HomeMy WebLinkAbout044 02
c-C.:. \f\VÙ
DC\) ~ 1,10+
~0
~Ç\
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A
COUNTY POLICY WITH RESPECT TO
SEAWATER INTRUSION
}
}
}
RESOLUTION NO. 44-02
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq.,
adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), a Plan that was
originally adopted by Resolution No, 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and subsequently later
amended, and;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Plan, the County adopted its GMA-derived
development regulations, known locally as the Unified Development Code (or "UDC"),
in December 2000 to be effective as of January 16, 2001, and;
WHEREAS, the UDC, upon its adoption, was timely challenged through means of
not less than five Petition For Reviews ("PFRs") filed with the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board (or "WWGMHB"), and
WHEREAS, another of the five PFRs was filed by two citizens' groups: the
Olympic Environmental Council and the Shine Community Action Council; and
WHEREAS, the PFR filed by these citizens' group proceeded through to a hearing
on the Merits before the WWGMHB in December 2001; and
WHEREAS, the WWGMHB ruled against the County on all but one issue (that
one issue being the sufficiency of protections offered critical areas with respect to the
Resolution No. 44-02 re: County Policy with Respect to Seawater Intrusion
installation of asphalt batch plants) by publishing a Final Decision and Order (or "FDO")
in January 2002 that mandated this County to undertake and implement six distinct steps;
and
WHEREAS, that FDO listed as mandate or directive #1 that this County enact as
part of the UDC the four housekeeping changes listed in the Response Brief of the
County and discussed at the Hearing on the Merits; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance #04-0422-02, adopted April 22, 2002, put the County in
compliance with mandate #1 of the FDO;
WHEREAS, a distinct Ordinance enacted on this date amends the UDC so that it
reflects and includes the changes the County was required to make in order to gain
compliance with directives #2 through #6 of the FDO;
WHEREAS, the elected County Commissioners and staff discussed possible
routes to compliance, including adopting UDC amendments, after the FDO was issued,
specifically in meetings open to the public during February and March of 2002;
WHEREAS, staff presented in writing possible routes to compliance in early
March 2002. But the County Commissioners wanted to open this discussion about
seawater intrusion to the entire populace of the County;
WHEREAS, in the spirit of the GMA, which requires "early and continuous"
participation by all who are interested and/or expressly or potentially affected by any
proposed GMA-derived regulations, the County Commissioners decided to empower a
stakeholder group to discuss the issues of seawater intrusion and return to them with a
report within 30-45 days;
Page 2 of 4
Resolution No. 44-02 re: County Policy with Respect to Seawater Intrusion
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners took the formal step of empowering the
stakeholder group on April 8, 2002, The stakeholder group was specifically informed
that the task before them was not whether or not this County should impose regulations to
protect impacted regions from seawater intrusion but instead was to determine the how
and the what of the regulations that would be put in place;
WHEREAS, the stakeholder group consisted of nine persons, including the
representative of the Petitioners, The stakeholders met four times and an outside
consultant was present at all the meetings to facilitate the process, A non-voting County
representative was present at the meetings not to offer opinions but to simply offer
information;
WHEREAS, the stakeholder group made its report to the elected Commissioners
in late May 2002;
WHEREAS, the recommendations of the stakeholder group, as memorialized in a
document entitled "Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy" prepared by the County's Natural
Resources Director, were discussed and reviewed by County staff in another public
meeting of the elected Commissioners on June 10, 2002;
WHEREAS, the policy document prepared by the County's Natural Resources
Division Manager describes the "adaptive management practices" that will be
undertaken, enacted and implemented by the County Commissioners if data collected
indicates, via scientifically valid methods, a "statistically significant degradation of water
quality in a particular region of the County due to seawater intrusion;"
WHEREAS, because the policies and plans outlined in the document attached to
this Resolution are not appropriate for inclusion in the County's UDC because they are
policies and plans rather than rules and regulations that are found in the typical GMA-
Page 3 of 4
Resolution No. 44-02 re: County Policy with Respect to Seawater Intrusion
derived development regulations to regulate specific land use applications and processes,
this distinct Resolution became necessary; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the policy document via a Resolution serves to place this
County in partial compliance with a portion of FDO Directive #4; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted as part of the County's Compliance with
the FDO issued in January 2002 in WWGMHB Cause No, #01-2-0015,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as followed by the County
Commissioners in and for the County of Jefferson:
1. That the attached document entitled "Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy" be and
hereby is adopted by the County Commission of Jefferson County as official county
policy pursuant to the Growth Management Act and this County's Comprehensive Plan,
Approved and adopted this 23rd day of July 2002,
.,
Richard W ojt, Chair
v
,
. .
