2023-05-24 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
V
,HvREGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MAY 24, 2023, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION:
Meeting Link:https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287
2194 Passcode:007978
This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial
meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m
Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of May 10 Minutes
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
B. Introduction to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004)
10. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. May 24 Extended Agenda
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
May 24, 2023
Page 1
12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
May 24, 2023
Page 2
3.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/24/2023
Approval of May 10 Minutes
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Staff Recommendation
Approve the minutes of the May 10, 2023 Planning Board regular meeting.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
May 10 Planning Board Draft Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
3.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
May 10, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds
City Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The land acknowledgement was read by Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Richard Kuehn (online)
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell (online)
Susanna Martini
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Nick Maxwell
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Rose Haas, Planner
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jacob, Edmonds resident in the Five Corners area, expressed concern about large trees that have been lost over
the last few years. He urged the Board to put special protection on the big trees because they are irreplaceable.
He recommended having special protections for anything with a diameter of 24" and above.
Deborah Arthur said hello to the group.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 10, 2023 Pagel of 5
Packet Pg. 4
3.A.a
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing to Consider Citizen -initiated Code Amendment to Allow Daycare Businesses as a
Primary Permitted Use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone (AMD2023 -000 1)
Planner Rose Haas introduced the private code amendment by Great Kids Academy as previously reviewed.
The applicant's proposal, and staff s recommendation, is to change daycare to a primary outright permitted use
and exempt outdoor recreation spaces to be consistent with state law. She displayed a map with BN zone
locations throughout the City. She reviewed the process and public comments. One email has been received
from Mr. Roger Pence expressing support for the proposal. She discussed staffs analysis and recommendation
in support of this proposal.
Public Comments:
Deborah Arthur asked if Five Corners is in the BN zone. She spoke in support of the proposal. She also agreed
with Jacob about many trees being cut down every day.
Board Comments:
Board Member Maxwell said he heard from three people who thought it was a really good idea.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her concerns about traffic and/or safety were addressed by the City in regard
to the permitting process. Also, whether it's an appropriate use for the area will still be considered. She expressed
support for the proposal.
Board Member Martini asked about the noise concerns. Planning Manager Levitan explained that human voices
are exempt from the noise ordinance so that should not be a problem.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE CITIZEN -INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
DAYCARE BUSINESSES AS A PRIMARY PERMITTED USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS (BN) ZONE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND IN THE PACKET. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Levitan explained that this would be presented to Council next week and then move to a public hearing in
June. Staff will draft the formal recommendation letter for the Planning Board to include with the public hearing
packet.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Amendments ADM 2022-0004
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 10, 2023 Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 5
3.A.a
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers reviewed the project scope of considering new limits to property owner tree
removals and addressing existing development -related code issues with minor code changes. She briefly
reviewed the prior Planning Board discussions on minor code amendments. She presented the layout of the
comprehensive list of issues and sample code rewrites as way to keep track of everything. She reiterated that
for some proposed minor code amendments, the "fix" does not change the intent of the existing code. Out of
the 21 proposed minor amendments, 7 were removed to be addressed as major code amendments because the
"fix" would change the intent of the code.
The seven that were pulled include:
9. Retention incentive (Tree Board 12/1/22)
12. Double negatives (code restructuring)
13. Minimum retention threshold for 20.75.048 (numerical standard)
15, 17. Tree replacements (new system/one calculation)
16. Replant trees >24" DBH vs. fees in lieu (new, replant 1 S)
18. Fees in lieu (new system/one calculation, replant I)
She explained that the primary objectives of tree retention with development is to have a healthy sustainable
forest now as well as 5, 10, and 25+ years from now. This is done by tree retention, replacing removals on site,
and replacing removals by planting offsite. Where it can be done, tree retention is the priority. If the trees cannot
be retained, the trees should be replaced by planting onsite. If that is not feasible, replacing trees offsite is the
lowest priority option. The Tree Fund is funded by fees in lieu as well as penalties and fees from unauthorized
tree removal. The code specifies what the Tree Fund can be spent on.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about competing requirements regarding trees, utilities, design, etc. Ms.
Powers explained they are just talking conceptually right now. Mr. Levitan acknowledged that there are a lot of
competing interests happening. He noted that there are discussions and reviews going on concurrently with the
rest of the development review process with Engineering, Stormwater, etc. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell
commented that there are a lot of opportunities in the pre -application review or early in the process to get
feedback on your project. Public hearings are another way to give and get feedback on projects.
Ms. Powers explained the goal is to slow the loss of the tree canopy cover and replanting for the future. She
reviewed a checklist/worksheet showing how the current code works for development (except for multifamily
and commercial). There was some discussion about what a viable tree is. Ms. Powers stated that anything in
fair, good, or excellent condition would be considered viable but it's all subject to review. She pointed out that
under the current code anything over 24 inches is not replaced but automatically charged a fee in lieu for tree
removal based on appraisal value. She displayed actual size visuals of various diameters of trees. She explained
there are many levels of complexity with the current code. For example, if a developer retains 50% of trees on
the site, they are able to waive all fees in lieu which can be very significant. Also, there is a cap for fees in lieu
of $2/square foot area of the property. This always ends up being less than the appraised value or any other fees
in lieu, and trees are not being replaced. The 50% tree retention threshold has been a bigger incentive for tree
retention than anything else in the code. Board Member Golembiewski noted another issue is that developers
can choose to remove the larger trees as part of their allowed removals as a way of avoiding fees.
Ms. Powers also reviewed the gives or variances to development standards allowed in the code if you achieve
greater tree retention. These variations include things like reduced setbacks, the ability to cluster houses in one
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 10, 2023 Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 6
3.A.a
area, or flexibility with access and driveway widths. This results in a more profitable project for the developer.
The 50% retention policy seems to be working to retain trees and save developers money.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked if they have the data to show what size trees developers are retaining. Are
they keeping the smaller trees and removing the larger ones? Ms. Powers said they have not conducted a boots -
on -the -ground study, but under the review process they are trying to address the size of trees retained.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about hazard trees. Ms. Powers explained a hazard tree is a tree that has
enough defects or disease that predisposes parts of it or the whole tree to failure. The other part of that is that
there needs to be a target. If it's in the middle of a critical area and is not going to target a structure or high
occupancy use or services, it would be assessed differently. Ms. Powers noted that a hazard tree will always be
a "poor" tree.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about multifamily and commercial regulations. Ms. Powers explained that
for multifamily, the tree retention threshold is 25% instead of 30% but everything else applies. Most of those
sites are already built out, and what's allowed by zoning is practically 100% impervious lot coverage, which
makes it harder to retain existing trees.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked about new housing legislation that is coming forward from the State. Ms.
Powers commented that a building footprint is a building footprint whether it is a ADU or a duplex or a triplex.
When they are talking about tree retention there's always going to be the potential for tree retention and
replacement. Mr. Levitan further explained the new legislation (HB 1110) which would require cities to allow
at least two units per lot in any zone that previously allowed for a detached single-family residence. There was
some discussion about the potential implications of this.
Ms. Powers reviewed stakeholder feedback on the existing tree code related to development. There have been
three stakeholder meetings so far (Developers and Arborists in the Housing sector; Tree Board; Planning Stafi).
Stakeholders were asked what they would change about the existing code and what are some ways the tree code
could be improved. Ways to simplify the code with a minimum tree density system using a single calculation
were discussed. hi general, the feedback has been that the code and review process is too complex.
Mr. Levitan went over the project timeline. The next Planning Board meeting on this topic where staff will be
soliciting feedback is expected to be June 28. He invited board members to contact staff with any questions or
requests for more information prior to the next meeting.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said it seems like the consensus is that going through the process is painful for
everyone. She asked if there are different methodologies for determining how trees can/should be retained? Ms.
Powers offered to provide summaries of what other cities are doing. In particular, there is a simple calculation
that can be used to address these issues. This would be useful to streamline the code and simplify the process.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thought it would be helpful to have at least three options to compare. Mr. Levitan
noted they could send out some information about various options. Chair Gladstone requested getting that
information sooner than usual because it is a lot of information to digest. It would be beneficial to have the next
packet far enough in advance so that if board members have questions, they can send them prior to the meeting
and be able to provide useful direction at the meeting. Board Member Mitchell concurred. Mr. Levitan indicated
they could send out a good portion of the next packet early so they can solicit feedback at the next meeting. He
noted he was also available to answer any questions if needed.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 10, 2023 Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 7
3.A.a
NEW BUSINESS
None
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. Discussion followed.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone stated she appreciates the complexity of these issues, the kinds of questions people are asking,
and the interest people are showing. She encouraged everyone to look at the packet when it is sent so they can
get questions answered ahead of time. She also shared that she has filed to run as Commissioner of the Olympic
View Water and Sewer District.
I W w10101 I►`[ s :1171 s 17►I I No I n g .ZKe7u I►I I&W
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell reiterated that there would be a community conversation regarding the Tree Code
in this room on Monday, May 15 at 6:00 p.m. She is planning on attending and can report back to the Board.
Board Member Mitchell thanked staff for the presentation. He expressed appreciation to the Tree Board also
for coming up with the bullet points to make a complex set of issues simpler.
Board Member Golembiewski expressed appreciation for the education on how the current Tree Code is being
implemented. It helped to highlight where the pain points are.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 10, 2023 Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 8
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/24/2023
Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
Staff Lead: Shannon Burley
Department: Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Prepared By: Shannon Burley
Background/History
The City of Edmonds Athletic Field Reservation Policy was last updated in 2015 and included several
references that are now out of date. The new policy has been updated to reflect current practice,
expanded upon to allow for more transparency and clarity, and updated to allow for increased efficiency
and better customer service.
Staff Recommendation
Provide feedback on proposed policy revisions and recommend document (with or without revisions) be
presented to the City Council Parks and Public Works Committee in June 2023 for review, followed by
adoption by the full City Council at a later date.
Narrative
Rather than update the existing policy, staff opted to re -write the policy. This allowed staff to take a fresh
look at procedures, review the policies and fee structure for multiple neighboring jurisdictions and
ensure that the legal requirements, definitions and explanations were significantly improved. The
document that was 6 pages long has been expanded to 9 pages with an additional 4-page online
application. The new policy and application are found in the attachments.
Revisions are outlined below and can also be found in a table summary format attached. Changes fall
into four primary buckets: Fee adjustment, aligning with current practices, additional information to
provide increased transparency and clarity and finally process changes that increase efficiency and
improve customer service.
Rental Fees:
Residents increasing from $12/hour to $15/hour
Non-residents increasing from $16/hour to $20/hour
Light fees increasing to $20/hour (previous was $12/hour residents & $16/hour non-residents)
50% of fees due upon receipt of allocation; balance due within 30 days of final billing. Past policy
stated it was due 3 days prior to activity start, in reality, staff spend significant time chasing
organizations for payment.
Current Practice:
Updated scheduling priorities to match current practice. Specifically added two new categories
for non-league based reservations of athletic facilities.
Packet Pg. 9
9.A
o Non-league/non-profit
o Non-league/for profit
Updated language in the refund section to match current practice. City of Edmonds does not
cancel activity due to weather, i.e. rain -outs. That is the responsibility of the permitted
organization as such the City does not offer refunds on weather related cancellations. The City
will refund if the activity is cancelled at the request of the city; for example if a safety hazard is
identified, etc.
Transparency & Clarity:
Introduction & purpose: expanded from 4 bullet points to complete paragraphs with a link to
park regulations.
Added in sections for Definitions and Damages for clarity
Expanded insurance section to provide clarity on expectations and requirements from applicant.
General Field Use Policies have been separated into two sections, each with significantly more
information and clearer expectations. The previous document had these sections combined in a
16-bullet point format.
o Field use policies
o Rules of conduct
Efficiency & Customer Service Enhancement:
Allocation Process - the timeline for field allocation and application submission has not changed,
however language is revised to provide better customer service.
Application - proposed online application which allows the City to ensure permit holder attests
to reading and understanding rules, procedures and guidelines. Previously an applicant would
submit a request and then be asked to review the documents. It was difficult to assess if that
review was being done. New process accomplishes both steps at one time.
Youth Concussion & Head Injury Protocol, Sudden Cardiac Arrest, Equity and Non -Discrimination
- these laws have been added to the City Website and added to our policies. Further, the
application now requires that applicant review and attest to having reviewed them prior to
submitting their application.
Field descriptions updated for increased accuracy.
Attached is a summary of changes for further clarification.
Attachments:
Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy 2023
Athletic Field Use Application
Summary of Changes
2015 Policies and Procedures for Athletic Fields
Presentation Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy 2023
Packet Pg. 10
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department
A. Introduction
The Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy ("policy') was created to manage the City of Edmonds Parks,
Recreation and Human Service Department's athletic fields in a manner that will ensure reasonably
equitable distribution and maximum use of facilities by the public.
The policy is intended to provide clear rules and guidelines to define allowable athletic field uses consistent
with facility design and intent, and to establish priorities for scheduling and types of use.
City -owned athletic fields are designed to meet a wide range of community recreation interests beyond
organized athletic competition. Athletic field use and reservation policies and fees for use are necessary to
effectively and efficiently schedule these community assets to the greatest extent possible while balancing
competing uses, priorities, and ensuring their long-term sustainability. A City -issued permit is required for all
athletic field use that is arranged, monitored and/or run by an organization or its representatives and must
be scheduled through the Parks, Recreation and Human Services Department per this policy. Drop -in use of
an available, unprepped field by individuals not in association with an organized sport program is allowed
without a permit.
The City of Edmonds reserves the right to limit or suspend field access seasonally and during periods of
inclement weather, poor playing conditions, damage, unsafe or hazardous conditions and for necessary field
rest and maintenance requirements.
The City of Edmonds Park Regulations Chapter 5.32 of Edmonds City Code shall govern all use of City owned
parks and facilities.
B. Definitions
Adult — Participants aged 18 and older (excluding participants eligible to participate in high school sponsored
sports).
Allocation — The distribution of available time between groups and programs requesting field use. The
process involves evaluating field use requests and distributing field assignments fairly and impartially, per
this policy.
Application — A form that can be found on the City's website that is to be filled out consistent with the
scheduling procedures listed in this policy to request field use.
Athletic Field Use Coordinator — The staff member within the recreation division responsible for athletic
field allocation, fee collection and enforcement of this policy.
1
Packet Pg. 11
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
City Sponsored Programs & Events — Programming sponsored or co -sponsored by the City has priority for
use of City -owned fields and will be prioritized in the scheduling procedures outlined in this policy. Examples
of these include City day camps, classes, movie nights, festivals, and special events.
Commercial — Any activity conducted in or on a City facility where monies are collected for the specific
purpose of financially benefiting an individual, business or organization (non-profit organizations excluded).
Edmonds Resident Organizations — An organization is considered local when at least 65% of registered
participants are Edmonds Residents. Rosters are required and may be audited.
Field Use Permit — A document issued by the Parks, Recreation and Human Services Department to the
requesting organization outlining the approved schedule and fee's that are due. The Permit should be
accessible throughout field use to verify approval of use.
League Schedule — A document submitted an organization that includes all game dates, times and locations.
Non -Resident Organizations — An organized group is considered non -local when less than 65% of registered
participants are Edmonds residents. Rosters are required and may be audited.
Organization — An entity established to carry out a particular purpose, such as providing opportunities for
individuals to participate in athletic activities or other recreational pursuits. For purposes of this policy,
Organizations may include schools, churches, sports associations, community associations and the like.
Organizations must carry insurance coverage for their activities.
Organized Use — Any use of an athletic field for an organized gathering, program, or event, such as those
conducted by a city, school, league/organization, church, association/group, or company.
Organizer — Individual responsible for the application submittal, identified as the primary point of contact
and responsible for the conduct of the Organization.
Sports Camp / Clinic — A program organized to provide registered participants with skill building instruction
in one or multiple sports, typically lasting less than a week.
Tax-exempt Nonprofit Organization (Non -Profit) — An organization that has obtained a non-profit status
and is registered as a non-profit business or corporation with the State of Washington and has maintained
good standing with the State of Washington.
Youth — Participants aged 17 and under or participants eligible to participate in high school sponsored
sports.
2
Packet Pg. 12
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
C. Field Scheduling and Allocation
The athletic field allocation process is designed for organized groups (Edmonds Resident Organizations, Non -
Resident Organizations, Non -Profits, Sports Camps & Clinics and others seeking organized use) seeking
permitted use of an athletic field. Athletic Field allocations happen three times annually with three seasons.
• Spring/Summer Season (March, April, May, June, July & August)
• Fall Season (September, October & November) — subject to weather and field conditions
• Winter Season (December, January & February) — subject to weather and field conditions
To request permitted use, organized groups must complete a field use application and provide proof of
insurance (detailed in section D below). Applications for the Summer Season are accepted in January and
February. Applications for the Fall Season are accepted in July and August. Applications for the Winter
Season are accepted in November and December.
To be considered in the allocation process, applicants must follow all requirements outlined in this Athletic
Field Use and Reservation Policy, including submission deadlines.
The City's Athletic Field Use Coordinator will consider applications primarily based on scheduling priority
classifications, as explained below. In recognition that there are limited multi -use fields, the following
criteria will be taken into consideration to establish fair and reliable allocations: Safety of participants and
general park users, field conditions (fields may be closed or subject to limited availability at any time for
safety concerns or due to the risk of severe damage to the fields), users in good standing (payments up to
date in accordance with the applicable payment schedule and requests received according to allocation
timeline), and historic use (two (2) years of consistent use where permit conditions have consistently been
met). The Athletic Field Use Coordinator has discretion to determine if additional criteria should be taken
into consideration at the time of field allocation.
Late applications will be considered after the allocation process is complete, on a first -come, first -served
basis.
Scheduling Priorities
Field allocations will be established based on the following priority classifications. Classifications are listed in
the order they will be allocated. After the allocation process is complete, new applications do not supersede
others, even if they fall into a higher classification.
Field use applicant priority is as follows:
1. City of Edmonds sponsored or co -sponsored events and programs
2. Edmonds Resident Youth Leagues
3. Edmonds Resident Adult Leagues
4. Non -Resident Youth Leagues
5. Non -Resident Adult Leagues
6. Non -Profit, non-league use (such as camps, clinics, events, etc.)
7. For -Profit, non-league use / commercial groups
City -sponsored or co -sponsored programs have priority for use of City -owned fields and athletic facilities.
City programs and activities have the right to preempt other users upon giving as much notice as is practical,
except in extraordinary circumstances when advanced notice is not possible.
3
Packet Pg. 13
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefit of any services or activities
made possible by or resulting from this policy on the basis of sex, gender identity, gender expression, race,
color, religion (creed), national origin, age (except minimum age) and retirement provisions, marital status,
sexual orientation, military status, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability.
While every effort will be made to schedule field use at the fields, times and dates requested, there is no
guarantee all requests will be accommodated.
The City of Edmonds does not operate a multi -athletic field sports complex. Requests for tournaments on
any of the City's athletic fields should be submitted per the field scheduling and allocation policy outlined
above.
D. Insurance
In addition to the Field Rental Application, all applicants must submit a certificate of comprehensive general
liability insurance issued by one or more companies authorized to do business in the State of Washington.
Insurance coverage must provide protection from claims arising from injuries to people and damage to
property in the amounts set forth below. Proof of insurance must be submitted at least 30 days prior to start
of fialrl imp
The following items are required on the insurance documents:
1. The insured's name must be the same as the Organization listed on the Athletic Field Use Application.
2. The policy must name the City of Edmonds, 700 Main St, Edmonds WA, 98020 as an "additional insured"
by Endorsement.
3. Minimum of $1,000,000 General Liability Insurance and $2,000,000 General Aggregate Insurance for
personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage.
E. General Field Use Policies
All organizations must submit their League Schedule to the Field Coordinator at least one week prior to the
program start date. Failure to do so may result in cancellation of the field use permit.
If a field is double booked, scheduled league games shall have field priority over practice. Maximum
scheduled time per game is two (2) hours and maximum scheduled time for practices is ninety (90) minutes.
Practice locations may rotate to support maintenance and field conditions.
The person listed as primary contact on the application will serve as the sole contact person with the City
staff. The primary contact person is responsible for informing team coaches and/or managers of City of
Edmonds policies regarding field usage and of individual team schedules.
Full sized soccer goals will be provided by the City on the Civic Park main field, Organizers must provide
bases and goals for all other athletic fields. Equipment storage is not allowed without written permission
from the City. The City is not liable for any loss or damage to the field user group's property.
City staff will complete initial field maintenance in preparation for the beginning of the season on the
athletic fields. The City will paint the full-sized soccer field lines on the main field at Civic Park. Organizers
Packet Pg. 14
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
are responsible for lines on all other fields throughout their usage. Access to fields for lining must be
scheduled in advance with the Athletic Field Use Coordinator. Fields must be lined with approved athletic
marking paint only, paint shall not be dispensed into the storm drain, lining must not "overline" other
prepared lines without prior approval from the Athletic Field Use Coordinator.
The City provides garbage receptacles at all sports field locations. All Organizers are responsible for cleaning
up debris and trash on all fields and common areas following field use. Any trash left behind by the
Organizer or their affiliated field users will be picked up by City staff with labor costs charged to the
Organizer. Organizers must pack -out their trash from locations where the City -provided garbage receptacle
is not large enough to accommodate their use. The City may require Organizers to bring in additional
approved receptacles/dumpsters if the size or scope of the Organizer's activity compels it.
Fields may be accessed at 8:00 am for warm-ups, but practices and games may not begin until 9:00 am. All
play must end at the time listed on the field use permit for all rentals. Civic Park main field will be available
until 9:45 pm year-round. See the fee schedule for fees associated with using the field lights. Teams and
players may not be on the field at any time during field preparations or maintenance. Organizers must notify
the Athletic Field Use Coordinator to report any reserved times that can be released for general public use
or other field use groups. Continued non-use of a reserved, permitted field may result in revocation of the
Field Use Permit of the allocated field.
Animals must be leashed at all times in City of Edmonds Parks and are PROHIBITED from being on athletic
fields and playgrounds. Owners are responsible for picking up after their animals while in parks.
Rainout decisions are left to the Organizer, referee, or umpire to make on -site. The Athletic Field Use
Coordinator will make a good faith effort to reschedule games that are rained out; refunds are not available
for cancellations due to inclement weather.
When Field Use Permits are issued, a specific field is reserved for the Organizer to the exclusion of others.
Organizers may not assign or sublease their scheduled time to other field users. Any such action will result in
the loss of field use and/or allocation privileges. Recognizing this exclusivity, Organizers should only reserve
the fields they intend to use.
Sale of goods or services on public property is strictly prohibited. To apply for the authorization to utilize a
public park space for profit, an individual or organization must submit a proposal pursuant to the City of
Edmonds Concessions Request for Proposals found on the City of Edmonds website. Submissions will be
evaluated on a first come, first served basis, however historic use will be taken into consideration.
To ensure the long-term health of City sports fields, the number of games/hours of use may be limited on a
weekly or seasonal basis. Without such limitations, the impact to the City fields could be negative and long-
lasting. Field closures may occur if staff determines fields have deteriorated due to wear and tear or in cases
of inclement weather such as rain, frost, or snow. It is the responsibility of all field users to protect the turf
from excessive wear and tear. Organizers should rotate locations of training and of equipment, including but
not limited to ladders, cones, and pitching practice. Additionally, field users shall not use fences, bleachers,
or other amenities as targets for practice or warm-ups.
Motor vehicles are to be parked only in designated parking areas and are not permitted on athletic fields.
Wi
Packet Pg. 15
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
Fields may not be improved, dug into, repaired, used outside of this policy, or modified in any way without
prior written permission from the City. Pop up tents must be anchored with sandbags and NOT field stakes
to avoid costly repairs to the irrigation systems. The cost of repairs to correct damage caused by an
Organizer or their affiliated field users will be the responsibility of the Organizer. It is the responsibility or
the Organizer to educate staff, volunteers, umpires, coaches, parents and visitors about monitoring players
and their actions while using City fields.
F. Rules of Conduct
1. Please be a good neighbor. Arrive quietly and depart in the same manner to avoid disrupting
neighboring residents, especially after late games. Games shall not begin prior to 9:00 am. Artificial
noisemakers such as car horns, sirens, air horns, portable music players, microphones, radios, and the
like are prohibited.
2. All teams must engage appropriately with staff and with one another, and not interfere with the use of
fields by other user groups. Refusal to comply with City staff instructions may result in a directive to
vacate the field. These actions will be documented and may result in disciplinary action to the Organizer.
Police enforcement will be called upon should any individuals or groups engage in verbal or physical
violence.
3. Adult supervision is required at all times.
4. Balls and/or equipment thrown, batted, kicked, or otherwise propelled that land on private property are
not to be retrieved without permission of the property owner. Do not climb walls or fences or enter
gates to gain access onto private property.
5. Tobacco Use, Smoking, E-Cigarettes and Vaping - Per section 5.32.045 of Edmonds City Code, the use of
all tobacco products, including chewing tobacco, smoking, and e-cigarettes/vaping, is prohibited in all
public parks including parking lots.
6. Alcohol Consumption, Marijuana/Cannabis Use, Public Intoxication — Washington State law (RCW
66.44.100 and 69.50.445) prohibits the consumption or use of alcohol or marijuana products in any form
in public places, which includes all City of Edmonds Park facilities and parking lots. It also prohibits the
opening of packages containing alcohol or marijuana products in any form. A person who violates these
sections is considered guilty of a class 3 civil infraction under Chapter 7.80 RCW.
7. Any type of indecent exposure including public urination or any other inappropriate exposure will not be
tolerated. Vulgarity of any kind, including but not limited to foul or offensive language, shall not be used
at any time during field use. The Edmonds Police Department will be contacted immediately should
individuals become unruly and further enforcement is needed.
8. If an Organizer refuses to comply with the City's field use policies or to follow the directive of a City staff
member, the Edmonds Police Department will be notified for assistance. In cases of emergency or any
matter requiring police response, field users should call 911.
rel
Packet Pg. 16
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
G. Damages
The Organizer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by damages, including but not limited to
damages to the facility, furnishings, fixtures, and any additional cleaning required outside of the normal use
for said facility which occurred in connection with the permitted activity and caused by the Organizer,
sponsoring organization(s) and/or attendees.
H. Youth Program Concussion & Head Injury Protocol, Sudden Cardiac Arrest, Equity and Non -Discrimination
The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Human Services Department has a vested interest in ensuring
not only that the City's programs operate within the following laws, but also that athletic organizations using
City facilities are operating within the same laws in their organizational practices. Annually, all Organizations
must agree to meet the City's requirements as outlined below. Copies of the Zackery Lystedt Law and
Gender Equity Act are available on the City's website.
1. Zackery Lystedt Law (Youth Sports Concussion and Head Injury Law)
In 2009, the Washington State Legislature passed the Zackery Lystedt Law (Youth Sports Concussion and
Head Injury Law) RCW 28A.600.190. In 2015 the law was modified to include Sudden Cardiac Arrest,
RCW 28A.600.195.
All youth programs that use publicly owned facilities must be in compliance with policies for the
management of concussions, head injuries, and sudden cardiac arrest in youth sports. Each youth sports
group will need to comply with the following requirements:
A. All coaches, athletes and their parents/legal guardians must comply with mandated notification and
education for the management of concussions, head injuries and sudden cardiac arrest. All coaches
(paid and volunteer) are required to be educated in the nature and risk of concussions, head injuries
and sudden cardiac arrest prior to the first practice/competition.
B. Athletes and their parents/legal guardians within organizations are required to annually be informed
about the nature and risk of concussions, head injuries and sudden cardiac arrest.
C. Leagues, coaches and parents/legal guardians are responsible to immediately remove any athlete
from return to play until written clearance has been received by the league from a licensed health
care provider trained in the evaluation and management of concussion/head injury.
2. Gender Equality for Community Athletics Programs
In 2009, the Washington State Legislature passed the Gender Equality Bill for Community Athletics
programs, RCW 49.60.505. This law states that no city, town, county, or district may discriminate against
any person on the basis of sex in the operation, conduct, or administration of community athletics
programs for youth or adults. A third party receiving a lease or permit from a city, town, county, district
or a school district for a community athletics program also may not discriminate against any person on
the basis of sex in the operation, conduct or administration of community athletics programs for youth
or adults. Organizers are required to comply with the City's Gender Equality Policy in the conduct and
administration of community athletics programs for youth and adults.
3. Title IV, Civil Rights Act / Non -Discrimination
It is the City of Edmonds' policy to ensure full compliance with Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
prohibiting discrimination. No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the
benefit of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this policy on the grounds of sex,
7
Packet Pg. 17
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
race, color, creed, national origin, age (except minimum application age) and retirement provisions,
marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Any person who believes
his/her Title IV protection has been violated may file a complaint with the City of Edmonds.
I. Field Use Fees and Cha
• All rentals are minimum 2-hours.
• Rental Fees are $15 per hour for resident organizations and $20 per hour for non-resident organizations.
• A one-time $30 administrative fee will be charged for each field use permit to help offset administrative
expenses.
• Lights are available at Civic Park on the full-sized field. Lights are an additional $20 per hour and will be
charged after the following times:
January 4:00 pm May 7:00 pm September 7:00 pm
February 5:00 pm June 8:00 pm October 6:00 pm
March 6:00 pm July 9:00 pm November 4:00 pm
April 6:00 pm August 9:00 pm December 4:00 pm
Collection of Fees
When the final field allocation is approved and a facility use permit has been issued 50% of field rental fees
are due. The balance of the field rental fee is due within 30 days of final billing. Payments not received
within a timely manner may affect an Organization's or applicant's standing for the following year.
Payment can be made via check payable to the City of Edmonds; via credit card in person or over the phone
(425-771-0230); or via cashier's check or cash at the Frances Anderson Center (700 Main St. Edmonds, WA
98020). Checks returned to the City will be charged a return check fee as per the City's Non -Sufficient Fund
(NSF) Fee policy.
J. Cancellation, Rescheduling and Refund Policy
If City staff cancels or declares a field unsafe for use and is not able to provide an alternate location, the
Organizer will receive a credit or refund of the rental fee on the final billing statement at the conclusion of
permit use. Credits are not issued for weather related cancellations (rainouts) and Organizers are
encouraged to schedule additional time to accommodate make-up games at the time of their field use
application.
K. Field Locations & Details
Frances Anderson Center Fields, 700 Main St, Edmonds - Open March 15 through October 31
• Multi -purpose grass field — primary use is youth soccer, football, lacrosse practice/games and events.
The field is not lined and does not include goals.
• Youth softball/baseball field — primary use is youth baseball/softball practice. There are no dugouts,
bases, lines, or a home run fence.
• Restrooms located in Frances Anderson Center during operating hours with portable restroom for all
other times.
Packet Pg. 18
9.A.a
Revised April 2023
City Park, 3rd and Howell, Edmonds - Open March 15 through October 31
• Youth softball/baseball field — primary use is youth baseball/softball practice. There are no dugouts,
bases, lines, or a home run fence.
• Multi -purpose grass field - primary use is youth soccer, football, lacrosse practice and events. The field is
not lined and does not include goals.
• Restrooms available in the park.
Civic Park, 310 6th Avenue N, Edmonds - Open year round
• Full-sized grass soccer field (300' x 150') - primary use is soccer, football, lacrosse games and practice.
The field is lined and includes full sized soccer goals and lights.
• Mini grass soccer field (160' x 100') - primary use is youth soccer games/practice and warmups. The
field is lined and does not include goals.
• Restrooms available in the park.
Hickman Park, 23700 104th Ave. W Edmonds - Open March 15 through October 31
• Grass field - primary use is soccer, football, lacrosse practice. The field is not lined and does not include
goals.
• Youth Baseball / Soccer Field — primary use is t-ball, coach pitch baseball/softball. There are no dugouts,
bases, lines, or a home run fence.
• Two portable restrooms.
Pine Street Playfield, 6th and Pine Street, Edmonds - Open March 15 through October 31
• Youth baseball / softball field - primary use is youth baseball and softball for ages 10 and under.
Playfield has covered dugouts, home run fence at 170' and limited spectator seating; user must provide
bases.
• One portable restroom.
Seaview Park, 80th Ave W and 186th St SW, Edmonds - Open March 15 through October 31
• Grass field - primary use is youth soccer, football, and lacrosse. The field is not lined and does not
include goals.
• Youth baseball / softball field — primary use is youth baseball and softball. There are no dugouts, bases,
lines, or a home run fence.
• Restrooms available in the park.
Sierra Park, 80th Ave W and 1915t St SW, Edmonds - Open March 15 through October 31.
• Youth baseball / softball field — primary use is youth baseball/softball and adult softball. The field has a
homerun fence at 240' and team benches. There are no dugouts, the field is not lined, and user must
provide bases.
• One portable restroom.
M
Packet Pg. 19
9.A.b
EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
ATHLETIC FIELD
RESERVATION APPLICATION
• Please review the City of Edmonds Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy on the City's website for detailed
information regarding reservations, requirements, pricing and submittal deadlines.
• Questions may be directed to 425-771-0230 or Field Reservations@edmondswa.gov.
• Complete pages 1-4 and return to Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Human Services to request field reservations.
Mail/Deliver to: 700 Main St. Edmonds, WA 98020 or Field Reservations@edmondswa.gov.
