HomeMy WebLinkAboutM041194
,
MINUTES
WEEK OF APRIL 11,1994
After Chairman Robert Hinton met with the Auditor and Treasurer for a Finance
Committee meeting from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. he called the meeting to order in the presence of
Commission Glen Huntingford and Commission Richard Wojt.
COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes
of the March 14, 1994 meeting as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Reappointment to the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Committee:
Commissioner Wojt moved to reappoint Harriet Small to another two year term on the Port
Townsend Community Center Advisory Board (term will expire 4/11/96.) Commissioner Hun-
tingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Reappointment to the Open Space Advisory Board: Commissioner Wojt moved to
reappoint Herb Beck to another four year term on the Open Space Advisory Committee (term will
expire 4/11/98.) Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
GMA Update: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd reported that the public hearing on
the Forest and Mineral Land ordinances is being postponed from April 18, 1994 to April 25, 1994
because of an error in the publication. Commissioner Huntingford moved to allow the public
comment period for these ordinances to remain open until April 29, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. Commis-
sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Zoning Ordinance - The Planning Commission has asked Rick Sepler to rewrite his draft lA of
the Zoning Ordinance to address their non-specific comments about this ordinance. The redrafted
ordinance will be submitted directly to the Board with a copy to the Planning Commission.
Hiring temporary Planning staff to work on portions of the Comprehensive Plan - Steve Ladd
reported that he expects to hire two additional temporary Planning staff members to work on
certain sections of the Comprehensive Plan update. He reported that he is still working to find
college interns to work on this project also.
The Planning Commission is ready to go with goals and objectives for. the Comprehensive Plan
update. He supports a suggestion that a joint BoardlPlanning Commission workshop on goal
VOL
20 rACE 635
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
setting be scheduled. The discussion continued regarding the approach the County should take
with regard to the Comprehensive Plan update and how the work of the community planning
groups will fit into it.
Lesa Barnes updated the Board on the meetings scheduled for the community planning groups and
the Planning Commission. Chairman Hinton asked if a summary is being put together of the
comments received on the Critical Areas Ordinance? Steve Ladd will check with James Holland
about the status of this.
Commissioner Wojt asked about the organization and membership of the community planning
groups? Steve Ladd will check with Robin McClelland about the updates that were to be made to
the "Blue Book." This book was to govern the operations of the community planning committees
in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff will check into the status
of this book.
Gary Rowe introduced Susan Drum who is working with the Public Works Department on the
capital facilities and transportation plans.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Discussion included the following: the amount of
income from the campground at the Lake Leland Park; the Parks grant program and the need for
Little Leagues to submit five year plans; the timeframe for adoption of the CAO and the success
of the Board's liOn the Road" meeting in Quilcene last week.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Wojt moved to adopt and approve items 1 through 11 and to delete items 12 and 13. Commis-
sioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 38-94 re: In the Matter of Increasing the Cash Drawer Amount for
Jefferson County Animal Services; Increase from $20 to $60.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 39-94 re: In the Matter of Decreasing the Petty Cash Fund for the
Planning Department - Long Range Planning Division; Decreased from $250 to $150.
3. Final Approval; Steven Price Short Plat #SP13-92; Two Lot Short Plat; Off of Flagler Road;
Steven Price, Proponent
4. RESOLUTION NO. 40-94 re: Establishing the alternative date for 1995 Budget Submissions,
Review Hearings and Final Adoption
5.. RESOLUTION NO. 41-94 re: Authorizing the Submission of a "Planning Only" Grant
Application for Quilcene Community Center
6. RESOLUTION NO. 42-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Flagler Road
7. RESOLUTION NO. 43-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Flagler Campground
Road
8. RESOLUTION NO. 44-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Marrowstone Point
Drive
9. RESOLUTION NO. 45-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Wansboro Road
10. RESOLUTION NO. 46-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Station Prairie Road
11. RESOLUTION NO. 47-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Archery Lane
12. DELETE Approve and Sign Addendum re: Modified Findings, Conclusions, and Order; Final Modified Determination of Non-
Significance; To Develop a Five (5) Acre Parcel as a 27 Space Recreational Vehicle Park; Located Near the Intersection of
lrondale Road and Rhody Drive; Firwood RV Park; Robert F. Sahli, Applicant
13. DELETE Request to Display Artwork in the Halls of the Courthouse; Jefferson Community Counseling Center - Harbor House
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Briefing
Request and Recommendation of the Parks Advisory Board; Parks Grant Proe:ram
Request $5.240.00 for Youth Sailine: Proe:ram; Wooden Boat Foundation: Scott Swantner,
. ~ 01..