. "
~ ..:.
.
!L-
ei ~ Jf. ~ {Hen Huntingford, M
Lorna Delaney, CMC ~
Clerk of the Board
".
Dan Titterness, Member
~
Page 4 of 4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
July 23, 2002
Goal: Jefferson County intends to protect groundwater quality from further degradation due to
seawater intrusion, primarily through land use regulatory authority under Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 36.70A. A corollary goal is the promotion of public health through
encouragement of public water system use throughout the county.
Elements: Designation of affected areas, voluntary and mandatory measures (implemented
through Unified Development Code - UDC - and Environmental Health regulations), other
policy elements, public outreach and education, monitoring and adaptive management.
Desi~nation: Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones (SIPZ) include aquifers and land areas
overlying aquifers at some level of vulnerability to seawater intrusion, as defined either by
proximity to marine shoreline or by proximity to groundwater sources that have demonstrated
high chloride readings. All land area within % mile of marine shorelines and on all islands is
classified as a coastal SIPZ, a subcategory of a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. Additionally,
areas within 1000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses above 100
milligrams per liter (mg/L) are categorized as either "at risk" (between 100 mg/L and 200 mg/L)
or "high risk" (over 200 mg/L). High risk SIPZ shall be considered "sea-salt water intrusion
areas," which are among the "sources or potential sources of contamination" listed in
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-160-171, implementing code for the Water Well
Construction Act.
In some cases, high chloride readings may be indicative of connate seawater (i.e" relic seawater
in aquifers as opposed to active seawater intrusion). When best available science or a
hydrogeologic assessment demonstrates that high chloride readings in a particular area are due to
connate seawater, the area in question shall not be considered an at risk or high risk SIPZ. (The
Chimacum valley is an example of this type of area.) When the status of an area is in question,
the UDC Administrator is responsible for making the determination based upon recommendation
from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of designated SIPZ will be periodically updated
using data from permit applications, well monitoring, and other available information.
Voluntary and Mandatory Measures: Activities to be conditioned and regulated include well
drilling, subdivision approval, and issuance of building permits. General information is
provided, followed by voluntary and mandatory measures specific to coastal, at risk, and high
risk SIPZ,
1. Well Drilling: The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for
regulation of well drilling under RCW 18.104. Per WAC 173-160-171, proposed wells
must be sited at least 100 feet from "known or potential sources of contamination," which
include "Sea-salt water intrusion areas." Ecology provides a procedure for applicants to
obtain a variance from a regulation or regulations of Chapter 173 WAC" ... [w ]hen strict
compliance with the requirements and standards of this chapter are impractical" (WAC
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 1
7/23/02
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSiONERS
173-160-106). Though certain types of wells, including the standard individual well for
domestic purposes, are exempted from the need to obtain a permit from Ecology, all
wells are subject to State laws and administrative code. According to WAC 173-160-
106, Ecology response to a variance application is given within fourteen days,
2. Subdivisions: Applications for land division (UDC Section 7) in any SIPZ when the
average net density proposed is less than five acres per dwelling unit must include
specific and conclusive proof of adequate supplies of potable water through a qualifying
hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report per
UDC 3.6.10,e) that demonstrates that the creation of new lots and corresponding use of
water will not impact the subject aquifer such that water quality is degraded by seawater
intrusion. All subdivisions in Jefferson County that create more than six new lots are
subject to the acquisition of water rights (per State Attorney General opinion).
