HomeMy WebLinkAbout039Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pearch, John (ECY) <JOPE46L@ECY,WA.GOV>
Wednesday, April L0, 20L3 L2:49 PM
Porto, Susan (DOHi); David W. Johnson
Gallagher, Mike (ECY)
RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR questions
Ecology-Pearch Hydrogeologic Memo Part I REVISED L-14-20L0.pdf; Ecology-Pearch
Hydrogeologic Memo Part II REVISED 1-14-2010,pdf; Ecology-Pearch Part I Figure 9 and
10 and APPENDICES.pdf
We also referred them to many individuals in other programs here at Ecology regarding questions on water quality
discharges and biosolids.
Wastewater discharge permits and Reclaimed Water Discharge permits (Water Quality Program- Greg Zentner)
Underground lnjection Control permits (Water Quality Program - Mary Shaleen-Hansen) and
Biosolids land application permits (Waste 2 Resource Program - Jamie Olivarez).
We also referred them to Jefferson County records request for additional comments on the email referenced below.
Thanks.
John
John Pearch, L.H.G. (#1410)
Hydrogeologist and Well Drilling Coordinator
Southwest Regional Otfice - Water Resources Program
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775
Phone: 360407-0297
Fax: 360-407-6305
Email: JOPE461 @ecy.wa. gov
From: Susan Porto Imailto:sporto@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 5:02 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Pearch, John (ECY)
Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR questions
David, The response I was looking for would have been after my comment to you in August 2009. I think John willjust
defer Barbara to obtain a records request if she want to know how Scott dealt with my question. Thanks anyway, Susan
1
Susan and David,
We met with Barbara Moore-Lewis, Robert Mitchell and Donna Simmons today here at Ecology. They had one of my
earlier versions (December 4,2OO9) Hydrogeologic Report with them that they had received from a Jefferson County
records request. Please use the attached January t4,20LO Hydrogeologic Reports, that supersedes my previous version.
I already emailed them this revised reports and we also gave them copies of all the water right documents for Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Golf Course, which have all the groundwater monitoring requirements, regardless of
"recommendations" I made in my Hydrogeologic Reports.
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 4:36 PM
To: Susan Porto
Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR questions
This is the only response from Scott Benderthat I have had recently and it's in reference to the 2 hydro studies Barbara
has done, which Scott says are bunk.
David - thank you very much. We responded to Llyn Doremus's 2009 report, with a fair amount of
criticism. After reading the executive summary of the second report I would anticipate more of the same;
that report concludes we will eliminate upwards of 50o/o of the recharge to the aquifer, where we actually
will increase aquifer recharge. There should be no threat of sea water intrusion.
Thanks again, Scott
From: David W. Johnson Imailto:dwiohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:16 AM
To: scott@benderllc.com
Cc: David W. Johnson
Subject: Hydro analysis of Black Point
Scott,
FYI as we discussed
From: Susan Porto
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 2:37 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: Pearch, John (ECY)
Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR questions
David, see below. I spoke with John this afternoon and he is wondering if we have a response readily available that he
could just provide to Barbara. I looked through my e-mails and the file I have on the project and can't locate the
response back from Scott Bender. How difficult would it be for you to find it? Let me know, if it is time consuming, then
we willjust have to go the records request route. Susan
From: Susan Porto
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:00 PM
To: 'Pearch, John (ECY)'
Cc: Lum, Bill (ECY); Gallagher, Mike (ECY)
Subject: RE: Questions for our meeting
John, I have never heard from Barbara
My message to David were general observations and comments from the referenced report. lt seems to me that Scott
Bender responded to that message and we may have the record of that in the files that David Wayne Johnson has, from
themasterplandevelopmentfile. Youcouldtell Barbarathatsheshoulddoarecordrequestofthatfile,ifshewantsto
know. Or, do you want me to try to dig it up for your meeting?
2
Susan
From: Pearch, John (ECY) lmailto:JOPE461@ECY.WA,GOV]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 B:44 AM
To: Susan Porto
Cc: Lum, Bill (ECY); Gallagher, Mike (ECY)
Subject: FW: Questions for our meeting
Susan,
Barbara asked to meet with us here at Ecology and bringing (l think) 2 hg's with her this Wed April 10. Her questions are
below from an email you asked to David Johnson (also with Jefferson County). l'm not sure if we can answer the
questions you had back in 2009. I thought she was going to ask us questions about our chloride sampling report.
Let me know if you have already responded to Barbara with any reply to this email and how we should respond back
Barbara.
Thanks
John
John Pearch, L.H.G. (#1410)
Hydrogeologist and Well Drilling Coordinator
Southwest Regional Office - Water Resources Program
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775
Phone: 360-407-0297
Fax: 360-407-6305
Email: JOPE461 @ecv.wa.qov
From: Barbara Moore-Lewis [mailto:mooreleb@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 10:48 PM
To: Pearch, John (ECY)
Cc: Robert Mitchell; Donna M. Simmons
Subject: Questions for our meeting
My questions come from this email:
3
8rrrl:
To:
Ffiiln:Arr#r ForE
Thrrrdry, Aluurl IO" 2000 ?*6 Pff
Dndd fry. Jolnaffr
8uA1rc*Pb.le1fttft6. flyttio Rttrrt
Oirld.
Vttfth &rf*ct iothr *rfplys?rdCionfidffirfffrlpoifr${t!{$ br lhs Flsl{ent H$!ar illBrh.rnd frolf lgJoil
uchrd AprI l, 10O9.tlu lblloul4 rccmcntr:
. Tltc[l{Gt wtll li.lcrE{oFtd bcbrr r.r ltwl rnd sil rfiiin|V ah,ryt cllfiE bc rancrFtlbh to Jlrxilnr
htxurlon ot t!{!c lntrurbn to dr0 unlB rb|t tl$ rooth fird mrl colit oa 0lrct $dm.
I tYg[dcf *hy ft9tfiBatpfy hrrllt *'l{ir ftot drflhd tr of lchrv s! 3|BfnI r.ter ruFgly str[. lh.t wuld tlll.o
PaEvEcrl
furHtlrr
,ftdr?
.s$sltqP0rt P-I3"
J#fi€r.€ol1xB ltrr{th
Phtrra sla,O,$egiJro+Frr(tfaru|.++ql
CS#Ef,I{TI*LITY
Mut llta dstp$olily rlti u'rw ql/llty ilrrDtln&I rht srtff mll,
$ts tvalurthn that mt addm$ t6n th| rllfih! ya!r, *orH dttrrt lhrlr rltlmpliooi"
hrrrde r yur whrra rrfttrll flH flkr &b fslr? lthrt rr" thcir dn r4t{ contltrficy
ilaatltt.
4
I
t Departrnent of Ecology
January 14, 2010 (REVISED)
Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Coastal Domestic Wells on the Black
Point Peninsula, Jefferson County, Washington, pertaining to Water Right Application
G2-30436
This memo supersedes the Hvdrogeologic Memo dated December.4.2009
To: Phil Crane (Ecology)
From: John Pearch, L.H.G
tfrL*4il
.$:r;.M.Pearch,LHG
Abstract
The Black Point Peninsula (Peninsula) is a small peninsula along the western side of Hood Canal
in Jefferson County, Washington. Due to increasing population growth, citizens are concerned
about the sustainability of ground-water resources. A proposed development called the Pleasant
Harbor Golf Course and Resort (Pleasant Harbor) has applied to withdraw groundwater from
three production wells on the Black Point peninsula along the Hood Canal in southeastern
Jefferson County. Pleasant Harbor applied to withdrawal an instantaneous quantity of 300 gpm
and annual quantity of 239 acre-feet per year (afy), (131 afy for municipal use and 108 afy for
irrigation use). The goals of this study were to: (1) evaluate the general extent of seawater
intrusion; and (2) assess the need for future monitoring of groundwater levels and chloride
concentrations.
Seawater intrusion is not a widespread problem on the Peninsula, although there are two areas
near the shoreline where it appears to be occurring in the Sea Level aquifer. Two wells in these
areas have produced chloride concentrations exceeding 100 mglL, a level indicative of seawater
intrusion. Historical data in other wells also indicate there is not a widespread seawater intnrsion.
Specific conductance values in these areas were correspondingly elevated.
Future periodic monitoring of ground-water levels, chloride concentrations, and specific
conductance in select wells is recommended.
This memo gives specific recommendations intended for the draft Report of Examination
for Water Right Application G2-30436.
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Introduction
This report describes the findings of an investigation of geology, groundwater quantity, ground-
water quality, and seawater intrusion potential on the Black Point Peninsula, Jefferson County,
Washington (Figure 1)
This study was commenced for the purpose of processing a Ground Water Right Application G2-
30436 for Pleasant Harbor Golf Course and Resort and (Pleasant Harbor). Financial and staff
support was provided by the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Water Resources Program who
conducted the majority of the work. Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG) also recommended field
sampling of coastal wells and to proceed with this study.
As required by RCW 90.44, all water right applications approved for groundwater withdrawals
require a positive determination that: 1) water is available in the proposed wells, 2) the proposed
wells do not impair existing rights or nearby wells, 3) the proposed wells do not impact surface
water and 4) the proposed wells are not a detriment to the public welfare. Increasing chloride
concentrations in nearby domestic wells as a result of seawater intrusion is a concern to many
individual well owners and residents on the coast of the Black Point Peninsula. It was necessary
to conduct this study to determine baseline chloride levels in existing coastal domestic wells in
order to establish future groundwater monitoring for Pleasant Harbor. These results of this study
allows Ecology to move forward and recommend approval of Water Right Application G2-
30436 and give Pleasant Harbor appropriate provisions that pertain to water quality and water
level monitoring. Specific mitigation measures will be identified to Pleasant Harbor in case their
production wells increase chlorides levels in any monitoring wells.
Purpose and Scope
This study involved two days of ground-water sampling and analyses and measurement of
groundwater levels. The purpose of this work was to:
1. Evaluate the extent of seawater intrusion in coastal domestic wells;
2. Provide requirements to Pleasant Harbor for future monitoring of groundwater levels and
chloride concentrations;
3. Provide recommendations to Pleasant Harbor on the siting of future production wells and
monitoring wells;
4. Provide recommendations to Jefferson County for updating the Seawater Inffusion Protection
Zone (SPZ) map based on the results of this study.
5. Additional review by Ecology of Pleasant Harbor's monitoring requirements and the review of
the aquifer test can be found in Pearch Hydrogeologic Memo Part II (2010).
This study does not provide new estimates of the peninsula water-budget components, such as
precipitation, surface-water runoff, evapotranspiration, ground-water recharge, and water use. It
should also not be construed as a complete and detailed investigation of the hydrogeologic units,
Lh4lIOLO
Page2
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
the quantity of water available for all future appropriations, or the full extent of seawater
intrusion in water-supply wells on the peninsula.
Regional Setting, Land Use, and Topography
Black Point Peninsula is located in the northern portion of the Hood Canal, southeastern
Jefferson County, about 3 miles south of Brinnon and 40 miles north of Shelton (Figure 1). The
Peninsula is part of Water Resource Inventory Area 16 (Skokomish-Dosewallups). Access to the
Peninsula is by U.S. Highway 101 or private boat. The Peninsula is primarily residential with a
small marina on the north side. Much of the Peninsula was originally a campground area
(formerly known as the American Campground), which is now owned by Statesman (the owner
of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort and Golf Course). The primary groundwater users of the
Peninsula currently have existing water rights, which include the Pleasant Tides Property
Owners Association and exempt domestic wells.
The surface area of the Peninsula is approximately 1.1 square miles (696 acres; area of the
Peninsula east of Highway 101). The area owned by Statesman is approximately 0.34 square
miles (220 acres) (Figure 1). The topography ranges from steep, coastal bluffs to gently rolling
uplands. Most of the shoreline consists of steep bluffs with narrow beaches. The central portion
of the Peninsula contains large surface depressions known as kettles. Kettles are landform
features from the Vashon ice age that resulted in blocks of ice calving from the front of the
receding glacier and becoming buried pafiially to wholly by glacial outwash. The Peninsula is
bounded by saltwater on three sides, from Pleasant Harbor to the north, the Hood Canal to the
east and the Duckabush River delta to the south. The ground surface elevation ranges from about
60 feet in the deepest kettle, to elevation 320 feet on a hill in the southeast portion of the site.
The average site elevation of the Pleasant Harbor Resort is about 180 to 200 feet.
Geology and Hydrogeology
The geology of the Peninsula has been mapped by Dragovich et al. (2002) and Carson (1976).