20 UŒroÐ
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Director of the Wooden Boat Foundation introduced Jim Maupin, President and Nancy Rohl
Chairman of the Community Grants Program for the Parks Advisory Board. Mr. Swantner
reported that the Foundation has formulated a youth sailing program and submitted a request to
the County Parks Grant program to purchase the boats and trailer. Since it is not known how
well this pilot program will go over with area youth, he reported that if it doesn't work as
expected the Wooden Boat Foundation would sell the boats and the trailer and give the proceeds
back to the Parks Grant program.
Commissioner Huntingford asked how much continuing support would be needed for this program
if this start up funding is approved? Mr. Swantner stated that the continuing support for advertis-
ing. If the program is a success this year, it can generate some of its own funds. He reported
that the continued support for advertising would be about $800 per year or less. Commissioner
Huntingford asked if the program is being offer to just County residents? Mr. Swantner answered
that this pilot program will be offered just in the County. If there are too many kids for the
number of boats, they will try to get more boats.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Wooden Boat Foundation has insurance to cover this
program? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the County is not liable if all that is
provided is funding. Mr. Maupin answered that the Wooden Boat Foundation will add this
program to their insurance.
Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the request as submitted and recommended for the Wooden
Boat Foundation youth sailing program. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion.
Chairman Hinton pointed out that this is approval for the request for this year only. The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Application for Franchise: Construct. Operate and Maintain a
Pressure Emuent Line: South Point Road: AI Schoenfeld. Applicant: Bob Henderson reported
that Al Schoenfeld had this franchise approved in 1991 for a line to run on Blue Jay Lane. Mr.
Schoenfeld now wants the line to run on South Point Road. He then reviewed the conditions of
the franchise and recommend approval with a 150% construction bond and a wavier of the surety
bond because the PUD is to take over this system in the future.
Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing and closed it since there was no public was present.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the franchise as submitted and recommended for AI
Schoenfeld. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Community Center Grant Request: Gardiner Community Center: Commissioner
Wojt moved to approve the request for community center grant funds from the Gardiner Com-
munity Center. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote
on the motion. Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion.
Chairman Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried.
Approve and Sie:n Addendum re: Modified Findine:s. Conclusions. and Order:
Final Modified Determination of Non-Sie:nificance: To Develop a Five (5) Acre Parcel as a
27 Space Recreational Vehicle Park: Located Near the Intersection of Irondale Road and
Rhody Drive: Firwood RV Park: Robert F. Sahli. Applicant: Commissioner Wojt moved to
approve and sign the modified findings, conclusions and order for the FiIwood RV Park.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion.
Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Chairman Hinton voted
against the motion. The motion carried.
Request to Display Artwork in the Halls of the Courthouse: Jefferson Community
Counseline: Center - Harbor House: After discussion of the precedent that approving this type
of request might set, Commissioner Huntingford moved to deny it. The Chairman called for a
vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
~OL
20 UG~637
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applications for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Wojt
moved to approve the two applications for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund submitted by
American Legion Post #26 in the amounts of $200.00 and $250.00. Commissioner Huntingford
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
BID OPENING re: One (1) New Wheel Tractor with Front Loader and Backhoe
(public Works): Earl Wells, Public Works Operations Manager, opened and read the following
bid received:
BIDDER:
Western Power and Equipment, Auburn
BID TOTALS:
$56,160,97
Commissioner Wojt moved to accept the bid from Western Power and Equipment after the Public
Works Department checks the bid for accuracy. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Opportunity to Comment on Community Development and Housine:
Needs and Review of Application for a CDBG Plan nine: Only Grant; Clallam Jefferson
Community Action Council: Lee Tickell, Director of the Clallam Jefferson Community Action
Council reported that this public hearing is to receive comments on a Planning Only Grant request
for a Community Development Block Grant. He reported that the Board approved another grant
request on the consent agenda this morning for this same type of grant. There can only be one
such application submitted per jurisdiction. He explained that their request is for the development
of an office building that can house both the CAC and the Jefferson Community Counselling
offices. The next grant application cycle is October which would delay the planning for this
proj ect substantially.