3. Issuance of a building permit: RCW 19,27.097 states,
"Each applicant for a building permit of a building necessitating potable
water shall provide evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended
use of the building. Evidence may be in the form of a water right permit
from the department of ecology, a letter from an approved water purveyor
stating the ability to provide water, or another form sufficient to verify the
existence of an adequate water supply. In addition to other authorities, the
county or city may impose conditions on building permits requiring
connection to an existing public water system where the existing system is
willing and able to provide safe and reliable potable water to the applicant
with reasonable economy and efficiency."
Evidence of potable water may be an individual well, connection to a public water system, or an
alternative system such as rainwater catchment. Whatever method is selected, the regulatory and
operational standards for that method must be met, including Jefferson County Health Code and
Washington Administrative Code. Public water systems shall be preferred from a public health
standpoint to other alternatives, such as the importation of water or an individual surface or
rainwater catchment system, though those alternatives are allowable subject to appropriate and
established design and operational criteria.
Public water systems are subject to Washington State Department of Health (DOH) saltwater
intrusion policy and all applicable safe drinking water standards. DOH and Ecology regulate
public water systems to protect against water quality degradation. The Jefferson County
seawater intrusion policy therefore concentrates on water supplies that are not regulated as public
water systems by DOH and Ecology. Jefferson County shall encourage DOH and Ecology to
consider amending licenses and water rights for public systems in areas where there is evidence
of seawater intrusion in the public water source or as a result of groundwater withdrawal such
that no additional connections to or expansions of the affected systems are permitted.
All types of building permits that require proof of potable water use are subject to this policy,
specifically building permits for new single-family residences (SFRs) or other structures with
plumbing that are not associated with an existing SFR (i.e., shops or garages with a bathroom).
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 2
7/23/02
BOARD OF COUNTY COlvUvflSSIONERS
Proof of Potable Water on Existing Lots of Record
Voluntary and mandatory measures of the Jefferson County seawater intrusion policy apply to
well drilling proposals and building permit applications on existing lots of record within the
coastal, at risk, and high risk SIPZ in the following manner:
COASTAL SIPZ
(Le" all islands and area within Y4 mile of marine shoreline, but no history of chloride
concentration above 100 mg/L in groundwater sources within 1000 feet)
VOLUNTARY:
· Water conservation measures,
· Installation of a flow meter.
· On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
· Submittal of monitoring data to County.
MANDATORY:
· For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-
approved public water system if available.
· If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of
potable water or an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the
following requirements:
1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well water sample submitted with
building permit application,
AT RISK SIPZ
(Le., within 1000 feet of a groundwater source showing chloride between 100 and 200 mg/L)
VOLUNTARY:
· Water conservation measures,
MANDATORY:
· For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-
approved public water system if available,
· If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of
potable water or an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the
following requirements:
1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well water sample submitted with
building permit application,
2. Installation of a flow meter.
3. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
4. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per monitoring program.
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 3
7/23/02
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSiONERS
HIGH RISK SIPZ
(Le" within 1000 feet of a groundwater source showing chloride concentrations above 200 mg/L)
MANDATORY:
. Water conservation measures (per list maintained by UDC Administrator).
· For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-
approved public water system if available and if public water is unavailable, a qualifying
alternative system may be used as proof of potable water; an individual well may only be
used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements:
1. Variance from Chapter 173 WAC standards granted by Ecology per WAC 173-160-
106 for a new groundwater well within 100 feet of a sea-salt water intrusion area
per WAC 173-160-171 (Le., within 1100 feet of a groundwater source showing
chloride concentrations above 200 mg/L); or for an existing groundwater well,
applicant must provide evidence through a qualifying hydrogeologic assessment
(relevant components of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report per UDC 3.6,lO,e) that
subject aquifer will not be degraded by the proposed use of the well,
2, Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well water sample submitted with
building permit application.