Subsurface Group (2008) have only mapped the surface geology on the Statesman property. The
Vashon advance outwash (Qga "Quaternary glacial advance outwash") is mapped on parts of the
Peninsula, with deposits are exposed along bluffs of the northwest, southwest and east-central
portion of the Peninsula. The pre-Vashon glacial outwash deposit comprises most of the
Peninsula and consists primarily of sand and gravel (Qgu) (Dragovich et a1.,2002). Both the Qga
and Qgu units are important to the hydrogeology of the Peninsula because it forms what shall
herein be called the Sea Level aquifer. Groundwater that is present within either of these units
that make up the Sea Level aquifer are both in hydraulic continuity and considered the same
body of groundwater. The Sea Level aquifer is unconfined due to the somewhat discontinuous
nature of the overlying till. The Qgu unit is exposed along bluffs on the south eastern side of the
Peninsula. However, there are no springs or seeps identified or sampled in this study.
Other glacial deposits that are also present throughout the Peninsula include Vashon age
recessional outwash (Qvr), Vashon ice contact glacial deposits (Qvi), Vashon basal till (Qvt),
and continental glacial outwash (Qgo).
Llt4/2olo
Page 3
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
The bedrock unit of the Peninsula is known as the Crescent Formation (basalt), located on the
surface along its northern and east-central portions. However, it is not certain how deep the
Crescent Formation extends below the surface, in the southern portion of the Peninsula. Wells
have only penetrated the Crescent Formation on west of Highway 101 and indicate a separate
aquifer that is disconnected from the Sea Level aquifer.
L/L4l2OLO
Page 4
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Based on U.S. Cieological Sun'ey - Brinnon Washington Quadrangle. l:24,Un (Map photo revised 1985)
Contour Inlerval -f0 fe€l (NGVD 29)
Figure 1: Location and topography of Black Point Peninsula.
o
5
I
)
I
c
I stauenan lPlca!.ntHarbor) PoFny
N
Figure lnset Mep Locetion
*?
^.7i\,7
"yt
Jd
Folrt
v
ep
D-
0.5
fl.)-)
0.250
Miles
LlL4l2O7O
Page 5
)
Ea* Poiil Psnsla
_+.
S
-- - '-:-:-.----'
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Previous Investigations
Many wells on the Black Point Peninsula have been sampled previously (Table 1, Appendix A
and Figure 2). Walters (1971) and Dion and Sumioka (1984) sampled area wells during seawater
intrusion investigations of Washington coastal aquifers. Ongoing monitoring for chloride (as
required by the Washington State Department of Health- WSDOH) has been carried out by the
Pleasant Tides Water System and also by domestic well owners (as required by Jefferson County
Health Department).
Groundwater is the primary source of potable water for residents of the Peninsula. Jefferson
County building permit reports show chloride concentrations in water from domestic wells
varying from <5 mg/L to as high as 12,000 mgtL. Although most wells were reported to have
chloride concentrations to be < 5 mg/L, those wells have been in production since the mid to late
1990s and may now have higher chloride concentrations as indicated in this study's sample
results.
Domestic Wells
Based on the results of this study, domestic wells along the coast of the Black Point Peninsula
have been reported to be at risk of seawater intrusion. These private domestic wells are located
between the proposed Pleasant Harbor well and the Hood Canal shoreline. All domestic wells
sampled in this study are completed between 20 feet above MSL to 228 feet below MSL (29 to
367 feet below ground surface - bgs) and typically withdraw small volumes of water (3 to 30
gpm). Some of the domestic wells were constructed with an open hole, where 7 of the wells were
constructed with a screen. These nearby domestic wells are at risk of seawater intrusion due to
their proximity to the coast and subsequently the freshwater/saltwater interface in the aquifer
below. Additional pumping of the ACG well and additional proposed wells by Pleasant Harbor
could cause this saltwater interface to move further inland, thereby increasing the risk of
seawater intrusion in these wells.
Pleasant Harbor Aquifer Testing and Well Construction
Pleasant Harbor conducted an aquifer test in May, 2008 on the American Campground (ACG)
well (Subsurface Group, 2008). However, even though chloride levels were reported as non-
detectable in the aquifer test, Subsurface Group did not sample wells along the coast to
determine if these wells could be at risk of sea water intrusion. As a result of this study, it was
only necessary to sample chlorides in domestic wells without an additional aquifer testing of the
ACG well.
The ACG Well is located in the central portion of the Black Point Peninsula with Hood Canal
surrounding it on three sides (See Figure 2).The ACG well was completed in July, 1972to a
total depth of 271 feet, approximately 2,100 feet inland from the southeastern shoreline of the
Peninsula. The land surface elevation at the well head is 145 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
According to Subsurface Group LLC (2008), the well is screened in the Pre-Vashon glacial
deposit (Qu) from 215 to 270 feet below ground surface (bgs) C70 ftto -125 ft MSL). In July,
2008 the static water level in the well was 136.1 feet bgs (8.74 tt MSL) (Subsurface Group,
2008). A second Pleasant Harbor production well has yet to be drilled, but was planned on the
L/L4l2OL0
Page 6
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
southeastern portion of the Pleasant Harbor property, approximately 340 feet from the southern
shoreline of the Hood Canal. Based on this study and PGG (2009), it is recommended that the
second and possibly third well be located in SW V4 SEV4 Section 15, Township 25 North, Range
2 West W.M. A more detailed review on ACG aquifer test is found in PGG (2009), Subsurface
Group (2008) and Pearch Hydrogeologic Memo Part II (2010).
Well Numbering and Location System
All wells that were monitored in this study that did not have a unique well tag (i.e., metal tags
imprinted with a unique identification number) were affixed with a well tag to the casings or
plumbing of the well. The unique identification number consists of three letters followed by
three numbers (ex. AAB123). Table I (Appendix A) indicates the wells in which a new well tag
was placed on the well. A map number also corresponds to well locations on the map in Figure
2. These well tags will enable future researchers to verify that they are visiting the same wells
measured and sampled during this study. Pleasant Harbor will also be required to tag all existing
and new monitoring and production wells.
Llt4l2OLO
PageT
LEGEND
O Chlorid€ /EC Monitoring yr/ell (with Map Numbet)
@ static uater Level only .nonitorirE well
A XiSoricat Monitoring \r\Iells
C) Sec{ion Number (within Township 25 North, Range 2 \ltr&sD
f] Statesman - Phasant Harbor property
Monitoring wells t
,,
,?
,,,"ft 'L
I
$t a-- eteasant Tides Well I It
@ fu*\
05 {3,0
, .11
o.
07&08
oo9 " ACG Well
#2
il i
I II
wd@I
5
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Miles0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Figure 2: Monitoring well locations for sampling chloride and electrical conductivity (EC). Tidal Monitoring wells
are wells that recorded continuous water levels with a pressure transducer (See Figure 9 and 10). Historical
monitoring wells are approximate locations based on quarter quarter sections reported in Walters (1971).
Llt4l2OLO
Page B
,G
lt
I
\
[:
Y{
.- _ rlr
\\
1
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Methods
The objectives of this study are outlined in a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Pearch,
2009). The main focus of this study was to determine existing chloride levels in representative
domestic wells along the coast of the Peninsula. This study involved a combination of fieldwork
and office evaluations of historic water quality and groundwater level data. There are many
additional well owners that could not be contacted and these wells were not sampled or
measured.
The following criteria were used as a guideline for selecting the 13 domestic wells to comprise
the monitoring network for this study. However, as indicated, not all the criteria could be met.
1) All wells were located along the Hood Canal coast of the Black Point Peninsula
(Figure 2).
2) All well owners granted access to their wells.
3) With the exception of two wells, all well log reports were available for each well.
4) All wells were completed in the sea level aquifer, within the same body of groundwater
as the ACG well.
5) 10 wells were sampled for water quality analysis (chloride and conductivity). However,
static water levels could not be accessed for four of these sampled wells due to limited
well access. Additional nearby domestic wells were measured for static water levels. A
groundwater potentiometric surface map was not produced because of the limited number
of wells measured as well as the seasonal nature and tidal influence on groundwater
levels,
6) 7 wells did not have previous chloride sampling as required by Jefferson County building
permitting.
7) All wells did not have a water treatment device, such as a water softener or iron treatment
system, or a large storage tank that was not bypassed during sampling.
8) All wells sampled were spatially distributed to maximize coverage of the Black Point
Peninsula according the guidelines specified in the QAPP (Figure 2).
The well network was monitored at least once during the two-day monitoring period in mid
August, 2009. Network wells were sampled for field parameters (temperature, conductivity, and
chloride) and laboratory parameters (chloride and conductivity). Measuring temperature and
conductivity in the field provided an indication whether stabilization occurred during sampling.
This study was conducted on the Peninsula in an attempt to gather data from wells in the sea
level aquifer. Eleven well owners (some of which had two wells that were sampled) were
contacted beforehand to schedule sampling visits. The purpose of the site visits was to
accurately locate the wells, determine well head elevations, take static water level measurements,
and obtain water samples. Discussions with well owners during the field visits brought to my
attention additional wells at risk of seawater intrusion, and they were added to the list of sampled
wells.
LlL4l2070
Page 9
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Aquifers can be influenced by tidal fluctuations in adjoining marine waters, resulting in
variations in both water level and chloride concentration. Generally, wells that are affected by
seawater intrusion and that are tidally influenced tend to exhibit higher chloride concentrations
and water levels during higher tides. In an attempt to collect consistent data, wells that fell within
Yz mile of the marine shoreline were monitored (water sampling and depth to water
measurements) during a higher tide stage.
Field Methods
During the field visits existing wells static water level depths were measured and groundwater
samples were collected. More details for measuring ground water levels and sampling
groundwater from wells are described in the QAPP (Pearch, 2009). Salinity parameters measured
in the field included electrical conductivity (EC) with an EC meter, and chloride measured with a
portable chloride field test kit (Hach Model 8-P). Water samples were sent to Ecology's
Manchester Laboratory for chloride analyses. Two of the high chloride samples were also
analyzed for conductivity.
Accurate ground-water elevation (head) data is necessary for determining the extent of seawater
intrusion. In this study, initial estimates of water level heads in the sea level aquifer were made
using (l) measured groundwater levels and (2) wellhead elevations estimated from Llght
Distance And Ranging (LIDAR). After the data was collected, a GIS map was developed to
include the newly collected water quality data and static groundwater elevations (estimated by
subtracting depth-to-water from LIDAR land surface elevations).
Well head locations and elevations were determined using a GPS Trimble GeoXT unit. This unit
typically has accuracies of less than three feet for each point taken. However, the elevation
(vertical) readings on this unit are considered less than adequate. Therefore, the latitude and
longitude coordinates obtained from the GPS unit and field observations were matched with
LIDAR data in GIS to obtain an elevation of the well head (in feet above mean sea level (MSL -
datum in NAVD 88). All well elevations are based on LIDAR data derived from the Puget
Sound LIDAR Consortium (2002).
The distribution of chloride levels and groundwater elevations were interpreted with respect to
well location, design and available hydrogeologic information (e.g. well logs, surficial geology
and previous hydrogeologic characterization) to better understand the conditions that might
contribute to any elevated chlorides in domestic wells along the coast of the Peninsula.
Mechanisms of Seawater Intrusion
Seawater inffusion is a water-supply concern along the Hood Canal. Coastal aquifers, such as the
Sea Level aquifer, are hydraulically connected to the adjacent marine water body (Ecology,
2001). Consequently, they contain both fresh and saline (salty) ground water. Fresh ground water
normally flows seaward within coastal aquifers, eventually intercepting saline ground water. The
lighter, fresh water (1 gram per cubic centimeter - glcmt) tends to override and "float" on the
u1.4laOLO
Page 10
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
denser, saline water (1.025 g/cmr), but mixing also occurs. This mixing zone is known by several
names, including the "freshwater-seawater interface," the "zone of transition," and the "zone of
diffusion" (Figure 3A). The zone of diffusion is typically located near the marine shoreline. The
exact location depends on several conditions, including the volume of freshwater discharge and
the nature of the aquifer (confined or unconfined). In a typical coastal aquifer, the zone of
diffusion dips down beneath the land surface (Figure 3A). In the case of an island or peninsula,
the zone of diffusion can extend beneath the entire land surface (Figure 4).
As with most aquifers, coastal aquifers are recharged primarily by precipitation. Under natural
conditions, aquifer recharge is in equilibrium with ground-water discharge. Consequently, the
zone of diffusion maintains a position of relative stability, moving slightly landward or seaward
in response to varying climatic and tidal conditions (Figure 4). When ground water is pumped
from coastal aquifers, freshwater that would normally discharge to the sea is intercepted,
disrupting the natural equilibrium. This causes the zone of diffusion to migrate landward and./or
locally upward. Ground water drawn into pumping wells can become increasingly saline (Figure
3B & 3C). Over time, the water can become unfit for consumption. This is especially true for
wells located near the shoreline, on islands, and/or on peninsulas.