Commissioner Wojt asked where the funding will come from to construct this building? Lee
Tickell reported that part of the planning under this grant request would be to explore funding for
construction of this facility. Chip Barker, Jefferson Community Counselling added that there may
be other non-profit corporations that would consider renting in this same building.
Commissioner Wojt suggested that the non-profit groups get together to discuss their grant needs
and set a priority for what group will submit for grants at any specific time.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
AI Boucher stated that he thought that this hearing was for low income housing which it is not.
He noted that he is somewhat familiar with the hospital situation and he doesn't feel that the
CAC will necessarily be evicted from the County's building. The hospital should be asked for a
determination on this. He urged that the County indicate whether or not funding will be supplied
for the construction before the grant application is approved.
Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. The Chairman suggested
that CAC discuss this issue with the group working on the Quilcene Community Center grant
application to see if they can delay submitting their application until October.
Superior Court Jude:e William Howard re: Bude:et Concerns: Judge Howard
reported that due to a drug trial involving some hispanic defendants the County is over it's budget
for interpreters. He added that a State law was passed that in 1995 the County is required to pay
half of the cost of employee benefits for the Superior Court judge. Chairman Hinton asked what
amount of monetary impact there will be on the budget for the interpreters? Judge Howard
reported that the certified interpreters charge $40.00 from the time they leave their establishment.
There are not any certified interpreters on the Olympic Peninsula, but there are some in Bremer-
ton. For a five day trial it could cost as much as $3,000 for this service. The Board suggested
that the Judge check into using Drug Fund monies to provide these services for the trial.
'JOl
20 f~f,~638
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Board recessed the meeting at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened
on Tuesday for the following meetings: Strategy meeting with Planning, Public Works, Health and
Community Services and the official county visit from County Road Administration Board
(CRAB) Representative Vern Wagner regarding County roads. The meeting was recessed at the
conclusion of the scheduled meetings on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday afternoon with
all three Board members present.
HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mitie:ated Determination of Non-Sie:niflcance:
Creekside Lone: Plat LP05·92 and Ironwood Lone: Plat LP06·92 (Continued from April 4.
1994): Chairman Hinton opened the continued hearing and asked if any of the Board members
have had any contact with the proponents and appellants on this issue. Commissioner Wojt
reported that he has been at meetings with people from both sides, but he did not discuss this
matter with them. Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford both stated the same is true
of them.
Associate Planner Jim Pearson introduced Jill VanHulle and Don Davidson from the Department
of Health and then reviewed the information submitted since the last meeting:
Pope Resources letter dated April 8, 1994 (See attached)
Olympic Environmental Council letter dated April 8, 1994 (see attached)
Craig Jones, Jones & Tracy, representing Pope Resources, dated April 13, 1994 (see attached.)
He suggested that Ms. VanHulle and Mr. Davidson address the issues of supplemental water rights
and how they relate to instantaneous withdrawal (wells 13 and 14); the monitoring program, the
issues of SEP A and the whether or not they consider the water rights that Pope Resources has to
be adequate given the existing development and the proposed developments being reviewed.
Chairman Hinton clarified that the Board is dealing specifically with these two plats (Creekside
and Ironwood.)
Jill VanHulle then asked Don Davidson, State Department of Ecology, to report on the differences
between supplemental and primary water rights. Don Davidson explained that supplemental water
rights are issued to an individual for their particular need. The water right will specify an
instantaneous withdrawal figure and an acre footage per year. The acre footage is the amount of
water that they will use. Supplemental water rights are for additional instantaneous withdrawal for
peak supply. They are not issuing additional primary rights. Jill VanHulle added that for these
projects the instantaneous quantity allocated to well 14 are extra peak supply and should be added
to the capacity of the other wells.
Jim Pearson reported on the analysis work he and Larry Fay had done. He asked if the total
instantaneous pumping rate allowed under these water rights would be 654 plus the 300. Mr.
Davidson answered that if the addition is correct that would be the figure.
Jill VanHulle reported, with regard to the mitigation for these projects, that their department
reviews mitigation for many plans and the suggested mitigation looks very acceptable to the Water
Resources Program. The mitigation has many of the components that they've included in their
own provisions for monitoring. It is adequate for their needs.
Jim Pearson asked if the DOE feels the water rights are adequate, given the existing and proposed
uses and what do they feel is necessary for the Board to make a threshold determination. Don
Davidson reported that it is not up to their Department to determine if the water rights are
adequate. When the Department issues water rights they are evaluating an applicants information
and their need. They determine if water is available, if there will be impacts, if there is
mitigation necessary, and then make a decision on the issuance of the water right permit. The
applicant must work with the State Department of Health for water system administration, design
and engineering.