3, If chloride concentration exceeds 250 mg/L in a water sample submitted for a
building permit, then the property owner shall be required to record a restrictive
covenant that indicates a chloride reading exceeded the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency secondary standard (250 mg/L) under the National Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations.
4. Installation of a flow meter.
5, On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
6. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per monitoring program.
Other Policy Elements:
· Continue County approval of qualifying rainwater catchment systems as an alternative to
individual wells (Environmental Health regulations).
· Develop policies to approve the importation and storage of water in certain problem areas
(Environmental Health regulations),
· Strengthen approval and monitoring requirements for public water systems to ensure that
chloride testing is an element of DOH monitoring for systems which have sources located
within a SIPZ (Coordinated Water System Plan-CWSP-and DOH).
· Strengthen protections of aquifer recharge areas through adoption and implementation of
Ecology 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, promoting on-
site infiltration of stormwater (UDC regulations; amendment anticipated 2002).
· Eliminate off-site disposal of surface or sub-surface water (stormwater tightlines and
curtain drains) unless exceptional circumstances justify off-site disposal and appropriate
mitigation is proposed and implemented; adjust current regulation so that affected area
extends from 500 feet to % mile from marine shorelines (UDC regulations),
· In order to limit well construction and protect public health, continue promotion of public
water systems as preferable to individual wells and other alternative water supplies;
continue requirement for connection to existing public water systems when proposed
development location is within approved public water service area boundaries.
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 4
7/23/02
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
· Continue application of Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) requirements with regard to low-
flow faucets and other mandatory water conservation measures,
Public Outreach and Education:
· Conduct education and outreach program through Washington State University (WSU)
Extension; establish Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with WSU for program,
· Encourage water conservation measures countywide; mandate water conservation
measures in high risk SIPZ.
· Send letter to new Jefferson County residents/property owners regarding groundwater use
and protection; implement other means of public notice, as resources allow.
Monitorin~:
· Enter into MOU with Public Utility District #1 (PUD) regarding the monitoring program.
· Standardize chloride sampling in a manner that assures quality control.
· Establish other well monitoring locations, as resources allow.
· Coordinate data interpretation and application through Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) Planning Units operating in Jefferson County per the Watershed Planning Act.
· Seek grant funding for additional research and encourage State and Federal partners to
conduct research related to the issue of seawater intrusion in Jefferson County.
Adaptive Mana~ement: for aquifers with degrading water quality due to seawater intrusion.
Jefferson County will rely on technical input from the PUD, WRIA Planning Units, and others,
as appropriate, in annual review of well monitoring data, building permit data, and other relevant
data on groundwater quality and quantity in order to determine whether water quality vis-à-vis
seawater intrusion is degrading. The Department of Health and Human Services and/or the
Department of Community Development will report to the BOCC annually on the status of
seawater intrusion in Jefferson County. Every five years a comprehensive analysis will be
conducted and report generated summarizing results.
If the Board of County Commissioners determines that actions under the Jefferson County
seawater intrusion policy prove insufficient to protect groundwater in at risk and high risk SIPZ
from seawater intrusion (i.e., analysis of the monitoring data for a defined area using appropriate
methodology! shows statistically significant degradation of water quality due to seawater
intrusion), Jefferson County will immediately:
1. Adopt a moratorium in the affected area on the issuance of building permits for which
individual groundwater wells are proposed as proof of potable water until such time as
area water quality improves or a plan is developed with the objective of improving area
water quality.
2. Adopt a moratorium on subdivisions in the affected area that propose individual
groundwater wells as proof of potable water until such time as area water quality
improves or a plan is developed with the objective of improving area water quality,
3. Establish an aquifer protection district via public vote (RCW 36.36) or, if necessary,
petition Ecology to form a groundwater management area (per WAC 173-100).
1 Appropriate combination of accepted scientific methodology for evaluating seawater intrusion impact, as described
in Pacific Groundwater Group study (1996), Washington Administrative Code, United States Geological Survey
protocol, and other contemporary examples and approaches.
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 5
7/23/02