The Ghyben - Herzberg relation gives an approximate location of the transition zone - one foot
of freshwater head above sea level indicates 40 feet of freshwater below sea level - with the
assumption that the transition zone is a sharp interface. The boundary defined by this relation
represents the center or 50 percent concentration of seawater within the transition zone. (Figure
5). However, based on PGG (2009) a ratio of 1:50 may be more appropriate for the Hood Canal
as its water is slightly less saline. When considering seawater intrusion the Ghyben - Herzberg
relation is very valuable, but it does not give the potential for contamination by the leading edge
of the transition zone. Therefore, the goal is to protect wells from the leading edge of the
transition zone. As the coastline is approached, the depth of the interface is greater than that
predicted by the Ghyben - Herzberg relationship (Bear, 1987), thus the Ghyben - Herzberg
relationship should provide a safe, conservative estimation of the location of leading edge of the
wedge.
1l74laOLO
Page 11
A
Well
Seawatsr
Zone of
:8-
Fresh
ground
wal6r
ltsGs
Salino
ground
water
tlotbsla
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Nonpumping well in an unconlined (water-table) aquiler
under conditions ol equilibrium-no inlrusion has occurre
Wellpumping from an unconlined (water-table) aquiler.-
seawater inlrusion nol alleding salinity ol pumped water
Well pumping from an unconfined aquiler--seawater
inlrusion atlecting salinity ol pumped r,{aler.
= Figure 3. Conceptual diagram showing
how seawater intrusion can occur due to
t, PumPing of wells (from Orr, 2000).
Figure 4. Conceptual diagram showing the
relationship between fresh and saline ground water
in a homogenous unconfined island aquifer. Fresh
ground water flows both outward and upward
while the zone of diffusion shifts seasonally (from
Orr,2000).
Figure 5. Conceptual diagram showing the
Ghyben-Heruberg relation - that fresh ground
water theoretically extends 40 feet below sea level
for every foot it extends above sea level (from Orr,
2000).
Sakd
vanq Er,e:
ti€vEl{
A,EB d.rcbchdjon
,gDrd{trlktro: to 3-1. USGS
|.fogrr
tqd
Ssthegrurrl
reler
Sallnegrculd
Elfr
well
B
Seawaler
*y4-
ol
on
Saline
ground
water
l$l b salc
c Pumpi
well
Seawaler
tlo{ to $de
.rpy .g
Fro6h
ground
water
\ Zoneol
Saline
ground
water
Sea level
Well
I
1 Foot
Sea-
water
Water
Not to scale USGS
Sa ne Zone ol
transitionground
water
Page 72
Saa lovol
l'!
Fresh
ground
waler
I
40
Fresh
ground
waler
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Water Quality sampling for Chloride
Chloride (Cl-) is one of the major inorganic ions in water. Chloride concentrations are measured
in milligrams of chloride per liter of water (mg/L). Chloride in ground water can come from
contamination by seawater, brines, leaching of marine sedimentary deposits, and domestic,
agricultural, or industrial pollution (Ecology, 2001).
Pure seawater contains about 35,000 mg/L of dissolved solids and approximately 19,000 mg/L of
that is chloride (Hem, 1985). Chloride concentrations in the Puget Sound are slightly less due to
dilution by freshwater inflow. In northern Puget Sound, the concentration of chloride in seawater
has been measured between 14,000 mg/L (Sapik, et al., 1988) and 17,600 mg/L (Culhane,1993).
Southern Puget Sound probably contains slightly less chloride because it is farther from the
Pacific Ocean and is more subject to the influence of freshwater inflow. No actual measurements
of chloride concentrations in the Hood Canal were available. Fresh ground water typically
contains less than 30 mglL chloride (Ecology, 2001).
The water quality standard for chloride is 250 mglL. This is a secondary drinking water standard,
based primarily on aesthetics (taste) and other factors as opposed to human health risks. Chloride
concentrations above the 250 mg/L MCL begin to make water taste salty and the related sodium
can be a health hazard to people requiring a low salt diet. Elevated chloride concentrations can
also corrode metallic pipes and cause salt damage to plants. In coastal areas, a chloride
concentration of 100 mg/L or greater in ground water is considered to be a red flag with respect
to seawater intrusion.
Aquifers located at or below sea level are susceptible to seawater intrusion. This would be true of
the Sea Level aquifer on the Black Point Peninsula. Ten wells screened or completed in the Sea
Level aquifer were sampled for chloride (Figure 6; Appendix A Table 3). More details on
individual water wells sampled can be found in Appendix B. Chloride concentrations ranged
from 2 to 3500 mglL, with a median of 3.23 mglL. Of the 10 wells sampled, five had chloride
concentrations exceeding the assumed conservative background concentration of 4.86 mgtL
(Appendix A Table 3). Based on a geometric mean of the 8 samples that had chloride levels less
than 26.8 mglL, assumed background concentration in wells along the coast is 4.86 mg/L. This
background concenffation is limited since it represents only 8 samples from one sampling period.
However, this background concentration will be updated as Pleasant Harbor continues to monitor
chlorides in coastal wells on the Black Point peninsula.
Wells that exceeded the background concentration were located on the southwestern portion of
the Peninsula, near the mouth of the Duckabush River, along Robinson Road. Chloride
concentrations in two of these wells exceeded 100 mgtL. These wells were ACY954 and
BBB052 (Appendix A Table 3). The chloride concentration in well ACY954 exceeded the MCL
of 250 mg/L (Washington State Department of Health drinking water standards) during the
August, 2009 sampling period. This domestic well was analyzed for chloride at 3,500 mg/L. (See
Appendix B for more description of sampling from each domestic well).
tlL4l2OrO
Page 13
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Unfortunately, none of the wells originally sampled by Walters (1971) and Dion and Sumioka
(1984) were available for sampling during this study. However, in contrast, the four elevated
chloride wells were at a different location on the Black Point Peninsula from the sampling of
Walters (197I) when elevated chloride concentrations in the Sea Level aquifer were found.
Historical and current chloride concentrations are summarized in Figure 6. Well depths and
chloride concentrations in both the historical wells and the current wells are similar. None of
the wells with elevated chloride concentrations have histories of large water withdrawals (all less
than 20 gpm).Therefore, these elevated chloride concentrations could be attributable to the close
proximity of the well intakes to the natural zone of diffusion (saltwater upconing), rather than
significant landward migration of the zone of diffusion (lateral intrusion).
In addition, recommendations to Jefferson County to update the Seawater Intrusion Protection
Zone (SPZ) Ordinance No 09-0923-02 can be found in Appendix C.
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance (or electrical conductivity) is a measure of the ability of water to conduct
electricity. Specific conductance is proportional to the concentration of dissolved solids in water.
It is measured in microsiemens (pS) or micromhos (prnho) per square centimeter (cm'). Specific
conductance is a secondary (aesthetic) contaminant. The drinking water standard for specific
conductance is 700 prmho/cm'.
In the case of seawater, dissolved solids include salts such as sodium chloride, magnesium
chloride, or potassium chloride. Seawater contains roughly 35,000 mg/L of dissolved solids. The
specific conductance of pure seawater is roughly 50,000 prmho/cm'. Specific conductance
measurements can determine whether elevated chloride concentrations in ground water are due
to seawater intrusion or other causes, such as connate water. Generally, higher specific
conductance readings are indicative of seawater intrusion. There is often a roughly linear
relationship between chloride concentration and specific conductance: the higher the chloride
concentration, the higher the specific conductance value. By plotting chloride concentration
against specific conductance data from a particular geographic area, a correlation coefficient (R')
can be derived. The higher the correlation coefficient, the more reliable the relationship between
chloride concentration and specific conductance. Dion and Sumioka (1984) found correlation
coefficients ranging from 0.45 (poor) to 0.97 (excellent) in Washington coastal counties during
their investigation of seawater inffusion.
Data from the current study produced a correlation coefficient of 0.73 (Figure 7), which is
considered good. Specific conductance in the Sea Level aquifer ranged from 1 12 to 10,300
prmho/cm'with a median value of 201 trrmho/cm' (Appendix A Table 3).
Two wells consistently exceeded the MCL for specific conductance - ACY954 and BBB052 on
the Peninsula. These wells also produced elevated chloride concentrations.
LlL4l2o7o
Page 14
LEGEND
o ChloriJe Concentration (rng/L) taken in August, 2009
A Historical Chlorkle Concentration (rng/L)
fl Seaion Number (within Township 25 Nofth, Rsnge 2 \Alest)
[-'l st.t"rr.n - Pleesent Herbor poperty
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Miles0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Figure 6: Chloride concentrations sampled in coastal domestic wells in August, 2009 and other time
periods (see specific historical dates). See Figure 2 for corresponding map numbers and Appendix A
Table 4 for corresponding Ecology Well Tag ID and Latitude/Longitude coordinates.
Llt4l20to
Page 15
4 f
I ,7 9.
t /
t
,b
)( I 998)
I
L 968)
1
26.8
t,
k
\*l \
\
]ssd@\I \
A
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
C hloride vs. Conductivity in Black Point coastal wells
10000
a 3s00
1000
R2 = o.7266
E
!
IE
100
10
5.25
a 3.23
2-2.55
L
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1 2000
s pecific C onductance (pmhof, m'1)
892
ol9:%,
FigureT: Linear regression between chloride concentration and specific conductance in the Sea
Level aquifer (R' = 0.7266). Individual chloride samples are labeled accordingly. All wells had
static water levels less than 5.3 ft MSL.
Static Water Level Monitoring in Coastal Wells
Static water levels were measured in the 12 coastal domestic wells during the August, 2009 site
visit. The average static water level elevation at the coastline is approximately 3.5 feet above
MSL. The water level elevation is based on LIDAR data (+/- 0.49 ft accuracy).
Comparing Water Levels and chloride concentrations in wells
This study attempts to further evaluate sea water intrusion on Black Point peninsula based on
recommendations made by Kelly (2005). The water level elevation data was used as a tool for
determining seawater intrusion risk on a site specific basis as specified in the QAPP (Pearch,
2009). However, different from Kelly (2005), this study did not evaluate water level elevation
data to interpret intrusion susceptibility throughout the entire Black Point Peninsula.
According to Kelly (2005), the evaluation of water level elevation data as a seawater intrusion
tool can be approached in several ways. One method involves comparing intrusion (or lack
thereof) from the perspective of water chloride concentration (chemistry) to the water level
elevation data. However, there are problems associated with the use of chemistry for evaluation
u1.4l^OLO
Page 16
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
of seawater intrusion. These problems complicate the use of chemistry as a tool for validation of
the water level elevation methodology for seawater inffusion analysis. Several different methods
were utilized in this analysis of the chemistry data. The most simple of these methods was
simply comparing chloride concentrations to water level elevations as shown in Figure 8.
Compared to other seawater intrusion studies (such as Kelly, 2005), this study did not have any
"false positives" where there are elevated chlorides that are not due to seawater intrusion. AII of
the sampled wells in this study had static water levels less than 8 feet MSL (Appendix A Table
2). Increased chloride levels that are indicative of "False positives" are typically found in wells
that are impacted by very hard groundwater or failing septic tanks and are not caused by
conventional seawater intrusion. The two wells with high chloride were positive sea water
intruded wells.
In addition, Kelly (2005) also demonstrates how using chloride concentration (chemistry) as a
tool to evaluate risk for seawater intrusion may show intrusion is occurring (excluding the
problems with false positives discussed previously), but it cannot evaluate if intrusion is likely to
occur in the future. In essence, chemistry is a not a predictive tool; it cannot predict that intrusion
will occur in the future. Instead, chemistry is a reactive tool, capable only of indicating intrusion
once it begins to occur, in some cases too late to prevent significant degradation of groundwater
quality.
LlL4l2O7O
Page 77
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Figure 8: Black Point Peninsula coastal domestic wells; chloride sampling on
August 13 & 14,2009.
\!v€llM+ No.
ACG Well (SWL = 9 ft md from 2008)
.''i ll E.ti nt
100 ft
Le.alEle,:rtr.:rr
t-.'!----------Sea Level
?
5.25
892
2.NS 2.18
2.2,13
2.0 -100 ft
-200 ft MsL
Chloride Concentration (m g/L
3500
Static water level (SWL) taken 8/09 (unless specified - see Table I )
? = well extent or SWL is not certain
Red numbers indicate exceeded background chloride concentration. (>5 mg/L)
NS = no sample in ACG well taken in August, 2009 (only in Subsurface Group, 2008)
l3* = Western Water Services sampled 8ll0l09
Vertical datum = Mean Sea Level (MSL) is in NAVD 88
Horlzontal
Scale
ry 13'
Ll74l2OL0
Page 18
0r
N
07
-373-l
n5
l
I
6
4
5
11
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part [: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Tidal Effects
Aquifers that are hydraulically connected to seawater bodies are influenced by tidal cycles
(Ecology, 2001). Heads in these aquifers are higher during high tide and lower during low tide.