APPLICANT INFORMATION-
0
a
Name of Organization or Organizer:
c
Classification: ❑ Non -Profit, ID#
❑ Private Citizen or Group ❑ For -Profit / Commercial
a�
Residency Status: ❑ Resident (65% or more participants live in Edmonds) ❑ Non -Resident
Cd
Organization Website Address:
Primary Phone :
y
Billing Address:
City, ST Zip:
a�
ii
ORGAN IZER/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
INFORMATION
Name of Primary Contact Person:
Position:
Q
Email Address:
Phone Number:
c
g
Billing Contact Person: ❑ Same as above or Name:
`2
.Q
a
Email Address:
Phone:
Q
a�
GENERAL ACTIVITY INFORMATION
(Complete ALL that apply)
ii
Activity Title:
Sport Type:
2
W
m
Field Use Type: ❑ Game (s)
❑ Practice ❑ Camp/Clinic ❑ One -Time Use
a
Activity Start Date:
Activity End Date:
E
Target Age Range (s):
# of participating teams: Average # of players per team:
a
r
❑ Use of amplified sound, if yes describe: _
❑ Use of City Utilities: ❑ Potable Water
Other Requests:
❑ Electricity Purpose:
❑ Use of lights (Civic Park Only)
r
Q
Athletic Field Reservation Application Pnna 1 of 4
Packet Pg. 20
9.A.b
Preferred Field (number your top three choices with #1 being your top choice):
_Frances Anderson Center (select all that apply): ❑ Multi -Purpose Grass Field ❑ Youth Softball/Baseball Field
_City Park (select all that apply): ❑ Multi -Purpose Grass Field ❑ Youth Softball/Baseball Field
_Civic Park (select all that apply): ❑ Full -Sized Grass Soccer Field with lights (300' x 100')
❑ Mini Grass Field (160' x 100')
_Hickman Park (select all that apply): ❑ Multi -Purpose Grass Field ❑ Youth Softball/Baseball Field
Pine Street Playfield : ❑Youth Baseball/Softball Field
Seaview Park (select all that apply): ❑ Multi -Purpose Grass Field ❑ Youth Softball/Baseball Field
_Sierra Park : ❑ Youth Baseball/Softball Field
Reservation Dates Requested:
Day of Week
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
❑ Practice
❑Game
❑M
❑Tu
❑W
❑Th
❑F
❑Sa
❑Su
❑ Other*
❑ Practice
❑Game
❑M
❑Tu
❑W
❑Th
❑F
❑Sa
❑Su
❑ Other*
❑ Practice
El Game
❑M
❑Tu
❑W
❑Th
❑F
❑Sa
❑Su
❑ Other*
❑ Practice
❑Game
❑M
❑Tu
❑W
❑Th
❑F
❑Sa
❑Su
❑ Other*
❑ Practice
❑Game
❑M
❑Tu
❑W
❑Th
❑F
❑Sa
[]Su
❑ Other*
*If activity is "Other" than Practice or Game, please describe:
Describe equipment you wish to setup for your activity (note: vehicles are not allowed on fields and stakes/ground
penetrating devices are also not allowed for example: sandbags must be used to hold town tents vs. stakes):
Additional comments or requests:
Q
Athletic Field Reservation Application Pnna 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 21
9.A.b
Initials & Signature of the Organizer or Organizer's Authorized Representative is required in the Acknowledgement and
the Hold Harmless & Indemnification sections below indicating understanding of the statements and intent to comply.
Minimum Age. I certify that I am 18 years of age or older and that I am an authorized representative of the
Organization/Organizer.
Residency. I understand that the City of Edmonds may request an audit on the residency status of my
organization at any time. To be considered local at least 65% of registered participants must be Edmonds
Residents.
Application Timeline. I understand that I may expect receipt acknowledgement from the Edmonds Parks,
Recreation and Human Services Department within 10 business days of my application submittal.
2
Insurance. The City of Edmonds does not maintain insurance that will respond to claims against me, the
o
Or anizer arising from m use m affiliated organizations members/participants' use or use b those attending
g g Y Y gY g
a
c
my activity. When required by the City, I will provide written documentation meeting the minimum
°
requirements outlined in the City's Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy as proof of my general liability
it
insurance coverage.
m
Field Use & Park Rules. I, the Organizer have read, understand and agree to abide by all field use policies and
06
park rules described in the City's Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy.
°
N
Alcohol & Marijuana. Washington State law prohibits the consumption or use of alcohol or marijuana products
:2
in any form in public places, which includes the City of Edmonds park facilities. It also prohibits the opening of
packages containing alcohol or marijuana products in any form. Please refer to the Revised Code of Washington
2
(RCW) sections 66.44.100 and 69.50.445 for detail. A person who violates these sections is guilty of a class 3
r
civil infraction under chapter 7.80 of the RCW.
Q
Standard of Behavior. I, the Organizer, understand that I, my affiliated members/participants and those in
o
attendance of my activity are expected to obey all laws governing the City of Edmonds and the State of
Washington and to behave in a respectful manner during our use of the playfields. Fighting, abusive or
Q
threatening language, public urination, intoxication, and littering are examples of behaviors that are considered
°-
a
unacceptable. I understand it is my responsibility to address unacceptable behavior if it occurs. The City of
y
Edmonds may at its discretion terminate my Field Use Permit if unacceptable behavior concerns persist.
Youth Program Concussion & Head Injury Protocol, Sudden Cardiac Arrest, Equity and Non -Discrimination. I
U_
attest that I have read and understand the Zackery Lystedt Laws (Youth Sports Concussion and Head Injury Law),
2
Gender Equality Bill for Community Athletics programs and Title IV, Civil Rights Act and agree to ensure the
organization I represent will comply.
a
Field Prep & Cleanup. Equipment I wish to setup to support my activity must be preapproved, in writing, by the
r
City. I understand that I am responsible for leaving my designated playfield area free of debris and garbage upon
E
my activity's conclusion. I will place garbage created by my activity in the waste receptacle provided onsite or I
r
will haul it off -site. I also understand that I will be responsible for payment of a cleanup fee when the City
Q
deems my post -activity cleanup was inadequate.
Cancellations & Changes. I understand that once my application is approved, the Cancellation, Rescheduling
and Refund Policy described in the City's Athletic Field Use and Reservation Policy applies.
Departmental Access. I understand that City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Human Services authorized
representatives shall have free access to the premises at all times.
Private Vehicles. My personal vehicles and those of my affiliated participants and guests are not permitted on
the playfields at any time without prior written approval from the City of Edmonds.
Athletic Field Reservation Application Pnna 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 22
9.A.b
Playfield Conditions. I understand that my playfield reservations may be cancelled at the City's discretion
when It has determined imminent conditions exist that could potentially cause damage to the playfields or put
field users' safety at risk. Should this occasion occur, I can expect the City to notify me with as much advance
notice as is feasibly diligent.
COVID Protocols. I acknowledge Washington State guidance regarding COVID restrictions and agree to comply
with guidance in effect during my activity. I affirm that protocols have been developed to comply with State
guidance and have been approved by the Snohomish County Health Department.
With my signature below, I the Organizer or Authorized Representative of the Applicant, hereby request of the City of
Edmonds the use of the City facilities as described herein and certify that the information in this request is correct and
complete. I agree that no persons will be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefit of, or otherwise subjected
to discrimination because of the person's race, color, national origin, age, handicap or other protected class status during
my use of the City's facilities. I further agree to exercise the utmost care in my use of the City's facilities and agree to
reimburse the City for any costs incurred by the City in repairing damage to its facilities caused by my activity.
I agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its elected officials, appointed officers, employees
and agents from all liability resulting from my use of City facilities except only such liability as shall have been occasioned
by the sole negligence of the City of Edmonds. I agree to observe and comply with all provisions of laws and ordinances
governing the City of Edmonds and the State of Washington.
Printed name of Organizer or Authorized Representative: LL
r
m
Signature of Organizer or Authorized Representative:
a
❑ 1 understand that checking this box and typing my digital signature constitutes a binding agreement. o
Q ., INSURANCE
a
a
When the final field allocation is approved and a facility use permit has been issued 50% of the field rental fee is due. The y
balance of the field rental fee is due within 30 days of final billing. Payments not received within a timely manner may
affect an Organization or applicant's standing for the following year. a,
ii
The City must receive a valid Certificate of Insurance accompanied by the policy's endorsement at least 30-days prior to .2
your activities start date. Certificate holder must be listed as: City of Edmonds, 700 Main St. Edmonds, WA 98020 with a
minimum coverage listed as $2,000,000 General Aggregate and $1,000,000 per occurrence. a
r
c
m
E
•R CITY USE
r
Date Application received by the City: By: Q
❑ Field Allocation APPROVED AS REQUESTED. Permit #
❑ Field Allocation APPROVED WITH CHANGES. Permit #
❑ Field Us NOT APPROVED. No Permit Issued. Remarks:
Staff Signature: Date:
Title
Athletic Field Reservation Application PnnP 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 23
9.A.c
Athletic Field & Reservation Policy Summary of Changes:
2015 Version
New Proposed Version
Introduction /
4 bullet points
Several paragraphs with a link to park regulations
Purpose:
Definitions:
NA / not included in prior
New
version
Scheduling
Added two new categories for increased clarity:
Priorities:
• Non-league/non-profit
• non-league/for profit
Allocation Process:
Timeline remains the same
Application:
Submit an email with
NEW fill out online application, allows the City to
request
ensure permit holder attests to reading and
understanding rules, procedures, and guidelines.
Insurance:
Limited information
Added details such as insurance amount,
endorsement requirements and timing for
submission of proof of insurance.
General Field Use
Rules and Regulations (16
Separated into field use policies and rules of
Policies:
bullets)
conduct. Significantly more information and
clarity of expectations.
Damages:
NA / not included in prior
New
version
Youth Concussion &
Portions were mentioned
Links to all laws added to rental website,
Head Injury
but no set policy that
application requires initials that laws have been
Protocol, Sudden
ensured uniform access to
reviewed and intend to be followed.
Cardiac Arrest,
information and attestation
Equity and Non-
of compliance.
Discrimination.
Fees and Charges:
Resident: $12/hour
Resident: $15/hour
Non -Resident: $16/hour
Non -Resident: $20/hour
Lights Resident: $12/hour
Lights: $20/hour ($32 Resident/$20 non-resident)
($24/hr total)
Lights non -Resident; $16/hr
($32/hr total)
Collection of Fee's:
Policy stated due 3 days
50% of fee's due upon receipt of field allocation;
prior to activity start.
balance due withing 30 days of final invoice
Reality, staff time spent
(typically sent near the end of the session).
chasing applicants for
payment.
Refunds:
Stated refunds could be
Simplified the process to ensure cancellations at
requested for programs
no fault to renter are given credit/refund.
cancelled due to adverse
Cancellations due to weather or other do not
weather. Parks does not
receive a refund.
cancel due to weather, the
organizations are required
to make that determination
therefore this was
inaccurate and misleading.
Field locations &
Updated to be more accurate
details:
V
0
IL
c
0
r
R
a�
N
m
Ca
m
D
M
2
ii
r
d
a
N
m
c
c�
t
U
0
E
E
0
r
c
m
E
M
U
R
a
Packet Pg. 24
9.A.d
City of Edmonds
Policies and Procedures for Athletic Field Use
Scheduled by City of Edmonds
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services have established this field use policy
to:
1. Manage the limited number of city athletic fields.
2. Insure all user groups are given a chance to schedule the use of city athletic fields
with the priority given to the Edmonds residents.
3. Charge fees to help maintain fields.
4. Mitigate concerns of neighbors living near athletic fields.
Scheduling Priorities — Priority use will be granted to organizations with residency, as
follows in order of priority:
1. City Sponsored programs
2. Youth Edmonds residents*
3. Adults Edmonds residents*
4. Youth out of boundaries
5. Adults out of boundaries
*In the case of Woodway Campus Fields, this is defined as residents within the
Verdant Health District boundaries.
Edmonds School District has priority of Woodway Campus Fields until 5pm
weekdays when school is in session.
Scheduling Procedures
1. Facilities will be scheduled for three program periods each year which are as
follows:
Spring/Summer (March, April, May, June, July, August)
Requests for this period will be accepted beginning January 1 and ending February 1
Fall (September, October, November) Subject to weather conditions on all fields
except Woodway Campus Fields.
Request for this period will be accepted beginning July 1 and ending August 1.
Winter (December, January, February)
Request for this period will be accepted beginning November 1 and ending
December 1. Civic Center Dirt Field and Woodway Campus Fields are the only
fields available.
(All Grass Fields are closed during these months unless otherwise approved by the
Park Maintenance Manager)
Packet Pg. 25
9.A.d
City of Edmonds
Policies and Procedures for Athletic Field Use
Scheduled by City of Edmonds
1. Scheduling meeting, if necessary, will be conducted within 14 days after the
designated date for submission of request. Following the scheduled meeting,
approved requests will be mailed to each organization confirming the dates of use.
Facilities will be assigned on an equitable basis and contingent upon field availability
Reassignments necessary due to inclement weather or facility closure will be made
when possible. The City reserves the right to limit the amount of play permitted on
the facilities during any program period. The City will establish beginning and
ending dates for field use for each period.
2. All organizations shall submit a copy of their formal league schedule to the
Recreation Center at least one week prior to the program starting date. Tournaments
must submit a copy of tournament schedule Wednesday prior.
3. Scheduled league games shall have use of the facilities over practice. League play
has priority over tournament games. Maximum scheduled time per game is two
hours, and a maximum scheduled time for practices is one and one-half hours.
Practice sessions locations will be rotated around the field playing surfaces in
accordance with existing field conditions. Facility Attendant will control the use of
the facility.
4. The City of Edmonds requires all users groups to provide a copy of the agency's
insurance policy showing the City of Edmonds as Co -additional insured. A signed
copy of the Edmonds School Districts Lystedt form when requesting use of a School
District fields. Permits will no longer be issued without this verification.
5. League Coordinator, Presidents, etc. are directly responsible for informing team
coaches/representatives of the City of Edmonds policies regarding field rental/usage.
Fees and Charges
1. Fees and charges will be assessed for use of all facilities to help partially offset
administrative and operational costs. Facility rental fees are outlined below. A
$30 Administrative fee will be included for each rental.
2. Fee Schedule:
A. Woodway Campus Fields per hour rate Youth $40/hr Adults $60/hr
Tournaments Youth $60/hr Adults $80/hr
B. All other fields per hour rate without lights;
Civic Center Field with lights:
R $10.00/Hr - NR $12.00/Hr
R$20.00/Hr - NR $24.00/Hr
2
Packet Pg. 26
9.A.d
City of Edmonds
Policies and Procedures for Athletic Field Use
Scheduled by City of Edmonds
C. Light Rental Guidelines; Fees will be charged after the following times.
January
4:00 pm
May 7:00 pm
September 7:00 pm
February
5:00 pm
June 8:00 pm
October 6:00 pm
March
6:00 pm
July 9:00 pm
November 4:00 pm
April
6:00 pm
August9:00 pm
December 4:00 pm
Collection of Fees
Billing statements of facility usage will be attached to approve Facility Use Permits and
must be paid three (3) days prior to scheduled usage. Failure to make payment within the
three (3) day period will result in immediate termination of approved permit. All
payments for fees and charges will be made by cash, check or an approved credit card
payable to City of Edmonds. Checks returned to the City must be paid by cash, credit
card or cashier's check plus an additional $30.00 return check fee.
C ancelation/Rescheduling
Requests for refunds must be submitted in writing to Edmonds Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services. They will be granted based on the following criteria,
1. Programs canceled by adverse weather.
2 Programs canceled by Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services at least
72 hours in advance of the scheduled activity.
3 Emergency, short, or no notice cancellations, instituted by police, fire, park, or
official personnel, wherein the health and/or safety of the participants and/or
spectators could be at risk.
All refunds for the above reasons will be made to the organization at the conclusion of
the approved permit use.
Community Athletics Non -Discrimination Policy:
The City of Edmonds complies with the State of Washington's "Fair Play in Community
Sports Act" (Laws of Washington Chapter 467, effective July 26, 2009) that prohibits
discrimination against any person in a community athletics program on basis of sex.
Packet Pg. 27
9.A.d
City of Edmonds
Policies and Procedures for Athletic Field Use
Scheduled by City of Edmonds
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Alcohol, Drugs, Smoking and Dogs are prohibited at all City and School fields
2. Motor vehicles are to be parked only in designated parking areas.
3. Concessions - only permitted with City of Edmonds Recreation User Agreement.
4. No person shall mutilate, deface, or damage any athletic facility. All litter shall
be deposited in the designated receptacles.
5. All rules and regulations related to the use of Edmonds School District property
shall apply to all City athletic facilities located on School District property.
6. Organizations shall not be permitted to utilize the facilities without adequate adult
supervision at all times.
7. All organizations, groups, and/or individuals utilizing the facilities must leave
them in satisfactory condition. Failure to do so will result in the additional
maintenance costs charged to the organization, group, or individuals responsible
for additional cleanup.
8. The Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services reserves the right to cancel
any facility Use Permit due to excessive turf damage or any unforeseen issues and
to amend the procedures set forth in this document at any time.
9. The City of Edmonds is not responsible for accidents, injuries or loss of property.
10. All play will cease at the following times listed on the field permit for all field
rentals with the exception for Civic Center Playfield on which play will cease at
9:00 pm year round. See chart used for light fees on page 3.
11. Billing statements for facility usage will be attached for approved Facility Use
Permits and must be paid three (3) days prior of the scheduled usage. Failure to
make payment within the three (3) day period will result in immediate termination
of approved permit. All payments for fees and charges will be made either by
cash, check, or an approved credit card. A $30.00 fee will be charged for all
returned checks.
12. If a team or league chooses to violate the limitations placed on fields, they will be
penalized by not being allowed to play on the field(s) for the remainder of the
season and possibly the next season.
13. No organized play or practices will start before 9am on any city owned or
scheduled fields.
14. Organizations must provide their own bases and lining equipment.
15. No artificial noisemakers on the fields. Examples are honking car horns, sirens,
air horns, portable music player + P. A., radios, etc.
16. Any organization not utilizing the fields as scheduled will lose that scheduled
time for the remainder of the season.
Packet Pg. 28
9.A.d
City of Edmonds
Policies and Procedures for Athletic Field Use
Scheduled by City of Edmonds
Field Locations
Anderson Field, 700 Main St, Edmonds
Grass field, primary use is youth baseball, soccer, and softball. No fences. Open March
15 through October 31. Restrooms located in Frances Anderson Center. No bases
installed.
City Park, 3rd and Howell, Edmonds
Grass field, primary use is youth baseball, soccer, and softball. No fences. Open March
15 through October 31. Restrooms in park. No bases installed
Civic Center Playfield, 6th and Edmonds St, Edmonds
Field CC 1 — Multi -purpose soccer field with lights, open year round.
Field CC2 — Grass baseball, soccer, and softball field. Right field fence 270'. Open
March 15 through October 31. One sani-can. No bases installed.
Edmonds Elementary, 1215 Olympic Ave, Edmonds
Multi -purpose field, primary use is youth baseball, soccer, and softball. No fences. Open
March 15 through October 31. One sani-can. No bases installed.
Hickman Park, 23700 104th Ave. W Edmonds
Grass field primary use is youth t-ball, coach pitch baseball and soccer. No fences. Open
March 15 through October 31. Two sani-cans. No bases installed. Sport court with two
basketball hoops.
Madrona School, 9300 236th St SW, Edmonds
M-1 — Primary use is youth baseball and adult softball. Left field fence 270'. No bases
installed.
M-2 — Primary uses youth football, lacrosse and soccer. Open March 15 through October
31. One sani-can.
Pine Street Park, 6th and Pine Street, Edmonds
Grass field, primary use is youth baseball and softball for ages 10 and under. Fence 170'.
Open March 15 through October 31. One sani-can. No bases installed.
Seaview Park, 80th Ave W and 186th St SW, Edmonds
Grass field, primary use is youth baseball, soccer, and softball. No fences. Open March
15 through October 31. Restrooms in park. No bases installed.
Sierra Park, 80th Ave W and 191st St SW, Edmonds
Grass field, primary use is youth baseball, soccer, softball and adult softball. Fences
240'. Open March 15 through October 31. One sani-can. No bases installed.
Woodway Campus Fields, 23200 100th Ave W. Edmonds
Synthetic turf fields, primary multi use sports field. Lined for soccer, lacrosse, baseball,
and ultimate frisbee . Three sani-cans. Open year round.
5
Packet Pg. 29
9.A.e
Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
Parks & Planning Board, May 2023
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director
n,
Packet Pg. 30
9.A.e
Overview
• Last updated in 2015
• Fee evaluation and recommendation
• Alignment with current practices
• Provide enhanced transparency & clarity
• Improve efficiency & enhance customer service
• Questions and next steps
2
Packet-Pg. 31
9.A.e
Rental Fee Recommendation
• Evaluated multiple jurisdictions fees
• Edmonds fees are lowest, recommend slight increase
• Resident fee increase $15 per hour; was $12 per hour
• Non-resident fee increase to $20 per hour; was $16 per hour
• Approx $11,350 revenue increase based on 2022 rentals
• No Civic Park in 2022
• No light fees in 2022
• Light fee increase to $20 per hour
• MLT $15 per hour
• Lynnwood $25 per hour
• 50% due upon allocation approval; 50% within 30 days of
3 billing
Packet Pg. 32
9.A.e
Update to Match Current Practices
• Scheduling priorities added two new non-league categories
• City of Edmonds sponsored or co -sponsored events and programs
• Edmonds Resident Youth Leagues
• Edmonds Resident Adult Leagues
• Non -Resident Youth Leagues
• Non -Resident Adult Leagues
• Non -Profit, non-league use (camps, clinics, events, etc.)
• For -Profit, non-league use / commercial groups
• Refund language updated
All
Packet Pg. 33
9.A.e
Transparency & Clarity
• Introduction & purpose expanded
• Added sections for Definitions and Damages
• Expanded insurance requirement language
• General field policies in two sections
• Field use policies
• Rules of conduct
5
i
Packet-Pg. 34
9.A.e
06
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVIC
-
Efficiency & Customer Service Y
Q
• Allocation process language revision
• NEW online application
• State & Federal law integration
• Accuracy update to field descriptions
0
(;�)EDMONDS ATHLETIC FIELD
RESERVATION APPLICATION
Pkam review Me Ciryol FdmoMSAMImc Fieltl Ike aM.servatim %liryon Me GNs weMirobrtlebikd
inbrms W n regarding reurvananz, requiremems, Drking a nd wbmittal deadlines.
queslwns may.dirccrcdma35-]]30230or FieltlPeservationslme ontlswa.eov.
Complece WB.li antl mwrn w Eamoma Ar{n, Rarntion & Xuman Services m requesl Mid reservations.
Mail/pelimr ro: 7. Main St....nM,-B.. FeldPeservaM1onSAetlmandswa.¢ov.
Gassifimxon: pion-RoM, IOp QP—Ghrcn-G ❑Ear-Profit/Canmembl
RxsNemy Stews: oPesident(GS%arm pa panes live in Ed—) e[3 Besidmt
aganiaatron vrelBirc alarew: denary P.m:
Billing Address: Gry,Si lip:
Nameof Primaryfcntxt Anan: in
Email Address: P.ne Nu.—
BillingCumanPerzon: ❑Same asabare or Name:
Email Mtlrcss: Phwe:
nr . a l e slmNrvPe:
Neid um TyD ❑Gamels) ❑Pmdaa ❑amv/nmm ❑l—T. eum
g g age (s): p pa aces s. mmgegof playersp. team:
DUse of amplified mood, if yes tlescd.: ❑- of IigM1blGvic Pah Only)
DUse ofGry UMiti.: ❑l-1 Waur OE—idw Pwpou:
gM1er Requesk:
M
N
O
N
V
■ o
. t.oganhernrorganhersnvmodaetll#prcsentaxveisreyulrcdm Me xmowletlgemeut
Me Xaw Ha mkuB lMemnl W.atlon sectlom below indi-,g umersbntlirg of Me sbhmellk aM Imentw m
Mlnlmum Pge.l cernry Mat lam 18 marsof age orakerand Mat l am an authorized repremnbtim oft.
lion/G. arr.
_ denryluntlersbMtM1attM1e ON of Edmontls may request an autliton Me rcsitlenrysbtus of my
I' mf .Tn.mnskercd bsal atkaste5%nfrc®surcd padiciWms must. Edmonds-de�nata time
Applkatlon TlmNlne. l umersbnd Mat I may.-1 receiptacknowletlgementhom Me EdmoMs Parks,
Pecreanon and Human Services OeW rtment wiMin 30busineudanof my application submiml.
ce. ThenGry of Edmontls o.n m nbni et.t vdll mpoMUm claims nst me, [hn
n N�wi ghnm myu1 my iftIud nr in embers/yr.^pTn ueruubmtlwua en
when requirctl by Me CiN lwilprmitle written tlocumenbdo eetingge mini u
outlined in Me GNsAMIe. Field UuaM Pesem.n Poliryas pmolol my general liability
_ EkW Use&Ark NWes.I,MeOrganarr.ve rwd,un--B and .gee wabide byallfield use pdiaesa
rE rules tlesoribM in Mefitys AtM1letic FieM Use 8 Reurvatian Polity.
_ Nm.IS Madl—wasting nSbte kw prohibitsMe wmumphono.uu of akohd or—nj—protl
in—Mrm in publicplaces,—hindud.-Gty of Edmontlsp dliti..balm pmM1ibxst. opening
pacbges mnbiningaknhd or marijuana pod.ls in any form. Pl.0 rekrm Me Perked=of Wxhin
(eGN) motions fGge.l00antl g8.50.145 br tlebil. A person wMviolates[M1eu sections is gyilryof a class
civil inhaction untlre rHapcer ].80a1t. R[W.
_ SbMeM afBNUNon I, Me IXganiaer, understaM Mat 1, my-irted me Wp,ddWnn and tlmse in
armance of myactiviry are.pmttd ro oheyall kws governing theGryof Edmondz and McSbm of
shi,gron antl m bMm in a mpecHul manneMuringour uuof the playfieltls. fighbne, abusiu
Mrearcning langmge, publk urimlb and liarringarc.ampl. nf.M1avinrs MataremnsN
coed,-y lumersbnd it ismyrcspo Mlityroaddressun--ple..vbrif itpccun.Thefiry of
Edmontls ma irstlimre on retina eltl Use permit if unawepbble.M1anorwnw
_ YouM PmgmmaCanwsslonS Neatl lnlury Pmtawl, Sutlden C-Wb Rrrtst, Equlry—Na�OBvlmlmtbn
tl and undersbnd t.—C Ly Idl lawn(— Sporn Cnrcuumn aM Head Injury
G-derMEq is Bill wr Community AMleUcs pwgrams am Title N,,— Righk Adam agree measure the
_ -,Beka uD^EAuipm nlilI-h w setup wsugrortmy actiNry muu. pr.pp—d, in wrMne.
Gry.l un&—d that 1 am responsible br I.vingmy d.ip—playfield area hee of debris antl garbage
miNsmncluswn.l will plxegarbage rased by my activity in Me waste recelsbcle —it omiu
will haul i[oRsite.l elm undersbnd Ma[ Iwill. responsible for WYmenl ola ckanup(mwM1en Me Gry
tleems my wrtacmiN cleanup was imdequace.
Gnmllatlom&Cbng..l untlersbntl Ma[once myappliration isapprovm, Me Gnmlla.n, ReuM1mulin
antl Rewntl PolirytlemribM in Me GN's AMletic Fkltl Use antl Remrvatiw Poliryapplies.
pa emalAmeu.lundersbntl MatGryof Edmontls Arb:, Recreation antl Human Servimsaut.dzM
t epayfieltls M any time w —t pnp wriarnapprowlhornt.GNofEd-
4C. tx
m
E
Packet-Pg. 35
9.A.e
Questions & Next Steps
• Feedback and recommendations from Parks & Planning Board
• Present to Council Committee June 13, 2023
• Request approval on consent June 20, 2023
• Policy in effect beginning July 1, 2023
7
Packet-Pg. 36
9.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/24/2023
Introduction to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
This is a new topic for consideration by the Planning Board.
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are established to protect public groundwater drinking supplies
from potential contamination and to ensure adequate groundwater availability. They are required by and
treated as critical areas under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and defined in Chapter 23.60 ECDC,
which was last updated in 2016 and states:
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing
geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for
contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of
ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas under the Washington State Growth
Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs exist in the vicinity of the
city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this critical area type
are not provided within this title. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
In 2022, Edmonds became aware of the presence of CARAs within the City's jurisdiction when the
Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) appealed the City's SEPA Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for a stormwater code update. While OVWSD's appeal was denied by the hearing
examiner, staff committed to updating its code to reflect the presence of CARAs within city boundaries.
OVWSD provided mapping of their wellhead protection areas to the City, which were added to the City's
geographic information system (GIS). This code update is a follow-up to that work and will establish
regulations for those areas consistent with the GMA in RCW 36.70A.020 and RCW 36.70.330.
The purpose of the updated code is to establish CARAs together with groundwater protection standards
to protect aquifers from degradation and depletion to minimize loss of recharge quantity, to maintain
the protection of supply wells for public drinking water, and to prevent contamination of groundwater.
Staff Recommendation
Staff will provide a presentation about critical aquifer recharge areas in Edmonds and discuss potential
draft code language to update Chapter 23.60 ECDC, which are currently being reviewed by Public Works
and OVWSD staff. Planning Board members are encouraged to ask questions and provide feedback on
potential code language. Staff believes that the code language will be ready for a public hearing as soon
as June 28, but can schedule an additional work session to review the draft code language in advance of
the public hearing if requested by board members.
Packet Pg. 37
9.6
Narrative
The draft regulations are based on the City of Issaquah's CARA and groundwater protection codes (see
weblink), which are recommended templates in the Department of Ecology's March 2021 guidance for
critical aquifer recharge and wellhead area protection (Attachment 2). The codes from Shoreline,
Mountlake Terrace, Woodway and Snohomish County were also analyzed since those jurisdictions have
portions of Olympic View's wellhead protection areas.
Section 4 of Ecology's guidance document details the requirement for the city to utilize best available
science (BAS) when developing its CARA regulations. Using BAS created for Olympic View in 2018 (a
summary of which is included as Attachment 3), staff developed draft regulations for critical aquifer
recharge and wellhead protection areas in Edmonds. This language is currently being reviewed by
OVWSD and the City's Stormwater Engineer. In combination with the City's existing stormwater code
which protects groundwater throughout Edmonds, the CARA code would provide additional protections
specifically within Olympic View's mapped wellhead protection areas.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Olympic View SEPA Appeal of 2021 Stormwater Code Update -- Final Decision
Attachment 2 - Ecology CARA Guidence March 2021
Attachment 3 - Olympic View 2018 WHPA Delineation Report
City of Issaquah CARA Regulations (IMC 18.10.796)
Packet Pg. 38
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
IN RE:
Stormwater Code Update
DNS Appeal
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Overview
The City's DNS is sustained and Ms. Petso's challenge to the DNS is denied.
Ms. Petso appeals a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination of
non -significance (DNS) issued for proposed amendments to the City's stormwater
regulations. The DNS must be overturned if the proposed amendments create probable
significant adverse impacts that have not been adequately evaluated and mitigated.
However, Ms. Petso's concerns primarily attach to currently existing environmental
problems that are not caused or exacerbated by the proposed amendments.
With one debatable exception, the proposed amendments are primarily designed to
increase stormwater protection and to reduce the environmental impacts of
development. Using existing stormwater regulations as a baseline for assessing
impacts, the adverse impacts of all of the proposed amendments are found to be modest
if any.
The most compelling source of substantive concern in Ms. Petso's appeal was
over an amendment to ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d, referenced as the "hard surface
Final Decision
PAGE 1
L
d
a
Q
M
��L♦
V
0
0
0
0
L
_
c
0
.y
a�
0
c
ii
0
a
a)
0
c.�
L
d
M
3
E
L
0
Packet Pg. 39 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
amendment" in this Decision. Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD) also
raised this as a primary concern in a comment letter. ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d currently
prohibits discharge of untreated stormwater from all surfaces into groundwater. The
hard surface amendment limits this restriction to hard surfaces, opening the door to
discharges from soft surfaces. However, staff have always interpreted ECDC
18.30.060.D.6.d as only applying to hard surfaces. Consequently, under current
practices the hard surface amendment simply reflects what staff has already been
requiring. Further, with or without the amendment, other stormwater regulations still
require treatment of run-off from soft surfaces over three quarters of an acre. In
practical terms, untreated stormwater from soft surfaces would most likely come from
small lawns, landscaping and permeable pavement.
Although staff s interpretation of current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d as not applying
to soft surfaces has some merit, it is vulnerable to challenge as discussed in the findings
below. It is possible that Ms. Petso or some other concerned citizen could successfully
persuade a hearing examiner or judge that current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d should apply
to both soft and hard surfaces. If that is the case, the proposed hard surface amendment
could generate adverse impacts by increasing untreated stormwater flows into
groundwater from soft surfaces. However, giving the legally required substantial
deference to the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is determined that the
increase in flows would not be significant enough to create any significant adverse
impacts. One significant factor in this assessment is that the flows would still have to
comply with the currently applicable Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)
stormwater manual, which DOE has found to set acceptable treatment standards for
stormwater control.
Ms. Petso also raises the looming presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoralkyl
substances (PFAS). These are toxic chemicals of significant concern to DOE because
they are ubiquitous, toxic, don't degrade and have contaminated hundreds of water
systems throughout the country. They are a compound found in crumb -rubber fields.
The DOE Manual' and the City's regulations are not designed to treat stormwater for
PFAS contamination, because there is no known technology to do so. Although there's
no question that PFAS is a problem, the proposed regulations do not exacerbate that
problem. The only amendment that could potentially increase PFAS contamination of
groundwater is the hard surface amendment. For the same reasons that the hard surface
amendment isn't found to create significant impacts associated with untreated
stormwater flows, it also isn't found to create significant impacts with PFAS
contaminated waters. The hard surface amendment has no impact on PFAS
1 The "DOE Manual" is the DOE 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington,
adopted by the City Council as a City stormwater regulation by ECDC 18.30.060(2).