Commissioner Wojt asked what branch or division of the Department of Ecology Mr. Davidson
and Ms. VanHulle are representing? Jill VanHulle reported that they are with the Southwest
Regional Water Resources Program Office.
IJOL
20 Uf¡~ 639
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Huth then asked Jill VanHulle the following questions:
Q. What is your title?
A. Permit Writer with the Southwest Regional Office, Water Resources
Program.
Q. What are your duties in that regard?
A. She evaluates water right applications in several counties (including
Jefferson County). Make determinations about water availability from
reviewing aquifer tests, well logs and other available information, and
writes recommendations on whether permits should be issued.
Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity?
A. Approximately three years.
Q. Do you have education to bring to bear on those questions?
A. Ms. VanHulle stated that she has a Bachelors of Science degree in
Environmental Science.
Q. Have you previously appeared before Courts or Boards of County Commissioners or
any administrative bodies to testify regarding water rights?
A. She has appeared before Ecology's Pollution Control Hearing Board.
Mark Huth then asked Don Davidson the following questions:
Q. What is your title?
A. Permit Writer with the Southwest Regional Office, Water Resources
Program.
What are your duties in that regard?
A. His duties are exactly the same a Jill VanHulle's. He evaluates water
right applications and make decisions on them.
What is your educational background?
A. Bachelor of Science Degree.
How long have you been employed by the Department of Ecology in that capacity?
A. About 4 1/2 years, plus he has appeared before the Pollution Hearings
Board.
Prior to Department of Ecology, do you have any other training that involves this
work?
A.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Other than hydrological and geological studies in school, No. Jill
VanHulle added that she has the same training as Mr. Davidson.
Jim Pearson asked if the water system plan must be approved prior to the County making a final
threshold determination? Jill VanHulle stated that the Department of Health would probably like
to have that document, but she doesn't know if it would be essential. In terms of the DOE
comment on these projects, they are looking at the quantities of water allocated, the current
amount of that water and what the projected use of that water is. As long as the total quantity of
water that the Port Ludlow Water Company draws does not exceed what they have been allocated
by DOE, they do not have any concerns about how many connections there are. The quantities
that have been allocated are based on data which is received from Pope and historical data from
meter readings. Pope and Port Ludlow are currently using less than half of what they've been
allocated.
Jim Pearson pointed out that the DOE commented on the SEP A determination for Ironwood, but
there wasn't a comment on the Creekside development. The Department concurred with the
threshold determination on Ironwood and stated that the mitigation was good. He asked if there
has there been any information supplied DOE that would give them any reason to change that
comment? Jill VanHulle answered that on both of these projects it is the responsibility of the
proponent and the water purveyor to assure that adequate water rights have been secured for what
they are proposing to serve. The Department of Ecology likes the inclusion of mitigation measure
#10 which outlines a specific monitoring program.
Commissioner Wojt asked what happens and who is responsible to make up the deficit if the
monitoring program finds that there isn't sufficient water? Mr. Davidson explained that when the
DOE issues water right permits they have tried to make as good a determination as they can in
saying that there is water available and that taking that water will not impact anyone. If these
questions can't be answered in the affirmative a permit can be denied or a way to mitigate the
problems is found. The DOE tries to do as good a job as they can and they hope that the
VOL
20 UŒ64D
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
applicant is also trying to do as good a job as they can in conserving water. The monitoring is
an attempt to stay ahead of the issue of not enough water and salt water intrusion. Jill VanHulle
added that these developments are being done in phases and if there were to be a problem with
the wells (sea water intrusion or declining water levels) that the people planning for the system
will have to make the decision which plats and lots don't get served. The State can't make that
determination for Port Ludlow.
Steve Hayden asked the DOE representatives the following questions:
Q. If, when an evaluation is done of the water rights, they take into account historical
pumping information from aquifers in the area? He added that the north aquifer was
Pope's original source of water with primary water rights of 215 acre feet per year, but
they are able to only draw a small portion of that.
A. Don Davidson answered that they try to take all information into account, but he
doesn't know if that information was considered in this instance.
Q. Wells number 14 and 15 and the PUD well, which are all in the south aquifer, have
their water rights conditioned by mitigation which requires monitoring. He asked if
that gives that source of water the same kind of credibility as a well that just has
primary rights issued?