There is typically a lag time between high or low tide and corresponding high or low water levels
in a well, respectively. Lag time is dependent on distance of the well from the shore and
transmissiviry of the aquifer. The more transmissive the aquifer or water-bearing zone, the
shorter the lag time. It is useful to know the extent of tidal effects in an aquifer so that these
effects can be filtered out of any water-level data collected.
Tidal cycle monitoring was conducted in two wells on Black Point Peninsula to estimate the
degree of tidal effects from Hood Canal, particularly in the Sea Level aquifer (Figure 9 and 10).
The wells were continuously monitored (5 minute intervals) for a period of one week each. This
time interval was chosen to encompass at least one tidal cycle.
Two wells in the Sea Level aquifer were monitored for tidal influence. These measurements
were compared to the nearest verified tidal data, gage 9444900 at Port Townsend. This tidal data
is for a location too far north of Black Point Peninsula to calculate accurately the lag time
between tidal cycles and water-level fluctuations. However, the general association between tidal
cycles and water levels is evident. This tidal data was converted from Mean Tide Level to MSL.
As expected, tidal influence was evident in the two Sea Level aquifer wells. Well BBB054 is
located on the southwestern shore of the Peninsula, about 5 feet from the bulkhead along the
shore of the Hood Canal. The well's completion depth is -18 feet MSL. There was some
pumping interference in the data, but tidal effects were still discernable.In aZ4-hour monitoring
period, approximately 5 feet of change was noted due to tidal influence (Figures 9).
Well BBB051 is located on the north central portion of Black Point Peninsula, about 460 feet
from the Hood Canal. Its completion depth is -47 feet MSL. There was some pumping
interference in the data, but tidal effects were still discernable. Approximately 0.25 feet of
change was noted due to tidal influence (Figures l0).
Summary and Conclusions
Chloride concentrations are within acceptable limits in most domestic wells on Black Point
Peninsula, with the exception of one area in the Sea Level aquifer - the Robinson Road vicinity
(SW of the Pleasant Harbor ACG well)). Well ABAI 12 (NE of the Pleasant Harbor ACG well)
displayed elevated chloride concentrations during drilling in 1998. However, this well was not
sampled for chloride. In addition, high chloride levels in the ACY954 well indicates upconing of
the saltwater wedge and not a lateral (widespread) seawater intrusion problem. However, is not
known whether the withdrawal of water from the ACY954 was originally drilled near the natural
zone of diffusion. Regardless, all domestic wells on the Black Point Peninsula could to be at risk
of a lateral seawater intrusion and thus continuing to monitor chlorides in domestic wells is
recommended.
Llt4l2Ot0
Page 19
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Owners of older wells have some legal recourse should the newer Pleasant Harbor wells
exacerbate or initiate a seawater intrusion problem. Older well owners have senior rights and
therefore cannot be impaired by newer well withdrawals.
Based on the results of this study, water supplies along the coast of the Peninsula is limited.
Specific provisions are established for Pleasant Harbor, if chlorides in coastal domestic wells
increase as result of withdrawals from Pleasant Harbor wells. Additional requirements for
Pleasant Harbor to monitor chloride, electrical conductivity and static water levels in their own
monitoring and production wells can be found in Pearch Hydrogeologic Memo Part II (January,
2010).
Monitoring Recommendations (based on revisions on the Neighborhood Policy made by
Pleasant Harbor, December 29, 2009)
Ecology and Jefferson County have agreed that monitoring for chloride, electrical conductivity
and static water levels is essential for ensuring that Pleasant Harbor will maintain an adequate
water supply for the proposed Pleasant Harbor wells and for the existing domestic wells on the
coast of the Black Point Peninsula. Ecology have made several recommendations to Pleasant
Harbor's proposed Neighborhood Water Policy that is required in Jefferson County Ordinance
01-0128-08 (Appendix D).
In Jefferson County's approval of the FEIS completed for Pleasant Harbor, Jefferson County has
included Condition P, the Neighborhood Water Policy, which requires Pleasant Harbor to
provide access to its water system by any neighboring parcels if salt water intrusion becomes an
issue for neighboring wells on Black Point peninsula. Statesman proposed to expand and define
terms of this policy as a condition of the water rights. Ecology has the following comments
based on Pleasant Harbor's proposed Neighborhood Water Policy:
4) Water Supply Replacement If the initial mitigation measures stated in recharge areas
(condition 2) or initial mitigation measures (condition 3) do not correct or resolve the salt water
impacts detected by the monitoring program, Pleasant Harbor will offer at its cost sufficient
mitigation and/or replacement water for potable water for any existing home on a well that has
an increase in chloride levels as follows and under the following conditions:
Comment: As the scenario described in the preceding sentence would result from Pleasant
Harbor impairing an existing water right, Ecology believes that Pleasant Harbor and not the well
owner should pay the difference between use of the old source (essentially electricity for
pumping costs) versus the cost using the Pleasant Harbor source. As such Ecology believes this
sentence should be changed to acknowledge that Pleasant Harbor will pay the cost of hooking up
and maintaining a water supply to the impaired individual and that the homeowner's
responsibility will be limited to the cost that the homeowner would have spent on electricity
running their old system.
Condition 4a) The neighboring resident wells located on the Black Point peninsula must be
within in the same aquifer as the Pleasant Harbor's wells in order to be covered by this
neighborhood policy.
7lt4/2010
Page2O
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Comment: Ecology recommends that all wells be included on the Black Point Peninsula as long
as they are completed in the Sea level aquifer. However, if there is excess of t0 neighboring
residents who ask Pleasant Harbor to sample their well, Pleasant Harbor should choose only 10
wells that are appropriately located between the proposed withdrawal and the coast, and not
focus on one specific area. This will help to evaluate if a widespread lateral sea water intrusion
occurs.
Condition 4 b) Well owner provides conclusive evidence that chloride levels have increased in
the well prior to Pleasant Harbor's use of groundwater, and the data from the monitoring
program is consistent with the increase in chlorides. The default standard that Pleasant Harbor
will provide alternative water supply if chlorides in a well exceed baseline (pre-Pleasant Harbor
groundwater use) by l5Vo that results in levels above 200 mgtL; or levels increase by 3OVo that
results in levels above 100 mgil over a 12-month period.
Comment: Ecology also recommends in the case if any particular neighboring well that
experiences a ll%o increase in chloride but is still below 100 mg/L, that same well should be
sampled at least two additional months following. This will provide a much clearer picture of
potential widespread lateral sea water intrusion.
Condition 4c) Pleasant Harbor has the right to request additional evidence from the resident
showing that the Pleasant Harbor groundwater withdrawal is the cause of the increase in
chlorides if the increase is isolated to one well, the increase is likely caused by another problem,
and the only reasonable water replacement is a new well. (No comment)
Condition 4d) After 5 years of implementing the monitoring plan, the level of monitoring may be
decreased unless there is a significant data showing increased chlorides, and Ecology determines
the monitoring program must be continued.
Comment: Ecology strongly recommends that any decrease in frequency of monitoring should
only occur 10 years after the resort reaches full build out.
Ecology and Pleasant Harbor agreed on December 18, 2009 that the domestic wells do not
necessarily need a well log report or need to be metered by the well owner.
Based on the above conditions, Ecology recommends Pleasant Harbor to sample chloride and
electrical conductivit!, twice a year in April and August, in four coastal domestic wells.
Measuring static water levels is not a requirement and is up to the agreement between Pleasant
Harbor and the home owner. Installing dataloggers for measuring groundwater pressure and/or
electrical conductivity is also up to the property owner and arrangements made under the
Neighborhood Water Supply Plan (per Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08). The following
are the recommended coastal domestic wells to be included:
1. Porter/Boling domestic well (BBB051) at I 113 Black Point Road.
2. Black Point community domestic well (AGR712 ) at 2180 Black Point Road
3. Myhre domestic well (BBB054) at 248 Robinson Road.
4. Beattie domestic well (B88056) at 442 Cormorant Way.
rlL4l2010
Page27
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
The following are Ecology's additional recommendations to monitor groundwater quality in
domestic well:
1) Sampling domestic wells must follow the same protocol also identified in Pleasant Harbor's
Groundwater Monitoring Plan as recommended in Part II of this memo.
2) It is solely up to the current property owners to allow Pleasant Harbor to sample their wells. An
agreement between the property owners and Pleasant Harbor should be established. Most
importantly, Pleasant Harbor should establish a contact and rapport with each property owner
before sampling any wells. Pleasant Harbor should maintain continuity between any changes in
property ownership to maintain access to the wells. It is recommended that Pleasant Harbor
contact all domestic well owners who have wells completed in the Sea Level aquifer on the
Black Point Peninsula to ask if they would like to be included in the monitoring network.
3) It is in the best interest of all well owners to work with Pleasant Harbor to allow them to monitor
their domestic wells. Pleasant Harbor has agreed to supply freshwater potable water to any
property or well owner that experience seawater intrusion (as stated in the Neighborhood Water
Policy - Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08).
4) Ecology understands the risks of collecting static water levels in these domestic wells due
liability issues with the home owners. Therefore, Ecology does not require Pleasant Harbor to
measure static water levels in domestic wells.
5) Pleasant Harbor is recommended to follow these guidelines for groundwater sampling for
chloride and electrical conductivity:
U.S. Geologic Survey, Revised 2006, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Book 9,
Handbooks for Water-Resources Investigations National Field Manual for the Collection of
Water-Quality Data Chapter ,{4. COLLECTION OF WATER SAMPLES
http ://water. us ss. gov/owq/FieldManual/
6) Pleasant Harbor should develop a Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan that is similar to the QAPP
developed in Pearch (August, 2009) and other similar related to groundwater sampling in wells
near the Puget Sound. The SOP's specified above should also be included in the QAPP. The
QAPP developed by Pleasant Harbor should be submitted to Ecology.
L/t4l2OLO
Page22
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
References
Bear, J., 1987. Modeling Groundwater Flow and Pollution, Theory and Applications of
Transport in Porous Media. D. Reidell Publishing Company. Boston, 414 pp.
Carson, R.J., 1976, Preliminary geologic map of the Brinnon area, Jefferson County,
Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 76-3,
scale 1:24000.
Culhane, Tom, 1993. High chloride concentrations in ground water withdrawn from above sea
level aquifers, Whidbey Island, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Open-
File Technical Report 93-07 ,35 p.
Dion, N.P. and Sumioka, S.S., 1984. Seawater intrusion into coastal aquifers in Washington,
Washington State Department of Ecology, Water-Supply Bulletin no. 56, 13 p., 14 plates.
Dragovich, J.D., Logan, R.L., Schasse, H.W., Walsh, T.J., Lingley, W.5., Jr., Norman, D.K.,
Gerstel, W.J., Lapen, T.J., Schuster, J.E., and Meyers, K.D., 2002, Geologic map of Washington-
-Northwest quadrant: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map GM-
50, scale 1:2500fi).
Grimstad, P. and Carson, R.J., 1981, Geology and ground-water resources of eastern Jefferson
County, Washington: Washington Department of Ecology, Water-Supply Bulletin 54, scale
1:48000.
Hem, J.D., 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (Third
Edition). U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254,263 p.
Kelly, D., 2005, Seawater Intrusion Topic Paper, Island County / WRIA 6 Watershed Planning
Process
Orr, Laura, 2000. Is seawater intrusion affecting ground water on Lopez Island, Washington,
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-057-00, 8p.
Pearch, J., August, 2009, Quality Assurance Project Plan, Sampling for Chlorides in Wells on the
Black Point Peninsula,
Pearch, J. January 14,2010, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II, Pleasant Harbor Monitoring
requirements and aquifer testing review.
Puget Sound LIDAR Consortium,2002
Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG), June 4, 2009, Technical memorandum, Pleasant Harbor
Modeling Analysis, To Phil Crane, Ecology; From: Peter Schwartzman, PGG
LlL4l2O7O
Page23
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Sapik, D.8., Bortleson, G.C., Drost, 8.W., Jones, M.A., and Prych, E.A., 1988. Ground-water
resources and simulation of flow in aquifers containing freshwater and seawater, Island County,
Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4182,67 p.,4
plates.
Sinclair, K.A. and Garrigues, R.S., 1994. Geology, water resources, and seawater intrusion
assessment of Marrowstone Island, Jefferson County, Washington. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Water Supply Bulletin no. 59, 83 p., Appendices, 7 plates.
Subsurface Group, LLC, December 17, 2008, Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis,
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Brinnon, Washington, Prepared for Statesman Group,
SDEIS Groundwater v 1 -4.