Final Decision
PAGE 2
Packet Pg. 40 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
contamination caused by crumb -rubber fields, since the fields are over a 3/4 of an acre in
area and thus require the stormwater to be treated.
Ms. Petso also identifies that the City's SEPA review didn't identify or assess
impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas, most notably to the well head protection area
of OVWSD. OVWSD was not initially contacted about the SEPA review and the City
had to reissue its SEPA threshold determination to enable OVWSD to participate.
OVWSD submitted a comment letter expressing concern that the environmental review
did not identify OVWSD's wellhead protection area, that the hard surface amendment
would adversely affect groundwater and drinking water, and that the environmental
review failed to address the Proposal's consistency with the DOE groundwater anti -
degradation policy, WAC 173-200-030(2). In response, the City added OVWSD's
wellhead protection area to its GIS mapping system. This addition will facilitate the
City's protection of the wellhead, since as interpreted by staff, the DOE Manual
requires conformance to the recommendations of the OVWSD's wellhead protection
plan.
For the same reasons that the Proposal is found to not have a significant impact
on groundwater water quality in general, the limited scope of the amendments is also
found to have no significant impacts on the CARAs and the OVWSD wellhead
protection area specifically. City staff acknowledged in their briefing that the City's
critical area regulations likely should be updated to recognize and protect the OVWSD
wellhead protection area. However, the proposed stormwater amendments do not
materially exacerbate any problems caused by the alleged deficiencies in the City's
critical areas regulations.
A final substantive deficiency alleged by Ms. Petso were the elimination of
exemptions that enabled projects within the Edmonds Basin to directly discharge into
Puget Sound. That direct discharge route dumps stormwater into the Edmonds Marsh.
Staff determined that the high volumes associated with the direct discharges could
adversely affect the marsh and its wildlife. Ms. Petso was concerned that the
prohibition of direct discharge would result in increased infiltration, which in turn
would result in more flooding of her property as well as presumably groundwater
contamination. Ms. Petso has experienced significant flooding in the past, which she
ascribes to surrounding new development. The proposed direct discharge amendment is
not found to create any significant increase in flooding or groundwater contamination.
As testified by Mr. Richardson, the City's former stormwater engineer, the direct
discharge amendment will not result in an increase in infiltration. Properties in the
Edmonds basin are already required to implement infiltration where feasible. Instead,
the direct discharge will require increases in detention of stormwater prior to discharge
into the Edmonds Marsh. Detention facilities do not involve any infiltration.
Final Decision
PAGE 3
Packet Pg. 41 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ms. Petso also raised some procedural noncompliance issues. The Proposal's
DNS wasn't issued until after the Council's first day of public hearing on the Proposal
and has not as yet been distributed to the City Council. SEPA regulations require that
SEPA review be conducted and distributed at the earliest possible time to ensure that
planning and decisions reflect environmental values. City staff acknowledge that the
DNS and environmental checklist should have been issued and distributed to the
Council prior to the September, 2021 hearing. However, that error should be excused
as harmless since the checklist and DNS can still be distributed to the Council for
adequate consideration prior to the June, 2022 deadline for amendments to the City's
stormwater regulations.
It is also noteworthy that the public hearing and prior Council review likely wasn't
even a required part of the review process for the Proposal. The Council could likely
have adopted the amendments after seeing them for the first time after issuance of this
appeal decision. In the absence of any binding decisions made in that prior review
process, or momentum to reach a set decision, the City's voluntary prior review and
public participation should not be used against it in assessing the validity of the SEPA
review process.
ORAL TESTIMONY
A computer -generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an
overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational
purposes only as Appendix A. No assurances are made as to accuracy of the transcript.
Those needing an accurate transcription will have to purchase a copy of the recording
for the City.
EXHIBITS
All exhibits identified on the City's website on February 2, 2022 for the hearing were
admitted into the record as follows:
2 The ECDC does not identify any hearing requirement for the adoption of construction codes and taking
judicial notice from other jurisdictions would reveal that many if not most jurisdictions do not hold public
hearings for adoption of construction codes. If the City does find a requirement for a public hearing
(perhaps in its Growth Management Act public participation program), then it may be advisable to hold
another public hearing to enable the public to further comment upon the Proposal and the added
environmental information generated by Ms. Petso's appeal.
s The exhibits were in fact "provisionally" exhibited on the first day of hearing with direction that if no
objections were raised by the end of the hearing they would be all deemed admitted. At the end of the
hearing the City successfully objected to the admission of Appellant Ex. No. 36 and all other exhibits
were admitted.
Final Decision
PAGE 4
Packet Pg. 42 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
a. Appeal
b. Revised Prehearing Order
C. Appellant 01.12.22 Brief
d. City 2022-01-19 response brief
e. Appellant 01.21.22 Reply Brief
f. Appellant Exhibit List with links to Exhibits (from Appellant's 1/24/22
witness/exhibit list)
g. City Exhibit List with links to Exhibits (from City's 1/24/22 witness/exhibit list)
Exhibit 36 from the Appellant's list was stricken at the end of the appeal hearing. The
following three exhibits were added to the Appellant's exhibit list subsequent to the first
day of hearing:
Ex. 42: City of Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Ex. 43: DOH "swap" map submitted by Appellant on February 3, 2022.
Ex. 44: September 21, September 28 and July 20, 2022 City Council meeting video
recordings4.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appeal. This appeal proceeding addresses a November 4, 2021 written appeal
filed by Lora Petso challenging an October 15, 2021 Determination of Non -significance
(DNS) issued pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter
43.21 C RCW (SEPA). The DNS was issued for a set of stormwater amendments
adopted in response to update requirements from DOE. A prehearing conference was
held on the appeal and at that time Ms. Petso was asked to flesh out the details of her
appeal issues in her appeal pre -hearing brief. The major issues raised in Ms. Petso's
appeal are identified in her pre -hearing brief (Ex. c) and summarized in the "Overview"
section of this Decision.
4 Ms. Petso has objected to the videos because she has been unable to authenticate them. She is unable to
download a copy from links provided by the City. The videos are deemed admitted only as accurate
recordings. The recordings were submitted at the request of the City to enable the City to verify any
hearing comments presented by Ms. Petso. Verification was not found necessary in evaluating the merits
of the appeal because even if all taken as accurate, the hearing comments presented by Ms. Petso were
not found to merit invalidation or modification of the City's SEPA threshold decision. Should the videos
be needed to verify comments on judicial appeal, the videos should still be authenticated before
consideration by the court.
Final Decision
PAGE 5
Packet Pg. 43 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2. Appeal Hearing. A hearing on Ms. Petso's appeal was held on February 2, 2022
and continued to February 3, 2022. The record was left open through February 17,
2022 to give the parties an opportunity to provide their closing in writing.
3. Proposal. The Proposal subject to the appealed DNS is a set of amendments to
the City's stormwater regulations.
The Proposal has been prepared by City staff in response to stormwater update
requirements set by DOE. DOE develops and administers Clean Water Act National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permits in
Washington. The Western Washington Phase II permit requires certain local
governments, including the City of Edmonds, to manage and control stormwater runoff
so that it does not pollute downstream waters. The Western Washington Phase II permit
is periodically updated and re -issued. For example, the previous Western Washington
Phase II permit was issued on August 1, 2012, made effective on August 1, 2013, and
expired, after being extended, on July 31, 2019. The current permit was issued on July
1, 2019, made effective Aug. 1, 2019, and expires on July 31, 2024.
These periodic municipal stormwater general permits require local governments, like
the City of Edmonds, to implement a stormwater management program and to
periodically update that program in a manner that is consistent with the then -current
general permit. For example, in 2016, the City of Edmonds adopted Ordinance 4044,
which is currently codified at chapter 18.30 ECDC, entitled "Stormwater Management."
Ordinance 4044 also authorized the director to "to develop, implement, and enforce
policies and procedures to administer and enforce this chapter, such as the Edmonds
Stormwater Addendum." The adoption of that ordinance implemented the city's
stormwater management program for the purposes of compliance with the 2013 general
permit.
The issuance of each periodic municipal stormwater general permit carries with it a
corresponding obligation on the part of each regulated city to update its stormwater
management program. The 2019 general permit had enough similarities to the 2013
general permit that DOE was able to publish redline documents showing changes from
the 2013 permit to the 2019 permit as well as changes from the 2013 Appendix 1 to the
2019 Appendix 1. Those redline documents are admitted as City Exhibit A (permit) and
City Exhibit Al (Appendix 1). Under the current 2019 permit, the City is required, no
later than June 30, 2022, to adopt and make effective a program that meets the
requirements of Appendix 1 or equivalent. The City is also required to adopt and make
effective, no later than August 1, 2022, ordinances requiring source control BMPs.
Adoption of the Proposal described below would satisfy both of these requirements.
Final Decision
PAGE 6
Packet Pg. 44 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
4. Chronology of Proposal Review:
July 13, 2021: the Proposal is introduced to the parks and public works
Committee
July 20, 2021: the Proposal is introduced to the City Council
August 19, 2021: stormwater engineer provides the initial SEPA checklist
(linked here as Exhibit C 1) to the SEPA official for review.
August 24, 2021: Proposal submitted to Department of Commerce.
September 17, 2021: Revised SEPA checklist completed.
September 21, 2021: Public hearing for code update held at City Council
meeting. The City Council is not given a copy of the SEPA checklist.
Hearing continued to September 28, 2021.
September 22, 2021: First DNS is issued with comment period ending
October 6, 2021 and appeal deadline of October 13, 2021.
September 28, 2021: Continuation of September 21, 2021 hearing on
Proposal held. Written SEPA comments from Appellant and another person
received. The SEPA checklist and DNS is still not given to the Council.
October 12, 2021: City notified of OVWSD that it wasn't directly notified
of the SEPA determination.
October 15, 2021: SEPA determination reissued notifying OVSSD with
comment period ending October 29, 2021 and appeal deadline November 5,
2021.
November 4, 2021: Appellant appeals DNS.
June 30, 2022: Stormwater amendments due for NPDES permit.
5. Petso Appeal Asserts two Probable Significant Adverse Impacts to Baseline
Environmental Conditions. As acknowledged by Ms. Petso during the hearing and
confirmed by her pre -briefing and written appeal, Ms. Petso's appeal only asserts two
groups of amendments within the Proposal that could potentially lead to probable
significant adverse environmental impacts when impacts are compared to the City's
Final Decision
PAGE 7
Packet Pg. 45 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
existing stormwater regulations : (1) amendment of ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d (referred to
as the "hard surface amendment"); and (2) elimination of direct discharge authorization
for Edmonds Way projects (referred to as the "direct discharge amendment."). The
impacts of the hard surface amendment are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 8 and the
impacts of the direct discharge amendment are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 9.
6. Untreated Stormwater Can Contaminate Groundwater. Untreated stormwater
can contaminate groundwater and associated potable drinking water. The fact that
untreated stormwater can contaminate groundwater is self-evident, as a primary purpose
of the water quality provisions of the DOE stormwater manual are designed to prevent
that contamination. As noted in the Appellant's opening brief, p. 53-54 of the 2019
DOE Manual notes that 19 of the US Environmental Protection Agency's 121 priority
pollutants were present in runoff from Seattle streets. These pollutants include oil and
grease, PAH's, lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, sediments and salts. Residential runoff
includes the same road -based pollutants in addition to herbicides, pesticides, nutrients
from fertilizers, bacteria and viruses from animal waste.
7. Stormwater Can Contain PFAS. PFAS are inert, hazardous substances found in
Puget Sound stormwaters that can contaminate groundwater. The DOE stormwater
manual has not yet been designed to address water quality treatment for PFAS
substances.
"PFAS" are synthetic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoralkyl substances. As noted in the
DOE website on PFAS:
Hundreds of everyday products are made with highly toxic fluorinated
chemicals called PFAS. They build up in our bodies and never break down
in the environment. Very small doses of PFAS have been linked to cancer,
reproductive and immune system harm, and other diseases.
Appellant Ex. 2, the DOE Chemical Action Plan (CAP), identifies that PFAS are
ubiquitous in the state's waters, including groundwater, surface water and wastewater
treatment effluent. CAP at 12. As identified at p. 80 of the CAP, short chain PFAS
can move easily through soil to contaminate groundwater or surface water. Page 40 of
the CAP notes that PFAS contamination is widespread and 300 sites and 390 water
systems in more than 40 states have known PFAS contamination. In Washington State,
PFAS contaminated groundwater has been found near Naval Base Kitsap, Naval Air
Station Whidbey Island, Fairchild Air Force Base, Joint Base Lewis McChord, the
Moses Lake Well field Superfund site, and the Lower Issaquah Valley Aquifer. See
CAP Section 7.4. The primary source suspected in these areas is from firefighting foam
called AFFF. Id.
Final Decision
PAGE 8
Packet Pg. 46 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Section 3.02 of the CAP identifies that:
Nationwide, groundwater contamination sites are impacted by firefighting
foam use and training at military installations, civilian airports or fire
stations, as well as use during a few fire events. Other activities reported
to impact groundwater include manufacturing of PFAS and secondary
manufacturing use of PFAS. Impacts to groundwater are also reported
from waste disposal, landfill leachate, land application of industrial
sludge, and discharges of wastewater to treatment facilities or septic
systems
In addition, use of PFAS-containing products like car polishes have been identified in
one case as a source of groundwater contamination (Kernan, 2018). CAP, p. 155. Page
226 of the CAP identifies that injection wells may act as a potential source of PFAS
groundwater contamination.
As testified by Mr. Richardson, the DOE Manual is not designed to treat stormwater for
PFAS contamination. According to Mr. Richardson, the technology for doing so has
not yet trickled down to the DOE Manual.
8. Hard Amendment Creates Insignificant Impacts. The proposed amendment to
ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d, the hard surface amendment, will not create any probable
significant adverse environmental impacts, including any probable and significant
groundwater contamination or flooding.
The proposed amendment ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d, the "hard surface amendment,"
provides as follows:
The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating hard
surfaces to ground water will not be authorized by the City exce t or
infiltration or dispersion of runoff through BMPs designed and
implemented per ECDC 18.30 and SWMMWW
be treated Hsing On site &armwater A&nagement BUP-s designed to
provide the required level of treatment in aeeerdanee with Chapter--5,-
Vol„me v anatC— pter 7 v �,,,. e v � t� rWA�rA�rfW; t,,. • � �t,,,.t;en
cccrrcc—r--arccc-c,Tccc�cc�—T—reccc�rcc—r--v�crc , vi--v.,cr"cTcccrccccvrc
TTT of the W-A4 A!ATT7.
(bold emphasis added).
Final Decision
PAGE 9
Packet Pg. 47 1
9.B.a
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The primary focus of the provision quoted above is to prohibit the discharge of
untreated stormwater into groundwater. Prior to the amendment, the provision
prohibited the discharge of all untreated stormwater into groundwater. The amendment
expressly limits that prohibition to stormwater from hard surfaces. The facial effect of
the amendment is to make the prohibition inapplicable to discharge from soft surfaces.
As shall be discussed, the additional amount of groundwater contamination resulting
from this amendment is likely insignificant and will not result in probable significant
adverse environmental impacts.
The City's first line of defense on this issue is that the City has never interpreted ECDC
18.30.060.D.6.d as applying to soft surfaces. See City Opening Brief, Ex. d, p. 7-8.
The City notes that it has instead applied the almost identically worded provision of the
DOE Manual, which has always only applied to hard surface discharges, as follows:
Direct discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating hard
surfaces to ground water is prohibited, except for the discharge achieved
by infiltration or dispersion of runoff through use of On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs, in accordance with Chapter V-5 - On -Site
Stormwater Management (p.903) and Chapter V-7 - Infiltration and
Bioretention Treatment Facilities (p.957); or by infiltration through soils
meeting the soil suitability criteria in Chapter III-3 - Flow Control Design
(p.449).
2014 DOE Stormwater Manual, I-2.5.6, Minimum Requirement #6.
Although in practice the City may have decided to simply ignore the fact ECDC
18.30.060.D.6.d is more restrictive than its DOE Manual version, Ms. Petso made the
valid point that under baseline environmental conditions she or any other concerned
citizen with standing would have had the opportunity to challenge that position and
acquire a ruling that the City did in fact have to apply it to discharges from soft surfaces
as well.
It appears that such a challenge would have some merit. The City Council was
presumed to know the law in which it was legislating. See Segurra v. Cabrera, 319
P.3d 98, 108 (2014). Under this principle, the City Council is presumed to have known
that the DOE Manual limited its Section 1-2.5.6 untreated discharge prohibition to hard
surfaces. With this knowledge, the City Council chose to remove the "hard" term from
the almost identical prohibition of ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d. Given that the City Council
Final Decision
PAGE 10
Packet Pg. 48 1
9.B.a
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
knowingly removed the "hard" term from the DOE Manual prohibition, it is difficult' to
reconcile this legislative choice with the staff position that this removal has no meaning
and that the Council intended to limit the ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d prohibition to
discharges from hard surfaces.
Mr. Richardson, the City's stormwater engineer, made the added point that the
discharges expressly authorized by ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d are for those treated by
BMPs that only apply to hard surfaces. See Richardson Declaration, p. 15. That may
be the case, but that fact does not alter the current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d requirement
that all untreated discharges are prohibited from entering groundwater unless they
follow those BMPs. If untreated stormwater from a soft surface is not amenable to any
of the BMPs listed in ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d, then the discharge remains prohibited or
some other form of treatment will have to be found to qualify the discharge as treated.
The BMPs expressly identified in ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d were copied from those listed
in DOE Manual I-2.5.6. It is not surprising that they only apply to hard surfaces since I-
2.5.6 was written for hard surface discharges. However, since the City Council
knowingly chose to broaden Section 102.5.6 to include soft surfaces, the rest of ECDC
18.30.060.D.6.d must be construed to accommodate that choice.
Ultimately, however, the significance of the hypothetical Petso challenge is off -set by
the availability of another hypothetical challenge, that of ECDC 7.200. ECDC
7.200.070 prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into the City's groundwater, which
includes a long list of chemicals and expressly includes any hazardous material or
waste. If a project cannot be stopped from discharging contaminants because of the
hard amendment, ECDC 7.200 can be used instead. Proving the actual contamination
of groundwater under ECDC 7.200 appears to be more difficult than proving that water
is untreated under ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d. However, under the civil standard of review
applicable to such discharge cases, projects that pose a threat to the City's groundwater
resources can likely be stopped by someone with the time and resources to take on that
responsibility.
' Although "difficult," this does not necessarily mean that the staffs construction would likely be
reversed on appeal. As testified by Mr. Richardson, in the four years he has worked four the City, staff
has consistently interpreted ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d as only applying to hard surfaces. Interpreted in this
consistent manner, deference would have to be given to staff s interpretation. See Ellensburg Cement
Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty. & Homer L. (Louie) Gibson, 317 P.3d 1037, 1047 (2014). Mr. Richardson
also noted that the legislative history on the adoption of current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d did not identify
the "hard" omission from the DOE Manual, which counters the legislative presumption of a knowing
departure from existing DOE Manual requirements. For these reasons, the vulnerability of the staffs
interpretation is far from a settled issue. This Decision assesses the impacts of the interpretation being
reversed under the "worst case" analysis requirements of WAC 197-11-080(3).
Final Decision
PAGE 11
Packet Pg. 49 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
To this point in the analysis, the impacts of the hard amendment are dependent upon the
filing of hypothetical ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d challenges offset by the availability of
hypothetical ECDC 7.200 challenges. The resulting potential for significant impact
from these factors is already arguably not probable, as there is a good case to be made
that the outcomes of such challenges are "remote and speculative" under the
"probable 6,, SEPA definition. However, three other factors come into play that render
the impacts of the hard amendment conclusively neither probable or significant,
specifically (1) large soft surface stormwater discharges are required to be treated; (2)
the remaining soft surface discharges are treated by natural infiltration; and (3) the
remaining soft surface discharges are consistent with the DOE Manual.
As to the first factor, it is important to recognize that the universe of untreated
stormwater potentially subject to current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d is significantly
reduced by other City stormwater regulations that require treatment of most new major
soft surface stormwater sources. Section 1-2.5.6 of the DOE stormwater manual
already requires treatment of all pollution generating pervious surfaces over 3/4 of an
acre in size. As testified by Mr. Richardson, pollution generating pervious surfaces
include lawns and crumb rubber fields. See Richardson Dec, p. 9. As further noted by
Mr. Richardson, athletic fields are more than 3/4 of an acre in size and would require
treatment. Given these treatment requirements, the only major source of untreated
stormwater from pollution generating surfaces would appear to be lawns and
landscaped areas.
Current and amended ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d only apply to newly created surfaces.
The Edmonds comprehensive plan identifies that only 4% of the City has vacant land,
of which 78.6% is designated for residential use. See City of Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Element, p. 39. Overall, the City area that could be developed or
redeveloped with new soft surfaces appears to be relatively minor given the developed
status of the City.
Of the relatively minor portion of the City that would be developed or redeveloped with
new soft surfaces, a significant amount of those surfaces would likely be adequately
6 WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as "likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in "a reasonable
probability of more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment" (see WAC 197-11-794 ).
Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but
are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test."
Page 185 of the 2014 DOE Manual defines pollution generating pervious surfaces as sources of
potential pollution that "include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns and landscaped
areas including: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turfl." Of these
examples, the lawns and landscaped areas appear to be the only soft surfaces that would not be treated
under the 1/4 acre standard. Page 167 of the 2014 DOE Manual defines a hard surface to include
permeable pavement.
Final Decision
PAGE 12
Packet Pg. 50 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
treated via natural infiltration. As detailed in Section IIB of the City's post -hearing
brief, the treatment options for untreated stormwater from hard surfaces under current
ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d and Section I-2.5.6 of the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual are all
based upon infiltration. See DOE Stormwater Manual Volume V, chapter 5, BMPs;
Volume III, Chapter 3 infiltration. By definition, soft surfaces would include
infiltration treatment. Whether and to what soil depth, composition and associated
stormwater dispersion would be sufficient for adequate treatment for any given specific
soft surface is unclear. However, the fact that I-2.5.6 of DOE Manual limits its
prohibition of untreated groundwater contamination to hard surfaces strongly suggests
that overall, DOE had determined that the natural infiltration associated with soft
surfaces was sufficient to protect groundwater quality.
Related to the last point is the third factor supporting a finding of no significant impact,
the fact that the hard surface amendment is consistent with the DOE Manual. As is
usually the case with stormwater issues, the DOE Manual sets the standard for
acceptable impacts. In SEPA review, the DOE Manual can be referenced as a
legislative determination of what constitutes adequate mitigation for stormwater
impacts. As recognized in the DOE Manual itself, the manual was designed to meet
what the state legislature has deemed to be acceptable levels of stormwater control and
water quality treatment. Section 1-1.6.1 of the DOE Manual states that stormwater
management techniques applied in accordance with the DOE Manual are presumed to
meet the technology -based treatment requirement of "[sjtate law to provide all known
available and reasonable methods of treatment, prevention and control (AKART, RCW
90.52.040, and RCW 90.48.010)."
Of course, the fact that the Edmonds City Council did not include the hard surface
limitation in adoption of current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d creates the presumption that it
did not find the hard limitation adopted into Section I-1.6.1 adequate to protect water
quality. However, there is nothing in the administrative record of this proceeding to
suggest that the City Council considered any scientific evidence or took any express
staff recommendation to adopt current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d without the hard surface
limitation. In contrast, the DOE Manual was written under the expertise of DOE staff
and the long list of consultants and stake holders identified at p. 3, V 1 of the Manual.
Although the DOE Manual and its limitation to hard surfaces should be regarded as
meeting the AKART standard (all known available and reasonable methods of
treatment, prevention and control), that does not include PFAS compounds. As testified
by Mr. Richardson, the DOE Manual is not designed to address PFAS groundwater
contamination. There is not enough known about PFAS compounds to ascertain
whether and how to treat for it. Consequently, it is questionable whether the hard
Final Decision
PAGE 13
Packet Pg. 51 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
amendment would make any difference in the water quality treatment of PFAS since
there is no currently known means of treating stormwater for PFAS.
In the small number, if any, of instances where the hard amendments would result in
less treatment from soft surfaces, it is questionable whether the currently existing
treatment requirements would make any difference. ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d as
currently written requires infiltration of soft surface untreated stormwater discharges. If
the natural infiltration available to the soft surface discharges were not sufficient, it is
questionable whether the soil enhancement and stormwater dispersion techniques of the
DOE Manual BMPs would make a substantial difference. As noted at Page 80 of the
CAP, PFAS are inert. As testified by Mr. Richardson, infiltration works in part by
chemical reaction between contaminants and the infiltrating soils. See Ex. Q,
Richardson Dec., p. 18-19. Finally, the types of uses associated with PFAS
groundwater contamination as quoted in Finding of Fact No. 7 do not include any uses
in the City of Edmonds, except for septic systems and fire stations using PFAS
containing foam within the City. Giving substantial deference to the threshold
determination of the SEPA responsible official', it is reasonable to conclude that in the
limited circumstances where current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d would require more
engineered infiltration than the natural infiltration of the hard surface amendment, that
additional infiltration capacity would not make a material difference with the PFAS
contamination rate.
Overall, the SEPA responsible official has determined that the hard amendment will not
create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. For the many reasons
outlined above, the SEPA responsible official has adequate reason to arrive at that
conclusion as it pertains to groundwater contamination. In the absence of any evidence
to the contrary, compliance with the DOE Manual alone is sufficient to meet AKART
standards and for that reason alone is sufficient to show that groundwater resources are
not jeopardized by falling back to DOE Manual standards. The substantial deference
due to the responsible official's conclusions compels that result. Ms. Petso has not
presented any data or other evidence to show that the DOE Manual is not adequate to
protect the City's groundwater. She has shown that the DOE Manual is not designed to
address PFAS contamination, but the hard surface amendment more likely than not
makes no material difference to that risk of contamination.
Similar justification applies to the conclusion that the Proposal will not create
significant adverse flood impacts. For the reasons outlined above, there is also no basis
to conclude that the hard surface amendment will increase flooding of the Appellants'
8 During cross-examination from Ms. Petso, Mr. Lien, the City's SEPA responsible official testified that
the PFAS issue did not change his threshold determination.
Final Decision
PAGE 14
Packet Pg. 52 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
property or the property of anyone else. There is no evidence to reasonably suggest that
the limited increase in groundwater infiltration, if any, created by the amendment,
would increase flooding events in any part of the City. Ms. Petso presented evidence of
historical flooding on her property that according to her is increasing, but she has not
connected that flooding to the impacts of the hard surface amendment. On its face, the
hard surface amendment would not increase flooding. The hard surface amendment, at
its worst, would enable untreated stormwater from soft surfaces to continue infiltrating
and might also create some additional soft surface runoff through redevelopment.
Consequently, the volume of stormwater reaching groundwater that may discharge into
the Appellants' property would likely not materially change as a result of the
amendment. Perhaps the amendment would somehow indirectly increase flooding, but
Ms. Petso has not identified how that would occur.
9. Elimination of Direct Discharge Authorization Will Not Create Probable
Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The elimination of direct discharge
authorization will not create probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
In her written appeal Ms. Petso takes issue with new provisions in the stormwater
amendments that expressly provide that the Edmonds Basin does not qualify as a direct
discharge basin. Projects in direct discharge basins are authorized to discharge
stormwater runoff directly into Puget Sound and are exempt from some stormwater
flow controls. The proposed removal of direct discharge status eliminates the flow
control exemptions and requires projects within the basin to take flow control measures
such as detention and infiltration in lieu of direct discharge. Ms. Petso believes these
amendments will adversely affect her home, via an increase in flooding caused by the
fact that Proposals will no longer be allowed to discharge directly into Puget Sound.
In response to Ms. Petso's flooding concerns, Mr. Richardson testified that the
Edmonds Basin amendments would not increase the amount of infiltration already
required by current stormwater regulations. They would only result in an increase in
detention requirements. Mr. Richardson testified that as such, the proposed amendment
would not increase flooding of Ms. Petso's property. The DOE Manual also requires
off -site flows to match pre -developed, forested conditions for projects (including
subdivisions) that involve 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface; convert 1/4
acres of vegetation to lawn or landscape; or cause a 0.10 cubic feet per second increase
in the 100-year flow frequency. See DOE Manual, Section 1-2.5.7.
In response, Ms. Petso references prior flooding events at her property as evidence that
flooding is a problem in her area. However, Ms. Petso did not provide any concrete
evidence of where the flood waters originally came from, or more importantly, whether
those floodwaters originated from projects subject to current stormwater regulations.
Final Decision
PAGE 15
Packet Pg. 53 1
9.B.a
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
As testified by Mr. Lien, the city of Edmonds was established in 1890 and was largely
developed before environmental regulations. Given (1) Mr. Richardson's expert
testimony that the proposed amendments would not increase infiltration, (2) the focus of
the current regulations on prohibiting any increase in off -site flows and (3) the lack of
any expert testimony or otherwise that the proposed amendment would increase flows
onto Ms. Petso's property or any other, giving substantial deference to the findings of
the SEPA responsible official it is determined that the proposed disqualification of the
Edmonds Way Basin will not result in any probable significant adverse environmental
impacts.
10. Proposal Will Not Create Probable Significant Adverse Impacts to Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas. The Proposal will not create any probable significant adverse
impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas.
Ms. Petso identifies numerous deficiencies in the City's regulations as they pertain to
critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA). Significantly, the regulations do not recognize
the well -head protection area of the Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD)
within the City, which qualifies as a CARA. She asserts that the City's critical areas
ordinance fails to recognize and protect the OVWSD wellhead protection area as
required by the Growth Management Act. She also pointed out during cross-
examination of Mr. Richardson that the City's stormwater regulations require
conformance to the City's CARA regulations, which as previously noted does not
recognize the OVWSD wellhead protection area. See 2014 DOE Manual, SSC-2.
The City appears to recognize that its CARA regulations probably need to be updated to
adequately protect CARAs. The issue at hand, however, is what impacts the Proposal
will have on the adequacy of that protection. Ms. Petso has not identified any
amendments in the Proposal that could possibly lead to more contaminated groundwater
except for the hard amendment9. The only increase in infiltration that could be created
by the Proposal is the hard surface amendment addressed in FOF No. 8. As outlined in
FOF No. 8, that increase in infiltration will not result in any significant increase in
adverse impacts to groundwater, which would include CARAs. The only way that the
hard surface amendment could result in an increase in infiltration is if the current staff
interpretation of EDCD 18.30.060.D.6.d is changed or overruled on appeal. If that
speculative result would occur, then the hard surface amendment could result in the
added untreated infiltration of stormwater from soft surfaces under one acre from lawns,
landscaped areas and permeable pavement areas under 0.75 acres. This added
9 Ms. Petso asserts that the direct discharge amendment, FOF No. , would also lead to increased
infiltration and hence additional groundwater contamination. However, as determined in FOF No. ,
the direct discharge amendment will only result in an increase of detention, with no associated increase in
infiltration.
Final Decision
PAGE 16
Packet Pg. 54 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
infiltration would meet the requirements of the DOE Manual, which meets AKART
standards for stormwater controls10. Given all these factors, and the additional fact that
only 4% of the City's land area is undeveloped and the substantial weight due to the
determination of the City's SEPA responsible official, it must be concluded that the
changes to the City's stormwater regulations in the Proposal will not create probable,
significant adverse impacts to CARAs.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. The Examiner has jurisdiction over the subject
appeal. ECDC 20.15A.240C authorizes the Director of Community Services to file
appeals of threshold determinations with the City's Hearing Examiner for
consideration of the appeal and a final decision. As disclosed by the Examiner during
the appeal hearing, he has a contract with the City extending to the end of 2023. For
reference, the contract was approved by the City Council on July 21, 2021.
2. SEPA Review Criteria. The relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether
the City responsible official staff correctly issued a DNS is whether the project as
proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b).
WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as follows:
`Probable ` means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in `a reasonable
probability of more than a moderate effect on the quality of the
environment' (see WAC 197-11-794). Probable is used to distinguish
likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring but
are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical
probability test.
If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce
impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the
alternative, an environmental impact statement would be required for the project.
10 The one weak link in reliance upon the DOE Manual for adequate CARA protection is that SSC-2
presupposes that requirements are in place to protect CARAs. The City has no such requirements, but
SSC-2 only requires the CARA "requirements" of local jurisdictions to be implemented to protect the
CARAs. Mr. Richardson testified that these requirements would include the protection standards
recommended by OVWSD in its wellhead protection plan. SSC-2 does not require an adopted ordinance
to set CARA protection standards. Although ideally the City should have its own CARA standards in
place to protect the OVWSD wellhead protection area, OVWSD should be able to be relied upon to adopt
adequate protection standards/recommendations for its own wellhead protection area. For this reason,
Mr. Richardson's interpretation of SSC-2 fulfills the intent and purpose of SSC-2.
Final Decision
PAGE 17
Packet Pg. 55 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3. Existing Environmental Conditions/Regulatory Framework Serves as Baseline
for Assessing Environmental Impacts. The existing stormwater regulations serve as the
baseline from which environmental impacts should be assessed for purposes of the
SEPA threshold determination.
A significant issue litigated by the parties has been whether the SEPA appeal represents
an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the City's stormwater regulations as a
whole, or whether SEPA review is limited to assessing the impacts created by the
change in regulation, i.e. assessing whether the proposed amendments will result in
probable significant adverse impacts when compared to current stormwater standards.
Case law is clear that the standard is the latter, i.e. SEPA review is limited to assessing
the impacts caused by the change in regulations.
