
COMPARISON OF GPLCC ANALYSIS AND POPE RESOURCES RECORDS
1
S]ngle Mult1 Total GRAND Current
' Famil Fam�lyz Residential Corntnercaal TOTAL Plater
CarinecUans
' GPLCC BREAKDOWN OF USES
1,532 436 1,968 71 2,039 951
(UNITS)
' POPE BREAKDOWN OF USES (UNITS 1,502 419 1,921 36 1,957 885
1 LOTS APPROVED AND/OR DEVELOPED TO DATE INCLUDING "IRONWOOD" AND "CREEKSIDE."
' 2 DEVELOPED UNITS
t
1
1
1
I t. .•'i WEc .- Z --__•..
S.F. .'.1344—I Rev.6-061. _ �•• •1 a h• ;
`
CERTIFICATE RECORD Nu........-...... , 1'Aas No._G_..2-0.13194 C
STATE OF WASIIINIrroN, COUNTY UV. .. .............Jeff..ergo n..._.___......_..................... EXHIBIT D -
t CERTIFICATE OF GROUND WATER RIGHT
.
Ii...— In in-nminnrr wllh Ihr r"an rg of Ch:rynrr 76:1. I+rrx of 1Y„Mi 44lon far IM1, nnrl n'"""rrrrnt, lhrrrla.
man Ihr Iu lrx; I rrgulullunx of Ibr nrpurltn,•nl of .rnlarly Ihrn•undrrt
' Tins Is To CERTIFY That._.._POPE_.ANO zTALR0PL.INC.__..._._.____.._
of _ _.Scott le, Washingtoq,.,_.__._.... has made proof
' to the satisfaction of the Department of Ecology it( a right to the use of the public] ground waters of
the State of Washington front a well .. .. .. ..
I luentcd within NEItSW!S.E% .. ... . ......... ..._ .._........_.............._. ._. ......._.__
Sec. ..8._.. . , 7'wp... 2B._....N,, It. 1 E. .W.M., . . .. ..... .._ ... ..... . ....._._. ..............._._.
I for the purpose(4 of._...community..duweatic....supply_.... .._.-_...__..._____....__....__..._..______.
under and specifically subject to provisions contained in Ground Water Permit No. 8139
issued by the Department of Eel 1ayy awl that said right to the use'of sub! ground waters has been per-
' fected in accordance with the laws of Washington,midis hereby confirmed by the Department of Ecology
C 2-00194 C
and entered of record in Volume - at poet f ;that the priority of the right hereby confirmed
Mites front July 19, 1967 (het the quantity of ground water tinder the'right hereby con-
firmed for the aforesaid purposes. is limited to fill amount actually ally beneficially used for said purposes,
Iand shall not exceed 150 gallons per minute; 120 .acre-feet.per year,..continuous.ly. _..
during .the...cntire..year Eur_.communi.ty.._domes.tic_aupply..---------------=-- ---
IA description of the lands to which such ground water right is appurtenant is as follows:
A11 of Sections 9, 16, 17, and 20; the SEItNEtt, the SWkSElt, the SEltSWlt, and the E1/2SE1/4 of
Sec. 8; the N14 and the WItSWk of Sec. 15; the SEls and the SW1/4NE4 of Sec. 18; the ES and '
Ithe ELWti of Sec. 19; the W' and the W[iNES ..of Sec. 21, ALL in T. 28 N., R.. 1 E.W.M.
' _3s
1'i•• S�
.. .[ct.CC a-).,c,/.
'1Z I'I. 36 Al 9 : :5
1 .
_f •
.l." ' I: I ,•::h'••t
I . r The right to Ilse of water aforesaid hereby confiroted is restricted to th /��
. ..lmtd �,
r t'r''1 cln
described, c.t•r•epL as provided in RCW 90.03.390, 90.03.390 and 90.49AlU. ✓��
I This certificate of ground water right is speeitirelly subject to relinquishment for nonuse of water
as provided in KCW 90.[4.190.