Walters, K.L., 1971. Reconnaissance of seawater intrusion along coastal Washington, 1966-68,
Washington State Department of Ecology, prepared in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey,
Water Resources Division, Water-Supply Bulletin no.32,208 p.
Washington State Department of Ecology, October, 2001, Investigation of Water Resources,
Water Quality, and Seawater Intrusion, Anderson Island, Pierce County, Washington by L.
Wildrick, C.M. Neumiller, R. Garrigues, and K. Sinclair, Water Resources and Environmental
Assessment Programs Water Resource Inventory Area 15, Publication No. 01-11-013
LlL4l2OLO
Page24
Department of Ecology
January 14, 2010 (REVISED)
Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements pertaining
to Water Right Application G2-30436
This memo supersedes the Hvdrogeologic Memo dated December.4.2009
To: Phil Crane (Ecology)
From: John Pearch, L.H.G
As required by RCW 90.44, all water right applications approved for groundwater withdrawals
require a positive determination that: 1) water is available in the proposed wells, 2) the proposed
wells do not impair existing rights or nearby wells, 3) the proposed wells do not impact surface
water and 4) the proposed wells are not a detriment to the public welfare. Results of the aquifer
testing and chloride sampling analysis in Part I (Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I, 2010)
allows Ecology to move forward and recommend approval of Water Right Application G2-
30436. Ecology requires Pleasant Harbor to conduct groundwater monitoring on proposed
production and monitoring wells to ensure saltwater intrusion does not occur in Pleasant
Harbor's wells as well as coastal domestic wells. This Hydrogeologic Memo (Part II) identifies
the validity of Pleasant Harbor's aquifer test and also gives specific requirements for
groundwater monitoring and testing in Pleasant Harbor wells. Additional monitoring
recommendations are given for monitoring coastal domestic wells in Pearch, Hydrogeologic
Memo Part I, "Chloride sampling in coastal domestic wells on the Black Point peninsula,
Jefferson County, Washington" (2010).
This memo gives specific recommendations intended for the draft Report of Examination
for Water Right Application G2-30436.
'I E
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
Pleasant Harbor Well Construction
The ACG Well is located in the central portion of the Black Point Peninsula with Hood Canal
surrounding it on three sides (See Figure 2). The ACG well was completed in July,1972to a
total depth of 27 I feet, approximately 2, 100 feet inland from the southeastern shoreline of the
Peninsula. The land surface elevation at the well head is 145 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
According to Subsurface Group LLC (SSG, 2008), the well is screened in the Pre-Vashon glacial
deposit (Qu) from 215 to 270 feet below ground surface (bgs) C70 ft to -125 ft MSL). In May,
2008 the static water level in the well was 136.1 feet bgs (8.74 ft MSL) (Subsurface Group,
2008). Two additional production wells have yet to be drilled. One of these wells citing was
planned on the southeastern portion of the Pleasant Harbor property, approximately 340 feet
from the southern shoreline of the Hood Canal. Based on the analysis of PGG (2009) and Pearch
Part I (2010), it is recommended that the two new proposed production wells be located in SW %
SE % Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West W.M.
Groundwater Monitoring
Pleasant Harbor has six existing monitoring wells identified as MW-2, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6,
VWP-I and VWP-3. Both VWP-1 and WVP-3 are geotechnical soil borings with vibrating wire
piezometers (VWP) installed in them to measure groundwater. All wells were constructed to
monitor groundwater and are completed to a minimum depth of 10 feet below the water table
(within the Sea Level Aquifer). VWP-I, MW-2, VWP-3 wells were used to monitor groundwater
continuously with dataloggers from June, 2006 to May, 2009. MW-4 and MW-5 were only used
to monitor groundwater levels during the aquifer tests conducted from May 19-20, 2008.
Construction details of all monitoring wells are listed in Table 1. Pleasant Harbor proposes to
construct two additional monitoring wells into the Sea Level Aquifer near the ACG Well (see
Figure 1). Coastal domestic wells are recommended to monitor based on Pearch, Hydrogeologic
Memo Part I (2010).
Well
Depth
Well Head
Well Diam Elevation
Well No.tatitude
" 39',2L.73"
'38'49.51',
'39',06.86"
" 39',07.39"
" 39'07.45"
" 39'L2.94"
" 39'24.09"
'39'06.20"
L22" 55',23.18"
L22" 54',43.74"
r22" 55'02.97"
122" 54'45.37"
122'54'53.88"
122" 55'08.57"
722" 54',55.38"
722" 55'12.66"
10.5
8.73
8.00
8.99
255-270 8.73
Date of SWI
512U2@8L3:L3
sl2U2@873:L1
sl2U2m,873ts
512t/2oo873:os
512U2m,8].3:tS
s/2L/2@81320
13:00
Screen
1@.5 G" (w/ vwp) no screen (vwP
153.47 at 175ft)
770 2" 76/,.$ t@-770
L76.s 6,, (w/vwp) no screen (vwp
177.26 at90&160ft)
229 6" 208.89 22s-230
>>proposed locations TPD no well drilled yet
>>proposed locations TPD no well drilled yet
SWL
vwP-t
MW-2
15.20
27.il
vwP-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
ACG well " 39'06.78', 122" 54'46.56" 27t 8',tM.82
Table 1: Pleasant Harbor Monitoring wells and existing production well location and construction
information.
LlL4l2070
PageZ
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
According to SSG (additional monitoring data provided in October, 2009), groundwater levels
were measured from Jwe,2007 to May, 2009. Based on data collected from MW-4, MW-5, and
MW-6 monitoring wells, water levels in the interior of the Peninsula were approximately 8 to 9
feet MSL, within the Sea Level Aquifer. These monitoring wells were measured only during the
aquifer test on the ACG well. The ACG well is screened in the Sea Level aquifer.
SSG (2008) also identifies a small groundwater mound in a lO-foot contour line beneath kettles
B and C. SSG interprets the data to show that the aquifer receives limited recharge through
infiltration of precipitation through the kettles. These water level contours were based on water
levels taken from wells MW-6 and MW-3.
However, MW-l and MW-2 monitoring wells show water levels that were higher and not as
representative of water levels near the ACG well. The MW-2 had the highest measured water
level throughout the Black Point peninsula (from 27 to 29 ft MSL). SSG asserts that the high
groundwater heads measured in MW-2 well may be related to the presence of shallower bedrock
on the east side of the peninsula. This monitoring well site has also been proposed to drill a
production well site. However, no aquifer test was conducted for this area to identify the
question of water availability and impairment on neighboring wells. Therefore, this production
well site should be moved to the area near the ACG well that is more representative of the Sea
Level aquifer and aquifer test.
Long term monitoring is required in all Pleasant Harbor monitoring and production wells.
Pleasant Harbor have already established a monitoring plan that will monitor for saltwater
intrusion in specific Pleasant Harbor wells and nearby domestic wells. Ecology have provided
additional requirements for measuring groundwater levels and sampling water quality parameters
in Pleasant Harbor's monitoring and production wells (see below for more details).
LlL4l2O7O
Page 3
LEGEND
* Pbasant Harbor Production Vl,bllfield location (AcG vLblD
y'\ Pleasant Harbor Monitoring l,\blb
Recommended Coastal Monitoring wells (with $/ell Tag No.)
15 Seciion Nurnber (within Township 25 Noilh, Range 2 Vhst)
! Statesman - Pleasant Harbor prop€rty
tol
5
7
't0
a
h
Ivlvv-2
N
.1.
E
S
o
6ood ouod
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
Miles0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75
Figure l: Pleasant Harbor production well and monitoring well locations. IvtW-7 and MW-S are only estimated
locations. Recommended coastal domestic wells are located with a GPS. See Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo I, 2010
for more details. Base map from U.S. Geologic Survey- Brinnon, Washington Quadrangle, 1:24,000 Contour
Interval40 feet (NGVD 29) (Map photo revised 1985)
Lh4/20L0
Page 4
1
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
Pleasant Harbor Aquifer Test
Pleasant Harbor conducted an aquifer test from May 19-20,2008 on the American Campground
(ACG) well (Subsurface Group (SSG), 2008). The ACG well was pumped at a constant rate of
65 gpm for a period of 24 hours. Groundwater levels were monitored in all of the onsite
monitoring wells by hand and datalogger methods. According to Subsurface Group, 2008,
measured drawdown in the pumping well was about 8 feet. Drawdown at a radial distance of 50
feet from the pumping well was only about 0.46 feet. Water levels were recorded in a second
monitoring well (MW-5) at 600 feet from the pumping well. However, no drawdown was
observed in the MW-5 well.
Analysis conducted by SSG and additional analysis by Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG) have
different calculated results for transmissivity but show similar conclusions that the aquifer is
unconfined (SSG, 2008 and PGG, 2009). According to SSG, it was intended to run the constant
rate pump test for 72 hours. However, due to problems with the pump occurring at
approximately 24 hours, the test had to be stopped. Ecology agrees with PGG that the pump test
should have been conducted longer but was sufficient enough since there were signs of delayed
yield,l an indication of an unconfined aquifer (see Figure 2). Pleasant Harbor have agreed to
conduct a longer constant rate test on all new production well (up to 72 hours) to identify the
pump capacity for each well. However, the aquifer test along with PGG's groundwater flow
model is adequate for the impairment analysis. In addition, a preapproved Aquifer Testing Plan
must be submitted to Ecology to verify sampling procedures during the aquifer test (see permit
provisions listed below).
Regardless of PGG' model analysis for pumping continuously at the proposed 300 gpm, Pleasant
Harbor (SSG, 2009) has offered that their wells will only pump up to 300 gpm (peak demand) at
short periods of time during construction. The groundwater demand for the entire resort during
construction, both potable and irrigation, is calculated at 150 gallons per minute on an average
annual basis, with a range over the year of a low of 50 gallons per minute to a peak of 200
gallons per minute average monthly. For the purposes of the impairment analysis, Pleasant
Harbor will reduce this demand on the system by 105 gpm. Therefore, a permit provision is also
included for Pleasant Harbor to pump wells up to 300 gpm only during the construction phase
and reduce well production to 195 gpm after construction of the resort. This Groundwater Right
also relies on Surface Water Right 52-30437 (i.e. with proposed surface water impoundments in
kettles); if a sea water intrusion occurs as a result of groundwater withdrawals.
lB^."d
on Kruseman & de Ridder (1991), delayed yield is shown when the time-drawdown data curves on log-log graph show a typical S-shape,
from which three distinct segments: a steep early-time segment, a flat intermediate-time segment, zurd a relatively steep late-time segment. The
Theis method can be applied to early-time segment of the time-drawdown curve, provided that the data from fie monitoring wells near the
pumping well are used because the drawdown in the distant monitoring wells during this period will often be too small to be measured.
u74l^OLO
Page 5
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
0.1
I
I
\
I I L
!
L
I
0.4
0.5
0,0
)
.3
0
o
U(u
lJ.
E
E
0 I 10 100
Tiure Since Punrpiug (Minutes)
1000 10000
Figure 2: Interpretation of Drawdown Data in MW-4,50 feet from the ACG pumping well (from PGG,2009).
PGG's Groundwater Flow Model
During a meeting held on May 21,2009, Ecology and Pleasant Harbor agreed to have PGG
develop a groundwater flow model to improve the estimation of aquifer transmissivity for the
Black Point peninsula and to estimate distant drawdown from the proposed Pleasant Harbor
groundwater withdrawal on an annual basis. The drawdown analysis also provided predictions of
groundwater under pumping conditions and the potential for saltwater intrusion between the
coastline and the proposed pumping center. Ecology identified monitoring requirements specific
to sea water intrusion, regardless of the predictions made by PGG's model.
Groundwater flow models can be useful for developing an understanding of the hydrogeology of
an area. However, the predictions made are only as accurate as the assumptions and
simplifications that go into the model. ln the case of PGG's Gflow analytical element model
there are a number of assumptions that makes this model limited but is suited for the predicting
hydrogeologic conditions on the Black Point peninsula. The limitations to PGG's analytical
model include:
Llt4l2O7O
Page 6
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
The model could nor be calibrated using SSG's calculated transmissivity (14,000 ftztdayl.
Therefore, PGG had to estimate transmissivity in order to match the targeted heads in
MW-4 and MW-l monitoring wells.
The model also does not accurately identify the bottom of the aquifer in order to fully
evaluate the potential for seawater intrusion. Therefore, without knowing the aquifer
bottom the model could not accurately predict whether the freshwater head will be
sufficient to exclude the saltwater wedge. The ACG well is the deepest well in the area
and penetrated to an elevation of approximately -115 feet MSL without encountering
bedrock or deep low permeability unit. However, PGG identifies that the saltwater wedge
cannot proceed inland beyond locations where freshwater heads are high enough to
displace the saltwater interface below the aquifer bottom.