Recent case law establishes that the appropriate baseline to compare the Proposal's
environmental impacts is the condition of the existing environment. Wild Fish
Conservancy v. Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife, 99263-1, 2022 WL 120903 at 12
(Wash. Jan 13, 2022). This principle was reflected long ago in Settle's SEPA treatise:
"a Proposal must degrade the existing condition of the environment to have significant
adverse impact. Mere failure to restore or improve environmental quality is not a
significant adverse impact under SEPA." Professor Richard L. Settle, The Washington
State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis, § 13.01 [1], at 13-22.
The facts of the Wild Fish case clarify how the baseline should be applied. In the Wild
Fish case, an operator of a non-native marine fish farm sought a permit from the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to switch to the farming of
native fish. A change in law made the marine farming of non-native finfish illegal
starting in 2022, so the operator was forced to seek the alternative operation. The
operator also did not have valid Washington State Department of Natural Resources
leases for other nonnative fish operations it was conducting, making those operations
unlawful as well. WDFW issued an MDNS for the Proposal. Project opponents argued
for a "no action" environmental baseline, in which the change in impacts should have
been assessed from no fish farming ever to the proposed native fish farming. The
opponents argued the "no action" baseline was most appropriate because the applicant
would soon be prohibited from farming non-native fish. The court disagreed, holding
as follows:
While it is undeniably useful to establish a baseline environmental
condition with which to compare a Proposal's impact, nothing in SEPA's
statute, regulations, or cases requires a "no action" baseline analysis in
arriving at a threshold determination. Rather than establishing the
Final Decision
PAGE 18
Packet Pg. 56 1
9.B.a
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
baseline on the current uses of the land (as the WFC suggests), the
appropriate baseline to compare the Proposal's environmental impacts is
the condition of the existing environment. To the extent that WDFW
compared the impacts of Atlantic salmon farming to steelhead farming,
WDFW's assessment of the potential impact of the steelhead permit on the
quality of the Puget Sound environment, as it exists now after decades of
finfish farming, was appropriate. Therefore, we hold WDFW's threshold
determination was not clearly erroneous when it compared the impacts of
steelhead farming to the current, existing condition of the environment of
Puget Sound, which has been subject to commercial salmonid farming for
over three decades.
Wild Fish Conservancy at 30.
The City argues that the hard surface amendment to ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d creates no
change in impacts over the condition of the existing environment because as discussed
in Finding of Fact No. 8, it has construed the existing regulations in a manner that is
consistent with the amendment, i.e. the amendment just clarifies the currently existing
interpretation of ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d. As presented by the City, the hard surface
amendment would certainly not create any change in impacts to the condition of the
existing environment. If the City's stormwater regulations are interpreted in the same
manner before and after the hard surface amendment as the City suggests, there will be
no change in impacts resulting from the amendments.
Ms. Petso raises the compelling point that the City's current interpretation of ECDC
18.30.060.D.6.d may not hold up if challenged, i.e. current ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d may
actually not be construed the same as the hard surface amendment if Ms. Petso or some
other concerned citizen successfully argues that ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d prohibits
untreated infiltration to groundwater from both soft and hard surfaces. As outlined in
Finding of Fact No. 8, ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d is vulnerable to such a challenge. If
successful, there would be a potential increase in adverse impacts, since the hard
surface amendment would authorize some soft surface untreated stormwater infiltration
while the current regulation would not. Finding of Fact No. 8 compares that difference
in impacts created by such a successful challenge and still finds no resulting
significance adverse impact.
In her closing brief, Ms. Petso asserts that existing conditions are not an appropriate
baseline when those conditions are based upon violations of environmental regulations.
Ms. Petso asserts that the City's application of its current stormwater regulations has
resulted in unlawful discharges to the City's groundwater in violation of DOE's
Final Decision
PAGE 19
Packet Pg. 57 1
9.B.a
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
antidegradation policy, WAC 173-200-030(2)11. Case law and the facts of the case do
not support Ms. Petso's position.
Ms. Petso bases her legal argument upon ASARCO Inc v. Air Quality Coalition, 92
Wn.2d 685 (1979). That case involved an industrial use that was operating in violation
of air quality standards. The operator of the use acknowledged it was operating in
violation and sought some variances to continue operating in violation as it accumulated
the funds to make the necessary improvements to bring it into compliance. The agency
responsible for granting the variance found no need for an environmental impact
statement and that determination was appealed.
DOE regulations setting out the SEPA threshold determination process had not yet been
adopted to apply to the ASARCO case. Instead, the need for an EIS was directly
evaluated from RCW 43.21C.0302c, which requires an EIS for legislation and other
major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. ASARCO argued
that an EIS was not required because the granting of the variance would simply
maintain the status quo. The ASARCO court did not find this compelling, as follows:
ASARCO asserts the granting of the variance would not change the
emission levels in effect prior to the variance requested and thus would
maintain the status quo. However, ASARCO's contention obscures the fact
that the existing levels were themselves in violation of PSAPCA's
Regulation I. The requested variance, far from maintaining the
environmental status quo as envisioned by either Regulation I or SEPA,
would maintain the status quo of an admitted violation. It would permit
the continued impact of high levels of emissions which, cumulatively,
would be much greater than that ever authorized by PSAPCA's Regulation
I. Rather than maintaining the status quo, the granting of the variance
potentially would increase the pace of environmental degradation. This is
precisely the danger sought to be avoided by the legislature in enacting
SEPA. Our conclusion is consistent with the purpose underlying SEPA
which aims not only to prevent further environmental degradation but to
reverse, where possible, ecological damage already done.
Id. At 706-07.
" Ms. Petso's assertion that the City's stormwater regulations are in violation of state law may also
include her position that the City's CARA regulations are not compliant. However, technically the City
is not in violation of Growth Management Act CARA standards because the appeal period for those
regulations is long past. Further, in substance the fact that the DOE Manual requires consistency with
OVWSD's wellhead protection plan provides just as much protection as one would typically see in a
CARA regulation.
Final Decision
PAGE 20
Packet Pg. 58 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Unlike the ASARCO case, there is no "admitted" violation of stormwater regulation
going on in this case. In point of fact, there is not even a likely violation established in
the record. WAC 173-200-030, the anti -degradation policy cited by Ms. Petso,
prohibits degradation of groundwater quality for groundwater exceeding water quality
standards unless an overriding consideration of the public interest will be served and
"all contaminants proposed for entry into groundwater shall be provided with all
known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment prior
to entry."
As noted in Finding of Fact No. 8, the DOE Manual adopted by the City satisfies
AKART and thus meets the standard for meeting "all known, available, and reasonable
methods of prevention, control, and treatment prior to entry 12." Given that the DOE
Manual represents the best reasonable methodology available for protecting
groundwater, a court could conclude that as a matter of public interest any inadvertent
contamination resulting from good faith compliance with the manual should not be
considered to violate the anti -degradation policy.
PFAS are not addressed by the DOE Manual, but their inadvertent discharge into
groundwater may still not violate the anti -degradation policy because there is no
reasonable means to prevent such discharges. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 7, PFAS
aren't covered by the DOE Manual because as yet there's no known method of treating
for them. Given the ubiquitous nature of PFAS and the lack of technology and
knowledge to control it, a court could also find no anti -degradation violation because
the only means of preventing groundwater contamination would be stopping or
restricting development in an unreasonable manner. These outcomes are highly
speculative, but they are certainly within the realm of reasonable possibility. Unlike the
ASARCO situation where an industrial polluter was unquestionably dumping tons of
toxic chemicals into the air in violation of air quality standards at a significant risk of
public health, the potential violations involved in this case are at best speculative both
in terms of the existence of violations and impacts to public health.
4. Timing of Issuance and Distribution of SEPA DNS and Checklist can be
Corrected as Harmless Error. Ms. Petso asserts that the SEPA checklist was not issued
or distributed to the City Council at the earliest possible time as required by WAC 197-
11-055. This error will be harmless if the SEPA checklist and DNS are distributed to
the City Council prior to their final consideration and decision on the Proposal with
iz Mr. Richardson confirmed during his testimony that the AKART and the quoted WAC 173-200-030
are essentially the same.
Final Decision
PAGE 21
Packet Pg. 59 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
sufficient time prior to the June 30, 2022 deadline to request and consider proposed
revisions.
As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the SEPA checklist was not presented to the City
Council when the proposed amendments were initially presented for City Council
discussion on September 21, 2021. The DNS wasn't issued until September 22, 2021.
The Council discussion on the Proposal had been continued to September 28, 2021, but
the DNS at that point had still not been distributed to them.
The timing of the DNS issuance was arguably inconsistent with WAC 197-11-055(2),
which requires a threshold determination to be prepared "at the earliest point in the
planning and decision making process, when the principal features of a Proposal and
its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified." The purpose of this timing
requirement is to ensure that the "SEPA process shall be integrated with agency
activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect
environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve
potential problems." WAC 197-11-055(1).
The earliest point in the decision -making process for purposes of SEPA review could
have been the Proposal's initial introduction to the Council's Parks and Recreation
committee on July 13, 2021 and Council discussion on July 20, 2021. However, in its
prehearing brief the City makes the compelling point that these July Council sessions
were used to set the parameters of the Proposal, i.e. under the terms of WAC 197-11-
055(2) the threshold determination and checklist did not yet have to be distributed
because the Proposal was not yet at the point where its "principal features ... and its
environmental impacts can be reasonably identified." This position is consistent with
the chronology of the SEPA review process, where the environmental checklist was not
prepared and the Proposal was not sent to the Department of Commerce until the
Council had made its input on the parameters of the Proposal in July.
Although the failure to have a threshold determination during the July Council review
may be excused on the basis that the Proposal hadn't yet been fleshed out, that position
loses its persuasiveness when the Council review in September 2021 is considered. At
that time, the Proposal was definite enough for the SEPA checklist to be completed
(albeit revised later) and for the Proposal having been sent to the Department of
Commerce.
The City's error in the September meetings was compounded by the fact that it had a
threshold determination and SEPA checklist prepared prior to the continued hearing
date for the Proposal in September, but failed to give copies of both documents to the
City Council. WAC 197-11-055(6) requires that environmental documents be
Final Decision
PAGE 22
Packet Pg. 60 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
distributed with other planning documents "to the fullest extent possible" to "meet the
requirements to insure that environmental values and amenities are given appropriate
consideration along with economic and technical considerations." The City does not
dispute that it should have distributed the SEPA checklist and DNS to the City Council
in the September meetings along with the Proposal itself.
Both parties have also acknowledged that the timing of SEPA review is subject to the
"snowball" limitation, described in the most recent court opinion on the subject as
follows:
When an agency commits significant time and resources to detailed
project planning, the action can `snowball' and acquire virtually
unstoppable administrative inertia. To avoid this, decisionmakers need to
be apprised of the environmental consequences before the project picks up
momentum, not after.
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA, 188 Wash. 2d 80, 105 (2017)(citations and
quotations omitted).
Although the City may have violated some of the timing and distribution requirements
of the WAC provisions discussed above, it is still early enough in the decision -making
process to correct them and excuse the noncompliance as harmless error. Although not
directly on -point, analogous review standards excuse nonconsequential errors in land
use review. See, e.g. Citizens v. Klickitat County, 122 Wn. 2d 619, 637-38
(1993)(harmless procedural error in preparation of EIS not grounds for invalidation);
RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a)(harmless procedural error in permit review not grounds for
invalidating final land use permit decision).
The errors in the City's timing and distribution of environmental review are harmless
and do not violate the "snowball" principle because the City Council still has time to
fully consider and act upon the environmental consequences of the Proposal. The DNS
and environmental checklist can still be provided to the Council prior to making a final
decision. There is no administrative or other momentum that compels the adoption of
the amendments or prevents the City from changing course. The City's amendments to
its stormwater regulations aren't due until June 30, 2022. As identified in Findings of
Fact, the only amendments that could potentially generate any adverse impacts are the
hard surface and direct discharge amendments. Should the Council find a need to
further investigate and/or pursue modifications to the amendments, it still has three
months to do so.
Final Decision
PAGE 23
Packet Pg. 61 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
It is also noteworthy that the public hearing and prior Council review wasn't even a
required part of the review process for the Proposal.
There is no ECDC code provision that requires a public hearing for amendment of the
City's construction codes. The Council could likely have adopted the amendments after
seeing them for the first time after issuance of this appeal decision. In the absence of
any "snowballing" or binding decisions made in that prior voluntary review process,
the City's voluntary steps prior review and public participation should not be used
against it in assessing the validity of the SEPA review process.
5. No Balancing of Impacts. No balancing of impacts in violation of WAC 197-
11-330(5) is necessary to reach the conclusion that the Proposal creates no probable
significant adverse impacts.
WAC 197-11-330(5) provides that a "threshold determination shall not balance
whether the beneficial aspects of a Proposal outweigh its adverse impacts" in assessing
whether a Proposal create significant adverse impacts. As proof this was done, Ms.
Petso cites to a comment made by Mr. Taraday at the July 20, 2021 Council meeting,
where he allegedly stated that the amendments of the Proposal "have a positive
environmental impact, which is why the DNS is justified." This comment does not
necessarily mean that any balancing had occurred — the Proposal could have a positive
impact with each amendment having a positive impact just as readily as if any balancing
had occurred. In any event, Mr. Taraday's comments are ultimately irrelevant to the
findings of this Decision. The Appellant has not identified any probable significant
adverse impacts from any of the amendments constituting the Proposal and no
balancing is evident from the record.
DECISION
The DNS under appeal is sustained and Ms. Petso's appeal is denied. The Proposal is
not found to create any probable significant adverse impacts for the reasons identified in
the Findings of Fact. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 2, the Proposal must create
probable significant adverse impacts to justify reversal or modification of the DNS
under appeal. As further determined in the Conclusions of Law, the City has not
violated any pertinent SEPA procedural requirements that would merit reversal of the
DNS.
Signed this 4th day of March 2022.
Final Decision
PAGE 24
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Packet Pg. 62 1
9.B.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This is a final land use decision issued by the City of Edmonds, which may be appealed
to Snohomish County Superior Court within 21 days of issuance as governed by the
Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Final Decision
PAGE 25
Packet Pg. 63 1
9.B.b
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Guidance
Revised March 2021
Publication 05-10-028
Packet Pg. 64
9.B.b
Publication and Contact Information
This document is available on the Department of Ecology's website at:
https://apps.ecologV.wa.gov/publications/summarVpages/0510028.html
For more information contact:
Water Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-6600
Washington State Department of Ecology — www.ecology.wa.gov
• Headquarters, Olympia
• Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue
• Southwest Regional Office, Olympia
• Central Regional Office, Union Gap
• Eastern Regional Office, Spokane
ADA Accessibility
360-407-6000
425-649-7000
360-407-6300
509-575-2490
509-329-3400
The Department of Ecology is committed to providing people with disabilities
access to information and services by meeting or exceeding the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 and 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and Washington State Policy #188.
To request an ADA accommodation, contact Ecology by phone at 360-407-6600 or
email at.laurie.morgan@ecV.wa.gov. For Washington Relay Service or TTY call 711
or 877-833-6341. Visit Ecology's website for more information.
Publication 05-10-028
Revised March 2021
Packet Pg. 65
9.B.b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Guidance
Water Quality Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
Packet Pg. 66
9.B.b
This page is purposely left blank
N
C
d
E
t
V
R
r
r
Q
C
N
E
t
V
2
Q
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 iv
Packet Pg. 67
9.B.b
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... x
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................
xi
Section1 - Introduction..................................................................................................................
1
The Growth Management Act and Critical Areas.....................................................................
3
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas................................................................................................ 4
Maps and performance standards............................................................................................ 5
Voluntary Stewardship Program............................................................................................... 6
Groundwater and Other Critical Areas..................................................................................... 8
Qualified Professional Assistance............................................................................................. 8
The Growth Management Hearings Board and Washington State Courts .............................. 9
Section 2 - Basic Groundwater Concepts......................................................................................
10
TheHydrologic Cycle...............................................................................................................
10
Aquifers...................................................................................................................................
10
RechargingAquifers................................................................................................................
11
Groundwater Discharge..........................................................................................................
12
TheWater Table......................................................................................................................
12
Hydrogeologic Setting and Susceptibility to Pollution...........................................................
13
Susceptibilityfactors...............................................................................................................
15
SeawaterIntrusion..................................................................................................................
16
Groundwater Monitoring.......................................................................................................
17
Section 3 - Streamflow, Water Availability, and Permit -Exempt Wells ........................................
18
Section 4 - Protecting the Functions and Values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ..................
19
Step 1: Identify where groundwater resources are located ...................................................
20
Step 2: Analyze the susceptibility of the natural setting where groundwater occurs...........
33
Step 3: Inventory existing and potential sources of groundwater contamination ................
36
Step 4: Classify the relative vulnerability of groundwater to contamination events .............
39
Step 5: Designate areas that are most at risk to contamination events ................................
40
Step 6: Protect by minimizing activities and conditions that pose contamination risks........
40
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 v
Packet Pg. 68
9.B.b
Step 7: Ensure that contamination prevention plans and best management practices are
followed..................................................................................................................................
43
Step 8: Manage groundwater withdrawals and recharge......................................................
43
Section 5 - Best Available Science.................................................................................................
47
Best available science to protect the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas.......................................................................................................................................
47
Best available science laws and rules.....................................................................................
47
Best available science guidance..............................................................................................
48
Objective of best available science.........................................................................................
48
Availability of best available science......................................................................................
49
When Should Best Available Science Be Applied?..................................................................
49
What are the potential consequences if best available science is not applied? ....................
50
Best available science for special consideration of anadromous fish species .......................
50
Groundwater quality and quantity.........................................................................................
50
Sources for Best Available Science for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas .................................
51
Section 6 - Working with State and Federal Laws and Rules ........................................................
55
State Pollution Prevention Laws and Rules............................................................................
55
Washington State Conservation Commission and Conservation Districts .............................
66
Identifying Gaps in Protection................................................................................................
67
Prohibited and Conditioned Uses...........................................................................................
68
Section 7 - Adapting to Local Conditions and Settings.................................................................
69
Section 8 - Adaptive Management — Change Happens................................................................
70
Section 9 - Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Reports......................................................................
72
Section 10— Interjurisdictional Coordination...............................................................................
74
Section 11— Implementation —Authority, Monitoring, and Program Integration ......................
76
Funding and Resource Challenges..........................................................................................
76
Authority.................................................................................................................................
76
Monitoring..............................................................................................................................
76
Section12 - References................................................................................................................
79
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A: Focus on Implementation - Issaquah Gains Efficiency by Integrating Programs..... 83
Issaquah Gains Efficiency by Integrating Programs................................................................ 84
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 vi
Packet Pg. 69
9.B.b
Programs................................................................................................................................. 84
Program Administration......................................................................................................... 85
Funding................................................................................................................................... 85
Information............................................................................................................................. 85
Inspections.............................................................................................................................. 86
Communicates with the Public and Regulated Businesses.................................................... 86
Appendix B: Map of Ecology Cleanup Sites for Groundwater and Soils Contamination .............. 87
AppendixC: Code Examples.......................................................................................................... 89
Integratedprograms............................................................................................................... 89
Authority to Act and to Inspect.............................................................................................. 89
Allowed, permitted with conditions, and prohibited uses ..................................................... 91
CriticalMaterials..................................................................................................................... 93
NonpointOrdinance............................................................................................................... 93
Reports....................................................................................................................................
93
Incentives................................................................................................................................ 94
Appendix D —The Growth Management Hearings Board and Selected Decisions ...................... 95
Mapping and performance standards....................................................................................
96
Local government discretion and the GMA framework......................................................... 96
What protecting Critical Areas (CA) means............................................................................ 96
Compliance monitoring and enforcement.............................................................................
97
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.............................................................................................. 97
Appendix E — Contamination is Costly.......................................................................................... 98
Contamination in the Freeman School District Well.............................................................. 99
Christ Community Fellowship Water System Consolidation due to High Nitrates ..............
101
Hamilton — LaBree Roads EPA Superfund Site......................................................................
102
Appendix F—Acronyms and Glossary.........................................................................................
105
Appendix G — Response to Comments on the 2005 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Guidance.
107
Challenges.............................................................................................................................
107
BestAvailable Science...........................................................................................................
110
PermitProcess......................................................................................................................
113
Mapping................................................................................................................................
115
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 vii
Packet Pg. 70
9.B.b
DataResources..................................................................................................................... 116
Implementation —Question 1............................................................................................... 118
Implementation — Question 2............................................................................................... 119
Implementation — Question 3............................................................................................... 122
Cross-Jurisdiction.................................................................................................................. 125
Funding................................................................................................................................. 127
Long Range Plans — Question 1............................................................................................. 128
Long Range Plans — Question 2............................................................................................. 129
General.................................................................................................................................. 130
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 viii
Packet Pg. 71
9.B.b
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: The Hydrologic Cycle...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2: If the groundwater table drops to the lower dashed line, both the stream and the well
go dry. The water table lowers when discharge (water out) is greater than recharge (water
in).................................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3: Cross-section illustration of groundwater flow and contaminant paths to a well........ 14
Figure 4: Township, range, section, quarter -quarter, and well location illustration from the
Washington Department of Natural Resources........................................................................... 22
Figure 5: Location, extent, and uses of a drinking water supply aquifer ..................................... 24
Figure 6: Representation of an aquifer system (Jones, 1999)...................................................... 25
Figure 7: Well logs include observations about aquifers and the earth materials that overlie the
aquifers......................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 8: This topographic map shows hilly bedrock next to a flatter river valley. The boundary
of the water table aquifer is likely to be where the hills slope up from the valley ...................... 28
Figure 9: Hydrogeologic map of the Chimacum Basin (Simonds, 2004)...................................... 30
Figure 10: Hydrogeologic cross -sections of the Chimacum Basin (Simonds, 2004)..................... 31
Figure 11: Requirements for Dangerous Waste Drums Poster. For more information, phone 360-
407-6700 or email hwtrpubs@ecy.wa.gov................................................................................... 42
Figure 12: The drinking water aquifer for McCleary lies both in city boundaries and outside city
boundaries in Grays Harbor County............................................................................................. 75
Figure 13: Washington State Department of Ecology Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated
SitesMap (2018)........................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 14: Image of Table 24.10-1. Prohibited and Restricted Uses and Activities Within Critical
AquiferRecharge Areas................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 15: Area around Freeman Cleanup Site........................................................................... 100
Figure 16: Hamilton-LaBree Superfund Site area (after U.S. EPA, 2017)................................... 102
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 ix
Packet Pg. 72
9.B.b
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report thank the following people for their contribution to this guidance:
Washington Department of Commerce Growth Management Services
I especially would like to thank all of the planners for their review and help with local planner
forums, especially Charlene Andrade and Scott Kuhta for their review and comments.
Washington Department of Ecology
• Water Quality Program: Chris Martin, LHg; Hans Qiu, LHg; Mary Shaleen-Hansen, LHg; Llyn
Doremus, LHg; Matt Durkee, LHg; Chad Brown; Whitney Ashborn; Chanele Holbrook
• Water Resources Program: Bennett Weinstein; Tom Culhane, LHg; John Covert, LHg
• Hazardous Waste & Toxic Reduction Program: Eli Levitt, Michelle Underwood
• Toxic Cleanup Program: Ali Furmall, Erika Beresovoy, William Fees
• Office of the Columbia River: Scott Tarbutton, LHg
Washington Department of Health Office of Drinking Water
Corina Hayes; Deborah Johnson
Washington State Conservation Commission: Bill Eller
Washington State Department of Agriculture: Gary Bahr, LHg; Jaclyn Hancock, LHg; Christina
Zimmerman; Chery Sullivan; Kelle Davis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Superfund and Emergency Response
Division
Linda Meyer
City of Issaquah: Special thanks to Julie Wartes, City of Issaquah, for Appendix A — Focus on
Implementation
City and County Local Planners
I am especially grateful for local planners who have reviewed and commented, as well as having
shared their wisdom and expertise over the years.
Commenters
Thank you to everyone who commented on this guidance - Your engagement and input is very
much appreciated.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 x
Packet Pg. 73
9.B.b
Abstract
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires all cities and counties in Washington State to
protect public groundwater drinking supplies so that tragic contamination events and their
associated costs can be prevented. Public drinking water supply also depends on groundwater
availability. Without replenishment, the amount of water in aquifers can be diminished or even
depleted.
This guidance document helps local jurisdictions and the public understand what is required for
the protection of local groundwater resources under the Growth Management Act. It includes
guidance for planning, ordinances, and for including the Best Available Science (BAS) as these
relate to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
This guidance will also explain how the laws and rules of the state of Washington for water
quality, pollution prevention, and water resources relate to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
protection.
We are revising the guidance to update it in response to changes in laws and rules that have
occurred since 2005, and to clarify concepts in response to comments.
In 2010, the Washington State Department of Commerce significantly updated the sections of
the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) they administer under the Growth Management
Act. A summary of the changes can be found in Appendix LA. of the Critical Areas Handbook.
Access the Critical Areas Handbook from the Department of Commerce Critical Areas web
age'.
The updated Critical Areas Handbook is a indispensable resource for local jurisdictions updating
their Critical Areas plans, programs, and ordinances. Much information in the Critical Areas
Handbook that is important for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas is not repeated here, so these
two guidances should be used together.
' https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 xi
Packet Pg. 74
9.B.b
Section 1 - Introduction
This guidance document helps local jurisdictions and the public understand what is
required for the protection of local groundwater resources under the Growth
Management Act. It includes guidance for planning, ordinances, and for including the
Best Available Science (BAS) as these relate to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
This guidance will also explain how the laws and rules of the state of Washington for
water quality, pollution prevention, and water resources relate to Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area protection.
We are revising the guidance to update it in response to changes in laws and rules that
have occurred since 2005, and to clarify concepts in response to comments.
In 2010, the Washington State Department of Commerce significantly updated the
sections of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) they administer under the
Growth Management Act. A summary of the changes can be found in Appendix LA of
the Critical Areas Handbook.
Access the Critical Areas Handbook from the Department of Commerce Critical Areas
web pageZ.
The updated Critical Areas Handbook is an indispensable resource for local jurisdictions
updating their Critical Areas plans, programs, and ordinances. Much information in the
Critical Areas Handbook that is important for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas is not
repeated here, so both guidance documents should be used together.
Although the vast majority of drinking water wells produce clean uncontaminated
water, there are places around the state where groundwater has been contaminated,
either with industrial/agricultural chemicals, or with nitrates from various sources
(fertilizer, human waste, animal waste). Appendix B shows a map of confirmed and
suspected contaminated groundwater and soil sites across the state. The Washington
Nitrate Prioritization Proiect3 (Morgan, 2016) was completed to analyze what we know
about the occurrence of nitrates in groundwater and the on -the -ground conditions that
are sensitive to contamination. For a summary, see the Story Map' for this project.
2 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
3 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1610011.html
4 https://waecy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=95afld23b76a45e4
8abcb891b1791ba2
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 1
Packet Pg. 75
9.B.b
When a public drinking water supply is compromised, the community faces the
potential of health risk and great expense. Contaminated water may lead to the
ingestion of toxic chemicals or other harmful substances, which could cause illness or
adverse health effects.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention5 (CDC) has information about public
drinking water contamination and health effects:
The presence of contaminants in water can lead to adverse health effects,
including gastrointestinal illness, reproductive problems, and neurological
disorders. Infants, young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people
whose immune systems are compromised because of AIDS, chemotherapy, or
transplant medications, may be especially susceptible to illness from some
contaminants.
Remediation of contaminated groundwater is overwhelmingly expensive and often
takes a long time. A contamination event can cause city wells to be shut down, result in
expenses for new wells, and incur costs for cleaning up contaminated soil and ground
water.
Prevention of groundwater contamination is far less expensive than cleanup.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studies have shown that investing funds for
groundwater protection is cost-effective compared to groundwater cleanup at a ratio
that runs anywhere from 1:5 to 1:200 (U.S. EPA, 1995).
The Growth Management Act requires protection of public groundwater drinking
supplies so that contamination events and their associated costs can be prevented.
In addition, public drinking water supply depends on groundwater availability. Without
replenishment, the amount of water in aquifers can be diminished or even depleted.
A good groundwater protection program involves:
• Identifying groundwater resources at risk,
• Identifying threats to groundwater
• Having an implementation plan for rules to be protective, and
• Monitoring to make sure a condition that could cause an unacceptable risk is not
occurring and taking action when necessary.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/public/water_diseases.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 76
9.B.b
The Growth Management Act and Critical Areas
The Growth Management Act6 (GMA) requires comprehensive land use planning by
counties and cities. The act, commonly known as the GMA, specifies 13 overall planning
goals.
These goals include urban growth, transportation, economic development, natural
resource industries, public facilities, open space and recreation, historic preservation,
environmental planning, and others.
The environmental planning goal is to "protect the environment and enhance the state's
high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water" (RCW
36.70A.020 ).
Further, the land use element of comprehensive plans must "provide for protection of
the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies" (RCW
36.70.3308).
The GMA requires the designation and protection of "Critical Areas" to prevent harm to
the community from natural hazards and to protect natural resources.
• Natural hazards are frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas.
Natural resources are wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, which are areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water.
The goal of establishing Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas is to protect the functions and
values of a community's drinking water by preventing pollution and maintaining supply.
This guidance document is developed for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area management.
Groundwater is a major component of other critical areas. County wide planning policies
as well as comprehensive plans are the major planning and policy documents for local
governments to ensure the protection of natural resources such as groundwater,
surface water, and wetlands, as well as hazards such as flooded areas, and landslide
hazards.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A&full=true
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.020
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70.330
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 77
9.B.b
Examples of comprehensive plans that integrate various environmental components
include: Thurston County (2019)9, Pierce County (2015)10, and Spokane County (2017)11
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) are defined under the GMA as "areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an
aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would
affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge."
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 365-190-10012 further enumerates
requirements for local jurisdictions to determine classification and designation of Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Identifying "areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water,"
depends on understanding aquifer recharge and what is meant by "a critical recharging
effect."
Aquifer recharge occurs where rainfall, snowmelt, infiltration from lakes, wetlands and
streams, or irrigation water infiltrates into the ground and adds to the underground
water that can supply a well. On the other hand, discharge areas are where
groundwater meets the ground surface and ultimately flows out from a spring, wetland,
stream, lake, estuary, or ocean shore. Wells can also serve as discharge areas, especially
those that pump larger volumes, such as those used by municipalities.
Most of a watershed is typically a recharge area, with discharge areas occurring to a
more limited extent in topographically lower areas. Recharge areas and discharge areas
can be mapped using hydrogeologic techniques to determine where groundwater is and
where it is flowing.
Aquifers used for potable water are identified by looking at existing and future planned
uses. Existing wells and their protection areas, sole source aquifers, and aquifers
otherwise identified as important supplies, are examples of "aquifers used for potable
water."
Setting priorities for the most critical supplies helps jurisdictions make decisions about
where to focus their efforts. Areas may be categorized to reflect these priorities.
9 https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/planning/planningdocuments/Chapter_09_Environment and
Recreation_Nov2019_FI NAL_clean.pdf
10 https://www.co.pierce.wa.us/950/Comprehensive-Plan
11 https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/22928/2017-Comprehensive-
Plan?bidld=
11 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=365-190-100
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 78
9.B.b
An example would be to apply stricter regulations and monitoring within the one-year
time of travel of a public water supply well, as opposed to more sparsely developed
areas of the county. Stricter regulations should be applied in an area where the aquifer
is shallow and vulnerable to contamination more than an aquifer that is deep and
protected.
King County Best Available Science for Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaS13 (King County,
2004) includes a discussion of recharge and discharge areas, drinking water, and
prioritization of areas that are "critical".
Maps and performance standards
The GMA discusses the use of both mapping and performance standards to identify
critical areas.
Maps are highly useful for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas because they can show the
location of public water supply wells, single residential wells, and aquifer boundaries.
They can also be used to show the location of areas that have been rated for
susceptibility to contamination, and where potential sources of contamination are
located. Maps can be used to see where pollution prevention is most needed and to
help plan development. Known Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas should be mapped.
Performance standards are the criteria for designation of a critical area. The Dept. of
Commerce Critical Areas Handbook defines "performance standards" as the criteria or
characteristics of the land that determine that it is a critical area. A performance
standard is applied when reviewing development projects to determine what category
of Critical Aquifer Recharge Area the proposal is in and what the applicable site
conditions are.
Local policies, planning, ordinances, and programs are applied based on the outcome of
the evaluation of the proposal using performance standards.
Chapter 365-190-040(5)(b)14 states: Inventories and maps should indicate designations
of natural resource lands. In circumstances where critical areas cannot be readily
identified, these areas should be designated by performance standards or definitions, so
they can be specifically identified during the processing of a permit or development
authorization.
The purpose of a performance standard is to have an objective standard for comparison
(WWGMHB, 1997).
To use performance standards, local jurisdictions need sufficient information to:
'' https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2004/kcrl562/BAS-Chap6-04.pdf
11 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=365-190&full=true#365-190-040
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 79
9.B.b
• Make an informed determination as to whether or not critical areas are present on
the site.
• Determine whether or not the proposed activity will impact those critical areas.
The Critical Areas Handbook15 (Washington Dept. of Commerce, 2018) states that:
The Minimum Guidelines in Chapter 365-190 WAC are minimum requirements for
critical areas classification and designation. The Guidelines reference the statutory
requirement to include best available science, and recommend that counties and
cities designate critical areas using maps and performance standards. Designation
is usually done with a map such as a zoning map. However, there is usually not
enough on -the -ground information to do an effective job of designating critical
areas using this method. Critical areas designation is typically done through
performance standards. The term "performance standards" means the criteria or
characteristics of the land that determine that it is a critical area.
Adopting performance standards provides a way to designate critical areas
without requiring a prohibitively expensive inventory and mapping before the
requirements for protecting the critical area would apply. Instead, the legislative
act of designation is the adoption of criteria, or performance standards, that are
used to determine whether a particular area is a critical area by applying the
criteria on the ground. This typically happens during local project review.