' Gl1)en under nty.hmnd and soul of this office ut Olympia, Washington, this 29th . day
of .:August. ........_. ...._ .. ._, 19..72...
r♦,,.•
• JOHN A. BIGCS, Dircct.r
Department of Ecology
..,
' Engineering Data /
"ete•3 7:.
I 'VOL 35 ,..558 DOc[IDiE.i•1T No.j'�' '.__..
•
1'-= : ...,?-\ • ,_ " , ,
- 'Ira
'?•'''.*. - ' "N 7 - ''.. 5`4. - --. . EXHIBIT E • - ,
• 0,0,,,,,..i.,.....,;.N.14-5.zre,w,--,i ..-,--, ,,r; ..-. , •L'• . -,,...;-1--.,,,,:•.--:..dr.,..7...7,:-.7,-....-1.:,./,:,,-...74.,i•+, Aft r.,46;.,C...=.• -7;
%.■
i :\.'..'''' -'.f. .' ''.'' '.1•,''':• •;.f; ,';',•:":2;y:•1',• •
•t t•'••2•\'''4•4.. ``...--t•'''''4,:rf‘••••••';'2.: l'. •,•• :.., :. ••., :... •' ..' 4••••.''',''••••',. ' • • " •:-.‘' '',!'i '.,•,,,„*414 :'.4.:
gI'''Pl :. :i.•;;.. 7'1'4: -.:-.... r-,-,-'.:. '',. •-...-'• ',',.....''.,.,?: .' ',.L ,'''.:, :''',: ...;: [---- - - ., . . . -. .. ... ..-...,...-47,-;.. i..4-K4,-_.,,,;.;;;,...:
0; -:...-.:.-„,_. .,..i....
,-.1, , $.40,"•*•.:-. '.:,':: ..'...
. . , .
1.4' .. /' ,
...:.:1"r■..,7%1‘' 7.kk:Z.Z41;51?' '''.:; A.'S it f
• 1. 2 •, .,'_•„;,1;,?"','VI
•• !“.
• .re-r. ...1.5t. • ... • r •,.. r111)....19.,
, r .,... 4 -,yz
.t'..S:‘.""-:.'' .' . .. .. c'ESnr.c.vrt Rti.:3.1t:t :;.. . • • -.--, PtIc•E :49-- C1.713°193 C ' ..77'2."'.'-•.
.'''., . [....,
I
. . .. 1 , r - • I' -I ,
FL OF GROUND WATEIt RIGHT ,4••,, :,
• . - •
• '-- - ---"""--.•--!2.:T....,.:-,::.r,.:7,...:'.,-..r......:,-...-m:,.....:1:-::!•'!:....P.;:t.r: :::,:tt,;-:' ------ ----- ,,,,,, 1-1.1
• ,
•
. , • .....,:-.41.;.4 ..,-
. T.,i. -,-; VO CIA izr.i That. P017.1,10 1.A■"/9.1...1)5"-141?".•!1.217.-I‘';C•.— •... -.------- .--..--.- --
--
Seattle Haahin&ton. f........_, ha3 made peoof '..., • .4.,:. -*Ire.. ;
. . mi 0.0 •:arti!aerise, .. ..,„ ...,,.„t.,,-....: •,.! r,:,1,,,t1 •■• , ..,,..,40 e, !h• .ba ',I :N. 'Atha(' gra...test Ira '7 Of
_ • ' :'■-1',4,A-'4•:•;-:
:11.• filn:‘, :..f -Washln;t0n i•Ove . A snarl :',...,..i4'1,1::::::,',
• - -- - --- - -----'- :. .2,•''';.
• 1
zet ed tetchte ._. • .
I lo
Sec 3 . 7',07..,. 23 .V , R. .1 L. W.31., : ,'"' ,f"-r•P '''-•..
- ' • 'or the Purposei 4 of 7.r•-;--‘•.r;: ''' •
• , ,. .
Wait', aid .eve.,,5.:eli, .olice.:: to prOI.Ulo:1 VflttClvied 1,.,;",,letd Water Pere u't No._
- - ;•..i,,.',,•
• - - ,.-• -.- •• •• ••i ..,1 hi .."••■• %Tr ■. Rate( -man?: wares has !seen per- ':1., .- ,-fi'vr• r.