The model did not include water levels from MW-2 (r.e.,27 ft msl) that are much higher
than water levels representative near the ACG well. The higher water level observed at
the MW-2 well location is most likely due to shallow bedrock in this area, which PGG
simulated in Scenario B of the model.
a
a
a
Ecology and Pleasant Harbor agreed with PGG during the meeting held in May,2009, that the
model would be run with different scenarios that would included the maximum instantaneous
pumping rate (300 gpm) as well as the annual average pumping rate (157 gpm). The maximum
withdrawal was simulated in the model as an expedient means to evaluate seasonal pumping
impacts.
PGG also ran a hybrid steady state/transient simulation which represented year-round pumping at
the annual average rate of 157 gpm plus an additional 143 gpm (total 300 gpm) pumped over
three months during the summer, when saltwater intrusion is most prone to occur.
Scenarios A and B were calibrated by varying the aquifer conductivity (K) until the target
calibration head of 10 feet MSL was matched. Scenario C was calibrated by gradually increasing
both aquifer K and groundwater inflow from the prescribed flux boundary until both calibration
heads were matched. The values of aquifer T shown above were calculated by multiplying
aquifer K by saturated thickness in the middle of the Peninsula. Scenario D employed a fixed T
value of 14,000 ftzld,for general consistency with SSG's late-time aquifer test T estimates, and
was calibrated solely by varying the groundwater inflow from the prescribed flux boundary until
the head target near this boundary was matched.
Scenarios A through C showed good agreement with the calibration targets summarized in PGG
report. However, PGG could not calibrate the model to Scenario D, as predicted heads in the
middle of the peninsula were too low (3.6 as opposed to 6.0 feet above mean sea level). PGG
suggests that the transmissivity value of 14,000 ftztday is likely too high to sustain sufficient
mounding in the interior of the peninsula.
u74l^OLO
PageT
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
Modeling Conclusions
PGG's model results suggest that the saltwater intrusion has the lowest likelihood of occurrence
if pumping is held constant year-round (i.e. onsite storage is used to eliminate significant
seasonal variations) and pumping is distributed over SW 7a SE 7n Section 15, Township 25
North, Range 2 West W.M. With year-round pumping distributed onsite within this quarter
section, model predictions suggest that lateral intrusion to the pumping center could be avoided
as long as the aquifer bottom occurs above -200 to -225 feet msl. Alternatively, if pumping is
concentrated at the ACG Well site and is allowed to vary seasonally up to 300 gpm for several
months at a time, conditions are marginal for avoiding saltwater intrusion. Pleasant Harbor has
agreed to conduct groundwater monitoring from the eight monitoring well locations and from
production wells. All of these wells will be correlated with the ongoing Neighborhood
Monitoring network on the coast (see Pearch, Hydrogelogic Memo Part I, 2010).
Regardless of the limitations to the model, Ecology agrees that the model is only a predictive
tool for simulating drawdown in the aquifer and for evaluating the potential for seawater
intrusion. However, the following is what makes this model valid:
1) The model incorporated the entire Black Point Peninsula approximately 710 acres (1.1
mi2; which is well within the accuracy of analytical element model (Gflow software-
Haitjema,2007).
2) There are no streams subject to an instream flow rule on the Black Point Peninsula. Most
all groundwater discharges to marine waters of the Hood Canal.
3) As many as 30 well logs (from Ecology well log database) were used to estimate the
water balance for the Peninsula. Pleasant Tides Water Coop and Black Point Commercial
Power water systems were also included in the water balance.
4) PGG performed a preliminary water balance, estimating precipitation recharge at
approximately 2,230 acre feet per year (afy) over the entire 710 acre-peninsula and 785
afy over the 250-acre project site on a recharge rate of 37 .7 inlyr. Out of the total
groundwater inflow of 2,230 afy, current groundwater withdrawals were estimated to be
on the order of 47 afy (about 2 percent ofthe total recharge). This water balanced used
the same algorithm as developed in the USGS Deep Percolation Model (DPM).
5) Site specific bedrock geology was applied to the model (i.e., no flow bedrock boundaries
towards the east side of the peninsula to represent shallow bedrock).
6) The model represented an unconfined aquifer with uniform hydraulic conductivity and a
base elevation of -100 feet mean sea level (msl).
7) The model was calibrated to the heads observed in the middle of the peninsula -
specifically heads of about 10 feet NAVD88 near wells MW-3 and MW-4 (SSG, 2008).
The target head value for this area was adjusted to 6 feet relative to msl (mean sea level is
approximately 4.1 feet NGVD). In addition, two versions of the model were also
calibrated to a higher head observed along the western edge ofthe peninsula, (15 feet
NAVD88 in Well MW-l). This higher head is presumably due to "mountain front
L/L4laOLO
Page 8
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
recharge", and was modeled by simulating groundwater inflow along the prescribed flux
boundary. Alternatively, the higher head could be due to geologic conditions underlying
the bottom of the monitoring well.
8) As mentioned above, the saltwater wedge cannot proceed inland beyond locations where
freshwater heads are high enough to displace the saltwater interface below the aquifer
bottom. The saltwater interface elevation is typically estimated with the Ghyben-
Herzberg approximation based on the density of saltwater. While a l:40 ratio between the
freshwater head (above sea level) and the saltwater interface (below sea level) is typically
assumed, a ratio of 1:50 was more appropriately applied to the model. This ratio was
changed to reflect slightly less saline water in the Hood Canal.
9) The model employed a feature included in Gflow to simulate the saltwater interface.
Gflow assumes that the bottom of the freshwater lens (above the saltwater wedge)
represents the bottom of the aquifer. The presence of a saltwater wedge therefore limits
the thickness available for freshwater flow. This correction provides more accurate
prediction ofheads along the coast.
10) The four model scenarios were developed to bracket existing hydrogeologic
understanding and uncertainties about the groundwater flow system. These four versions
of the model were generated to provide a range of "hydrogeologic scenarios" consistent
with available understanding of the groundwater flow system.
Conclusions
Based on the above information, Ecology concludes that:
1) Water is available for the existing and proposed production wells.
2) The proposed wells will not impact surface water.
3) The proposed wells will not be a detriment to the public welfare.
4) There should be no impairment to nearby wells as long as the withdrawals do not exceed 300
gpm (Qi) during the construction phase. After construction, reduction in Qi to 195 gpm of
groundwater withdrawals must be implemented. This water right approval is based on agreement
from Pleasant Harbor who plans monitor groundwater from existing and new monitoring wells.
LlL4laOLO
Page 9
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
References
Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. de Ridder, N.A., 1991, Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data,
Second Edition, Publication 4T,lnternational Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement
Pearch, J. November,2010, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells
on the Black Point Peninsula, Jefferson County, Washington
Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG), June 4, 2009, Technical memorandum, Pleasant Harbor
Modeling Analysis, To Phil Crane, Ecology; From: Peter Schwartzman, PGG
Subsurface Group, LLC, December 17, 2008, Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis,
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Brinnon, Washington, Prepared for Statesman Group,
SDEIS Groundwater v 1-4.
Subsurface Group, LLC, October 20,2009, RE: Response to Pacific Groundwater Group June 4,
2009 Technical Memorandum, Memorandum to Tom McDonald, from Scott Bender
Washington State Department of Health, August, 2001, Water System Design Manual,
Appendix E, Recommended Pumping Test Procedures.
ut4l2OLO
Page 10
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
Based on Pearch's analvsis in the Hvdrogeologic Report Part I and the above analvsis.
Ecologv finds the mitigation proposal to be sufficient to offset impacts and accepts Pleasant
Harbors proposal with the following recommendations and requirements:
The use of the requested allocation of water for municipal and irrigation purposes is consistent
with the public interest. However, because of the risks of seawater intrusion, conditions will be
placed on this water right. It is in the public interest to prevent seawater intrusion, not to treat it
after it occurs. Thus, simple chloride monitoring of existing wells along the coastline and within
Pleasant Harbor property is adequate. While seawater intrusion of existing coastal wells is of
greatest concern, the aquifer below these wells must also be protected.
The cause and true extent of any declines on the Black Point peninsula is uncertain because of
the lack of long-term, continuous water-level data. However, considering that coastal wells show
no sign of extensive lateral seawater intrusion, the proposed withdrawal will be in the public
interest.
Any new allocation in these circumstances must be issued cautiously and with conditions to
assure that no harm to existing water rights or to the public interest occurs as a result. Case law
also exists suggesting that new water rights should be conditioned where there is a "possibility"
that well development might result in sea water intrusion of a domestic supply aquifer.l Since
this development may increase the potential for sea water intrusion, monitoring and testing
measures are necessary to prevent sea water intrusion and are imposed upon this water right.
The monitoring system description and initial data collected will be submitted by Pleasant
Harbor to Ecology for its review and approval within 3 months of the effective date of the Report
of Exam.
I See Hillcrest Water Assoc. v. DOE, PCHB No. 80-128; Bryant v. DOE, PCTIB No. 87-245; Citizens for Sensible Development v. DOE, PCHB
No.9G134.
u74/20L0
Page 11
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
Monitoring Requirements to be inserted into Permit Provisions:
By January 15 of each year, the following information must be submitted in writing to Ecology.
During construction, all production and monitoring wells must be sampled for chloride if
there is a25Vo increase in conductivity. Monitoring wells must be monitored according to
the Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
After construction, all production wells must be sampled quarterly of each year and
include the following:
1) Chloride and electrical conductivity (chloride analysis must be performed by a state-
accredited laboratory)
2) Depth to static water level (with pump off long enough to allow for full recovery)
The chloride/conductivity sampling and the static water level measurement must be
conducted concurrently.
This data collection will assist the applicant and Ecology in determining if actions are
necessary to prevent an increasing trend in chloride concentrations (an indicator of
seawater intrusion). Preventative actions may include - reducing the instantaneous
pumping rate, reducing the annual volume pumped, scheduling pumping to coincide with
low tides, raising the pump intake, and/or limiting the number of service connections.
The monitoring program will continue for ten years after full build-out.
Pleasant Harbor must implement their Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Pleasant Harbor
Groundwater Monitoring Plan has additional specifications in addition to those specified in these
provisions.
Additional recommendation to be inserted as a Permit Provision:
Before the testing of any production well, an Aquifer Testing Plan must be submitted and
approved by Ecology.
Upon completion of construction, this water right must reduce the instantaneous quantity (Qi)
from 300 gpm to 195 gpm. As soon as surface water impoundments are built for Water Right
Permit 52-30437, these must be exercised concurrently with groundwater withdrawals in Water
Right permit G2-30436.
Recommendations to be included in Pleasant Harbor's Groundwater Monitoring Plan:
Comments for construction of new production wells and additional aquifer testing:. Any new production wells must be constructed into the Sea Level aquifer and located
near the ACG Well, within SW 7+ SE 7+ Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West
W.M. It is not recommended to construct a well in the proposed location at the MW-2
monitoring well site.
LlL4l2010
Page 12
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
o Production wells must be constructed in accordance with Chapter 173-160 WAC.
o See above permits provisions for submitting an Aquifer Testing Plan, which must include
the following:
o A minimum 72hour aquifer test will be conducted at each new production wells.
o It is recommended that Pleasant Harbor use guidelines specified in the
Washington State Department of Health Water System Design Marutal, Appendix
E, Recommended Pumping Test Procedures.
o All production wells are recommended to be pumped simultaneously at a constant
pumping rate, at the designed pump capacity of each well (not to exceed 300
gpm)'
o All wells will be sampled for chloride concentrations and electrical conductivity
during the pump tests.
o All new production wells and the existing ACG well must obtain an initial static
water level before performing the aquifer test.
o A measuring point on all new production wells must accurately locate within 10
feet horizontally and 0.1 foot vertically.
o A licensed hydrogeologist in the State of Washington must be present when
conducting any pump tests on the production wells.
Comments for new and existing monitoring wells:o The two new monitoring wells (MW-7 and MW8) must be constructed into the Sea Level
aquifer and located as specified in Figure I or Table L All new monitoring wells must
accurately locate a measuring point within 10 feet horizontally and 0.1 foot vertically.o Monitoring wells must be constructed in accordance with Chapter 173-160 WAC.. Monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-5 must only be used for the purpose they were
constructed, as resource protection wells. These monitoring wells were constructed
without a proper surface seal. However, both these resource protection wells were
required to have a surface seal from the top of the screen to land surface. Water levels
observed from these wells (and future monitoring) are less valuable but are still valid for
the use of the aquifer test and future monitoring.
