HomeMy WebLinkAbout061 02
Cc: \-\1)~
M qlJS/ö:J.
'Treø.5
./). e. . ¡, ;¿J,ðJ-
JEFFERSON COUNTY
State of Washington
MODIFYING THE PREVIOUSLY
ENACTED COASTAL SEAWATER
INTRUSION POLICY
) RESOLUTION NO,
)
)
61-02
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Commissioners (or "BoCC") adopted Resolution #44-
02 in order to comply with a Final Decision and Order ("FDO") published by the Western
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ("WWGMHB") in Hearings Board Cause
#01-2-0015 (Olympic Environmental Council, Shine Community Action Council v. Jefferson
County); and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #44-02 led to the creation of new Seawater Intrusion Protection
Zones, or "SIPZ" [through simultaneous enactment of Ordinance #07-0723-02] as critical areas
or zones requiring protection and designation pursuant to the FDO promulgated by the
WWGMHB pursuant to the WWGMHB's interpretation of what the state law known as the
Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires of counties who plan under the GMA; and,
WHEREAS, one of the three kinds of SIPZ is a "High-Risk" SIPZ, defined as
specifically a "High Risk" Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone; and,
WHEREAS, a High Risk SIPZ extends in a thousand foot radius from any individual
well that indicates a chloride reading of 200 parts per million (or "200 ppm"); and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #44-02 and Ordinance #07-0723-02 contained language stating
that the entire region of a High-Risk SIPZ would be, for the purposes of the Washington
Administrative Code §173-160-171(3)(a)(v) and the Department of Ecology's implementation of
that WAC provision, considered to be a "known or potential source(s) of contamination,"
specifically the contaminant known as "sea-salt water intrusion areas; and,
WHEREAS, the County understood that since only Ecology held the authority to grant
permission tO'install a well upon or near (within 100 feet) a contaminated source, then only
Resolution No. 61-0&: Modifying the Previously Enacted Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Ecology could grant authority to install a well in a High Risk SIPZ, which was, by definition,
entirely a source or potential source of a known contaminant; and,
WHEREAS, Ecology has the authority to grant a waiver from rules prohibiting
installation of a well upon a potential or known source of contamination pursuant to WAC §173-
160-106; and,
WHEREAS, in furtherance of our understanding that Ecology had in place this variance
process that granted it the authority to grant a waiver that would permit installation of an
individual well proposed at any location within a High-Risk SIPZ (or any location within 100
feet of the outer edge of the High-Risk SIPZ) as a source or potential source of contamination,
the County promulgated a policy in Resolution #44-02 and legislatively established in Ordinance
#07-0723-02 a system whereby any applicant or landowner wishing to install a well in a High
Risk SIPZ (or within 100 feet of the outer edge of the High-Risk SIPZ) AND then use that well
as proof of potable water for a building permit would be required to obtain a variance from the
State Department of Ecology (pursuant to state administrative code) to install that well as a
precondition to installing that well or as a precondition to using it for potable water if it dated
from before the effective date of Ordinance #07-0723-02; and,
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners (with County staff present) held telephone
conferences with representatives from the Department of Ecology on September 1 ih and 19th
and discovered from those conferences that the Department of Ecology would not, under any
circumstances, grant a waiver (i.e., grant permission) for a well to be installed at any location
inside the High Risk SIPZ because the County had defined the entire High-Risk SIPZ as a
"source of known or potential contamination;" and,
WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology interpretation, in conjunction with the language
found in Ordinance #07-0723-02 [as promulgated initially by Resolution #44-02], the bottom of
p'a~ 6 of the line in-line out Exhibit attached to that Ordinance, codified at UDC
§3.6.5(d~(9)(iv)(C)(3), serves to make the entirety of any and all High-Risk SIPZ the equivalent
of a "NO-BUILD" zone since Ecology's permission would never be granted to an applicant; and,
Page 2 of 4
61-02
Resolution No. _ re: Modifying the Previously Enacted Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
WHEREAS, the best available science in this regard, for example, the December 1994
Hong West report to this County, NEVER CONCLUDED that the region or area in proximity to
a we11 indicating chloride in excess of 200 ppm should be subject to a BUILDING
MORATORIUM, and,
WHEREAS, instead reports such as Hong West indicated that new wells could be
constructed and installed within 1000 feet of a well showing 200+ ppm if the applicant obtained
a "Seawater Intrusion Evaluation Report," which would determine the impacts the new well
might have on older, surrounding wells and would generally require monitoring as well as the
subsequent use of water conservation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners never intended by the enactment of Ordinance
#07-0723-02 and the adoption of Resolution #44-02 to transform every High-Risk SIPZ into a
NO-BUILD zone and such a result, intended or not, is not acceptable to these County
Commissioners; and,
WHEREAS, the amending language separately adopted by this County Commission on
September 23, 2002 in the Interim Control Ordinance of that date no longer defines the entire