A. Jill VanHulle answered that wells with primary rights issued represent all certifi-
cates. The water rights issued now, especially for a large public supplies,
commonly have mitigation requiring monitoring on them.
Q. Is there a time frame for well monitoring which would allow that condition to be
removed from the water right?
A. Jill VanHulle explained that the only well mentioned that she had anything to do
with, is well number 14. That well is not in full use and is under a permit, not
a certificate. A final withdrawal rate for that well has not been determined.
The permit on that well will continue for at least five years. The permit will be
re-evaluated in1998.
Q. Was the study done for the Dungeness/Quilcene project on salt water intrusion in the
Shine area taken into consideration for the permit on well 14?
A. Don Davidson and Jill VanHulle both indicated that they don't know if that was
taken into consideration. Jill VanHulle added that at the time the report for well
14 was written, the permit writer was aware of salt water intrusion in the area,
but it wasn't specifically addressed in the report.
Steve Hayden then commented about developments being done in the Port Ludlow area with about
1,000 lots that aren't built upon (but have been permitted and sold) and will be connected to a
water system in the future. He asked how monitoring of the water system will make any sense in
this scenario? Jill VanHulle stated that the DOE wouldn't issue a certificate for the water system
until they have information that the system is in full use and that there had not been any adverse
impact. The system would be kept at the permit level.
Commissioner Wojt asked if the monitoring would go beyond three years? Jill VanHulle ex-
plained that monitoring is an on-going thing with the DOE. They collect data on many wells and
whether a certificate or permit has been issued on a well, the DOE has the authority to restrict
the use to protect existing rights. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that private property can get
water by drilling into the aquifer also and they don't have to apply for water rights. Jill Van-
Hulle reported that exempt wells (such as a private well) are also regulated. If an exempt well is
drilled and it has an adverse impact on any other well, it can be regulated by the State. Don
Davidson added that it is the County that will make the determination on where and how many
exempt wells can be put in.
Chairman Hinton asked if the DOE has established policies and procedures in making determina-
tions on permits? Jill VanHulle answered that the DOE makes their determinations based on State
regulations and standard operating procedures. Don Davidson added that there is a well thought
out review process and the DOE staff has to work within the intent of the regulations.Commis-
sioner Wojt asked who is responsible to determine if a private (exempt) well adversely impacts
other wells? Don Davidson responded that he doesn't know who is legally responsible to deal
with that. The DOE sometimes deals with those issues, but it's generally due to a complaint.
VOL
20 Ut~641
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clifford Hanson, Vice President, Robinson and Noble groundwater hydro-geologists (copy of
resume submitted - see attached.) asked the DOE representatives the following questions:
Q. If there is a well in an aquifer showing declining water levels, would any subsequent
wells in that aquifer be severely mitigated?
A. Jill VanHulle answered that they certainly would be mitigated.
Q. If you put a well in a different aquifer (laterally or vertically) would the water right be
treated as a new application in a new aquifer?
A. Jill VanHulle answered that is partially correct. Don Davidson added that there
would be concern about possible leakage or connection between the two a-
quifers. If it could be proved without a shadow of a doubt that the aquifers
were physically separated, it would be treated as a new application.
Steve Hayden then asked if the DOE representatives had reviewed the information submitted by
the OEC (dated April 8, 1994)? David Cunningham also asked that the information that they sub-
mitted dated April 8, as well as the previous information submitted, be reviewed by the DOE
representatives. Jill VanHulle indicated that they had received and reviewed the information sub-
mitted by each group. They are not prepared to discuss exhibits that are basically numbers of
residential connections. The information in these exhibits is not in their realm of expertise.
Steve Hayden then asked Mr. Hanson to explain why the information in the Port Ludlow Devel-
opment EIS says there is 530 gallons of water per minute available on a continuous pumping rate.
This figure appears in Table 1 and subsequent tables and is used to illustrate that there is a
surplus of water available in the wells that Pope has, to more than adequately serve their system.
Steve Hayden added that he feels they have combined apples and oranges in this information and
the real continuous pumping rate is 218 gallons per minutes (see Table 6 of the EIS.) If the
tables indicate information in an incorrect manner, then every table that is built on it is built on a
false premise. You can't combine different kinds of numbers.
David Cunningham, Pope Resources, submitted Clifford Hanson's resume (see attached) and
explained that Mr. Hanson is here to provide expert testimony.