The following are additional requirements to include in Pleasant Harbor's Groundwater
Monitoring Plan (Comments on Scott Bender (SSG) Memorandum to Tom McDonald,
December 22,2009)zo Dataloggers that record groundwater pressure will be installed at VWP-1, VWP-3, M-W-
5 and MW-6. Dataloggers that measure both groundwater pressure and fluid conductivity
(which can be correlated to salinity) will be installed at MW-2, MW-4,IvtW-7 and MW-
8. These units will record groundwater measurements on a 0.5 hour basis. The
dataloggers will be downloaded every two months during construction season and
quarterly in the winter months when there will be minimal well use.
Comment: Static water levels must also be measured manually during these download periods in
each monitoring wells to establish a reference datum (elevation above mean sea level).
tlL4l2O7O
Page 13
Pearch, Hydrogeologic Memo Part II: Aquifer test review and monitoring requirements
o About one month before construction and during the entire monitoring period specified
above, dataloggers will be connected to all of the wells at the site.
Comment: The connection of dataloggers to the wells must include at least one month before
construction of all production wells and construction of the surface water impoundment in the
kettles.
o During construction, chloride will be collected from the two water supply wells, MW-4,
MW-7 and MW-8 if an anomalous conductivity trend is observed.
Comment: Ecology views an anomalous conductivity trend as follows: If there is an increase in
conductivity by 25Vo from the previous measurement, Pleasant Harbor must sample for chlorides
once as soon as possible in that same well.
o All samples will be sent to an accredited laboratory for analysis of chloride.
Comment: Sampling chloride should follow guidelines specified in: Washington State
Department of Health, Water System Design Manual, Appendix E, Recommended Pumping Test
Procedures.
o After construction and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor resort, the dataloggers will be
downloaded quarterly. Water quality samples will be collected from the supply wells
quarterly.
Comment: This is included into permit provisions (see above).
o This program will be continued for five years or until the resort has achieved full build-
out; at which time the monitoring plan will be adjusted based on the results of the
program. The data will be transmitted to Ecology for their review.
Comment: See above permit provisions. Ecology requires that monitoring frequency only be
adjusted 10 years after full build-out, when it is known that construction or full build-out shows
no increase in chlorides.
Additional comments to the Pleasant harbor's Groundwater Monitoring Plan:. All water level data must be submitted to Ecology in electronic form (e.g. spreadsheet)
and must be in feet above mean sea level (Datum NAVD 88).. All lab results must be submitted to Ecology by January 15 the following year.o Pleasant Harbor should follow these guidelines for measuring static water levels in wells:
Ecology, Standard Operating Procedures for Manual Well-Depth and Depth-to-Water
Measurements
http://www.ecv.wa.eov/proerams/eaplqaldocs/ECY EAP SOP O52ManualWellDepth&
DepthtoWaterMeasures v 1 0.pdf
Pleasant Harbor should follow these guidelines for groundwater sampling for chloride
and electrical conductivity: http://water.usss. sov/owq/FieldManual/
Pleasant Harbor should develop a Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan that is similar to
the QAPP developed by Pearch (August, 2OO9). The SOP's specified above must also be
included in the QAPP.
Additional recommendations for sampling from domestic wells can be found in Pearch,
Hydrogeologic Memo Part I, 2010.
a
a
a
LlL4l2O7O
Page 74
Pearch, December,2009, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
Water Level Elevation and Tidal Stage - Well BBB054
8 O Manual MeasurementSWL (ftmsl)
-Pressure
Transducer Water Level (ft
msl)
-PortTownsend
Tides (observed ft MS L)
8
6 6
4
4
2
Jz
=
o>oo
J
o
G3^-t
0
tt
=
E
(,
o
PF
2
-4
-4
-6
-8-6
ooc{
ooq
ooq
oooqr
ooq
oooct
6
6oo(:.aq
tr'igurc 9: Water level and Tidal Stage at wefl BBB054. Water kvels were measured lrom a prcssure traNducer which determin€d a continuous waler
level fluctuation of approximately 5 fe€t in 24 houls due to tidal influence of lhe Hood Canal. This water level indicat€s well pumlng influence where the
water levels are vertical. Pressue tralsdlcer rras hung approximately 16 feet below top of lhe well (approximately -5 ft MSL).
Page | 1
Pearch, December,2009, Hydrogeologic Memo Part I: Chloride Sampling in Domestic Wells on Black Point Peninsula
-Pressure
Transducer waterlevels (ft MSL)
a Manual Measurement SWt (ftMSt)
-Port
Townsend Tides (obserued)
I
WellWater Levels and Tidal Stage - Well BBB051
ooo
N
N
@
6
4
2
J
=
1O uo
Ett
F
-4
-6
-8
-10
3
2.9
2.8
7.7
= 2.6
=g
3 z.soJ
o
67 z.q
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
oooN
@
@
ooo
N
o
€
oooN
oN
o
6ooN
@
oooN
t
@
oooN
m
oooN
o
6
Figurr 10: Water level ard Tidal Stage at well BBB05I. Water I-evels werc measured ftom a prcssure lransducer which determined a continuous water
level fluctuation of apploximately 0.2 feet in 24 bouls due to tidal influence of lhe Hood Canal. This water level indicates well pumping influence where
the water levels vertica.l. Prcssurc tratrsducer was hung approximately ?5 feet below top of the well (approximately -21 ff MSL).
Page | 2
I
I
APPENDIX A Table 1: Previous chloride of Black Point Peninsula domestic wells.
Previous Iab
results Date
Prcvious tab
pcyious Lab Conducitivity
chlofde (mimsiemens/c
Map No
(see
Owner
Black Point Road
Anstiss or Gene Kneeland
Black Point Rd - 5 house well
Black Point Road
Wysenberyer - domesticwell
Robinson Road
Wysenberger - lnltatlon well
Robinson Road
Robinson
Robinson Road
Robinson
Robinson Road
Myhre
BBBO51
ACY954
888057
no previous chloride sampling
5
Method Used
sM450GCt E (KW)
5M450GC| B
sM450GCl B
sM450GCl-D
2
3
10 G aul
Robinson Road
Beattie
- DomesticWell
r Road
to/4lts,s
LOl2!2W
519lt*5
rolt9/19p,8
t]/t9l2m1
7aa7e6
73131179€E
8/eh9f8
8/91t96a
AGR712
AFT6O5
888053
888052
AGC522
888055
888054
BB8056
150
<20.0)
no previous chloride samplint
no previous chloride sampling
4/7!2m1 <(s.0)
no previous chloride sampling
7/2U2M 5.2
no previous chloride sampling
no previous chloride sampling
no previous chloride sampling
A8Al12 9/29/19Pa 120s3
ABR318 818/2@t s
Twiss Analytical Laboratories, lnc.
verbal reported by Phyllis Weisenburger
Twiss Analytical Laboratories, lnc.
Twiss Analytical Laboratories, lnc.
Cascade Analytical Service
Twiss AnalWical Laboratories, lnc.
Water Management Laboratories lnc.
Twiss Analytical Laboratories, lnc.
Water Management Laboratories lnc.
Twiss Analytical Laboratories, lnc.
Twiss Analytical Laboratories, lnc.
USGS sampled in (walte6, 197l report)
USGS sampled in (walteE, l9Tl report)
4
s
6
7
8
9
11
t2
13
Porte r
ack Point Road
Tides well
Point Road
Iv'larley - 1@ Rhododendron Ln
Thompson - 1G5 Black Point Rd
Ronald Holsman - 280 Rhododendron tn
Louie Cook - Cormorant Way
160 Ouckabush Park
CooperT2sN, R2W, Sec 14 SWV4SW V4
ABZ509
AFI763
ACY954
4
5.56
4
2
19.5
92
1.3
sM4SGCl B
41108
sM450GCl B
471
85F.M. Millard T25N, R2W, Sec 15 Nw V4 NE V4
Page | 3
7
APPENDTX A Table 2: Static Water Level (SWL) measurement results of Black Point Peninsula domestic wells taken on August 13, August 14, or August
79,2OO9. Table includes information obtained from well rt or from rsonal communication with the owners.
Well tog well
Static Head Stickup
mter Autust Autust Elevation Hght (ft
well log level (ft samplint samplint {ft msll aboe
Owner Well Co.well well Date SWL Dat€Date Time Lidar
(tmnsduc€rinstalledl olympic Drilling
Map No
(see
1
July, rgrc
usl2@L
?
APPROX 12,/1989
!261zm't
tLltlty)o
812011988
openhole38ft July,1970
1+nft zlslz@L
12lLlL9E9
1t26l2m
15:20
12:57
13:51
14t27
16t12
11.3{r
11.38
L2.4t
Static
Water
Lewl (ft swt {Ft
1.5 5.91 3.87
1.6 6.94
lftapprox NOSWLaccess
well
Depth
well
Depth(ft scEen/Perf
BBBO5l
AGR712
AFT66
BB863
BB862
AGC522
BB865
BBB@I
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
lU2lL92 97 -46.9 open hole 97ft tlghgz 14.1 el,3,l2fr}, 1o3o s1.9 L8 47.65 2.4s
Black Point Road
Point Community Well Stoicn Drilling Co.
Elack Point Rd - 5 house well
Evans Arcadia Drilling lnc.
Black Point Road
domesticwell no well log available
Robinson Road
- inigation well Mel Williams Drilling ln
Robinson Road
Robinson Mel Williams DrillinS ln
Robinson Road
Robinson Olympic Ddlling Co.
Robinson Road
Mytrre r (transducer installed) Maberry Well Drilling
Robinson Road
Beattie
Cormorant Way
Maberry Well Drilling 88866
8/20lt98a 6.07
8/1s/2w
t/r3/2w
8lt3l20fE
8lL3lzmE
8/Lsl20fp
8173.l20fB
8h4l2W
8lr4l2cc9
8lrel2@
8/tel2w
8h4l2w
51.9
25.95
1.8
I
47.8 ).f
NO sWL access88
80
40f
2s*
v
4
40
2
3
4
5
6
7
-61.05
-68.62
0.95
3.78
8173/2w
8lL3l2m9 15;26 12.43 lftapprox NOSWLacess-0.57
4.92*A
29 -17.73 open hole 29ft
bulk head on shoreline is 10.5feet
16:r{)
L2t55
lLt47
NO SWLaccess
1.5 6.62
NO SWLaccess
-22.86
-22.86
-27.83
tt.t4
71.t4
12.t7
3.O2
5,D
6.17
3.35
3.42
s.Gt
2.1
\7r
2.3L
2.4L
2.7L
9
10
April,1994
t2/17/L998
s/7/7978
212O17998
2$
51
28
58
-48.52 231-236ft 4l2ulw 6.18
10:10
t2:25
11:35
13:25
13:07
72.17
12.77
72.17
72.77
187.44
-0.9
-o9
-0.9
-0.9
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.05
7.25
L.25
0.8
7.74
6.9
9.72
9.65
181.15
8.5
52.8
52.5
11
72
1?
Olympic Drilling ACY954
property used by a trailer
Gaul - DomesticWell - nosample HoodCanal Drilling
inson Road
BBB057
Porter - no samples taken Tillia well Drilling ABA112
Black Point Road
Gaul
Cormorant
Tides
nt Road
-226.28 open hole Tft rzlfillw 4.92 th4lz0fD 2142
8l19l2@ 14:10
8173l2w
sltslzcfg
74o..72
7M.72
136.82
t37.2t
-16.14 23-2aft 412917978 2.81 U19l2w t2tl7 11.86
-1.54 ta-58 21201799,8 4t.75 10:18
14:N
56.46
56.6
Hood Canal Drilling ABR3I8 yes L!2617974 214 -85.91 205-210 1U22/L974 9.29 8/7o12ffi 15:00 128.09
* lndicates depth was given to Ecology from property owner. No well log was available for this well
Poi
135.1 -7.81
pumping?
Page | 4
8
APPENDIX A Table 3: Chloride water
Map No (see
(transducer installed)
Black Point Road
Point Community Well
Black Point Rd - 5 house well
Evans
Black Point Road
Wysenberger - domestic well
Robinson Road
Wys€nberger - irrigation well
Robinson Road
Robinson
Robinson Road
Robinson
250 Robinson Road
Roger Myhre t (transducer installedl
2zl8 Robinson Road
Hal Beattie
Cormorant Way
xen Gaul
256 Cormorant -
rented property used by a trailer
Ken Gaul - Domestic Well
Robinson Road
Ben Porter
1117 Black Point Road
Pleasant Tides Well
Black Point Road
exceeded
field test
kit >4(x)
8ll4l2ffi 3:41 ACY954 mg/L
BBB057 No Augst, 2009sample
ABA112 No Augst, 2009 sample
8/to/2w 1s:00 ABR318
643 3500 10300 0908ry8-010
Gn804&01
0:10804&02
0!n804&03
0!n804&05
090804&ql
0908048-06
090804&08
090801&07
0908048-09
Wate r Manage ment Laboratories lnc.