High-Risk SIPZ as a "known or potential source of contamination" [the phrase found in the
WAC §173-160-171(3)] and instead define only the pinpoint, that is, the individual well having a
chloride reading in excess of 200 ppm as the "known or potential source of contamination;" and,
WHEREAS, the amending language separately adopted by this County Commission on
September 23, 2002 in the Interim Control Ordinance of that date now requires any person with
real property inside a High Risk SIPZ who chooses to use either an extant well or a well that is to
be constructed as proof of potable water for a residence to obtain an expert's report, specifically
a hydrogeological assessment, indicating that there is a "reasonable probability" that the
applicant's well will not degrade the aquifers BEFORE this County will concur that the applicant
has provided proof of sufficient potable water; and,
WHEREAS, the "Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy" should and must be amended and
altered to reflect the changes legislatively adopted by this County Commission on September
23,2002 through an Interim Control Ordinance; and,
Page 3 of 4
61-02
Resolution No. _ re: Modifying the Previously Enacted Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
WHEREAS, adoption of that Interim Control Ordinance and this Resolution does not
lessen the regulations (e.g., mandatory monitoring, mandatory water conservation measures)
imposed upon an applicant owning land located inside a High Risk SIPZ who chooses to use
either an extant well or a well that is to be constructed as proof of potable water for a residence,
but instead only eliminates from the process any language that requires the applicant to contact
the Department of Ecology because of the "blanket" rule Ecology staff laid down during the
telephone conference of September 19th; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not alter any of the other conditions that are imposed
upon an applicant owning land located inside a High Risk SIPZ who chooses to use either an
extant well or a well that is to be constructed as proof of potable water for a residence; and,
WHEREAS, adoption of this Resolution does not change the regulatory structure,
meaning that the County continues to be in full compliance with the FDO of January 2002 issued
in WWGMHB Cause No. 01-2-0015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
Section I-Revised Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
The attached Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy hereby repeals and replaces any earlier version
of the Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy and is made official policy.
Section 2-Effective Date
This Resolution is effective as of its date of adoption.
\\ " 1 ~ C 0 14 -II
,,¡ r':'!""..,......., /
Of, ''Ø . J f; .,; " ~I.~ I...
", . """", ",' -~ ..
,> (.; SE~~f·'
,,::" \\.... '.. ... 'I ~ .:,
,( . , .' / .':!
". .. \ " .\
,. .,;).~ t:. j " ,
, " "~,-J .
, '. 4TIÞST:
~~
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
~
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ;? tj - day of s.ep~ 2002.
Page 4 of 4
BO/1RD OF COUNTY C'OIHMISSIONERS
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
September 24, 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 mglL). Individual groundwater sources with a history of chloride
analyses above 200 mg/L 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 (Le., 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
9/24/02
BOARD OF COUNT}" COMMIS5'¡ONERS,'
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 3,6.1O.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 catchments. 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's 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 ~th a bathroom).
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 2
9/24/02 I
BOARD OF COUNT}' COMMISSiONERS'
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
(i.e" all islands and area within % 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
(i.e., 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
9/24/02 I
BOARD OF COUNT}' COMMISSiONERcS'
HIGH RISK SIPZ
(i.e., 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 (i.e" within 100 feet of a groundwater source showing
chloride concentrations above 200 mg/L or within 100 feet of a marine shoreline);
or for an existing or proposed groundwater well not subject to an Ecology variance,
applicant must provide evidence through a qualifying hydrogeologic assessment
(relevant components of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report per UDC 3.6.1O.e) of a
reasonable probability that the 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 catchments 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 1/4 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;
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 4
9/24/02 I
BOARD OF COUNn' CO¡\lIMISSIONE'RS
continue requirement for connection to existing public water systems when proposed
development location is within approved public water service area boundaries.
· 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
methodologyl 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 impr?ving 5lrea water quality.
1 Appropriate combination of accepted scientific methodology for evaluating .seawater intrusion impact, as described
in Pacific Groundwater Group study (1996), Washington Administrative Co<.fe,"united States Geological Survey
protocol, and other contemporary examples and approaches.
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 5
9/24/02 I
BOARD OF COUNT}' COMMiSSIONER5,'
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).
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy
Page 6
9/24/02 I