E. ;:.,...,'7..'"..: 4. ' ' . i
I
'eeterf ". :tweed Li..., we i. ;•!. to,..t••• \l'.7.0 ^ro,.and v.,hrririn-unn!".•Tnre!n,rt Ne DeleaTtme"t of Et°nil: -d. ,..,.,3....,.. .„.,,,,..,....t. ..
• G 2-00191 C •
; Cind •••-:,••••••••?. GI ••••..-rf 1.: ..rne -. • ....,..e 1 .!h:.!:h..pr•Aeriiti 0 t!...fight gh■>reby rani...1474rd
• ..:.:'...`t,'■ v'
.. .. . , .. . .... ....,,1.... ...? ,.,•,,,nd "ye- •tme.i..ee•the'rqht herehSt "^-:-.''.,•k41'.:i . ,..
da.,.. ,, October , 1569
. . . ,. 1:c" 4,'1.1„.1t
- " . -• ...er •. 1..-•-• . -.. ••... ,j.r.,,,, ,, .e...leTh; !Tene, afril .1red for *aid an-pozer- :;,...;...::::'..-,1.,i ....7.- te
1,0"0"-• 1•7:' "le ..1...,....1/U1 . ...1■1 , , . ., - .! • ''. ''''•-',..:-';.;::'" ,..., !
d;-....-;. 5:;:e:,,,..'. ....,,,,,-t..".4 •;
and .dIall r.rt .rePeli 110 tmllono poi stitute; S3 atro-foot.per,rotr. contitosousl,
•
dot tut. eatlre yeal f or comnual.t1 doews.t..1c., 4u7s131.......... . .. .
z7;i:
.4 .ir.i.cr:nron r,, the inndr ••• n4,,,-,, 3uch rrr,.:,..n ....not no:';: Aa npi.,..:•.1",e1; t.1 4$ j 011010S: "i .:,.4,'..„ ,
'.• r
All et 54et.100.41 1, 15. 37, cu.l.i •40. ttnr SIVilr,1/4,, Cr:* S'AtSE'll.. the SfA.Sidia end the YhST,t of .•,...... -3.„,„,-.:.
1 ' ; See. $: the Sn.;5; gild the+ %-4,5'...*:: or qtr.:. 15; the !Eic 011:1d tbe 51.1k.Ztet of See. 1.8; the IN. md, • -.. ..".. .., ....1..!;F
i. :. ;.;..• of S . 19; the Vi. .are.: :.....s ;NI:a?: of Sec. 21. ALL in 7., 18 ::,. a. 1. E.W./ . , • 1.,.i),__.
, ' '•fo ff.
' • '''ll '4-
• ' '''r ".. .
. .
..1
• : " t
1,..t,-.' r....
N
. ,ipil?c4.5
3 • .•-: ,..c-r:,..-1
-%'-•'".3.!
I ...7.. ..-..
. '
r.
.. • •'.k .. ..rti
1 hw ro,p : :,, L.... of •.■1:.■ ojo•es,1,4 hr.e!.tr ennfo .-.4..I rr.o.,et, Ow iAuckg or r:z.rr nt Nat*herein
,..._..,...., .
<4.•"•.:"..‘1,. ex(r:: ft.. 1 .-,Irfd■•••1 tn Rr."N g',,.I Pe. fk11.,:.:3:ii, nod •..t.■it t.0' r-
•
.". i - - ,..v Harsh. .4 „:,0,-ell %alp: tIsht fs •prcifirote.••llijort I..,elsn int.ilmrlit for nontnor of w•ter '1, •• 1,''-63...;,7:,....1.4...,..,j
..
.0 v.." pr,e.odr.1 in RCW/a 11.110,
291h r
(0....... uqglier n.1., ;•rod .n.i sr, ' ''' , .' , 'f'i'mt" ''''4'h""4"°. •C.. dr V
• 7:
• q AtAaViit .
'• ,
L
;••-,•■ . T•noo•' f .,
tiy,-J/ 1
A