Clifford Hanson, Robinson and Noble, responded that it has been suggested that apples and
oranges have been mixed in the presentation of information in Table 1. The Section that table 1
is a part of is entitled "Groundwater Resources of the Area." Table 1 is labeled "Existing
Groundwater Resources." It does not say pumping capacity and it does not say water rights
available. As a hydro-geologist he was asked to answer the question - "How much water is
available for use in the area?" The EIS document provides information on each of the aquifers
tapped by the Pope Ludlow facility. It talks specifically about the north aquifer which has a
documented decline in water levels and suggests that the overall stress from that system might be
reduced. The document also covers the hydro-geology, the recharge, and the existing stresses
upon the south aquifer. From that information a water availability was determined from the south
aquifer. That number is approximately 500 gallons a minute - continuous. Table 1 was saying
how much water was available within the area. That calculation comes up to 530 gallons per
minute which is a valid number. The OEC calculation on the first three wells agrees with the
65 gallons per minute regardless of the water right, and in the rest of the calculations they limit it
by the water right available. Table 1 does not consider water rights at all. It is simply a
calculation of the first question which was how much water is available in the area and is that
water available close enough to the development to be economically brought on line? Wells 13
and 14 and the two wells in the area that are within the south aquifer and are capable of long
term pumping. It is not recommended that a water system be based on two wells pumping
continuously throughout the year, but it is possible to do in this case, because the total amount of
withdrawals is less than the recharge to the south aquifer.
Commissioner Wojt asked when the amount of water to be used in a development and the amount
of water that is being used by present development is figured into these calculations? Mr. Hanson
answered that this information is listed in subsequent tables. The subsequent question that was
answered was how much water do we have the authority to use? The tables indicated there are
465 acre feet of water as a primary water right supplemented by well 14. The total instan-
taneous was nearly 900.
VOL
20 ~AG~642
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Steve Hayden asked if there is any reason that specific numbers were attached to specific wells in
Table 1, if it was meant to give an overall picture of the water available? Clifford Hanson
answered that the figures were to document the quantity of water pumpable. Steve Hayden asked
if Mr. Hanson had reviewed the figures provided by the OEC? Clifford Hanson pointed out that
these figures are essentially a reverse of the calculation done by the Department of Ecology.
When the DOE calculates acre footage they take the instantaneous rate and multiply it by 8 hours
(or 1/3) of a day. Steve Hayden asked if the continuous pumping rate indicated in Table 1 are
for 8 hours or 24 hours? Clifford Hanson answered that the continuous pumping rate is in
gallons per minute over a 24 hour period for 365 days. Steve Hayden stated that from the
information provided in Table 6 it mayor may not be true that there is water available in the
south aquifer to provide the volume for this development, but it seems that from the wells that
Pope owns they can't pump that much. If they can't pump that much, they will have to find
another source of water. The only viable alternative noted in the FEIS is to drill another well
into the south aquifer. The question is will that additional well have an adverse impact on the
south aquifer.
Clifford Hanson responded that he feels, from his calculations, there is adequate water available in
the south aquifer. Fifteen years of geologic experience tells him that the numbers are good.
Mark Huth asked Mr. Hanson how the figures presented by the OEC of 218 gallons per minutes
relate to the information he has presented? Mr. Hanson explained that the OEC is comparing
apples and oranges because they have used the water rights restrictions in the south aquifer, but
they did use it for other areas. He added that the Table has nothing to do with water rights, it is
a statement of resource availability.
Mark Huth pointed out that if they don't have the right to pump the water, then how will it be
supplied? Mr. Hanson noted that the rights would have to be secured. This table shows that
there is water available. Jim Pearson then reviewed the numbers presented again, and the' discus-
sion continued regarding what these numbers mean. Mark Huth asked Mr. Hanson if Pope
Resources has enough water rights now to serve what is already on line and these two new plats?
Clifford Hanson answered that Pope has water rights to serve present and proposed needs.
Steve Hayden asked why wells 9 and 4 are shown on this table? Mr. Hanson explained that one
of those wells has a slight corrosion problem and they prefer not to use it if they don't have to,
but it is available for use. The other well has a similar problem. There are valid primary water
rights issued for these two wells. Steve Hayden asked how DOE computes acre feet per year?
Jill VanHulle reported that acre feet is determined by what the requirement for water is. They
look at how much a well can be pumped at, for a reasonable length of time. On well 14 the
DOE determined that it can be pumped for 8 hours at 300 gallons a minute. Don Davidson
added that the DOE also looks at what can be pumped from the well without causing problems.