Sampled by Washington Water Service Co.
1
results of Black Point Peninsula domestic wells taken on 13 and August 2009
Chloride Conductivity Chloride Conductivity
(mC/U Field reading (mglt) Lab results
Field Hach (microsiemens Manchester (micromhos/
Well testkit Lab results Manchester lab Number
8/13/2W t1:29 BBB051 10
10
10
10
2
3
4
aBlzw
8/13/2ffi
8lr3lzcfE
!2:57
74:2L
t6:12
t5:26
16:tO
7l:47
10:55
13:59
3054
230
729
26t
116
2.t8
z.t3
2.3L
3.23
a92
5.25
25.8
26.1
2.55
2
3110
7t2
AGR712
AFT6O5
BBBO53
exceeded
field test
kit >400
BBBO52 melL
AGC522 1G15 mc,/L
BBB055 <4Omg/L
BBBOAI 3G35m&/L
888056 <10mg/L
m\
137
119
375
5
6
7
8
9
10
8lt3l2m9
8lt3lzffi
8lL3l2c09
87412ffi
8174l2cfD
11
t2
L3
Pleasant Tides Property Owners Association well is a municipal well.-
Page | 5
Appendix A: Table 4: Latitude and Longitude Coordinates of Domestic Water Wells sampled in August, 2009
Map No. Ecology Well Tag lD Latitude Longitude
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
9
10
7L
L2
BBB051
AGR712
AFT6O5
BBB053
BBB052
AGC522
BBBO54
BBB055
BBB056
ACY954
BBBO57
ABA112
47.65674358s
47.650869631
47.65N77203
47.651863476
47.6512639L4
47.65193875t
47.65772938t
47.65LL4L970
47.65L392335
47.652298295
47.657669333
47.655960267
-122.90744487L
-L22.903455745
-122.903627708
-122.926232894
-t22.926037261
-122.9265M814
-122.924614785
-722.924572035
-t22.922029L63
-122.925489543
-722.925566U9
-122.90s029559
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates collected using a GPS Trimble GeoXT (datum NAD83)
Page | 6
APPENDIX B: Individual Sample Results
Eastern coastline of the Black Point Peninsula
1) The Boling/Porter well (BBB051) was sampled for chlorides and continuous water level
reading was recorded to adjust for tides in this area. Chloride analysis from the Manchester
Lab was at2.45 mg/L which is below the background chloride concentration. The static
water level was manually measured on August 13, 2009 (2.45 tt MSL) and August 19,2009
(2.30). The elevation of this well is at 51.9 ft MSL. This well is recommended for inclusion
in the Pleasant Harbor monitoring network sampling for chloride and specific conductance.
See the Tidal Effects section on how this well is tidally influenced.
2) The Black Point Community Well (AGR712) was sampled for chlorides on August 13,2009.
However, a static water level measurement could not be obtained because there was no
access port on the well cap. Chloride analysis from the Manchester Lab was at2.l3 mglL
which is below the background chloride concentration. Previous chloride sampling of this
well (<5.0 mgfL, DSHS Public Health Laboratories, October, 1985) indicates that chlorides
have been stable in this area. The elevation of this well is at26.95 ft MSL. It is recommended
that a new well cap with an access port be installed on this well in order to measure static
water levels. This well is recommended for inclusion in the Pleasant Harbor monitoring
network.
3) The Evans well (AFT605) was sampled for chlorides on August 13, 2009. Chloride analysis
from the Manchester Lab was at2.3l mg/L which is below the background chloride
concentration. The static water level was measured once prior to sampling for chloride on the
same sampling date (3.87 ft MSL). Previous chloride sampling of this well (<20.0 mglL,
Twiss Analytical, October, 1985) indicates that chlorides have been stable in this area. The
elevation of this well is at I 1.38 ft MSL.
l2)The Porter domestic well (ABA112) was only measured for static water levels. Chloride was
not sampled for this well since it was not connected to a water spigot for sampling. The static
water level was measured twice on August l3,2OO9 (2.41 tt MSL) and August 19,2009
(2.71 ft MSL). The elevation of this well is at 56.46 ft MSL, based on LIDAR elevation data
(Puget Sound LIDAR Consortium,2002). Previous sampling of this well indicates an
extremely high chloride concentration of 12,053 mg/L (Cascade Analytical Services,
September, 1998). This well is currently not being used by the property owner.
Southwestern coastline of Black Point Pentnsula
4) The Wiesenburger domestic well (BBB053) was sampled for chlorides August 13,2009.
However, a static water level measurement could not be obtained because there was no
access port on the well cap. Chloride analysis from the Manchester Lab was at3.23 mglL
which is below the background chloride concentration. The elevation of this well is at 12.4 ft
MSL.
5) The Wiesenburger irrigation well (BBB052) was sampled for chlorides on August 13,2009.
However, a static water level measurement could not be obtained because there was no
access port on the well cap. The elevation of this well is at 12.4 ft MSL. Chloride analysis
Page | 7
from the Manchester Lab was at892 mg/L which exceeded the background chloride
concentration. This well is causing upconing in the salt water wedge, resulting in salt water
intrusion. However, it is not certain if a lateral saltwater inffusion is occurring since this well
depth is not certain (owner reports to be only 25 feet). No testing results of chloride or
specific conductance could be retrieved from the well driller to identify if the well was
originally drilled near the natural zone of diffusion. Even though his well is only being used
for irrigation, it is recommended pumping this well be reduced to prevent lateral saltwater
intrusion in nearby domestic wells. Jefferson County should report this high chloride
concentration in this well and update the SIPZ accordingly.
6) The Robin Robinson domestic well (AGC522) was sampled for chlorides on August 13,
2009. Chloride analysis from the Manchester Lab was 5.25 mg/L which is below the
background chloride concentration. However, this well could not be located during the
sampling day. The well was located on August 19,209 and a static water level was measured
(3.02ttMSL). Previous chloride sampling of this well (<5.0 mg/L on October, 1985)
indicates that chlorides have been stable in this well. The elevation of this well is at 11.14 ft
MSL.
7) The Chuck Robinson domestic well (BBB055) was sampled for chlorides on August 14,
2009. However, a static water level measurement could not be obtained because there was no
access port on the well cap. The elevation of this well is at 12.11 ft MSL. Chloride analysis
from the Manchester Lab was at26.8 mg/L which slightly exceeds the background chloride
concentration.
8) The Myrhe's domestic well (BBB054) was sampled for chlorides on August14,2009 anda
continuous water level reading was recorded to adjust for tides in this area. Chloride analysis
from the Manchester Lab was at26.l mg/L which slightly exceeds the background chloride
concentration. Previous chloride sampling of this well (5.2 mg/L on July, 2004) indicates an
increase in chlorides and this well is at risk of sea water intrusion. The static water level was
manually measured on August 14,2OO9 (5.29 ft MSL) and on August 19,2009 (3.42).The
elevation of this well is at 12.77 ft MSL. This well is recommended for inclusion in Pleasant
Harbor's monitoring network sampling for chloride and specific conductance. See the Tidal
Effects section on how this well is tidally influenced.
9) The Beattie domestic well (8B8056) was sampled for chlorides on August 14,2009.
Chloride analysis from the Manchester Lab was at2.55 mgil which is below the background
chloride concentration. The static water level was measured once prior to sampling for
chloride on the same sampling date (5.03 ft MSL). The elevation of this well is at 187 ft
MSL. This well is recommended for inclusion in Pleasant Harbor monitoring network
sampling for chloride and specific conductance.
10) The Gaul deep domestic well (ACY954) was sampled for chlorides on August 14, 2009. The
static water level was measured on August 14,2009 (2.10 ft MSL) and on August l9,2OO9
( I .71 ft MSL). The elevation of this well is at 140.7 ft MSL. Chloride analysis from the
Manchester Lab was 3,500 mg/L which far exceeds the background chloride concentration
Page | 8
and drinking water standards. The property owner that the pump was lifted approximately 40
feet higher about a month prior to the August sampling. However, lifting the pump setting
above the bottom of the well should have improved water quality. Regardless, the well is also
coincidently experiencing saltwater intrusion (most likely local upcoming of the saltwater
wedge). However, it is not certain if a lateral saltwater intrusion is occurring since no other
wells are drilled at this depth (367 feet into glacial material). No testing results of chloride or
specific conductance could be retrieved from the well driller to determine if the well was
originally drilled near the natural zone of diffusion. Based on conversation with the property
owner, this well did not have a salty taste until July, 2009 and plants died as a result of
irrigating with the water.
Since the chloride concentration was very high and the well is already intruded, it is not
recommended that Pleasant Harbor include this well in their monitoring network. However,
the chloride concentration analyzed suggests that sea water intrusion is a high risk at this
close proximity (approximately 400 fee0 to the coast. The static water levels were also
approaching mean sea level which suggests vulnerability to sea water intrusion. It is
recommended that the property owner contact Jefferson County Public Health to determine if
monitoring for chlorides should continue if this well has domestic use. If the property owner
wants to continue to use this well, it is also recommended that chloride levels and water
levels be monitored until DOH drinking water standards (less than 250 mgtL) are reached.
11) The Gaul shallow domestic well (BBB057) was only measured for static water levels on
August 19,209(2.3lttMSL).Theelevationof thiswellis atll.9 ftMSL.Thelocationof
this well is next to the hillside, similar to the location of AGC522, and had a similar static
water level to BBB057. Chloride was not sampled in this well, since a representative number
of other domestic wells nearby had already been sampled.
Northwest portion of Black Point Peninsula
13) Pleasant Tides well (ABR318) was also sampled for chloride by the Washington Water
Services Company on August I0,2009. This well is one of three that withdraw groundwater
under Water Right Certificates G2-23623 and G2-21134 with a combined instantaneous
quantity of 85 gpm and annual quantity of 120 acre-feet per year. Chloride analysis from the
Water Management Laboratories was at2.0 mgtL, below the background chloride
concentration. The static water level for this well was also measured by Washington Water
Services Company on August 10, 2009. However, this water level was reported to be at 135
ft, l0 feet below the top of the casing (-7.81 ft MSL). This water level measured by
Washington Water Services most likely suggests interference from other nearby Pleasant
Tides wells. The elevation of this well is at 128 ft MSL. Washington Water Services also
reported water levels fluctuating between -4 to -7 feet MSL (132 to 135 ft btoc) throughout
the year. Previous chloride sampling of this well has been reported to be 5.0 mg/L or less,
indicating chlorides have been stable in this area as a result of the production of all three
Pleasant Tides wells. (Twiss Analytical Laboratories, August, 2OO1; Twiss Analytical
Laboratories, May, 1998; TestAmerica Laboratories, 1995; and Washington State Public
Health Laboratories, June, 1987)
Page | 9
Due to time constraints, additional domestic wells located on the Black Point Peninsula were not
sampled or field verified. However, one well that was previously sampled and reported to
Jefferson County indicated chloride concentrations suggesting risk from sea water intrusion. In
1999, well ACY964 (the Loring well) had a chloride concentration of 19.5 mg[L. This level is
approaching the assumed background chloride concentration. If accessible, with permission from
the property owner, it is recommended that Pleasant Harbor include this well in their monitoring
network to determine background chloride concentrations.
Other wells that were not sampled during this study elsewhere on the Peninsula may also be at
risk from saltwater intrusion. It is recommended that Pleasant Harbor contact these property
owners to see if they are interested in testing their wells for chloride and specific conductance.
Page | 10
APPENDIX C
Jefferson County should report and update the following wells into the Seawater Intrusion Protion Zone (SWZ) database and map
accordingly as specified in Jefferson County Ordinance No. 09-0923-02: Well ABA112 should also be reported and updated into the
SIPZ since the previous lab results (1998) indicates a potential sea water intrusion.
lab
Ken Gaul
Al and Phyllis Wiesenburger
Ben Porter
s02153031
502153041
ACY954
BBBO52
T 25 N, R2W, Sec 15, SW, SW
T 25 N, R2W, Sec 15 SW, SW
Coordinates (trom GPS - Results
Oatum NAD
47.652298t295, - r22.925489s43
47. 6st263974, - 122.92@'37 26L
Accredited tab
81 1.41 @ 3t4L PM Ecology Manchester Lab
8l L3l @ 3:26 PM Ecology Manchester Lab
91291 7998 Cascade Analytical Seruice
Cormorant Way
Robinson Road
3500
ABAL12 Domestic Well T 25 N, R2W, Sec 14, SW, NW 47.6559@267, -122.905029559 12,053
Domestic Well
lrrigatlon Well 892
Black Point Road 502143006
Page | 11