Voluntary Stewardship Program
The Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) was adopted into the Growth Management
Act in 2011. The intent of this program is to provide a voluntary means for protection of
critical areas that intersect with agricultural activities in VSP opt -in counties.
Chapter 36.70A.705 RCW16 establishes the program. Chapter 365-191 WAC17
enumerates the regulations for program approval.
The Washington State Conservation Commission administers the Voluntary Stewardship
Program, with technical support from other state agencies, including Ecology. Both the
Washington State Conservation Commission18 and the Critical Areas Handbook" have
detailed information about this program.
15 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/guidebooks-and-
resources/
16 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.705
17 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-191
18 https://scc.wa.gov/vsp/
19 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-
management-topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 80
9.B.b
Some things to keep in mind about groundwater protection and the way the Voluntary
Stewardship Program is designed:
1. The best chance for a county VSP work plan to succeed for groundwater quality
protection would be by having a high rate of participation and implementation
of best management practices, like precision agriculture.
2. The VSP defines protection as no further loss compared to conditions that
existed in July 2011. This fits in with no net loss of wetlands because wetlands
are visible at the ground surface and can be inventoried.
The problem for groundwater with defining protection as of a certain date is that
there often is not groundwater sampling for that date.
In addition, groundwater moves and transports contaminants with it. If there are
no new contaminants, upgradient groundwater and local recharge would mix
with the contaminated water. This would move contaminated water away and
dilute it. Contaminant concentrations should decrease (if upgradient sources
aren't continuing to pollute). To keep polluted groundwater to the same
concentration level as existed in July 2011 would require continuing loading of
pollutants, which is illegal (RCW 90.48.08020).
The prudent thing to do is to monitor groundwater quality at wells that have
detected contamination over time and control polluting activities.
3. The VSP is voluntary and cannot address operators with polluting activities who
do not voluntarily participate. In counties that opt -in to VSP, the county VSP
work plan takes the place of the critical area ordinance for that county as they
pertain to agricultural activities. However, all other regulations, ordinances, laws
and rules apply. If there is a polluter in the county, and VSP would apply to that
polluter (the agricultural activity that the polluter is engaged in is in a portion of
the county that has opted -in to VSP), a county would not be able to use their
critical area ordinance to regulate the polluter. Rather, the county would work
with other regulators to enforce existing regulations (i.e. Department of Ecology
water quality regulations, Clean Water Act, etc.) to stop the pollution.
The county VSP work group would also work to adaptively manage their VSP
work plan to attempt to ameliorate any decrease in the critical area function and
values as they implement the VSP.
4. The VSP relies on establishing benchmarks to track progress on whether the
program is successful. Without a groundwater monitoring program, or data from
20 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=90.48.080
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 81
9.B.b
a groundwater monitoring program, it would be difficult to determine whether
groundwater quality is improving as a result of the program.
5. The VSP metric for success is that there is no net loss or there is an improvement
on a watershed basis. Groundwater pollution occurs at a particular location from
a particular activity. Averaging groundwater quality for wells across an entire
watershed does not indicate improvement or success if there still is ongoing
unaddressed pollution at a location, even if other locations are not polluted.
Groundwater and Other Critical Areas
Groundwater is inextricably linked with all of the critical areas including wetlands, fish
and wildlife habitat, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and
geologically hazardous areas.
Groundwater is a source of water to streams, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and springs;
and therefore serves a critical function for wildlife and fish habitat. Some plants that
provide habitat, like willows, depend on shallow ground water.
Groundwater is often a key factor in flooding and geologic hazards.
The GMA also requires that local jurisdictions give special consideration to conservation
or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. Since
groundwater is an important component of stream flow, it is necessary to maintain the
groundwater supply to streams where needed to protect salmon and other anadromous
species. Watershed planning under the Streamflow Protection law supports this goal.
See Section 3 for more information.
Qualified Professional Assistance
Professional hydrogeologic work for the establishment of Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas should be performed by a hydrogeologist licensed in the state of Washington
(RCW 18.22021 and WAC 308-1522). In particular, the delineation and characterization of
aquifers and the analysis of environmental fate and transport of potential contaminants
should be performed by a qualified professional hydrogeologist licensed in the state of
Washington.
Many activities associated with Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas may be done by others
(who are not licensed professional hydrogeologists) such as planning, pollution
prevention, education and outreach, ordinance enforcement, and other activities
21 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.220&full=true
22 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=308-15
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 82
9.B.b
associated with city and county programs (see RCW 18.220.190: Permitted activities —
Certificate of licensing not reauired
The Growth Management Hearings Board and
Washington State Courts
GMA Hearings Boards were created by the legislature to hear cases related to the
Growth Management Act. The three GMA Hearings boards - Eastern Washington,
Western Washington, and Central Puget Sound - were consolidated into a single board
by the legislature in 2010. Critical Areas planning and ordinance decisions are subject to
review by the board. The board hears cases when a "Petition for Review" is filed.
Chapters 36.70A.28024 and 36.70A.29021 RCW dictate conditions for appealing a city's or
county's noncompliance with the Growth Management Act, including provisions for the
protection of critical areas (Chapter 36.70A.060 RCW26). Growth Management Hearings
Boards Final Decisions and Orders may be appealed to Superior Court.
The GMA Hearings Board website27 contains a wealth of information about the board
and how it works. There is a decision digest28 through June 30, 2010 for each of the
Regional Boards prior to consolidation. This website also has a case and decision search
for cases after June 30, 2010, where decisions that affect Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
(CARAs) and other growth management issues can be viewed on-line.
The website also has practice and procedure information for appeals.
As of 2019, eleven counties and their included cities in Washington are not required to
plan fully under the GMA (Chapter 36.70A.13029). These jurisdictions must still plan for
Critical Areas and Natural Resources Lands. These counties are Adams, Asotin, Cowlitz,
Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Ferry, Lincoln, Okanogan, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and Whitman.
Appeals of Critical Areas actions under the GMA for these eleven counties and their
included cities do not go to the Growth Management Hearings Board, but instead are
heard by Superior court.
23 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.220.190
24 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.280
25 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.290
26 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.060
27 http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/
28 http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/Global/Reader?title=Digests&path=Digests
29 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.130
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 83
9.B.b
Section 2 - Basic Groundwater Concepts
This section lists basic concepts that help with understanding the occurrence and
movement of ground water.
The Hydrologic Cycle
The hydrologic cycle is how water moves in the environment. Water evaporates from
the oceans, gathers in clouds, and rains or snows onto the land. After it rains or the
snow melts, the water may evaporate, be used by plants, run off to streams, lakes, or
the ocean; or infiltrate into the soil. Some of the water that infiltrates into the soil will
reach the underground water table and will recharge the aquifer.
' Con�ansativn
Ctsr5$jillSatiLIl717
M Nohd Air
Ev;NRiorptlori front TranspiraVon
rivers, soils,, lake
it
Rreclpilabon
ProNRleedan
_ k
�ntaroeR�in 4
Iu;npor;mtivil ar �i•+
from Runoff �.
II M Istur
rough
�S pIc Groundwater
Figure 1: The Hydrologic Cycle
Aquifers
Aquifers are created when water saturates, or fills, the soil or rock matrix underground
where it is permeable enough to yield useable quantities of water to a well.
Underground soil/rock layers that are not permeable enough to yield useable quantities
of water to a well are called aquitards. Common types of aquifers are sand and gravel,
fractured bedrock, and karst (limestone).
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 84
9.B.b
In the Puget Sound region, the landscape that defines aquifers is made up mainly of
deposits of sand and gravel related to the movement of glaciers during the last ice age.
In eastern Washington, there are several types of geologic settings that contain aquifers.
The largest type of aquifer in eastern Washington are the flood basalts of the Columbia
Basin. In the Columbia Basin, irrigation has created aquifers by saturating the sands and
gravels that overlay the Columbia Basin basalts.
A confined aquifer is an aquifer that lies beneath an aquitard. This condition can cause
the water to be under pressure, resulting in a well that has a water level above the
bottom of the aquitard (known as artesian conditions). Sometimes this pressure is great
enough to cause the water in the well to flow out at the surface. Groundwater in
confined aquifers flows from the direction of the highest hydraulic pressure to the
lowest hydraulic pressure.
A water -table aquifer is water under normal atmospheric pressure, and thus is able to
rise and fall. This aquifer is not capped by an aquitard and as such is impacted by surface
contamination sooner than a confined aquifer. Water -table aquifers flow generally in
accordance with the topography from higher elevations to lower elevations.
There may be a whole system of multiple confined aquifers and a water -table aquifer in
an area. Sometimes the water table aquifer and confined aquifers beneath are
connected and water from one aquifer flows into another.
Recharging Aquifers
Recharge is water that is added to groundwater, whether it is from rainfall or snowmelt
that infiltrates through the ground, or some other source. Recharge can come from
quite a distance through the ground over a long period, or it can come from relatively
local and more recent sources.
Recharge can also carry contaminants into aquifers from the land surface. Therefore,
recharge is at the center of preventing pollution and maintaining supply both for
drinking water aquifers and for freshwater habitats.
Infiltration is water that soaks into the ground. All recharge is infiltrated, however,
infiltration can also evaporate, flow along a shallow zone and surface downslope, or be
taken up by plants instead of adding to recharge. Infiltration that reaches the water
table becomes recharge.
Impervious surfaces prevent infiltration and therefore prevent recharge from occurring.
Instead, rainwater or snowmelt may run off to surface water more quickly than it
otherwise would. The stream's peak flow may be higher in magnitude and closer in time
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 85
9.B.b
to rainfall events. While increasing peak flow during rainy times, the lack of recharge can
deprive streams of groundwater inflow when the streams need it the most.
Groundwater Discharge
Groundwater flows through the ground from where it is recharged to where it is
discharged. Discharge is where water moves from underground to the land surface,
either by flowing out to the top of the land surface, or by pumping from wells. Springs
are a familiar example of a local groundwater discharge. Groundwater can also
discharge naturally to more dispersed areas such as lakebeds and stream banks or
stream beds.
In fact, in Washington, groundwater can make up a majority of stream flow, especially in
late summer and early fall (Pitz and Sinclair, 1999). This is why groundwater discharge is
such an important aspect of maintaining or restoring freshwater habitat.
Discharge of groundwater, whether by pumping or by seeping into streams and springs,
can lower the water table if the recharge does not keep up. The effect can be to drop
the water level down below the bottom of a well or to dry up a stream.
Sometimes the water table rises and discharges above the land surface. This can fill
lakes and streams, create and support wetlands, or even cause flooding if the water has
nowhere to drain.
Safe yield (Fetter, 1980) is the amount of naturally occurring groundwater that can be
economically and legally withdrawn (discharged) from an aquifer on a sustained basis
without impairing the native groundwater quality or creating an undesirable effect such
as environmental damage. It cannot exceed the amount of recharge and/or leakage
from adjacent strata minus the amount of discharge caused by pumping and natural
sources.
The Water Table
In an unconfined aquifer, the water table is the top of where the underground is
saturated with water. This is where water levels are measured if groundwater is in a
water table aquifer (unconfined or at atmospheric pressure). The water table rises when
recharge is greater than discharge.
People can cause the water table level to lower directly by removing groundwater from
wells. A second method is by reducing the quantity of recharge. This happens where
there is too much paved area (impervious surface) and storm water cannot infiltrate
where it formerly did. Lack of recharge, for example during a drought, can also lower
the water table level.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 86
9.B.b
Figure 2 (modified from a USGS illustration30) shows the effects of a declining water
table and why recharge is so important.
Water
Well
' Land Initial Water Table
P.. r, P.._ r,
Unsaturatedzoneo.gP�4;boa.4ib:q SurfBCe Lowered Water Table
..aa.?�£.a.7�9eS�
�`ty �L71�7
ate,.,_' Surface water
Saturated zop e3a
Ground
Ground
nn4 � n4' � n4� � nC� � n4� � n4� n4� � n4� � •a 4� n4� � n4 � r
Figure 2: If the groundwater table drops to the lower dashed line, both the stream and the
well go dry. The water table lowers when discharge (water out) is greater than recharge
(water in).
Hydrogeologic Setting and Susceptibility to Pollution
How do contaminants get to a well? Contaminants may be spilled onto the ground or
may leak from an underground tank and travel downward to the aquifer. After reaching
the aquifer, contaminants may be carried along with the groundwater flow to a well.
How do contaminants get to a well? Contaminants may be spilled onto the ground or
may leak from an underground tank and travel downward to the aquifer. After reaching
the aquifer, contaminants may be carried along with the groundwater flow to a well.
How groundwater flows through an aquifer — the direction and rate of flow - affects
whether a contaminant will show up at a water well. Groundwater flow direction and
rate can change seasonally and is impacted by pumping wells.
Although the fate and transport of contaminants are much more complex than an
illustration can show, it is useful for explaining concepts.
Figure 3 is an illustration of spills travelling through the ground and reaching
groundwater The large arrows indicate regional groundwater flow. The well pumping
creates a local zone where groundwater flows to the well (small arrows). The area
within an aquifer where groundwater flows to a well is called the capture zone.
The contaminants would be carried along with the flow of groundwater to a well, where
a sample would detect contamination. Notably, contamination in groundwater that is
30 https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/aquifers-and-groundwater?qt-
science_center objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 87
9.B.b
downgradient of the well, but within the capture zone, can be drawn to the well
because of pumping.
� w RR' *R ;• �• R�
+#RRr �� +• Rr R• R1�
R R �R `R R• a
isRR a } . i� precipitation
R R � f
well discharge
vadose.xone �
water tablerecharge
aquifer
r
Regional groundwater flow direction drawdown
confining unit
Figure 3: Cross-section illustration of groundwater flow and contaminant paths to a well.
Wellhead protection area time -of -travel zones are generally based on a broad estimate
of groundwater flow to a well within an estimated period of time. Some wellhead
protection areas are based on groundwater modeling and are more accurate.
The hydrogeologic setting is the framework that controls groundwater occurrence and
movement. Where groundwater flows, the rate at which it flows, where it recharges and
discharges, and how deep it occurs are all functions of what the land is like — the soil,
sediments, and rocks that groundwater moves through make up the hydrogeologic
setting. The hydrogeologic setting also includes the topography and the weather
patterns that control recharge.
Knowledge of hydrogeologic settings is essential for establishing critical aquifer recharge
areas. Prioritization of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas can be based on the susceptibility
of those settings to contamination or water quantity impacts.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 88
9.B.b
Susceptibility refers to how easy (or difficult) it is to contaminate groundwater. This is
related to what the geology is like. When water can move readily through the ground, it
can carry contaminants to groundwater more quickly. Sandy, shallow unconfined
aquifers are more susceptible than deep aquifers that are overlain by an aquitard.
Susceptibility is relative. All groundwater used for drinking water is susceptible - Some
conditions are more sensitive to contamination than others.
Vulnerability refers to the risk of contamination combined with the risk from the
susceptibility of the aquifer. Inventories of potential sources of contamination are
helpful for establishing the vulnerability of the aquifer that supplies the critical local
drinking water supply.
Because these terms are often used interchangeably, it is important to be sure of the
author's meaning when encountering these terms.
Susceptibility factors
• The vadose zone consists of the unsaturated earth materials above an aquifer.
Water infiltrates underground through the vadose zone to recharge water table
aquifers. Factors of the vadose zone that effect susceptibility are thickness, or depth
to water, and travel time.
Depth to water is the distance through the vadose zone a contaminant must travel
to reach the water table.
In the vadose zone, travel time is the amount of time it takes a contaminant to travel
from its release point to the top of the water table. Travel time is affected by the
depth to water and the material through which it must pass. The deeper the water
table or the more fine-grained material (silt and clay), the longer the travel time.
Preferential flow paths, such as through fault zones, buried channels, macropores,
and poorly constructed wells, can cause travel times to be much shorter than would
be expected from the depth to the water table or the amount of fine materials.
Permeability refers to how easily a liquid or gas passes through a material. Low
permeability layers, such as clay or glacial till, may occur between the land surface
and an aquifer, either within the vadose zone or within an aquifer system. These
layers would restrict downward migration of contaminants and would provide a
measure of protection to the aquifer. Low permeability layers can also be referred to
as aquitards when they confine an aquifer under pressure. Care should be taken
with presuming a confining layer is protective, because layers may not be laterally
extensive and may have some feature that allows leakage.
• Infiltration rate is a measure of how fast water and pollutants can move downwards
through the earth materials of the vadose zone. The more permeable the ground is,
the faster water moves down through it, the more the underlying groundwater is
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 89
9.B.b
susceptible to contamination. Coarse sands and gravels allow water to pass through
much more quickly than fine silts and clays.
• Chemical retardation is a measurement of how clays and organic matter react with
some chemicals to slow their passage or change them chemically.
• Adsorption is a measurement of the tendency of ions dissolved in water to "stick" to
particles of silt or clay. The particle size and the amount of soil organic matter affect
the adsorption. A sand with no organic matter may not adsorb at all, while an
organic silt or clay may adsorb well. In short, a contaminant can be captured or
slowed down by adsorbing to clay.
• Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of how fast a quantity of water can move
through an aquifer (for a given gradient through a unit area). The higher the
hydraulic conductivity, the faster the flow.
• Gradient is the difference in water level elevation between two locations of the
water table or the difference in pressure between two locations in a confined
aquifer. The higher the gradient, the faster the flow.
• Just as a ball rolls downhill, water flows downhill — from higher water table
elevations to lower water table elevations. Water also flows in the direction that
pressure is moving it. Just as you can push a ball uphill, high-pressure conditions can
push water upwards. Both pressure differences and elevation differences create
gradients.
• Groundwater flow direction is determined by gradients, which in turn are influenced
by pumping, discharge to surface water, topography, and geologic setting.
• Groundwater flow rate depends on the nature of the geologic materials that water
flows through along with the pressure on the water. Coarser materials allow faster
flow and higher pressures induce faster flow.
Seawater Intrusion
Seawater, or saltwater, intrusion is a special case that applies to jurisdictions with
saltwater shorelines where seawater intrusion is a concern. Near the shore, there is an
interface where the denser saltwater underlies fresh groundwater.
Groundwater extraction by a well can cause this interface to be pulled upward toward
the well to the point where well water becomes salty. The aquifer in an area where
seawater intrusion has occurred may become unusable for drinking water. Seawater
intrusion is a difficult and expensive problem to manage, especially in the face of
development pressures for shoreline properties.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 16
Packet Pg. 90
9.B.b
The Critical Areas Handbook31 (Washington Department of Commerce, 2018) discusses
saltwater intrusion in detail, along with a detailed summary of the Growth Management
Hearings Board decision that found that Jefferson County must protect the functions
and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas from seawater intrusion. To quote the
Handbook: "The Board held the County must classify and designate seawater intrusion
areas as critical areas, including best available science in a substantive way."
An excellent source of information is the Seawater Intrusion Topic Paper32 (Kelly, 2005)
that was completed for the Island County WRIA 6 Watershed Planning Process. Please
consult these references on seawater intrusion for more detailed information.
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring is used to measure water levels and to obtain water samples
for groundwater quality testing. Hydrogeologists use water levels from several wells to
estimate the rate and direction of flow, and to track declines or increases in the amount
of water in the aquifer.
Hydrogeologists also use water levels and the well log to determine whether the well is
a water table well or if it is confined.
Water quality samples are used to establish background conditions, find areas that have
groundwater contamination, and to track the increase or decrease of contaminants over
time. If a well has contamination, it is important to look at potential sources in areas
that contribute water to the well (either from recharge, from upgradient sources, or
from the capture zone), and make sure that good pollution prevention practices are
being followed.
31 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-
management-topics/critical-areas/
32 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1203271.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 91
9.B.b
Section 3 - Streamflow, Water Availability, and
Permit -Exempt Wells
Efforts to maintain instream flow and efforts to protect Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
share some common goals with respect to water availability, anadromous fisheries, and
best available science.
In January 2018, the Legislature passed the Streamflow Restoration law (Chapter 90.94
RCW33) that helps restore streamflows to levels necessary to support robust, healthy,
and sustainable salmon populations while providing water for homes in rural
Washington. The law was in response to the Hirst decision, a 2016 Washington State
Supreme Court decision that limited a landowner's ability to get a building permit for a
new home when the proposed source of water was a permit -exempt well. The law
directs local planning groups to develop watershed plans that offset impacts from new
domestic permit -exempt wells and achieve a net ecological benefit within the
watershed.
Much of the information developed during streamflow restoration planning efforts can
also be used to delineate Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas:
• Understanding where permit -exempt wells are being used for residential water
supply helps define locations where groundwater needs to be protected for drinking
water supply purposes.
• Knowledge of the relationship between groundwater and streamflows, provides the
linkage between groundwater use and instream flows that are necessary to maintain
healthy anadromous fisheries.
• Understanding patterns in shallow versus deep groundwater use and how those
differences effect the way groundwater pumping depletes streamflow, permits a
better understanding of different critical aquifer recharge area needs within the
same geographic areas.
• Aquifer mapping and the identification of where groundwater discharges to streams
provides basic information required during the identification and mapping of Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas.
33 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.94&full=true
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 18
Packet Pg. 92
9.B.b
Section 4 - Protecting the Functions and Values of
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
The functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are to provide the public
with clean, safe, and available drinking water. In order to accomplish this goal,
information is needed about the location and extent of aquifers that supply public
drinking water, the susceptibility of these supplies to contamination, and potential
contamination risks. In addition, planning, programs, and ordinances are needed to
prevent contamination from occurring.
Preventing pollution depends on controlling land use activities to prevent contaminant
spills and leaks. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are designated so that greater control
can occur where land use activities are a high -risk for polluting sensitive aquifers.
Prioritization of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas can be accomplished by identifying
where high -value water resources are located in highly susceptible areas (King County,
200434)
The following steps characterize where groundwater resources are important to the
community and how to protect them.
1. Identify where groundwater resources are located.
2. Analyze the susceptibility of the natural setting where groundwater occurs.
3. Inventory existing potential sources of groundwater contamination.
4. Classify the relative vulnerability of groundwater to contamination events.
5. Designate areas that are most at risk to contamination events.
6. Protect by minimizing activities and conditions that pose contamination risks.
7. Ensure that contamination prevention plans and best management practices are
implemented and followed.
8. Manage groundwater withdrawals and recharge impacts to:
• Maintain availability for drinking water sources.
• Maintain stream base flow from groundwater to support in -stream flows,
especially for salmon -bearing streams.
The following section provides more details about each one of these steps.
34 https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2004/kcrl562/BAS-Chap6-04.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 19
Packet Pg. 93
9.B.b
Step 1: Identify where groundwater resources are
located
Identifying the location and extent of drinking water supply aquifers is an essential step
in protecting the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area maps are delineations of where a community's
groundwater supply meets criteria such as susceptibility, potential for contamination,
and priority.
This section provides explanations of various resources that are useful for identifying
the location and extent of drinking water aquifers. A list of internet links to helpful
resources is at the end of this section.
Aquifer Maps
Aquifer boundaries are important to identify to give jurisdictions information about
where groundwater resources are. When new wells are needed, knowledge of where
aquifers may supply water is critical. This knowledge is used in water system planning
and is a vital consideration for long-term planning.
Mapping drinking water supply aquifers makes use of well location and well log
information as well as the location and characteristics of aquifers.
Aquifer maps are developed during hydrogeologic studies. The main source for aquifer
maps are USGS studies.
Well locations are important to identify to help prioritize risk and guide local ordinances
and planning near active public wells and areas where residents rely on single domestic
wells for drinking water.
The Department of Ecology well log map provides approximate well locations in the
center of the Township, Section, Range, Quarter -quarter square. The actual well
location may be anywhere within that 40-acre square.
Public Water Supply Wells
Public drinking water supply systems are regulated by the Department of Health under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Generally, the state regulates systems with 15 or
more residential connections (Group A), and the local health jurisdiction regulates
systems with 3 to 14 connections (Group B). Chapter 246-290 WAC35 is the regulation
35 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/VAC/default.aspx?cite=246-290&full=true
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 20
Packet Pg. 94
9.B.b
for Group A Public Water Supplies, and Chapter 246-291 WAC36 is the regulation for
Group B Public Water Supplies.
The SDWA also includes the Source Water Protection Program37. Under this program,
wellhead protection zones are defined and the susceptibility of the well to
contamination is rated. Potential contamination sources within the protection zones are
also inventoried.
Wellhead protection zones are delineated as the areas where contamination in the
aquifer could reach a well within a specified time period. Time -of -travel periods used by
the Department of Health Drinking Water Program are six months, one year, five years,
and ten years.
Zones based on these time periods are known as time -of -travel zones. Methods of
delineating wellhead protection zones vary from the least accurate method of drawing a
circle around the well at a fixed radius to modeling actual travel times based on aquifer
characteristics.
These mapped wellhead protection zones may be designated as a category of Critical
Aquifer Recharge Area (Chapter 365-190 WAC38). A jurisdiction may have stricter
requirements for facilities closer to a water supply well. For example, some uses may be
prohibited within the one-year time -of -travel zone that are allowed with mitigation in
the ten-year time -of -travel zone.
Domestic Wells
Residences that are located too far from a public water supply system must rely on
individual wells, springs, or surface water to supply their drinking water. Individual
domestic wells are an important and widespread source of drinking water supply in
Washington.
Maps of domestic well locations together with well logs help with identifying the
location, extent and use of drinking water supply aquifers.
To find information about domestic wells, contact the Department of Ecology Water
Resources Program.
State law requires that a well log be filed with the Department of Ecology when a well is
constructed. Well log information includes location by address and/or
36 https://apps.leg.wa.gov=AC/default.aspx?cite=246-291 &full=true
37
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/SourceWater/SourceWaterPr
otection
38 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-190&full=true#365-190-100
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 21
Packet Pg. 95
9.B.b
township/range/section/quarter-quarter section. Figure 4 illustrates how the Township
and Range system relates to locations on the ground.
Townshio 2 North. Ranoe 2 East
6
5
4
3
2
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
18
17
16
15
14
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
31
29
32
28
33
27
34
26
35
25
36
BASE Each township -range is divided
LINE into 36 sections, each 1 square
mile m sie. There are 640 acres
per section.
General Land Office Grid System defined
as Township and Range. Each Township is
36 square miles in sLe or 6 miles square.
Sections can be subdivided into four quarters to
better describe the location of a given property.
Section 36 Them are 160 acres m every quarter section.
Each quarter section can be divided
northwest northeast again to furtherdescribe a property
114 114 location. Them are 40 acres in
every 114 of a 114 section.
southwest southeast
114 1 114
northwest northeast
114 1 114
southwest southeast
114 114
SE114sec 36
This complete legal description for
the shaded area above is: NE 114,
SE 114, section 36, T. 2 N., R. 2 E.
Figure 4: Township, range, section, quarter -quarter, and well location
illustration from the Washington Department of Natural Resources
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 22
Packet Pg. 96
9.B.b
The following should be kept in mind when locating water supply wells when using
Ecology's well log map39:
The well locations were created by placing a point at the center of the
township/range/section/quarter-quarter square. The actual location of the well is
anywhere within that 40-acre square.
For example, if the center of the square is in a lake, and the actual well location is on
shore, the map will plot the well in the lake. The well IS NOT in the lake. There are
thousands of well logs, and the locations have not been adjusted individually.
• There are many wells for which well logs have not been submitted, and therefore do
not appear on this map.
0 Sometimes the location information written on the well log is incorrect, and so the
location shown for the well on the map is inaccurate.
It is up to the well driller to provide accurate information on the well log. The well
owner should make sure the location information is correct.
39 https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/waterresources/map/WCLSWebMap/default.aspx
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 23
Packet Pg. 97
9.B.b
Figure 5 is an example map that shows:
• Public water supply wells (Group A) and their protection zones
• Smaller public water supply wells (Group B)
• Wells that serve one or two households
• The location and the extent of a local aquifer
Possible aquifer border
� • �5 �.17 ' .I krca •' :a
5C.'17TF[i-•,Ch'EEK + � ' c,4urt�r �` •��
°�' Siiig`le'll ifff ' aRa
one residence��
Gr oup
f HV-nor- • i + • • ,. _ '• •.'
PC
1. T15N
Figure 5: Location, extent, and uses of a drinking water supply aquifer
Note: The single domestic residential wells on this map appear at the nearest quarter -
quarter section, NOT where they are actually located on the ground. This is because well
logs report locations this way, and that is what we have to use for mapping.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 24
Packet Pg. 98
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Some of the Methods Hydrogeologists Use to Identify and
Characterize Aquifers
Well logs, geologic, topographic, and soil maps, well testing, and field reconnaissance are some
of the tools used to identify aquifers.
Figure 6 is a hydrogeologic cross-section. It shows well locations and depths, as well as the
geologic formations that the wells draw water from. Hydrogeologists use a combination of
methods to understand where groundwater occurs, where it is moving, and how fast. The
cross-section depicts the conceptual model developed from this information.
Figure 6: Representation of an aquifer system (Jones, 1999)
Figure 6 Legend
Qvt — Vashon Till semi-confin ing layer
Qvr— Vashon recessional outwash shallow aquifer
Qr1, Qc2, Qc3 — Confined aquifers
Qf1, Qf2 — Semi -confined units
Water well
Water table
Artesian water well
Vertical or horizontal
groundwater flour
direction
Publication 05-10-028
Revised March 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 99
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Well logs contain a variety of information about items that are useful for CARA designation and
protection, such as:
• Location of the well
• The kinds and depths of underground materials encountered at the well location (sand,
gravel, silt, clay, bedrock, etc.)
• Depth to the aquifer from which well water is being pumped
• Water level in that aquifer at the time of drilling
• An estimate of the amount of water that can be pumped from the well.
• Where the aquifers are and how far they extend. (Many well logs are needed for this
analysis.)
Figure 7 is an example of a water well report, or well log for the City of Lacey. The well log
shows the geologic materials and water bearing zones encountered while drilling, the well
construction details, the water level in the well, and the well yield that was determined during
the well test.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 26
Packet Pg. 100
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
awn card No. W11448
File Department
Originaland First Copy with WATER WELL REPORT
Departmenttof Ecology ApP� yU1N1ODE WELL LD. s ASR %I
Second Copy — Ownar'a Copy STATE OF WASHINGTON
Third Copy -- Driller's Copy Water Right Permit
(1)
OWNER: Name CITY OF LACEY
Aaoeas P.O.Box 3400 420 College St. Lacey, WA 98509-
(2) LOCATION OF WELL: County Thurston NW im4 NW 1/4sec 24 T. 18 N.,R
(2a) STREET ADDRESS OF WELL(ornearestaddress) MADRONA PARK SUBDIVISION
1W w.M.
(3)
PROPOSED USE: ❑ Domestic Industrial ❑
❑ Irrigation
[IDeWater Test well ❑
Municipal X7
Other ❑
(10) WELL LOG or ABANDONMENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION
Formation: Describe by color, charader, size of material and structure, and show
and the kind arb nature of the material In each stratum penebateo, with at
change of information.
thickness
least one entry
of aquifers
for each
(4)
eOwner's number of well
TYPE OF WORK (if more than one) C e
Abandoned ❑ New well XX Method: Dug ❑
Deepened ❑ Cablel[(X
Reconditioned❑ Rotary
Bored ❑
Driven❑
Jetted El
MATERIAL
FROM
TO
Brown gray sandy till hard
0'
10'
Gray brown sandy till W Cobbles
10,
69'
(5)
DIMENSIONS: Diameterofwell 16
Drilled 134 feet. Depth ofoompletedwell
inches.
ft.
Dirty sand and gravel, moist
69,
Brown graytill
76'
Brown clay with gravel
79'
87'
(6)
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS:
Casing Installed: 16 Diam. from +2 ft-to
Welded N Diam. from fl.to—
Liner installed ❑ piem. from tt. to
Threaded ❑ "
265
n.
ft-
a.
LP,—m
Brown waterbearing sand & gravel.
87'
121'
grown silty sand with ravel
121'
123'
Blue gray cla
123'
133'
ci 1 tv Gann . Ho-0
133' _
153'
Perforations: Yes LJ No IXI
Type of perforator used
SIZE of perforations in. by In.
perforations from ft. to "
perforations from ft to "
perforations from ftto ft.
u+
Br
Ye
gr
Screens: Yes Q No ❑
Manufacturer's Name Westco
Type Stainless steel Model No.
Diam. 141slotsize 15�/ 12n rom 2ii5 _". to-, 2R2 ".
Diam. 1.r.k'—' Slot size 150 rom---2,014—h- to 306--".
Br
Br
Gravel eked: Ves Site of I
Gravel placed from ft. to tt.
Surface seal: Yes `h No ❑ To what depth? ------ 430_-- H•
Material used in seal NJUN VBINA Ol d rk rr011t
Did any strata contain unusable water? Yes ❑ No ❑
Type of water? Depth of strata
Method of sealing strata off
(7) PUMP: Manufacturer's Name
Type:
H.P.
(6) WATER LEVELS: Land-sudaceelevation
above mean sea level "-
static level 219.53 ft. below top of wall Dale
Artesian pressure lbs. per square inch Date
Artesian water is controlled by _
ap, ve ve, etc.
(9) WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is lowered below
staticlevel
Was a pump test made? Yes ® No [Iti, If yes, by Whom? _
Yield= 1025 gal./min. with 9ft. drawdown after �hire.
1025 2.21 4.23
Recovery data (time taken as zero when pump turned off) (water level measured from welt
top to water level)
Time Water Level Time Water Level Time Water Level
0 221.75 1On 219.77 12On 219.7
1 min, 219.69 0M 219,76
5 min • 219.81 60m 219.70
Date of test 15314/97
Bailer test galdinin. with ft. drawdown after hrs.