Jim Pearson noted that with the cancellation of the water right for well number 1, he computes a
figure of 277 gallons per minute available and by taking the Pope Resource Exhibit A (modified
and dated April 8, 1994) which shows an existing acre feet commitment for the existing system,
the unbuilt lots and the various developments previously approved, plus these two developments
(Ironwood and Creekside), there is a total requirement of 384 acre feet per year (based on the
projected use of 160 gallons per day.) The 384 acre feet per year is equivalent to 238 gallons
per minute. He asked Mr. Hanson if it is correct to draw the conclusion that there are more
gallons per minute available in Mr. Hayden's figures, than are required in gallons per minute for
the various proposals. Clifford Hanson said yes.
David Cunningham stated that the appellants in this case haven't presented any expert witnesses,
nor have they submitted any written evidence generated by people with any particular expertise in
this matter. Pope has water rights for 465 acre feet per year. They feel they have demonstrated
in their submitted written material that they have adequate water rights for all the previous
commitments, current proposals (Ironwood and Creekside) as well as some surplus. With respect
to water sources the County has an adopted Environmental Impact Statement that predicts that
adequate water resources are available for these two plats and others. The final EIS was not
challenged after its publication one year ago and the professional geo-hydrologist that prepared the
groundwater portion of that report has certified again today, that in his professional opinion water
sources are available for these two plats plus others. Nevertheless the County has imposed in
VOL
20 rAG~ 643
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
previous plats, and the two under consideration today, a monitoring requirement to assure that the
water sources are adequate and that the predictions of availability are accurate. The Department
of Ecology testified today that they believe that the monitoring requirement is appropriate and
adequate to protect the water source and the public interest. They feel that the Commissioners
now have enough information to make a decision to uphold the final MDNS with the monitoring
condition.
Environmental Health Director Larry Fay noted that one issue that came up in the prior meeting
was what kind of design would be required by the Department of Health for the water system
expansion. In the absence of any historic information, the Department of Health uses a peak day
design factor of 800 gallons per day per connection. They can and do use historical information
where it's available to determine what kind of design factors are appropriate for the water system.
He reported that he has reviewed the numbers with Karl Johnson, of the Department of Health,
and the assumption has been that the design factor would use 160 gallons per day per connection
with a peak factor of 480 gallons per day per connection. Mr. Johnson would not commit to
saying yes or no to the use of the 480 gallons per day figure for design. They are waiting for
completion of the water system plan that includes these plats. They will also look at information
on what the projected use of the system will be. The water system has to be approved by the
Department of Health before it can be put on line.
Mark Huth pointed out that there are two questions. The SEP A question is environmental impacts
and the final question is adequate provision of water. The water system design is not an environ-
mental impact question, it is an adequate provision of water question which is under plat approval.
He clarified that for environmental purposes the County is relying, to an extent, on the Depart-
ment of Ecology saying there is enough of a water right, in the determination that there won't be
an impact.
Commissioner Huntingford asked for an update on the monitoring program. David Cunningham
reported that Pope Resources and the consultant, Robinson and Noble, met with David Goldsmith
and Larry Fay to discuss the scope of work for this plan. The County has approved the scope of
work which includes testing of wells owned by professional water purveyors as well as private
wells. The private well owners have to be trained in how to gather the data in an accurate and
usable way. March 15 each year Pope Resources delivers a report on the results to the County of
all their monitoring. He suggested that anyone who has additional data should be encourage to
submit it to the County by the March 15 date and then a workshop should be held to review all
the data. He explained that there was no data for Pope to submit this year. Commissioner
Huntingford asked about the storm water monitoring? David Cunningham explained that last year's
storm water monitoring report was submitted to the County last November. Clifford Hanson added
that a prospective list of private well owners for monitoring as been developed and they are being
contacted. As soon as all of these owners can be contacted a training will be held on how to
obtain the monitoring data. They will begin the monitoring as soon as that training is done.
Steve Hayden then concluded his arguments by saying that he feels that the information provided
by Pope is confusing at best, both in the EIS and the documents provided on these plats. It is
their opinion that the water needs exceed the water rights that Pope has. The State Department of
Health will decide upon the adequacy of water that Pope has in their water rights, but that can't
be done until the updated water system plan is submitted to them. They will not approve the
expansion of the water system without that plan being updated. If the DOH determines that they
don't have adequate water their only alternatives are to drill a well in the south aquifer or go
somewhere else for water. If they drill a well in the south aquifer, then according to Don
Davidson of DOE, there is concern about salt water intrusion. It will be very hard to get ap-
proval to drill a well in the south aquifer. He suggested that if the Board is going to uphold and
issue the MDNS that they make it contingent upon adequate water resources being identified by
DOH. The monitoring program is not in place yet, and he suggested that if monitoring is going
to be included as mitigation that the County hire an independent hydrologist to make sure that the
methodology is appropriate and accurate.
Hearing no further public comments, the Chairman closed the hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that it was suggested that the issuance of the MONS be made
contingent upon approval by DOH, but he feels that the DOH has the power to make that call
VOL 20 rAΠ644
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
whether the County makes it a contingency or not. He added that he would like to see the mon-
itoring program going as soon as possible. He would like to see a statement from Pope about
what their plans are if, at some point it is determined that water isn't available. David Cunnin-
gham interjected that the FEIS contains several suggestion about what steps can be taken if the
water source is inadequate. Commissioner Huntingford continued by noting that he is concerned
for small, private, individuals are on the outside.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the condition changes submitted by Hiller West, Shock-
ey /Brent, Inc. (Memorandum dated April 13, 1994, see attached) and if Pope has had time to
review them? David Cunningham then reviewed the Memorandum.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to deny the appeals for Creekside and Ironwood and uphold the
MDNS's issued. Commissioner Wojt asked the Prosecuting Attorney if the Board can ask the
project proponent to post a bond which would be used to develop a water source if it is found
that wells are adversely affected? Mark Huth explained that a project proponent is free to
suggest mitigation that they feel will address impacts. The County, however, must identify the
impact, state the mitigation, and have specific. policies to base the mitigation on. Before this type
of mitigation could be proposed, he advised that it would be prudent to go back and make sure
that there is adequate basis to impose it. He noted that he and the Planning staff would have to
take the time to do this. Commissioner Wojt asked how much time it would take to do that?
Mark Huth and Jim Pearson advised that it would take them at least two weeks to do this review.
Commissioner Wojt explained that he is suggesting this bond to assure that there is funding to
allow Pope the option of finding another water supply. Jim Pearson read the proposed mitigation
which says "If groundwater monitoring indicates an inadequate yield to support development of
the proponents projects, the proponent and/or the County shall immediately notify the Washington
State Department of Ecology to request action or investigation pursuant to RCW 90.44 which
provides authority for resolution of conflicts involving allocation of groundwater supplies." This
condition was drafted by the Prosecuting Attorney because Pope Resource has a specific amount
of water rights which they cannot exceed. There are other water rights in the area as well as
other exempt wells and the resolution of any conflict involving water rights must follow proce-
dures set out in State and case law. Commissioner Wojt added that he is concerned about the
promise of water for lots that are sold to various people in the future. The County will not have
Pope to deal with at that point.
After further discussion of Commissioner Wojt's suggested mitigation and if it would solve a
problem in the future, Commissioner Huntingford explained that he feels that what is in the EIS is
as close as the County can come to addressing this issue. He added that there will probably not
be total build out overnight and the monitoring program should provide an indication of a proble-
m. The question is if the County approves the subdivision saying that there is adequate water
based on the information presented, is the County responsible to the people who purchased lots, or
will Pope be responsible to provide water to the lots they sold? Mark Huth reported that both
would be responsible. Commissioner Huntingford asked if it can be assumed that the State
Department of Health and Ecology will share equally with the County in that responsibility?
Mark Huth stated that his position is that the State Departments would also be responsible because
the County must rely on their expertise. Commissioner Wojt pointed out that the Department of
Health will respond at the Subdivision approval level.
Commissioner Wojt seconded Commissioner Huntingford's motion. Chairman Hinton called for a
vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Huntingford then moved to adopt the conditions as redrafted and submitted by
Hiller West for the Ironwood plat (LP6-92.) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
Subordination Á2reement: Septic Loan Pro2ram: Gene E. and Alice V. Cox:
Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that a request has been submitted to have the County's
loan be subordinate to a home improvement loan for a residence owned by Gene E. and Alice V.
VOL 20 r~'_~ 645
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 11, 1994
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cox. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement as submitted. Commissioner Hun-
tingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
MEETING ADJOURNED
SEAL:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AITEST:
d~¿
Lorna L Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
IJOL 20 r~C~ 64~