Ainest gal./min. with stem set at ft. for firs.
Artesian flow g.p.m. Date
Temperature of water _Was a chemical analysis made? Yes ® No ❑
ilt
vel
t with gravel,H
C
to medium sand wi
sand with binder
I hole
Work Started
153' 1 163'
163' 195'
195' 306'
306' 328'
328' 331'
331' 334'
WELL CONSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION:
I constructed and/or accept responsibility for construction of this well, and its
compliance with all Washington well construction standards. Materials used and
the information reported above are true to my best knowledge and belief.
NAMEHOKKAIDO (DRING&DEVELOPING CORP.
d1T) pr Oft PR
Address P.O. BOX 100, G AM, WA 98338-0100
(Signed) - License No. 1146
( R)
Contractor's
Registration No. HOKKADD178D3 Date JUNE 24 ,97
(USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY)
Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer. For spe-
cial accommodation needs, contact the Water Resources Program at (206)
407-6600. The TDD number is (206) 407-6006.
Figure 7: Well logs include observations about aquifers and the earth materials that overlie the
aquifers.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 101
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Maps of different types are used to help define the boundaries of aquifers.
Topographic maps show landscape changes that are often associated with aquifer boundaries.
(For example, the boundary for a river valley water table aquifer is often where the bedrock
slopes up from the valley floor. See Figure 8 below.)
.00
I
f .rP -.
LO
,! 1.
P
I
Where the valley floor meets
the base of hills Fs one
example of an aquifer
bou ndary
Figure 8: This topographic map shows hilly bedrock next to a flatter river valley. The boundary of
the water table aquifer is likely to be where the hills slope up from the valley.
Surficial geology maps show where geologic materials are located that are likely to contain
aquifers, such as alluvial deposits. An example is presented in Figure 9 below.
Many testing methods help hydrogeologists to identify and characterize aquifers. For example,
aquifer tests involve pumping water out of a well at a known rate and measuring the effect in
other nearby wells over time. These tests show how much water can be pumped from a well
and how far away other wells may be affected. They may also show to what extent water from
one aquifer may leak into another.
Geophysical methods are used to determine underground characteristics such as the nature
and geometry of geologic materials, the extent of aquifers, depth to water, and water quality
Modeling takes all of the available information and observations that a hydrogeologist has and
uses the computer to simulate known conditions. It allows a hydrogeologist to model different
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 28
Packet Pg. 102
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
(what -if) scenarios and to find out what may happen when various choices are made. Example
questions that modeling can address are:
• What would the effect of pumping from a well field be on stream flow?
• If a spill occurred in location A, how long would it take for the contaminants to reach the
well at location B?
• How would a drought affect water table levels and stream flows?
Hydrogeology studies look at all the available resources to map and describe aquifers.
Consultants, state agencies, academic studies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other
agencies are sources of this type of information. Numerous environmental firms can be
contracted to do these studies for areas where there is not an existing study. These studies can
be used to support the identification and characterization of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Figures 9 and 10 show a hydrogeologic map and cross-section from a USGS study in Jefferson
County (Simonds, 2004).
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 29
Packet Pg. 103
9.B.b
Irondale
Bam
uarOz
\ ONOI 03HO1 \.
3GO20 �.�/ Dvr 0202 \
OdO
7'
13X13 Portll 7
KO6
L6QG1
9 :,,I P
Hadloc V OE/m
uaL 0?4i+1 02R02 02B06 Y
wa9r °
ma01° 11cm omm�•
OF.
Lnfk1'S6lE
1 A
C WWI Lake E.
E.
C
09,p1 1101m0r Ovl
fla t
Brr
E. gN
6— 15B01
E.
I � %
Eve. DA Di
Em
i
ac
_s
1 1
Dr< J 15001 Op O 24CO
D. m
IEOI 22c9
21E
7
``�
Ertl
22Fif
r, Oa 21.101 l
ON
Ofm
2
27EBr
ON
� GE.
nor�� Delanly
Lakef r;GS'
2BM
7 y 1f
- 2shror 1
`I °1BBOI �D`''m
Em
o rmr srks
335001 0l,
Dm
rnn �,
�
n
\
\'34rnr
p
- 36EDI, Dgo
4wr
Em
gins
oa
Dm ,� m
5alr ®35J07
Eld-
O r
Ove 35ROr .7
Hgum
o°5aor
Bpn
I Em-
u�r
ow
Ilake
e. woo-
a. omHar
CM 1 MAI
ure
gel
��
am NA7980I
m
rlcn,
°Center
0n
Dn mrlor 50an
C1'ee,F 11L0�
DC)° ggn\
Tarbaa
`
10 1
QYe
, 12a0I 07
�
Lake C,�
Din
Em
Dun
a
nriDl.'
Dra
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
E%PEANATI
1, GENERALIZED SURFICIAL
GEOLOGIC UNITS
x- �Ouniernnry Alluium - p'
._.. Vaehnn Rncneni—I
Ouhxesh
�+ A Vaehnn LPdgemme Till
O Oub naa�enca
Z4
Oltlnr Nitlntl] Glecinl depcdb:
O Iuntl
q Bndmck-DliRncane-
oBn .dmnemennn
dimeMery
B�Ecan cEccnng
Bmnfi— fin
—
❑Bnd—o-Eocene FIGURE LOCATION
oan wlic mePoetl area anmetll
Y
OA Ar LINE OF HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTION
02M40 WELL I INVENTORIED I N 2002
23An ® MONTHLY WATER-LEVELMONITORING WELL
050010 WELLS IDENTIFIED BYGRIMSTAD AND CARSON{1981F—
App.d l.N Incadnd fin Me bania eF previounld
ppnd locefifionn
ae D
U>
O 1
0Em PF T
Ore
"'0
Da
I O 1
19 O
'9POI 202 0�
29D05 29D05
29DVI E.
DD07 29DO �-
2004
29NO3
25rm
ON BASIC)
Evd
LudlowL�\\ o Bm
Lake
Em ake�C \_ rav9r
Em
1 Da \
gd0
Em d � Dpnat
Figure 9: Hydrogeologic map of the Chimacum Basin (Simonds, 2004)
Ovr S1MlO (( Eaef L
�t
'��l >snn :lia M s
Dm v Hr
f4Ef7
04M02
05C01 ° 04A02
005P01
DSH01 OgP
d
D DOUJU7
06L01
P rt Ludlow o�
D A top f
Evc7
Dan
D
EvcF
Dvr Ove
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 104
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
WASHINGTON
Study area location
wA AT'
� as
wB scusiau vAcc E_s, wncuonsswmoxas B
4° 4 an
wCr g ®snc�ncv C'
$ g
wasr vnu.av cmmw'com�vaccev
EXPLANATION
HYOOOGEOLOGIC UNITS
Ful Tine -grained
F-1 peat depost
mr finegreinetl
I �r l ara®grained
OK fine-grained
arse -grained
G❑re fine-grained
coarse-
grained
® peat deposit
fine grained
coarse -grained
OEm bedrock
bedrock
bedrock
ErcF bedrock
i
1 INVENTOFIED WELLN40 NUMGEe
w� ve„w
�wcum vnuasv
�g gg
�
e
Figure 10: Hydrogeologic cross -sections of the Chimacum Basin (Simonds, 2004)
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 105
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Resources
The first step is to determine what is already available for the city or county in determining
where water resources are located. Here are some useful resources. More resources are listed
in Section 5 under Sources for Best Available Science.
• USGS Washington State Groundwater Prolects4o
• USGS Glacial Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Study41 (maps and data for
Washington42) (Bayless, 2017)
• Information developed as part of streamflow restoration efforts (e.g. St. Godard (2019),
discussed in the Watershed Planning section below) can be useful during identification of
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
• Maps of public water supply wells and their protection zones are available on the internet
at both of the following websites:
o Washington State Department of Health Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP)
Map43
o Washington State Department of Ecology Facility/Site Application44
Another way of identifying private wells is to compare a parcel map of existing residences
with public water supply service areas. Parcels outside of public water supply service areas
are likely on individual wells. Parcel maps are generally available from the assessor's office
or Washington State Geospatial Open Data Porta145 (search for parcel), and the public water
supply service areas are available on the Washington State Department of Health Source
Water Assessment Program (SWAP) Map46
Well logs and maps of well log locations are available online at the Department of Ecology
Well Log Viewer41 internet site has downloadable well logs, well records, and maps of well
locations. It is important to read and understand the limitations of the well log
application 48. Hard copies of well logs are also available at the Department of Ecology
Regional Offices in Lacey, Yakima, Spokane, and Bellevue. Many counties also maintain
copies.
Environmental monitoring data for both surface water and groundwater is available from
the Department of Ecology Environmental Information Management (EIM) system49.
40 https://webapps.usgs.gov/wawscgw/
41 https://doi.org/l0.3133/sir20155105
42 https://mi.water.usgs.gov/projects/WaterSmart/MapPages/mapWA.html
43 https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/swap/
44 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Facility-Site-database
45 https://geo.wa.gov/
46 https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/swap/
4' https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/WellConstructionMapSearch.aspx
48 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/siteinformation.htm
49 https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Environmental-Information-Management-
database#:-:text=Go%20to%20the%20E1 M%20Help%20Center%20Use%20the,sediments,%20river%20
and %20stream%20water%20quaIity,%20and%20more.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 32
Packet Pg. 106
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Keep in mind that any information system may have missing or inaccurate information.
Step 2: Analyze the susceptibility of the natural setting where
groundwater occurs.
Susceptibility is a term indicating the relative ease with which a release of contaminants to the
land surface may contaminate groundwater. Although the underground is complex, we rely on
information about the geologic setting to make some basic judgements about susceptibility. We
know, for example, that aquifers in areas made up of coarse unconsolidated geologic materials
(such as sand and gravel), have a higher susceptibility than aquifers in areas that have finer
grained materials (such as silts and clays) above them.
Along with the characteristics of the contaminant, the characteristics of the vadose zone
determines how easily a spill of a contaminant could get down to the water table.
Characteristics important for the susceptibility assessment typically include soil type, surficial
geology, depth to water, infiltration rate, permeability, chemical retardation factors,
adsorption, and the presence or absence of an impermeable layer.
Keep in mind that Preferential Flow allows contaminants to travel through the ground faster
than expected from the susceptibility factors alone. Because of the complexity of the
underground soils and geology, preferential flow is difficult or impossible to take into account.
This is another reason why pollution prevention is the best course for protecting groundwater
supplies.
In general, information from the following sources can be collected and used to support
determinations for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area designation and to document best available
science for the record.
Further, it is helpful to look at what other jurisdictions have done. The following are good
examples of susceptible drinking water aquifers:
• Spokane County: Spokane Aguiferso
The Spokane County Joint Aquifer Board website has information about the aquifer and
what is being done to protect it.
• Thurston County: Scatter Creek Aguifer51
"The goal of the project was to make sure water in the Scatter Creek Aquifer is safe to
drink now and in the future. The three-year project included groundwater monitoring,
scientific modeling, and community input. A citizen advisory committee evaluated
50 https://www.spokaneaquifer.org/
51 https://co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehsc/index.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 33
Packet Pg. 107
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
scientific data and modeling for potential impacts on the aquifer and made
recommendations to the Thurston County Board of Health and Board of County
Commissioners. Funding for this project was provided by the Washington State
Department of Ecology."
• Walla Walla County: The Gravel Aquifer"
Golder and Associates produced a series of maps of the gravel aquifer in support of
Walla Walla County's update of their Critical Aquifer Recharge Area best available
science.
The following information is useful for getting a relative indication of the susceptibility of
drinking water aquifers to contamination sources.
Groundwater quality sample results
A primary indicator of susceptibility is groundwater samples showing contamination from man-
made sources. This means that contaminants have travelled from the land surface to a well
already.
The Washington State Department of Health drinking water database (SENTRy53) records
groundwater quality sampling results for public water systems.
Many jurisdictions require a water well sample when a property is sold.
The USGS National Water Information System (NWIS54) has groundwater sample results for
wells sampled for USGS studies.
The Ecology Environmental Information Management system (EIM55) has a groundwater map
and a data application that includes groundwater monitoring data produced by Ecology studies.
Data produced from Ecology grant funded studies may also be in EIM.
Source water protection susceptibility rating and travel time
The Department of Health requires that Group A public water supply purveyors complete a
susceptibility assessment that results in a susceptibility rating for each public water supply well,
52 https://www.co.walla-
walla.wa.us/document_center/commdev/planning/critical%20areas/SGA%20Figure%201 A%20-
%209A%20dec%2011.pdf
53
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentalHealth/DrinkingWaterSystem Data/Sentr
ylnternet
54 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/nwis
55 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/eim/search/default.aspx
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 34
Packet Pg. 108
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
based on a number of factors (WAC 246-290-13556). These factors include whether or not there
is a protective confining layer above the aquifer. This rating and information is a key
component of any susceptibility assessment.
The Washington State Department of Health Source Water Protection online map57 shows
time -of -travel zones for public water supply wells and susceptibility ratings.
A susceptibility rating applies to the well with the rating. Nearby wells can have different
susceptibilities. For example, a public water supply well may have a susceptibility rating of low
due to being a deep well beneath a confining layer, while nearby residential wells are shallow
and draw water from above the confining layer.
Individual residential wells are often significantly shallower than public water systems. Many
residents rely on individual residential wells for drinking water. The susceptibility analysis to
support Critical Aquifer Recharge Area designation should include consideration of
susceptibility in areas with these wells.
Along with susceptibility ratings, time -of -travel estimates provide information about how fast a
contaminant could move toward the well.
Soil type
The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) develops and maintains county soil surveys
County soil surveys are the result of rigorous soil sampling, testing, and mapping. This
information is housed in the NRCS' Soils Survey database. This database houses the physical
characteristics and spatial distribution of soils.
The NRCS hosts an online tool called Web Soil Survey58, which gives a user access to soil
characteristics and maps. The Washington State NRCS soil survey page59 has a table that lists
areas that can be accessed with the Web Soil Survey, and areas that have an archived electronic
copy (pdf) of the soil survey instead.
Important information to be collected from soil surveys includes the infiltration rate and
permeability of the surface soils. Some soil surveys may also supply data on chemical
retardation factors (such as organic matter content), depth to the seasonal high water table,
and the presence or absence of an impermeable layer.
Soil surveys contain information for soil layers to a depth of as much as six feet.
56 https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=246-290-135
57 https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/swap/index.html
58 http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
59 https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateld=WA
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 35
Packet Pg. 109
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Surficial geology
The Washington State Geological Survey maps the geology of the State of Washington in
coordination with the USGS.
The Geology Portal60 is an online map application that displays surficial geology, geologic
structure (like faults), and subsurface information61 (well logs, boring logs).
Geologic maps, cross -sections, well logs, and boring logs have information about geologic
materials at depth. Cross -sections often depict the water table and the well locations the cross -
sections are based on. The same information sources used for identifying where groundwater
resources are located (see Step 1) are useful for analyzing susceptibility.
Well logs
Ecology's Water Resource Program maintains a well log database62 for wells drilled around the
State. The database can be searched by use of text for a location or by a map.
Information from well logs related to susceptibility includes depth to water at the time of well
construction, the presence of coarse materials, and the presence or absence of an impermeable
layer. Sometimes enough data is reported so that aquifer properties can be determined.
Publications
The same publications that help identify where groundwater resources are located also have
information helpful for susceptibility analysis (Step 1, Resources).
Other types of publications that may have useful information include Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS), as well as groundwater reports for regulated facilities. See additional links to
publications under Section 5.
Step 3: Inventory existing and potential sources of
groundwater contamination.
Anywhere that a potential pollutant is used, handled, transferred, or stored is a potential
source of groundwater contamination. The release of contaminants from leaks or numerous
spills over time creates the potential for groundwater contamination.
Transferring chemicals from one container to another can result in groundwater contamination
from many small spills over time.
60 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geologyportal
61 https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/#subsurface
62 https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/wellconstruction/map/wclswebMap/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 36
Packet Pg. 110
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Examples are transferring chemicals from trucks to tanks, floor washing where chemicals are
used that goes down the drain to infiltrate into the ground, pumping chemicals from a drum, or
leaky pipes that convey chemicals. These might not be noticeable day to day, until a drinking
water well sample shows contamination or the site becomes a toxic cleanup site.
Nitrate has contaminated groundwater in many areas of the state above the Maximum
Concentration Level of 10 mg/L as N (Morgan, 2016). Nitrate comes from fertilizers, manure,
spreading biosolids, and onsite sewage systems.
Fertilizers and pesticides must be carefully managed to avoid contributing to nonpoint
contamination of groundwater.
High densities of onsite sewage systems in areas where conditions are susceptible to the
migration of contaminants to groundwater pose a risk, especially where there are drinking
water wells in the vicinity.
The Ecology online map "What's In My Neighborhood63" shows toxic cleanup sites that have
been identified and are in the Ecology information system. The Ecology Toxic Cleanup Program
Web Portal64 has links to other reports, such as the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated
Sites List. With this list, sites with confirmed and suspected groundwater contamination can be
mapped in relation to aquifer boundaries and proximity to drinking water wells. See Appendix B
for a map of these sites as of January, 2020.
Many of these facilities are constructed, maintained, and operated in a way that prevents spills
and leaks from getting to the ground as much as is feasible. Some operations, however, are
inherently more risky for pollution than others. These would include facilities that handle a
large quantity of toxic materials, especially where these toxic materials are transferred or
handled, increasing the possibility of an incident leading to a spill.
Stormwater Infiltration
Stormwater that infiltrates into the ground is important for recharging groundwater.
Stormwater that washes over roads, parking lots, industrial areas, and even roofs picks up
contaminants before the water flows into surface water or infiltrates into the ground. It is
important to remove contaminants so that groundwater does not become polluted.
The state has an extensive stormwater permit program that uses stormwater manuals to guide
pollution prevention efforts and flow control. These manuals provide extensive guidance on
construction stormwater, industrial and municipal stormwater best management practices and
stormwater infrastructure requirements to remove contaminants from stormwater before it is
63 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood/
64 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/tcpwebreporting/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 37
Packet Pg. 111
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
released to the environment. These requirements and best management practices also apply to
discharges to underground injection control wells (UIC wells) under the state Underground
Infection Control (UIC) Program6s
All stormwater discharge using UIC wells must be registered with the state, including the
locations, and meet groundwater protection requirements. Counties and cities also have to
register their UIC wells. The state has an online database and query tool for UIC registrations66
The UIC program requires the same best management practices for discharge to a UIC well that
are required for surface water in the stormwater manuals. All new UIC wells are required to
have some form of treatment for stormwater discharges.
Since UIC wells can be a conduit for contamination, it is important to know where they are and
be aware of the surrounding land uses and potential contamination sources. It is important to
apply BMPs to stormwater discharges to UIC wells to prevent groundwater contamination.
Source water protection contaminant inventories
Public water supply systems with 15 or more connections are regulated by the Washington
State Department of Health under Chapter 246-290 WAC67. A key requirement of this
regulation is a wellhead protection program is that public water systems must inventory
potential contamination sources around their water supply wells. The Department of Health
works with the Department of Ecology to provide web -based maps of potential contamination
sources along with locations of wellhead protection zones. This online tool is the Facility/Site
atlas68.
The GIS cover of facilities and sites regulated by the Department of Ecology can be accessed
from the GIS Data website69, along with many other GIS data sets. These facilities include toxic
cleanup sites where releases have contaminated the environment.
Critical Material Inventories
Many jurisdictions require businesses that handle chemicals to submit a critical material
inventory so that the jurisdictions know what chemicals are on site. The fire department
requires similar reporting. These efforts may be coordinated. See the City of Redmond fire
code70 for a great example.
65 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Underground-injection-
control-program
66 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/uicsearch/
67 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/defauIt.aspx?cite=246-290
68 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/facilitysite/
69 https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data
70 https://www.codepublishing.comNVA/Redmond/municode/Redmondl5/Redmondl5O6.html#15.06.020
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 38
Packet Pg. 112
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Spokane County Critical Materials ordinance71 (Chapter 3.15) is an excellent example of an
ordinance for the purpose of preventing groundwater contamination from chemicals. See
Appendix C for more information about Critical Materials and links.
Step 4: Classify the relative vulnerability of groundwater to
contamination events.
All groundwater is vulnerable; some areas where strategic public groundwater resources are
located are more vulnerable than other areas. The concept of using criteria to create
classifications or categories of vulnerability helps local jurisdictions apply the appropriate
measures for the risks involved.
The base classification of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas can be based on susceptibility, and an
overlay of existing contamination sources used to give the community an idea of where its
strategic groundwater supplies may be most vulnerable (at risk) under current land use
conditions.
For new development, classification based on natural conditions (aquifer susceptibility) allows a
jurisdiction to make decisions about the type of land uses that should or should not be allowed,
or which may be allowed with conditions.
There is more than one way to classify Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Here some examples:
• Categories based on susceptibility
o Water table sand and gravel aquifers
o Deeper less susceptible aquifers
o Confined aquifers
0 Categories based on set priorities and risk
o Group A public water supply systems one-year time of travel wellhead protection
zone
o Densely populated areas that rely on ground water
o Group B public water supply systems wellhead protection zones
o Rural areas with a high dependence on ground water
o Discontinuous local drinking water aquifers of limited extent
o Sole Source Aquifers
71
https:Hlibrary. municode.com/wa/spokane_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=TIT3BUST_CH3.15
CRMA&searchText=#TIT3BUST CH3.15CRMA 3.15.070CRMALI
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 39
Packet Pg. 113
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• Categories based on areas that have the same policies, plans, ordinances, and programs
that will be applied.
These examples are not meant to be exhaustive. The categories depend on local hydrogeologic
settings, use of the drinking water aquifers, and the actions that a local jurisdiction needs to set
in place to protect the public potable groundwater resource.
Step 5: Designate areas that are most at risk to
contamination events.
The next step in establishing Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas is to designate areas where the
public drinking water supply has been determined to be at risk for contamination. This is done
by combining the results of steps 1 through 4 above.
CARA designation is so that local planning and regulation can be guided appropriately, to make
it clear:
• Where these areas are located (map) and what the performance standards are (criteria).
• Why these areas are at risk (susceptibility and potential contaminant sources).
• What the importance of this area is to the public drinking water supply (prioritization)
Step 6: Protect by minimizing activities and conditions that
pose contamination risks.
There are all too many examples of groundwater contamination here in Washington. Municipal
water supplies have been contaminated by industrial or commercial use of chemicals. The city
of Tumwater, the city of Vancouver, and the city of Lakewood all have had public water supply
wells contaminated. In Eastern Washington, well water turned yellow from Dinoseb, an
herbicide spilled at a farm. These events have been expensive to remediate and distressing to
the public.
Appendix B is a map of the Department of Ecology Suspected and Confirmed Groundwater
Contaminated Sites showing the extent of locations across the state with known contamination.
Anywhere chemicals are stored, handled, transferred, or used is a potential spill or leak risk.
Well owners do not have the regulatory authority that cities and counties do to stop
contamination risks or events. Public Water Supply Systems and residents on single wells rely
on cities and counties to implement regulations that clearly address protection of the aquifer
resource for new developments and existing land uses.
Typically, cities and counties have different departments that administer different aspects of
protecting Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. These include planning, development
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 40
Packet Pg. 114
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
services/building permits, public works, and water resources protection (stormwater,
groundwater, surface water). Ideally, the relevant departments work together so that
everyone involved knows about projects early.
Cities and counties can minimize risk of groundwater contamination by conditioning chemical
and land uses and prohibiting very high risk uses in critical areas where such a risk is
unacceptable. Some jurisdictions use a table to list land uses that are allowed, allowed with
conditions, or prohibited. Two examples are given in Appendix C.
Best management practices (BMPs) are meant to prevent spills and leaks from occurring and
potentially infiltrating into the ground. These typically include secondary containment, using
covers over outdoor structures where chemicals are used, stored or transferred to prevent
contact with rainwater, having a spill plan, and many others. The following resources provide
information on pollution prevention (see also Section 6).
• The Washington State Department of Ecology provides guidance on preventing pollution
from dangerous waste72. This information also applies to the hazardous materials before
they become waste, while they are being handled, stored, treated, or transported.
• Hazardous waste collection facilities and programs — Kittitas County Moderate Risk Waste73.
• The Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manuals for Eastern and Western
Washington each have a chapter on BMPs for source control. For the Eastern Washington
Stormwater Manua 174, Chapter 8 is on source control (Washington State Department of
Ecology, 2019a). For the Western Washington Stormwater Manua171, Volume IV is on source
control (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2019b).
• Municipal Stormwater General Permit Guidance for Cities and Counties76: Writing
Regulations to Prohibit Illicit Discharges, Dumping, and Illicit Connections.
• The City of Spokane Critical Materials Handbook77 includes information about best
management practices to prevent pollution of the Spokane Aquifer. Much of this
information can be applied to other areas.
• The Thurston County Nonpoint Program78 has an abundance of information. Fact sheets for
various pollution prevention practices are on this page, including floor drain s79, secondary
containment80. and others.
72 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Dangerous-waste-
guidance/Common-dangerous-waste
73 https://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/solid-waste/moderate-risk.aspx
74 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1810044.html
75 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1910021.html
76 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0810061.pdf
77 https://spokaneaquifer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2009-City-of-Spokane-Critical-Materials-
Handbook.pdf
78 https://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehhw/nspo.html
79 https://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehhw/pdf/fact sheets/floor_drains.pdf
80 https://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehhw/pdf/fact sheets/SecContainmt.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 41
Packet Pg. 115
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
As an example of actions to help minimize contamination, Figure 11 is a poster for preventing
Dangerous Waste from spilling or leaking. The same items apply to hazardous materials drums
that store chemicals for use, especially when transferring chemicals from the drum to another
container.
Inspect Your Dangerous Waste Drums
TIGHTEN BUNGS
Keep bungs tight
except when
adding waste to the
container.
GROUND DRUMS
Prevent igniting
flammable waste by
grounding drums.
AISLE SPACE
Leave at least 30" of
aisle space between
rows of drums. Rows
must be no more
than two drums wide.
LATCH FUNNELS
Keep funnels closed
and latched when not
in use. Funnels must
be screwed in with
gaskets.
TIGHTEN LIDS
Make sure contents
cannot spill if tipped
over.
LABEL IT
Labels must be
visible.
NO LEAKS
Keep drums free of
corrosion, bulges, and
other damage.
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
Secondary containment must be large enough to contain 10%of the free liquid in all
containers or 100%of the free liquid in the largest container, whichever is larger.
Dangerous Waste:
Do It Right!
= Questions? please call your regional dangerous waste
specialist at the Department ofEcology
DEPARTMENT OF For more information about managing dangerous
ECOLOGY —tI' vi,it us It —
slate of Washington ww4v.ecywa.govlprogramsthivtrlmanagew ste.html
uJ.ac..1:6.n1.+1].t-l0]-znn-fi.tfl,u-1Ali.o.y.e..-Canm.n—L11anlu[nldafin lxrarlm n[al(2nalltY fnr nrlglnal prMler cnn.epl.l.ml�y-11i,at�nnx11 t4-I15, revleef- 2014.
Tc q rnortaccomm od—o --I— a Po. mar for the nsuallylimpanred,call[mlogy ac 350-aol-5poo, nelay service yaa, ormsna33iaa1.
Figure 11: Requirements for Dangerous Waste Drums Poster. For more information, phone 360-407-
6700 or email hwtrpubs(a-)ecy.wa.gov.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 42
Packet Pg. 116
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Step 7: Ensure that contamination prevention plans and best
management practices are followed.
Voluntary compliance is very important for pollution prevention. Compliance saves resources
both for land owners and jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have programs to assist land owners
and operators in preventing pollution.
The best plans and practices, however, cannot prevent contamination if they are not used. The
ability to inspect, obtain compliance, and enforce is needed to make sure that the county or
city can stop a threat to groundwater when the land user is negligent or uncooperative.
Local codes need to be written to grant the jurisdiction regulatory authority so that they can
require pollution prevention and obtain compliance before a situation contaminates the local
drinking water supply.
Ordinances can be specific to the jurisdiction, or a jurisdiction may choose to adopt state or
federal laws or rules by reference. Adoption by reference needs to include local authority to
enforce, along with any additional ordinances needed to make adoption by reference effective.
Often, county or city hazardous materials pollution prevention programs with associated
regulations are operated to prevent local land use activities from creating major toxic cleanup
sites.
The City of Redmond has a robust groundwater protection program81. Along with development
review, the city monitors groundwater quality, groundwater table levels, and monitors
contaminated site cleanups. The city also coordinates with Ecology, carries out pollution
prevention inspections of businesses, and does outreach to the community.
Step 8: Manage groundwater withdrawals and recharge.
The goals of managing groundwater withdrawals and recharge are to:
• Maintain availability for drinking water sources.
• Maintain adequate recharge so stream -base flow from groundwater to support instream
flows is retained, especially for salmon -bearing streams.
• Initiatives under watershed planning, streamflow restoration, aquifer storage and recovery,
and stormwater support the GMA goals for water availability.
Recharge
Development has a profound effect on the hydrology of an area. Increases in impervious
surfaces and disturbance of natural vegetation result in increasing runoff and decreasing
8' https://www.redmond.gov/831/GroundwaterWellhead-Protection
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 43
Packet Pg. 117
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
recharge. Local jurisdictions can improve recharge by encouraging methods that maintain or
increase recharge. Methods include limiting impervious surfaces and promoting stormwater
infiltration.
Methods of stormwater infiltration, such as low impact development, storm water infiltration
ponds, rain gardens, and underground injection wells are described in the stormwater manuals
and in guidance on Low Impact Development (LID).
Many organizations have information about Low Impact Development (LID) resources, including
the Department of Ecology Low Impact Development Guidance81 and the Puget Sound
Partnership. The Washington Stormwater Center83 is a good central place to access LID
resources from many different sources.
Water supply planning
The GMA requires that critical areas give special consideration to anadromous fisheries. This
overlaps in objectives with the Streamflow Restoration Act of 2018 (codified in Chapter 90.94
RCW84) and other watershed planning initiatives. Water supply planning studies typically have
information useful for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, both for comprehensive plans and best
available science.
Streamflow Restoration
The Washington State legislature passed the Streamflow Restoration Act to help restore
streamflows to levels necessary to support robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations
while providing water for homes in rural Washington. This law directs local planning groups85 in
15 Water Resources Inventory Planning Areas (WRIAs) in the state to create watershed plans
that achieve these goals, and Ecology's Water Resources Program has a Streamflow Restoration
Section that works with these planning groups on implementation of this law.
Jurisdictions that are planning and implementing plans aimed at streamflow restoration may
use the information generated to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act for
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, as applicable. Studies related to those plans may be particularly
helpful for:
• Watershed planning for water availability for in -stream flow, which applies to the
requirement that critical areas plans and ordinances give "special consideration to
anadromous fisheries."
82 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Stormwater-permittee-
guidance-resources/Low-Impact-Development-guidance
S3 https://www.wastormwatercenter.org/lid-manuals-guides/
84 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=90.94&full=true
85 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-ShoreIines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration/Streamflow-restoration-
planning
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 44
Packet Pg. 118
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• Determining where permit -exempt wells are currently used to supply drinking water for
homes.
• Determining where new permit -exempt wells will be located in the future.
A good example of a study that has been used in support of Streamflow Restoration Act efforts
was completed by Stevens County for WRIA 59 (St. Godard, 2019). That report includes
information on the location of and groundwater use by permit -exempt domestic wells; aquifer
characteristics; the relationships between groundwater and surface water; and domestic
dependence on aquifers for drinking water both now and in the future. This report also
provides a good example of how information on Best Available Science for Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas with special consideration for anadromous fisheries may be obtained from a
study designed to address streamflow restoration and permit -exempt well issues.
Watershed Planning
In addition to recent watershed planning conducted in response to the 2018 Streamflow
Restoration Act, the 1998 Watershed Planning Act86 (codified in Chapter 90.82 RCW) provided
for water supply planning by local entities within the state's WRIAs. Local entities that formed a
WRIA planning unit were required to include at least the counties, the largest city or town
within the WRIA, and the water utility that uses the most water. Many of the WRIA planning
units engaged in watershed planning between 1998 and 2012. Ecology maintains an archive of
watershed Dlannina/management documents$'
Groundwater Management Areas
Groundwater Management Areas88 (GWMA) may be established by either the state or local
government under RCW 90.44.400. Criteria for identifying potential Groundwater Management
Areas include (among others): Aquifer systems that are declining due to restricted recharge or
over -utilization, aquifers identified as the primary source of supply for public water supply
systems, and geographical areas where land use may result in contamination or degradation of
the groundwater quality. Rules governing Groundwater Management Areas and Programs89 are
set forth in WAC 173-100.
Water System Planning
Larger, Group A, water systems regulated by the Department of Health are required to have a
water system plan. This plan includes analyses of future water demand and supply, and source
water assessment requirements. Public Water Supply Systems must have wellhead protection
areas delineated, must do contaminant inventories within those areas, and must notify
S6 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.82
87 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration/Watershed-plan-archive
88 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=90.44&full=true#90.44.400
89 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defauIt.aspx?cite=173-100&full=true
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 45
Packet Pg. 119
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
landowners of potential contaminant sources, as well as state and local agencies of the
findings. Smaller water systems are required to have a small water system management
program.
Guidance is provided by the Dept. of Health Water System Planning Requirements web page90
This includes the Water System Planning Guidebook91 (Washington State Dept. of Health,
2020).
Drinking water suppliers do not have land use or pollution prevention authority, unless the
drinking water purveyor is a government entity like a city. Landowners and regulatory agencies
do have the ability to take action to protect water supplies from contamination.
Water Planning under the Growth Management Act
Local governments also include water planning in their comprehensive plans and must meet
water supply planning requirements under the Growth Management Act. Mandatory elements
of comprehensive plans92 in RCW 36.70A.070 includes a land use element, which must "provide
for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies."
Chapter 1 of the Dept. of Commerce Growth Management Services Critical Areas Handbook93
has a section on Regional Planning Efforts. This section includes information about various state
watershed initiatives. Since aquifers often span more than one jurisdiction, counties and cities
need to work together to protect the public drinking water resource.
County wide planning policies and inter -local agreements are often necessary in
unincorporated portions of the UGA. For example, cities have a vested interest in the type of
development that occurs as they may ultimately annex the unincorporated lands within the
UGA, but counties often oversee the development and issue the permits. As a result, some
jurisdictions develop countywide planning policies or inter -local agreements to ensure the city
can review development proposals before they are finalized. Local governments could apply the
same model for wellheads and other Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. For local governments
who have GIS capacity, they would include inter -local jurisdictions on maps to ensure areas of
concern are easily identified during the county review period and permitting.
90
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/WaterSystemDesignandPlanning/Pla
nningRequirements
91 https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/331-068.pdf
92 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/defauIt.aspx?cite=36.70A.070
93 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 46
Packet Pg. 120
9.B.b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
Section 5 - Best Available Science
Best available science to protect the functions and values of
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Protecting the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas involves knowing:
• Where drinking water aquifers are
• What the underground characteristics are that transmit recharge and any associated
contaminants, to the extent that is practical and available
• Where groundwater is currently used for drinking water
• Where groundwater will be needed for drinking water in the future
• What contamination threats to drinking water already exist
• What measures need to be in place to protect recharge availability
• What measures need to be in place to prevent contamination of recharge
• And for special consideration for anadromous fisheries, how surface water depends on
groundwater
Best available science laws and rules
Best available science for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas is required by the Growth
Management Act and is defined by the Washington Administrative Code.
• Chapter 36.70A.172 RCW94 - Critical areas, designation and protection, best available
science to be used.
In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall
include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to
protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give
special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or
enhance anadromous fisheries.
• Chapter 365-195-905 throuiah 925 WAC95
Chapter 365-195-905(5)(a) WAC discusses the characteristics of a valid scientific process:
In the context of critical areas protection, a valid scientific process is one that produces
reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a local government's
94 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.172
95 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/defauIt.aspx?cite=365-195
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 47
Packet Pg. 121
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
regulatory decisions and in developing critical areas policies and development regulations
that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas.
The rule goes on to list the characteristics of a valid scientific process, including peer review,
methods, logical conclusions and reasonable inferences, quantitative analysis, context, and
references. It then lists sources, including research, monitoring, inventory, survey,
modeling, assessment, synthesis, and expert opinion. This section of the WAC is particularly
applicable to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Chapter 365-195-020 WAC96 discusses using a precautionary approach to address
inadequate scientific information, along with using an interim effective adaptive
management approach.
In the absence of information, using the precautionary approach to prevent contamination
at the land surface is especially important. By the time a contaminant is detected at a well,
groundwater is already contaminated. Preventing contamination at the land surface is of
paramount importance.
See the Critical Areas Handbook97 for more on the precautionary approach, which among
other things references a court decision where it states: "In the absence of scientific
information, the county should adopt a precautionary or no risk approach."
Best available science guidance
Best available science guidance has been published by the Department of Commerce Growth
Management Services in the Critical Areas Handbook, which is available online at the
Department of Commerce Critical Areas resources web page98.
The Critical Areas Handbook should be consulted to obtain a good knowledge of how the
concept of best available science functions within the Growth Management Act.
The following contains excerpts from the Critical Areas Handbook:
Objective of best available science
The objective of best available science is "to protect the functions and values of critical areas."
Science plays a central role in delineating critical areas, identifying functions and values, and
96 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=365-195-920
97 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
96 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 48
Packet Pg. 122
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
recommending strategies to protect their functions and values. (Washington Department of
Commerce, 2018).
Availability of best available science
With respect to the availability of science, the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board found that the best available science is science that is presently available as
well as practically and economically feasible.
The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board reasoned "that the "best
available science" requirement includes the word "available" as an indicator that a jurisdiction
is not required to sponsor independent research but may rely on competent science that is
provided from other sources ..."
See also Chapter 365-196-050 WAC Regional and Local Variations99 for important distinctions
related to availability of best available science with respect to smaller jurisdictions. The GMA
recognizes the variability of population and available resources across the state.
When Should Best Available Science Be Applied?
1. The Critical Areas Handbook recommends applying best available science upfront, during
the planning process.
Local governments' understanding of where on the landscape critical areas occur, how they
naturally function, and how best to regulate land uses that may impact them is important in
ensuring that zoning and project permit decisions are being made without the need to
complete expensive environmental review and new studies at the permit level. Good
upfront planning and the adoption of scientifically defensible development standards
should lead to quicker permit decisions.
2. Best available science should also be applied at the time of application.
Project review may entail that the applicant provides the county or city with information
that is supported by best available science. An example would be a hydrogeologic report.
This information is especially important to evaluate projects against performance -based
standards.
99 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/defauIt.aspx?cite=365-196&full=true#365-196-050
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 49
Packet Pg. 123
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
What are the potential consequences if best available
science is not applied?
Failure to apply best available science for critical areas under the Growth Management Act may
be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board. When the board finds a county or city
in noncompliance with the Growth Management Act, the board issues a Compliance Order.
Failure to comply with a board order can result in state sanctions and loss of funding. See
Appendix D for where to find more information about the Growth Management Hearings Board
decisions and court cases related to the GMA and best available science.
Best available science for special consideration of
anadromous fish species
Critical Areas requirements of the GMA requires best available science to be used for special
consideration of anadromous fish species. Science is used to establish where and how
groundwater affects streams and other surface water habitats.
Chapter 365-195-925 WAC100 - Criteria for demonstrating "special consideration" has been
given to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous
fisheries.
(1) RCW 36.70A.172(1) imposes two distinct but related requirements on counties and
cities. Counties and cities must include the "best available science" when developing
policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical
areas, and counties and cities must give "special consideration" to conservation or
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. Local
governments should address both requirements in RCW 36.70A.172(1) when
developing their records to support their critical areas policies and development
regulations.
Groundwater quality and quantity
The Growth Management Act requires protection of water quality and quantity:
Planning goals include water quality and availability.
• RCW 36.70A.020 — Plannine eoals101
o Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and
water quality, and the availability of water.
100 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-195&full=true#365-195-925
10' https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.020
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 50
Packet Pg. 124
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
o Comprehensive plans should address groundwater quality and quantity protection in
the land use element.
• RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans — Mandatory Elements"'
o The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of
groundwater used for public water supplies.
Best available science for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, therefore, should address both
quality and quantity.
Sources for Best Available Science for Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas
Groundwater scientists rely on a number of standard methods for characterizing the
occurrence and movement of groundwater. These methods involve everything from
topographic maps, aerial photos, on -the -ground mapping, use of existing maps for soils and
geology, well log analysis, aquifer tests, geophysics, water quality testing, water level
measurements, monitoring well installations, testing for seepage of groundwater into streams
(or from streams into groundwater), and modeling.
There are also dozens of approaches to assessing groundwater vulnerability or susceptibility to
contamination in the professional literature. Pollution prevention and best management
practices for preventing contamination are widely published.
These methods have standards of practice. Some examples, just to name a few, are:
• Quality assurance standards for water quality sampling
• Standard methods for measuring water levels
• Aquifer test methods and standards
• Field methods
The USGS has issued an internal memo describing their role and use of best available science103
when they are involved in studies involving wellhead protection, groundwater vulnerability, and
identification of aquifer recharge areas.
Existing Sources of Information
Local government can use information that local, state or federal natural resource agencies
have determined represents the best available science. They can also use information provided
by a qualified scientific expert or team of qualified scientific experts.
102 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070
103 https://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw00.01.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 51
Packet Pg. 125
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Sources that provide scientifically valid information useful for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
include:
Public water supply data and source water protection information
• The Department of Health Office of Drinking Water Source Water Protection Program104 is
an important and valuable resource. Notable topics that are accessible from this website
include:
o The Source Water Protection Map105 shows public water supply system time -of -
travel zones. Pop -ups show the system name and ID, and lists information about the
system, including the well tag ID, well depth, and susceptibility rating.
The pop-up also has a link to the SENTRY106 data base, where there is more
information, including water quality data. With the well tag ID, you can look for the
well log in Ecology's well log database107
Use this map to find public water supply systems in your jurisdiction and associated
information.
o Free source water protection technical assistance;
o Elements of wellhead protection programs;
o SENTRY 108, the online database that has water system data, including source well
information and water quality data.
• Public Water Supply Systems
The Department of Health requires public water systems to develop water system plans,
complete contaminant inventories, to determine susceptibility, and to coordinate with local
government. These are great information sources.
The easiest way to obtain water system plans is from the public water supply system. Use
the Department of Health Source Water Protection (SWAP) map site109 to identify public
water supply systems and sources (wells, springs, etc.) within their area of interest. Then
104
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingW ater/SourceWater/SourceWaterProtection
105 https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/swap/index.html
106
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentalHealth/DrinkingWaterSystemData/Sentr
ylnternet
107 https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/wellconstruction/map/WCLSWebMap/default.aspx
108
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentalHealth/DrinkingWaterSystemData/Sentr
ylnternet
109 https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/swap/index.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 52
Packet Pg. 126
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
use SENTRY110 to obtain contact information for the water supply systems, and obtain
information directly from the water supply system.
Alternatively, contact the Department of Health Office of Drinking Water. However, they
may not have all the information needed and one may need to reach out to the water
supply system anyway.
State, federal, local, academic, and consultant studies
• USGS studies:
o Washington State Groundwater Projects interactive map"'
o USGS Publications112
• National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
o Washington NRCS111 home page
o NRCS Web Soil Survev114
• Ecology information resources:
o Ecology has information about groundwater resources 115. including many local
groundwater programs116
o Ecology groundwater publication search117, or use the Environmental Information
System EIM Groundwater Map Search"" report finder.
o Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are completed for large projects may have
groundwater information. The Ecology SEPA Register"' is the place to look for these
types of projects.
110
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentaIHealth/DrinkingWaterSystem Data/Sentr
ylnternet
111 https://webapps.usgs.gov/wawscgw/
112 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wa-water/publications
113 https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/site/wa/home/
114 https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
115 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/Water-ShoreIinesMater-quality/Groundwater/Groundwater-resources
116 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Groundwater/Groundwater-
resources/Groundwater-information
117 https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Monitoring-assessment/Groundwater-quality-assessment/Find-
groundwater-publications
118
https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/eimreporting/Map/Map.aspx?MapType=Groundwater&MapLocationExtent=-
13873343.3370313 %2c5711716.7542974%2c-
13028904.807647%2c6275200.77356957&W el IsOnlyF lag=True
119 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/EnvironmentaI-review/SEPA-Register
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 53
Packet Pg. 127
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
o Consultant studies for a state -regulated facility, such as toxic cleanup sites, landfills,
and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) projects. To find facilities regulated by
Ecology, see the online Ecology Facility/Site application120
0 Washington State Geological Survey121
o The Washington State Geological Survey at the Department of Natural Resources
is an essential source for geologic information, the identification of drinking
water aquifers, and their susceptibility.
o The Geologic Information Porta1122 has a series of online geologic maps that
show surficial geology, geologic structure (like faults and folds), and subsurface
information123
• Consultant studies for local government
• Academic studies
Information developed for other requirements
Information developed for other requirements, such as stormwater studies, the Streamflow
Restoration Program (see Section 3), watershed planning, or Ground Water Management
Areas, is useful also for best available science for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Use of these
sources should be documented for the record.
Smaller jurisdictions can rely on the information generated by public water supply systems,
state, and federally required studies for facilities located within their jurisdiction, and other
studies as listed above. A literature review helps to document best available science for the
record. Asking for volunteers in the community, technical assistance from the state, and
applying for grants are ways to augment local resources. (See WAC 365-195-910 (2)124)
120
https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/facilitysite/SearchData/ShowSearch.aspx?ModuleType=FacilitySite&Record
SearchMode=New
121 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology
122 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geologyportal
123 https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/#subsurface
124 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defauIt.aspx?cite=365-195-910
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 54
Packet Pg. 128
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Section 6 - Working with State and Federal Laws and
Rules
The Washington State Growth Management Act and rules refer to how local authorities should
coordinate with other government authorities in several places. Three of the concepts
contained in the GMA rules that apply to laws and rules follow.
Local government should consider existing state, federal, and other authority's laws, rules,
and permits (WAC 365-196-735 - State and Regional Authorities12s)
• Local plans and policies may in some respects be adequately implemented by adopting the
provisions of such other programs as part of the local regulations (WAC 365-196-830 —
Protection of Critical AreaS126)
Projects may be approved based on compliance with other local, state or federal rules or
laws, providing environmental concerns are mitigated (RCW 43.21C.240 — Protect Review
Under The Growth Management Act127).
The GMA allows jurisdictions to avoid duplication of effort by making use of what is already
being done by others. The functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas should still be
protected.
Success, then, depends on identifying potential contamination sources, identifying other laws,
rules, and planning efforts that are relevant to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and identifying
where local action is needed to ensure protection.
Local jurisdictions need to grant themselves regulatory authority to require pollution
prevention and to obtain compliance before a situation contaminates the local drinking water
supply. Ordinances can be specific to the jurisdiction, or a jurisdiction may choose to adopt
state or federal laws or rules by reference. A county or city may coordinate several programs
and codes that prevent pollution, such as stormwater source control, hazardous waste and
hazardous materials pollution prevention programs, and fire department regulations. Appendix
A is an example of coordinated programs from the City of Issaquah.
State Pollution Prevention Laws and Rules
Washington State Department of Ecology
State laws and rules to prevent pollution are housed under various programs at the
Department of Ecology. These include Water Quality, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction,
125 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-196-735
126 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-196&full=true#365-196-830
127 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.21 C.240
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 55
Packet Pg. 129
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Toxics Cleanup, Solid Waste, and Water Resources. Ecology lists the rules it administers
online12'. Some jurisdictions adopt some state rules by reference, and some jurisdictions
explicitly require that state laws and rules be complied with.
Water Quality Program
The Water Quality Program12' administers laws and rules for preventing pollution of waters of
the state, including underground water.
Water Pollution Control Act
Chapter 90.48 RCW, the Water Pollution Control Act"', authorizes the Department of Ecology
"to control and prevent the pollution of streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, inland waters, salt waters,
water courses, and other surface and underground waters of the state of Washington."
Chanter 90.48.080 prohibits discharge of Dollutina matter in waters of the state"':
It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any
of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained,
allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic
matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters according to the
determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter.
Groundwater Quality Standards
Water Quality Standards for Groundwaters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-200
WAC132, are rules "to maintain the highest quality of the state's groundwaters and protect
existing and future beneficial uses of the groundwater through the reduction or elimination of
the discharge of contaminants to the state's groundwaters."
Along with the listed criteria, other important aspects of these standards include
antidegradation, technology -based treatment requirements, special protection areas, and
implementation and enforcement. The Implementation Guidance for the Groundwater Quality
Standards"' has more information.
128 https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/How-we-operate/Laws-rules-rulemaking
129 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/Our-ProgramsNVater-Quality
130 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=90.48
131 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.48.080
132 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-200
133 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/9602.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 56
Packet Pg. 130
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Stormwater ordinances can be written to prevent pollution of both surface water and
groundwater. They can be written to coordinate with state stormwater permits134 and the
underground iniection control (UIC) regulations (Chaster 173-218 WAC135)
• Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE/ICID) Field Screening Manua1136
0 Underground Injection Control PrograM137
The guidance for stormwater facilities regulated under the Underground Injection Control
program describes the best management practices (BMPs) to reduce solids, metals, and oil
from injection wells used along roads and parking areas, or used to collect roof runoff at
non -industrial settings.
The UIC best management practices (BMPs)138 are now housed in Ecology's stormwater
management manuals.
• Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (2019) - Chapter 5.6139
• Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Volume 1.4140
These manuals include requirements for deep UIC wells that are constructed for the
purpose of stormwater management:
134 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Stormwater-permittee-
guidance-resources
135 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-218
136 https://www.wastormwatercenter.org/illicit-connection-illicit-discharge/
137 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Underground-injection-
control-program
138
https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Perm its/Flare/2019SW MMEW/2019SW MM EW.htm#Topics/Chapt
er5_ RunoffFreatmentBMPDesign/SubsurfacelnfiltrationUICWells/SubsurfacelnfiltrationUICWells_MiniTO
C.htm%3FTocPath%3D2019%2520SW MMEW %7CChapter%25205%2520-
%2520Runoff%2520Treatment%2520BMP%2520Des ign%7C5.6%2520Subsurface%25201 nfiltration%25
20(Und
139
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Perm its/Flare/2019SW MMEW/2019SW MM EW.htm#Topics/Chapt
er5_ RunoffTreatmentBMPDesign/SubsurfacelnfiltrationUICWells/SubsurfacelnfiltrationUICWells_MiniTO
C.htm%3FTocPath%3D2019%2520SW MMEW %7CChapter%25205%2520-
%2520Runoff%2520Treatment%2520BMP%2520Des ign%7C5.6%2520Subsurface%2520Infiltration%25
20(Underground%25201njection%2520Control%2520Wells)%7C 0
140
https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Perm its/Flare/2019SW MMWW/2019SW MMWW.htm#Topics/Volu
mel/UICProgram/UICProgram_MiniTOC.htm%3FTocPath%3D2019%2520SWMMWW%7CVolume%252
01%2520-%2520W hat%2520Requirem ents%2520Apply%2520to%2520My%2520Site%253F%7C1-
4%2520UIC%2520Program%7C 0
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 57
Packet Pg. 131
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
UIC wells that extend below an upper confining layer and discharge into the underlying
vadose zone are designated by Ecology as deep UIC wells. This includes drywells where
drilling extends through a surficial till layer into the vadose zone below. Local jurisdictions
may impose additional limits on the total depth of these UIC wells based on specific
hydrologic conditions and other considerations.
Other considerations that would inform a decision to impose additional limits include
whether a site is at an increased risk of accidents or spills; the difficulties inherent in
cleaning up vadose zone or groundwater contamination should it occur; and the difficulty
ensuring the land use that was originally cited in the UIC well authorization does not change
to a higher risk use.
Nonpoint Program
Ecology's Water Quality Program developed Washington's Water Quality Management Plan to
Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution"' (Nonpoint Plan, Washington State Department of
Ecology, 2015). The Nonpoint Plan explains the impact of nonpoint pollutions sources, the
regulatory framework, Ecology's efforts toward preventing nonpoint pollution of the waters of
the state, and Ecology's role in coordinating with various agencies and entities to control
nonpoint pollution.
Ecology's Nonpoint staff work with local landowners, local jurisdictions, and Conservation
Districts to prevent nonpoint pollution and correct nonpoint pollution discharges. Ecology
provides technical assistance, grant funding, and regulatory backstops while working with
landowners on voluntary compliance to implement best management practices. The Nonpoint
Plan has chapters on many topics, including sources of nonpoint pollution, and groundwater.
Pollution Identification and Control (PIC) programs identify sources of pollution and works with
landowners to control the source. PIC programs, and other nonpoint source control programs,
have been adopted by multiple counties. One example of a successful program is the one
administered by Kitsap County. The Kitsap County PIC program resulted in re -opened shellfish
beds by identifying sources of fecal coliform bacteria and addressing them (Success Story14',
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2017). The same concept of identifying potential
sources and addressing them is applicable to nonpoint sources of groundwater pollution. Kitsap
County has written the Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program Guidance113
(Kitsap County, 2014) that describes funding sources and how to implement a program.
141 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1510015.pdf
142 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1710011.pdf
143 https://kitsappublichealth.org/environment/files/PIC_Guidance_Document.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 58
Packet Pg. 132
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Ecology is working on the Voluntary Clean Water Guidance for Agriculture"' Several chapters
relate to practices that can help protect groundwater from nonpoint pollution.
The Voluntary Stewardship Program (see Section 1) has overlapping goals with the Nonpoint
Plan, which states:
An effective Voluntary Stewardship Program could complement the protection and
pollution reduction goals of federal and state clean water laws by helping to
implement the best management practices needed to meet the water quality
standards and clean water laws.
Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program
The Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction program enforces Washington's toxics laws,
including the Dangerous Waste regulations that many businesses need to comply with. They
also offer technical assistance to businesses to reduce or eliminate their use of hazardous
chemicals, work to identify safer chemical alternatives, support the development of green
chemistry, and test consumer products for toxic chemicals.
The web page lists Hazardous Waste and Toxic Reduction programs and seryices14s These
include technical assistance to businesses in partnership with local governments, inspecting
large quantity hazardous waste generators, and pollution prevention planning.
The program administers Chapter 173-303 WAC - Dangerous Waste Regulations"'
Reducing and Eliminating Use of Toxic Chemicals Prevents Groundwater Contamination
The Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program plays a crucial role in reducing the amount
of toxic chemicals used in Washington State by:
• Providing technical assistance to businesses147 so that they can reduce or eliminate their
use of toxic chemicals;
• Working on reducing the amount and toxicity of chemicals used in the state through
research and providing information needed to support legislation.
Reducing the amount and toxicity of chemicals used reduces the risk of groundwater
contamination.
144 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/About-us/Our-role-in-the-community/Partnerships-committees/Voluntary-Clean-
Water-Guidance-for-Agriculture-Adv
145 https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/Our-Programs/Hazardous-Waste-Toxics-Reduction
146 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-303
147 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Preventing-hazardous-
waste-pollution
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 59
Packet Pg. 133
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
For example, Ecology is working on reducing PFAS compounds in the environment. Ecology's
web page explains what PFAS are"':
PFAS are a large group of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances. These
very stable, manufactured chemicals remain in the environment for a long time
without breaking down, and some of them build up in people and the environment.
PFAS are water soluble and highly mobile, meaning they can easily contaminate
groundwater and can be hard to filter out. Many PFAS transform into highly persistent
perfluorinated chemicals in the environment. There are no natural processes that can
break down these substances. Exposures could continue for hundreds or thousands of
years.
Ecology and the Washington State Department of Health have been developing a Chemical
Action Plan14'. The Chemical Action Plan includes sources of PFAS, exposure routes, health
effects, and recommended actions. Actions include rules for drinking water, recommendations
for legislation for notifications and restrictions, and managing PFAS contamination in soil and
groundwater.
Toxics Cleanup
The Toxics Cleanup Program150 works to clean up contaminated land and water. Under the
Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)151
—, the program also works to prevent pollution from
underground storage tanks.
The Toxic Cleanup Program web page is your portal to find out about the cleanup process,
regulations, and the online map of cleanup sites: "What's in Your Neighborhood"'
Solid Waste Management
The Solid Waste Management program153 coordinates solid waste and recycling programs in
Washington. The program also provides permitting and regulatory oversight for major industrial
facilities in Washington. The Solid Waste Management program administers several laws,
including Chapter 36.58 RCW - Solid waste disposal"'. and Chapter 70.95J RCW — Municipal
148 https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-toxic-chemicals/Addressing-priority-toxic-
chemicals/PFAS
149 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1804005.pdf
150 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/Our-Programs/Toxics-Cleanup
151 https://ecology.wa.gov/Spills-Cleanup/Contamination-cleanup/Rules-directing-our-cleanup-
work/Model-Toxics-Control-Act
152 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood/
153 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/Our-Programs/Solid-Waste-Management
154 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=36.58
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 60
Packet Pg. 134
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
sewage sludge — Biosolidslss Regulations for solid waste management includes Chapter 173-
350 WAC1s6
Water Resources
In addition to administering water rights and the streamflow restoration program, the Water
Resources program157 also administers laws and rules for well construction and for Ground
Water Management Areas.
Well Construction:
• Chapter 18.104 RCW — Water Well Construction158
• Chapter 173-162 WAC — Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wellsl19
Ground Water Management Areas:
• Chapter 90.44.400 through 90.44.430 RCW -Ground Water Management Areas160
• Chapter 173-100 WAC - Ground Water Management Areas161
Washington State Department of Health
Office of Drinking Water
The mission of the Office of Drinking Water162 is to protect the health of the people of
Washington by ensuring safe and reliable drinking water.
The department administers regulations for various public water supplies. Large systems (15 or
more connections) are regulated under Chapter 246-290 WAC163
The purpose of this chapter is to ensure
(a) Adequate design, construction, sampling, management, maintenance, and operation
practices; and
(b) Provision of safe and high quality drinking water in a reliable manner and in a
quantity suitable for intended use.
155 http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=70.95J
156 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defauIt.aspx?cite=173-350
157 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/Our-Programs/Water-Resources
158 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=18.104
159 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-160
160 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.44
161 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-100
162 https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/TheOfficeofDrinkingWater
163 https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/defauIt.aspx?cite=246-290&full=true
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 61
Packet Pg. 135
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Smaller systems, with less than 15 connections, are regulated under Chapter 246-291 WAC164. A
few other public water system types are nonresidential where the public uses water, like
campgrounds, stores, and schools (see WAC 246-290-020(4)).
In addition to regulating public water supplies, the department administers the Source Water
Protection Programl65 (see this website for extensive information). This program includes
wellhead protection requirements and contaminant inventory requirements for public water
supply purveyors.
Wastewater Management
The department administers regulations for Large Onsite Sewage Systems (LOSS) and Onsite
Sewage Systems (OSS). OSS are onsite systems with a design capacity of up to 3,499 gallons per
day or less, and LOSS are systems with a design capacity of 3500 gallons per day up to 100,000
gallons per day.
The Local Health Officer has authority and approval over systems with design flows through any
common point up to 3,499 gallons per day.
Washington State Department of Health LOSS Program per Chapter 70.11813 RCW166, has
authority and approval over:
• Wastewater treatment systems receiving domestic strength sewage at design flows from
3,500 to 100,000 gallons per day that use subsurface treatment or disposal. May include
mechanical treatment.
• Any LOSS for which jurisdiction has been transferred to DOH from Ecology in accordance
with the statute.
Systems that receive industrial wastewater discharges or that have a design capacity of greater
than 100,000 gallons per day are regulated by the Department of Ecology.
Local Health Jurisdictions regulate OSS under local rules that must be at least as stringent as
state rules. The state administers the OSS program under Chapter 246-272A WAC167
Washington State Department of Agriculture
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) administers regulatory programs for
pesticide and nutrient management168 that are important for the prevention of groundwater
contamination.
164 https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=246-291 &full=true
165
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingW ater/SourceWater/SourceWaterProtection
166 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/defauIt.aspx?cite=70.118B
167 https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/defauIt.aspx?cite=246-272A&full=true
166 https://agr.wa.gov/departments/pesticides-and-fertilizers
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 62
Packet Pg. 136
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
WSDA is the State Lead Agency (SLA) for administering the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). WSDA is responsible for developing pesticide use regulations and
managing pesticide use and distribution in Washington State. WSDA has the authority to
regulate pesticides and to prevent contamination of surface and groundwater from pesticides
statutorily through Washington's Pesticide Control and Pesticide Application Acts (Chapters
15.58 RCW and 17.21 RCW). WSDA's Pesticide Management Division and Natural Resources
Assessment Section work together to implement FIFRA at the state level.
Pesticide Management Division
Registration Services Program — Fertilizers and Pesticides
Following federal and state regulations the Registration Services Program reviews and registers
pesticide and fertilizer products for distribution and use in Washington State. Fertilizer
Compliance is a branch within Registration Services and enforces state regulations relating to
the registration, distribution, storage, and guarantee of analysis of fertilizers.
State pesticide regulations related to pesticide registration are found in the Washington
Pesticide Control Act Chapter 15.58 RCW169 and General Pesticide Rules Chapter 16-228
WAC170. State fertilizer regulations related to fertilizer registration and compliance are found in
Fertilizers, Minerals and Limes Chapter 15.54 RCW171 and Chapter WAC 16-200172. Fertigation
rules (the application of plant nutrients through irrigation systems) is found at WAC 16-202171
Part 6.
Pesticide Compliance Program
The Pesticide Compliance Program enforces state and federal pesticide laws and rules, and
structural pest inspection rules. Compliance staff work out of six locations across the state:
Moses Lake, Olympia, Spokane, Tri-Cities, Wenatchee and Yakima. The primary Compliance
activities are inspection, investigation and providing regulatory update presentations to
licensed applicators, growers and other stakeholders at winter conferences and meetings. The
program conducts inspections of pesticide applicators (Ag and Non-Ag), dealers, pesticide
manufacturers and marijuana growing operations. Investigations are conducted when
pesticides are alleged to have been misused causing human exposure or property damage,
improper distribution, improper licensing or other violations of pesticide laws and rules.
Inspection and investigation authority is based on FIFRA, the Washington Pesticide Control and
Pesticide Application Acts (Chapters RCW 15.58 and RCW 17.21), General Pesticide Rules Chapter 16-
228 WAC, Rules Relating to Chemigation Chapter 16-202-1001 WAC, Secondary and Operational
169 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=15.58
170 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=16-228
171 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=15.54
172 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=16-200
173 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=16-202
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 63
Packet Pg. 137
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Containment for Bulk Pesticides Chapter WAC 16-229, Rules Relating to Restricted Use Herbicides
Statewide Chapter 16-230-600 WAC, Rules relating to Applications in sixteen Eastern Washington
Counties (Chapters 16-230-800, 16-231, 16-232 WAC), Worker Protection Standards Chapter 16-233
WAC, and Rules relating to Wood Destroying Organisms Chapter 16-228-2005 WAC.
Licensing and Recertification Program
The Licensing and Recertification Program is responsible for implementation of the Federal
Certification and Training (C&T) Rule, 40 CFR 171, through the Pesticide Control and Application
Acts (Chapter 15.58 RCW and 17.21 RCW) and the General Pesticide Rules (Chapter 16-228
WAC). This program oversees the initial and continued certification of pesticide applicators
throughout the state of Washington in accordance with state and federal regulations. Pesticide
applicators must meet specific competency and recertification standards in their areas of work
to obtain and maintain their certification.
In 2017, EPA updated the C&T Rule to include expanded competency standards specifying
ground and surface water contamination prevention. Competency standards are in place to
establish a baseline knowledge in the safe application of pesticides for the protection of human
and environmental health and prevention of misapplication, reducing the risk of contamination
of drinking water resources particularly in critical areas.
Secondary Containment Requirements
Chaster 16-201 WAC - Bulk Fertilizer174
This state rule established uniform standards for secondary containment of permanent bulk
fertilizer storage sites. These rules were put in place to ensure that surface water and
groundwater are protected.
Chanter 16-229 WAC - Bulk Pesticides175
This state rule established uniform standards for secondary containment of permanent bulk
pesticide storage, operational areas and permanent mixing load sites. These rules were put in
place to ensure that surface water and groundwater are protected.
Dairy Nutrient Management Program
Through Chapter 90.64 RCW Dairy Nutrient Management Act176, the Dairy Nutrient
Management Program (DNMP) regulates water quality associated with licensed cow dairies.
DNMP requires dairies to obtain nutrient management plans17, prevent discharges to surface
174 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=16-201&full=true
15 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=16-229&full=true
16 https://agr.wa.gov/washington-agriculture/laws-and-rules/livestock-nutrients
"' https://agr.wa.gov/departments/land-and-water/livestock-nutrients/nutrient-management-plans
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 64
Packet Pg. 138
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
and groundwater, and to maintain records to demonstrate an agronomic application of
nutrients.
Chapter 16-611 WAC Nutrient Management178 defines recordkeeping requirements and
specifics regarding penalties for violations of the Dairy Nutrient Management Act.
A Memorandum of Understanding17' with the Washington State Department of Ecology
outlines the responsibilities of the two agencies to protect water quality from livestock impacts.
Natural Resources Assessment Section
The WSDA Natural Resources Assessment Section (NRAS) focuses on the impacts of agricultural
chemicals on Washington State's natural resources. NRAS works with the agricultural
community and regulators to protect the environment and support agricultural viability.
To support the protection of water quality, NRAS collects data on commodity specific pesticide
usage from agricultural producers and pesticide applicators. Additionally, NRAS's Agricultural
Land Use Program180 maps agricultural production at the field scale (greater than 0.5 acres).
Georeferenced data collected in this program includes (but is not limited to) acreage, crop type,
crop group, and irrigation method. This information can be used to estimate the geographic
locations that pesticide applications may occur. These two databases influence the
implementation of the Washington State Pesticide Management Strategy181(Cook and Cowles,
2009) Water Quality Protection plan.
Pesticide Management Strategy
As the SLA for administering FIFRA, WSDA is required to assess the impact of pesticides that
have the potential to occur in surface and groundwater at concentrations approaching or
exceeding a human health or ecological reference point.
WSDA NRAS has limited monitoring and data resources available to adequately evaluate
pesticide occurrences in groundwater or explore (via monitoring) areas identified as vulnerable
to pesticides of concern. Public water supply system (PWSS) sampling as required by the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is the only consistent, on -going, statewide
groundwater monitoring effort at this time. NRAS relies on groundwater data collected by
PWSS and supplements that data with that collected by other agencies and organizations,
which employ strict quality control and quality assurance measures, as a baseline for assessing
the presence of pesticides in groundwater.
1711 https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=16-611
19 https://agr.wa.gov/fp/pubs/docs/mouagricultureecology20l1final.pdf
180 https://agr.wa.gov/departments/land-and-water/natural-resources/agricultural-land-use
181 https://agr.wa.gov/getmedia/Oc325688-56e5-44c9-8789-
ebd35c315fcb/comprehensivepesticidemanagementstrategy.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 65
Packet Pg. 139
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
NRAS reviews the PWSS data annually to compare pesticide detections to EPA established
drinking water standards. As funding allows, NRAS will conduct groundwater investigations
based on the confirmed pesticide detections from PWSS. For example, NRAS has been
investigating occurrences of DCPA (herbicide, trade name Dacthal) in Eastern Washington
where DCPA concentrations have been detected at levels approaching an EPA established
drinking water standard.
The state Pesticide Management Strategy outlines the process to protect groundwater from
pesticides. The concentration of pesticide detections are compared to the EPA established
drinking water standards (reference points). Initial actions include evaluating the extent of the
pesticide occurrence, working with registrants and producers to determine the source, and
identifying voluntary Best Management Practices in partnership with local conservations
districts. For pesticides with confirmed detections between 75-100% of a drinking water
standard, final actions WSDA may consider include use prohibition areas or other enforcement
actions.
Groundwater Pesticide Detection levels are characterized as follows:
Table 1: Washington State Department of Agriculture groundwater detection levels
Level
Percent Detection of an EPA reference point
Level 1
Confirmed detection between 10-20% of an EPA reference point
Level 2
Confirmed detection between 20-50% of an EPA reference point
Level 3
Confirmed detection between 50-75% of an EPA reference point
Level 4
Confirmed detection between 75-100% of an EPA reference point
Washington State Conservation Commission and
Conservation Districts
The Washington State Conservation Commission182 (SCC) is the coordinating state agency for all 45
conservation districts183 in Washington State. Together, the SCC and conservation districts provide
voluntary, incentive -based programs that empower private landowners to implement conservation
on their property (website excemffl )
Conservation Districts provide a wide range of services that are non -regulatory and voluntary.
These include helping land owners manage nutrients and pesticides, as well as implementing
182 https://scc.wa.gov/about-the-commission/
183 https://scc.wa.gov/about_ conservationdistricts/
184 https://scc.wa.gov/about-the-commission/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 66
Packet Pg. 140
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
irrigation efficiencies. Conservation Districts manage grants that help landowners implement best
management practices.
Conservation Districts also conduct research and studies that are important for understanding the
state of natural resources, obtaining grants from various funding sources to do this work.
The Conservation Districts are typically the lead entity for the Voluntary Stewardship Program (see
Section 1).
Identifying Gaps in Protection
Federal and state laws and rules do not replace local planning, ordinances, and programs.
Local government can focus on local conditions in a way that the state cannot. Local
jurisdictions should maintain the ability to protect groundwater under their own authority by
including that authority in local ordinances.
Land use planning at the local level is the most effective way to influence where facilities
choose to locate. Local government planning can influence the types of future developments
that occur in various areas and may be able to encourage potentially contaminating facilities to
locate in areas where the aquifer has a lower susceptibility if contaminants are released.
• Counties and cities:
o Regulate land use through comprehensive planning, zoning, and ordinances.
o Have authority to ensure a landowner does not pollute the public drinking water
supply.
o Are able to track conditions and adapt to local concerns much more readily than the
state.
Federal and state laws, rules, and programs are often targeted toward larger facilities. For
example, pollution prevention plans are required by the state if a facility generates 2,640
pounds of hazardous waste a year. A much smaller quantity of hazardous chemicals can
cause contamination, especially if improper disposal into a septic system or a dry well
occurs. The local jurisdiction should consider requiring pollution prevention plans where
needed and not already required.
Compliance depends on state resources to enforce. The state covers a large area and a large
number of facilities, and therefore illegal activities may occur that are not detected by the
state until contamination has occurred. Local attention can focus on facilities in their
immediate jurisdiction and respond much faster to potential contamination issues.
This underlines why it is so important for a local jurisdiction to have included authority to act
when there is a contamination threat to the local drinking water supply.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 67
Packet Pg. 141
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Prohibited and Conditioned Uses
Some land use activities, such as landfills, have been found to be a high -risk for groundwater
contamination. Although a high -risk use may be regulated by other authorities, local
jurisdictions should consider prohibiting these uses from being located within high -risk high -
priority Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Where these uses are already sited, they should be
closely monitored and strict pollution prevention requirements followed.
Examples of uses that should be considered for prohibition in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
are landfills, wood treatment facilities, metal platers, tank farms, and facilities that treat, store,
or dispose of hazardous waste. Chemical facilities that transfer or use large amounts of
chemicals should also be considered to be a risk for groundwater contamination.
Some uses that have a moderate to low risk for contamination can be allowed within Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas conditionally on meeting certain requirements for approval. These are
typically pollution prevention measures such as secondary containment for chemical storage
areas, spill prevention measures, and contingency plans for emergencies.
Here are some questions the local jurisdiction should consider when coordinating their planning
and ordinances with federal and state laws, rules, and programs.
• Does the local jurisdiction know where potentially polluting activities are located?
• Are effective protective requirements for potentially polluting activities in place?
• Is there provision for compliance monitoring?
• Is there a means to obtain compliance if there is a violation?
• Does the jurisdiction have a plan for ensuring that existing land uses are protective of
groundwater?
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 68
Packet Pg. 142
9.B.b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
Section 7 - Adapting to Local Conditions and Settings
The Growth Management Act allows for differences in regional or local conditions.
See WAC 365-196-050 Regional and Local Variations18' and the Department of Commerce
Critical Areas Handbook186
Washington has varied landscapes and populations, from sparsely populated rural areas to
large cities, from dry desert to rain forest.
Ferry County has a population of 7,830 (2019 estimate). Republic, the county seat, has a
population of 1,100 people. Ferry County is located in the mountainous Okanogan region where
ponderosa pines flourish in the dry climate.
King County has both populous and rural areas and has varied landscapes, from the Puget
Sound to the high plateau in the shadow of Mount Rainier. The total population of King County
was 2,226,300 (2019 estimate).
The settings in which groundwater recharge occurs, the resources for programs, and the
resources at risk vary in different parts of the state. This means that a program that protects
the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas in one part of the state will not
necessarily look like a program in another.
The Western Washington GMA Hearings Board (WWGMHB) states:
The GMA does not require a "one size fits all" approach. A GMHB is to be guided by a
common sense appreciation of the size and resources of a local jurisdiction and the
magnitude of the problems to be addressed. MCCDC v. Shelton 96-2-0014 (FDO 11-14-
96).
The fundamental requirement of the Growth Management Act is that the functions and
values of the critical area should be protected. For Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, that
means that public drinking water quality and quantity should be addressed in planning
and ordinances.
A good critical aquifer recharge area program:
• Identifies groundwater resources at risk.
• Identifies threats to groundwater.
• Requires pollution prevention.
• Supports recharge.
• Monitors to make sure a condition that could cause an unacceptable risk is not occurring.
• Educates and informs people so that they can do their best to protect groundwater
• Takes action when necessary!
185 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/defauIt.aspx?cite=365-196&full=true#365-196-050
186 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/guidebooks-and-resources/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 69
Packet Pg. 143
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Section 8 - Adaptive Management — Change Happens
The GMA requires periodic review and update of plans and ordinances for critical areas. In
addition, when the scientific information for addressing critical areas is inadequate, it requires
that adaptive management be used in order to determine the impacts on the critical areas from
development regulations, and to reduce those impacts to protect the functions and values of
the critical areas - Chapter 365-195-020 WAC187
Adaptive management involves strategic testing of hypotheses and related monitoring to see
how well plans, ordinances, and programs are protecting Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Changes to permits, permitting, programs, and policies are then made as conditions change, or
to improve or correct a method of protection as needed. Monitoring data results can also lead
to changes in how monitoring is done and what is monitored. The comprehensive plan and
development regulations should include an iterative process for amendments as new
information becomes available.
Examples of new information are hydrogeologic studies that provide more information about
the boundaries and characteristics of aquifers, significant land use changes and the associated
groundwater contamination risks, and the results of the evaluation of voluntary and regulatory
programs. A fundamental component of adaptive management is the commitment to change
based upon the outcome of testing hypotheses through strategic monitoring.
Examples of adaptive management that protects the functions and values of Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas also can include:
1. Being able to correct or prevent a polluting activity by inspections, requests for compliance,
and enforcement if needed.
2. Changing ordinances in response to additional knowledge about a polluting activity. For
example, the City of Vancouver prohibits several activities that are a high risk for
contaminating water resources (see Chapter 14.6 Water Resources Protection188, Section
14.26.115). One of these is hard chrome plating operations. Such a facility became a toxic
cleanup site and threatened the groundwater quality for city wells (See the Final Closure
Plan for the Boomsnub toxic cleanup site, Section 1.1 Site Background, available from the
Document Repository for Boomsnub Airco Suoerfund Site'
187 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=365-195-920
188
http://www.cityofvancouver. us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/l 033/finalwrpordinanc
erevised2016.pdf
189 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/gsp/CleanupSiteDocuments.aspx?csid=586
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 70
Packet Pg. 144
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
3. Developing new information about an area sensitive to contamination and adapting
programs, plans, and ordinances appropriately to address risks. A great example is the
Scatter Creek Aquifer Septic System Management Prolect190. This project convened a
Citizen's Advisory Committee to evaluate groundwater contamination risk from septic
systems. The committee recommended not increasing regulatory action at the time, but
recommended keeping watch over groundwater quality so that action can be taken if
necessary.
The Scatter Creek Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for that area and is vulnerable
to contamination.
See the Critical Areas Handbook191 for more information on adaptive management.
190 https://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehsc/index.html
191 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/guidebooks-and-resources/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 71
Packet Pg. 145
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Section 9 - Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Reports
Many jurisdictions require that those applying for new development permits submit reports
that demonstrate that the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas will be
protected.
Reports apply to both identifying Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and to pollution prevention.
The report should support the documentation of best available science. If the jurisdiction has
identified drinking water aquifers and characteristics, this information would not need to be
duplicated by a permit applicant. The applicant should report critical materials (chemicals that
are potential pollutants), and demonstrate that their project prevents pollution and allows
recharge as applicable. The permit application can include a checklist to make sure the correct
best management practices are identified and included in the permit conditions. The proponent
should also identify existing drinking water wells near their site.
Protecting the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas depends on knowing
• On an area -wide basis:
o The location and extent of drinking water aquifers
o The location of wells used for drinking water, including Group A wells, Group B wells and
residential wells
o Hydrogeologic conditions:
— General depth to water of the water table aquifer or aquifer nearest the land
surface
— General flow direction
— General overburden properties (glacial outwash? Clay layers? Drainage?)
o Where streams are that have anadromous fisheries
o Where there are (or have been) cleanup sites
o Where there has been known groundwater contamination
This information is applicable to sites to the extent that the area -wide information is
adequate for specific sites.
• On a site -specific basis:
o Information listed above if it is not available from the local jurisdiction
o What critical materials are on site or are planned to be on site
o How critical materials are kept from spilling or leaking
o What preparations are to contain critical materials in case of a fire
o Plans (such as a spill plan, emergency plan with contacts)
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 72
Packet Pg. 146
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Emergency plans should include contacting public water supply purveyors, and
neighbors, as well as the fire dept.
• Recharge
o How recharge will be maintained or enhanced
o If recharge is not conducive given site conditions, how stormwater will otherwise be
discharged in accordance with legal requirements and best practices
o How recharge of stormwater will be kept clean or treated. If treated, what the
mechanisms are to inspect and maintain treatment effectiveness
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 73
Packet Pg. 147
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Section 10 - Interjurisdictional Coordination
Since aquifers often span more than one jurisdiction, counties and cities need to work together
to protect the public drinking water resource. Ordinances and implementation that protect the
water supply in each other's jurisdiction is needed when the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area that
protects a jurisdiction's drinking water supply is outside of its jurisdictional boundaries and
therefore outside of its regulatory authority.
Interjurisdictional coordination starts with the comprehensive plan.
RCW 36.70A.100 Comprehensive plans —Must be coordinated.
The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW
36.70A.040 shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans
adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with which the county
or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues.
The Critical Areas Handbook states:
County wide planning policies and inter -local agreements are often necessary in
unincorporated portions of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). For example, cities have a
vested interest in the type of development that occurs as they will ultimately annex
the property, but counties often oversee the development and issue the permits.
As a result, some jurisdictions develop countywide planning policies or inter -local
agreements to ensure the city can review development proposals before they are
finalized. Local governments could apply the same model for wellheads and other
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. For local governments who have GIS capacity, they
would include inter -local agreements on maps to ensure areas of concern are easily
identified during the county review period and permitting.
The mere existence of an inter -local agreement does not guarantee coordination. Agreements
and plans must be implemented to be useful. Comprehensive plans may be written to include
implementation in ordinances and programs.
One example of an inter -local agreement to protect the drinking water supply that is sourced
from groundwater is an agreement between the City of McCleary and Grays Harbor County192
McCleary is a small city in Grays Harbor County (Figure 12). The aquifer on which McCleary
depends extends into Grays Harbor County.
192 https://cityofmccleary.com/vertical/sites/%7B6900A7D9-59CE-4612-823A-
FA3E5F25F431 %7D/uploads/%7B1 B4F9EEA-86BC-47D6-B2F2-9FC2FD00353E%7D.PDF
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 74
Packet Pg. 148
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
The inter -local agreement was formulated based on the report Wildcat Creek Aquifer
Hydrology, Regulatory Alternative, and Recommendations Final Report193, prepared for Grays
Harbor County and the City of McCleary (Arthur, 2008). This report details the hydrogeology,
development, and wells; regulatory alternatives (including under the GMA); and
recommendations for Grays Harbor County, the City of McCleary, and both together.
Figure 12: The drinking water aquifer for McCleary lies both in city boundaries and outside city
boundaries in Grays Harbor County.
Chapter 1 of the Dept. of Commerce Growth Management Services Critical Areas Handbook194
has a section on Regional Planning Efforts. This section also includes information about various
state watershed initiatives.
193 https://cityofmccleary.com/vertical/sites/%7B690OA7D9-59CE-4612-823A-
FA3E5F25F431 %7D/uploads/°/o7B214968EF-BDC3-44B0-9F8F-2CE99BAFC056%7D.PDF
194 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021
Page 75
Packet Pg. 149
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Section 11 - Implementation - Authority, Monitoring,
and Program Integration
Funding and Resource Challenges
It is important to recognize resources that cities and counties have varies widely. Some counties
and cities have expertise on staff, some have groundwater monitoring programs, and many
have inspection programs. Other city and counties are extremely limited in resources. See also
Section 7 - Adapting to Local Conditions and Settings Section 7. Funding sources jurisdictions
use have included permit fees, grants, general fund, stormwater utility fees,
building/development fees, and water rates.
Here are a few of important considerations for protecting the functions and values of Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Authority
Cities and Counties should give themselves authority to act in their ordinances in case of a
threat to groundwater resources. Jurisdictions need to have authority to inspect businesses for
compliance with ordinances, and to detect and correct situations that are a threat to
groundwater quality. See Appendix C — Code Examples.
Monitoring
Monitoring is important for ensuring compliance to protect groundwater resources, and for
detecting contamination that has occurred in groundwater. Monitoring helps jurisdictions
adaptively manage the protection of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and to understand what is
important to address during updates.
Compliance Monitoring and Program Integration
Ordinances and plans by themselves do not protect the functions and values of Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas — Protection requires monitoring for compliance, together with technical
assistance and, if necessary, enforcement. Monitoring for compliance also requires having the
authority to inspect and require correction.
Inspections serve to follow-up on whether permit requirements were implemented, for code
enforcement, and to detect and require correction of pollution threats. Inspections can be done
in conjunction with other inspection programs for pollution prevention such as for surface
water, stormwater, and for hazardous waste/materials. Fire department inspections are also
good candidates for helping with resource efficiency, especially with respect to contaminant (or
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 76
Packet Pg. 150
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
"critical materials") inventories and fire prevention where a fire would cause release of
contaminants.
Regulations can also be integrated for efficiency. Stormwater regulations, hazardous
waste/material regulations, building and fire codes, are examples of regulations that can be
incorporated into protection for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Voluntary programs such as
hazardous waste and pharmaceutical drop-offs also help to prevent groundwater
contamination.
The City of Issaquah has developed and implemented a highly integrated program — See
Appendix A: Focus on Implementation - Issaquah Gains Efficiency by Integrating Programs.
The City of Vancouver developed ordinances for the protection of water resources that includes
groundwater, surface water, and storm water.
Appendix D —The Growth Management Hearings Board and Selected Decisions — includes two
cases that are relevant to the need to monitor for compliance.
The county wide planning policies and comprehensive plan are important for program
integration. Together with an implementation plan, cities and counties may coordinate the
various departments that administer different aspects of protecting the functions and values of
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. These include planning, building permits, development
services, public works, and programs for inspecting and enforcing. It is important that different
departments work together so that development proposals are shared early in the process.
Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring is useful for understanding where contaminants have reached
groundwater from land use activities, and for identifying contamination sources and requiring
correction. Groundwater monitoring is also useful for identifying whether concentrations are
increasing or decreasing. Counties and cities should have plans and procedures to follow-up
with source identification and correction when groundwater monitoring detects contamination.
This would typically include working with state regulatory programs.
Two ways of obtaining groundwater monitoring data include using existing groundwater
monitoring data collected by others, and implementing a local groundwater monitoring
program. Jurisdictions without resources for a locally run groundwater monitoring program can
still use data produced by others.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 77
Packet Pg. 151
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Using existing groundwater monitoring data
• The Washington State Deaartment of Health drinking water database (SENTRY)195 records
groundwater quality sampling results for public water systems.
• The USGS National Water Information System (NWIS)196 has groundwater sample results for
wells sampled for USGS studies.
• Some jurisdictions contract with consultants to perform studies that include groundwater
monitoring data.
• The Ecology Environmental Information Management system (Elm)197 has a groundwater
map and data application includes groundwater monitoring data produced by Ecology
studies. Data produced from grant funded studies may also be in EIM.
Local groundwater monitoring programs
• Dedicated groundwater monitoring (where there are resources for this).
• Well sample results from property transfers — Many jurisdictions require a water well
sample when a property is sold.
A very few jurisdictions have hydrogeologists on staff who can design and maintain
groundwater monitoring programs. Some jurisdictions contract with the USGS to do a
groundwater study that results in water level measurements and groundwater quality
assessments. The USGS does nationally supported regional studies through the National Water
Quality Assessment program (NAWQA). This provides a number of jurisdictions with
groundwater information. Some jurisdictions contract with a consultant to do a study that
includes groundwater monitoring.
Jurisdictions that do not have capacity to support groundwater monitoring can still make use of
existing groundwater monitoring data that is available online.
195
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/EnvironmentalHealth/DrinkingWaterSystemData/Sentr
ylnternet
196 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/nwis
197 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/eim/search/default.aspx
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 78
Packet Pg. 152
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Section 12 - References
Alley, W.M., T.E. Reilly, and O.L. Franke, 1999. Sustainability of Groundwater Resources, U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1186, 86 pp.
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circll86/pdf/circll86.pdf
Arthur, J. and Wildrick, L, 2008. Wildcat Creek Aquifer Hydrology, Regulatory Alternative, and
Recommendations Final Report, prepared for Grays Harbor County and the City of McCleary, 24
PP.
Bayless, E.R., Arihood, L.D., Reeves, H.W., Sperl, B.J.S., Qi, S.L., Stipe, V.E., and Bunch, A.R.,
2017, Maps and grids of hydrogeologic information created from standardized water -well
drillers' records of the glaciated United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2015-5105, 34 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20155105
Cappiella, Karen, Stack, W.P., Fraley -McNeal, Lisa, Lane, Cecilia, and McMahon, Gerard, 2012,
Strategies for managing the effects of urban development on streams: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1378, 69 p., available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1378/
Cook, K. and J. Cowles, 2009. Washington State Pesticide Management Strategy: Water Quality
Protection. Version 2.22. Washington State Department of Agriculture
Fetter, C.W., 1980. Applied Hydrogeology, Charles E. Merril Publishing Company, 488 pp.
Gibson, M.T, Michael E. Campana, 2018. Groundwater Storage Potential in the Yakima River
Basin: A Spatial Assessment of Shallow Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer Storage and Recovery,
Oregon State University College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. Prepared for the
Washington State Department of Ecology Office of the Columbia River, Publication No. 19-12-
03, 133 pp. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1912003.pdf
Jones, M.A., 1999. Geologic framework for the Puget Sound aquifer system, Washington and
British Columbia, U.S. Geological Survey professional paper: 1424-C, 44 pp + 20 plates.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1424c/report.pdf
Jones, M.A., L.A. Orr, J.C. Ebbert, and S.S. Sumioka, 1999. Groundwater Hydrology of the
Tacoma -Puyallup Area, Pierce County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources
Investigations Report 99-4013, 150 pp. https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1999/4013/report.pdf
Kelly, Doug, 2005. Seawater Intrusion Topic Paper, Island County/WRIA 6 Watershed Planning
Process, 27 pp. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1203271.pdf
Kimsey, M., 1996. Implementation Guidance for the Groundwater Quality Standards,
Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Publication No. 96-002, 136 pp.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/9602.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 79
Packet Pg. 153
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
King County, 2004. Executive Report — Best Available Science, Volume 1, Chapter 6 Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas, — February 2004.
https://you r. ki ngcou nty.gov/d n rp/library/2004/kcrl562/BAS-Cha p6-04. pdf
Kitsap County, 2014. Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program Guidance, Kitsap
County Public Health District, 58 pp.
https://kitsappublichealth.org/environment/files/PIC Guidance Document.pdf
Klisch, M., D. Banton, 2011. Best Available Science Update for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
(Shallow Gravel Aquifer), Walla Walla County, Golder Associates Technical Memorandum to Bill
Stalzer, Stalzer and Associates.
Morgan, L., 2016. Washington Nitrate Prioritization Project, Washington State Department of
Ecology, Publication No. 16-10-011, 104 pp.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummarVPages/1610011.html
Nimmo, J.R., 2012. Preferential Flow Occurs in Unsaturated Conditions: Hydrological Processes,
v. 26, no. 5, p. 786-789. http://onlinelibrary.wiles.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.8380/full
Pierce County, 2015. Stormwater Management & Site Development Manual, Pierce County,
Washington, 1342 pp. https://www.co.pierce.wa.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4512
Pitz, C., and K. Sinclair, 1999. Estimated Baseflow Characteristics of Selected Washington Rivers
and Streams: Water Supply Bulletin No. 60, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Publication No.
99-327, 25 pp. + appendices.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarVpages/99327.html
Rau, Ben, 2015. Washington's Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of
Pollution, Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, Publication
Number 15-10-015, 157 pp. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1510015.pdf
Simonds, W.F., C.I. Longpre, and G.B. Justin, 2004. Ground -Water System in the Chimacum
Creek Basin and Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction in Chimacum and Tarboo Creeks and
the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5058, 46 pp. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5058/
St. Godard, E.N.J., 2019. Technical memorandum on Estimation of Future Build -out and
Consumptive Use Relative to Domestic Exempt Groundwater Supply Wells, prepared for
Stevens County, Water & Natural Resource Group, Inc., 43 pp.
https://sccd.stevenscou ntVwa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-03-31-W RIA-59-RCW-
90-94-Technical-Assessment-Final.pdf
U.S. EPA, 1995. Benefits and Costs of Prevention: Case Studies of Community Wellhead
Protection, EPA 813-B-95-005, 74 pp.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 80
Packet Pg. 154
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
U.S. EPA, 2017. Map Showing Overview of Hamilton/LaBree Superfund Site, 1 p.
https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/10/100206269
U.S. EPA. 2019 Web Page: Protect sources of Drinking Water:
httDS://www.eDa.Rov/sourcewaterDrotection
Washington Department of Commerce, 2018. Critical Areas Handbook, A Handbook for
Reviewing Critical Areas Regulations. 442 pp. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-
communities/growth-management/guidebooks-and-resources/
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2017. Nonpoint Success Story Washington — Kitsap
County Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program Improves Water Quality. 1 p.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1710011.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2019a. 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington, Publication No. 18-10-044, 1154 pp.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMEW/Content/Resources/Do
csForpownload/2019SWMMEW 8-13-19.Ddf
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2019b. 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington, Publication No. 19-10-021, 1108 pp.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Permits/Flare/2019SWMMWW/Content/Resources/D
ocsForpownload/2019SWMMWW.Ddf
Washington State Department of Health, 2020. Water System Planning Handbook, DOH Pub #
331-068, pp. 74 + appendices, publications search page:
https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/odwpubs/Publications/
WWGMHB, 1997. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board FOSC v. Skagit
County, WWGMHB No. 96-2-0025 (Final Decision & Order, Jan. 3, 1997).
http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/search/case
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 81
Packet Pg. 155
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendices
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 82
Packet Pg. 156
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix A: Focus on Implementation - Issaquah
Gains Efficiency by Integrating Programs
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 83
Packet Pg. 157
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
The City of Issaquah is located within King County and spans approximately 61-square miles and
is bordered by steep upland areas including Tiger, Squawk, and Cougar Mountains. Drinking
water wells located within the valley floor provide Issaquah with approximately 50% of the
City's drinking water supply from groundwater. Drinking water to the nearby Sammamish
Plateau is also supplemented from wells located on the Issaquah valley floor. As a result, a
significant portion of the City is a critical aquifer recharge area (CARA), under the requirements
of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Issaquah Gains Efficiency by Integrating Programs
The City of Issaquah has a well -developed groundwater and pollution prevention protection
program that integrates and aligns state requirements, city ordinance, inspections, and site
visits with education and outreach opportunities for both businesses and residents.
Effectiveness and efficiency is obtained through overlap in programs and staff. Issaquah does
this by requiring businesses and development within the City and CARA to adhere to a higher
standard of pollution prevention through the collection of Hazardous Materials Management
Plans for both hazardous waste and hazardous materials, complying with the National Pollution
Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit, illicit discharge identification
and prevention, and protection of our CARA.
Programs
Integration of pollution prevention goals enables programs to make use of shared resources for
administration, funding, information, inspections, and public outreach and education.
• Spill Response
• Illicit Discharge Investigation
• Hazardous Materials Management Plans
• Hazardous Materials Management Inventories
• Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 84
Packet Pg. 158
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• Fats Oils and Grease management review
• Septic Inspection Verification
• Private Storm System Inspections
• NPDES Storm System Inspections
• Ambient Water Quality Sampling
Program Administration
Issaquah's environmental programs are managed by a small group of staff that are cross trained
in all environmental protection aspects. Efficiencies include:
• Overlap in function and specialties
• Staff ownership over programs and improvement opportunities
• Standardizing data and information management tools, whenever possible
• Handouts and educational material by topic
Funding
• Issaquah receives some funding for elements of our pollution prevention programs and
business outreach through a Local Source Control partnership with the Department of
Ecology.
• Additional funding for Issaquah's pollution prevention programs comes from utility
taxes, paid for by Issaquah residents and businesses.
• Our businesses may qualify for funding from King County and/or The Department of
Ecology, if they choose to transition to safer choice business practices or to use safer
chemicals; for example, changing from PERC dry-cleaning to professional wet cleaning.
Information
Purpose: To identify candidates for inspection and to make sure pollution prevention is being
accomplished at sites with potential for contaminating, to follow up on complaints and
enforcement, and to meet requirements of the NPDES Phase II stormwater permit to identify
illicit discharges.
• Hazardous materials
• Reported Toxic Releases and Spills
• Toxic Cleanup Sites
• Well Head Protection Contaminant Inventories
• Ecology Facility/Site web app
• ERTS
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 85
Packet Pg. 159
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Inspections
• Inspections and technical assistance visits serve as many purposes as possible in a single
visit.
• A single inspector is trained in multiple areas of environmental compliance.
• Joint inspections between the City and other entities, such as the fire department, the
Department of Ecology, the Health Department, or King County, are encouraged to
insure a comprehensive application of regulations is conveyed. Often City regulations
are more prescriptive.
• A single data system can be used to track inspections for multiple purposes. Issaquah
uses TRAKiT as a central depository for record keeping and environmental tracking.
Communicates with the Public and Regulated Businesses
• Lets businesses know what is required and how to comply.
• Lets the regulated community know how to access technical assistance.
• Makes sure those who are regulated understand Issaquah's inspection and enforcement
authority and how these are carried out.
• Lets citizens have a way to report environmental issues locally.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 86
Packet Pg. 160
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix 6: Map of Ecology Cleanup Sites for
Groundwater and Soils Contamination
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 87
Packet Pg. 161
9.B.b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
♦yy
• • 4
,
•fin
s'�;1 �t • • •. •
•
�' • + ; •
Oe +
• • i • • • t •
•
• • v
Ecology Confirmed and +
Suspected Contaminated Sites
List — Groundwater (2018) +� •
•I►; ♦ • y
Confirmed i
Suspected
Figure 13: Washington State Department of Ecology Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites Map (2018)
Publication 05-10-028
Revised March 2021
Page 88
Packet Pg. 162
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix C: Code Examples
Integrated programs
The City of Vancouver deserves special mention because the City's Water Resource Protection
Program198 is an outstanding example of program integration to protect rivers, lakes, streams,
and groundwater.
The City of Issaquah is an outstanding example of gaining efficiencies and good outcomes by
integrating programs - See Appendix A.
Authority to Act and to Inspect
• Benton County has given themselves authority to prevent contamination of critical aquifer
recharge areas. Benton County's critical aquifer recharge area ordinance Chapter 15.06199
requires that:
(a) The applicant shows that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the
aquifer and that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the
aquifer;
(b) The applicant provides evidence that the proposed water source is physically and legally
available and meets drinking water standards.
(c) Groundwater uses, withdrawals, and recharge must be consistent with RCW
90.44.050200 (permit to withdraw groundwater) and with applicable rules adopted
pursuant to RCW 90.22201 (minimum instream flows) and RCW 90.54202 (Water
Resources Act of 1971) when making decisions under RCW 19.27.097203 (evidence of
adequate water supply) and RCW 58.17.110204 (Approval or disapproval of subdivision)
The City of Vancouver explicitly prohibits polluting discharges into the water resources of
the city (Chapter 14.6 Water Resources Protection 205, Section 14.26.117). Section 14.26.145
on Enforcement gives the City authority to enforce, and explicitly lays out what the City may
do in case of violations.
198 https://www.cityofvancouver.us/publicworks/page/water-resources-protection-program
199 https://www.co.benton.wa.us/files/documents/CH1506BCC148013709092718PM.pdf
200 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.44.050
201 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.22
202 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.54
203 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.27.097
204 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=58.17.110
205
http://www.cityofvancouver. us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/1033/finalwrpordinanc
erevised20l6.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 89
Packet Pg. 163
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Having the authority to enforce in case of a polluting discharge to water resources allows
the City to stop a pollution event, or prevent an imminent discharge. This goes beyond
requiring pollution prevention at the permitting stage, and allows the City to respond after
a permit has been issued.
The City of Vancouver Water Resources Protection ordinance also has code for
owner/operators to inspect their facilities to prevent contaminated discharges, and for the
city to inspect.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 90
Packet Pg. 164
9.B.b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
Allowed, permitted with conditions, and prohibited uses
Table 24.10-1 in Chapter 24.10.020201 of the Thurston County code lists land use activities that are allowed without a permit,
permitted with conditions, or are prohibited, depending on the category of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The table links to
applicable standards for land use activities. Here is a partial excerpt (see the ordinance20' for the full table):
RESTRICTED USES AND ACTIVITIES
AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA CATEGORY
1
II
III
Wellhead Protection Areas
Other CARA I
1-year time of travel
zone
5- and 10-year time of
travel zones
Abandoned wells (decommissioning of wells) JCC 24.10.040)
A
A
A
A
A
Asphalt plants/cement and concrete plants (TCC 24.10.0701
X
X
X
p
P
Boat refinishing
P
P
P
p
P
Cemeteries (TCC 24.10.U90)
X
P
P
p
P
Chemical manufacturing/processing, mixing and remanufacturing (TCC 24.10.100)
X
X
X
p
P
Chemical storage facilities (not including fuel) (TCC 24.10.100i
X
P
P
p
P
Figure 14: Image of Table 24.10-1. Prohibited and Restricted Uses and Activities Within Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
LEGEND:
A = Allowed without a critical area permit, subject to requirements of this title
206
https://library.municode.com/wa/thurston_county/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT24CRAR_CH24.10CRAQREAR_24.10.020STREPRUS
207
https:Hlibrary.municode.com/wa/thurston_county/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT24CRAR_CH24.10CRAQREAR_24.10.020STREPRUS
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 91
Packet Pg. 165
9.B.b
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
P = Permitted, subject to critical area permit and requirements of this title
X = Prohibited
X/P = As determined by the approval authority, small scale uses or those using nonhazardous materials may be permitted when the
quantity, nature of materials processed and mitigation methods are determined to contain no significant risk to groundwater.
Section 11.20.075 of Spokane County's critical aquifer recharge area ordinance20' includes a similar type of table.
208https://Iibrary.municode.com/wa/spokane_county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT11EN_CH11.20CRAR_ 11.20.075CRAQREAR
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 92
Packet Pg. 166
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Critical Materials
City of Spokane Critical and Hazardous Materials List Information209 guide sheet.
City of Spokane Business & Development Resources210—The Critical and Hazardous Materials
topic includes the following resources:
• Critical and Hazardous Materials List Application211 (PDF 25 KB)
• Critical and Hazardous Materials List Information212 (PDF 22 KB)
• Critical Materials Handbook211 (PDF 908 KB)
• Critical Materials List214 (PDF 29 KB)
• Hazardous Materials Inventory2lI (PDF 32 KB)
Nonpoint Ordinance
• Article VI — Rules and regulations of the Thurston Countv Board of Health aovernin
nonpoint source pollution216
Reports
• Spokane County Section 11.20.075 — Critical aquifer recharge area S217, has a section on
procedures for when a hydrogeologic report or study is required. This section is quite good,
and provides for an important alternative:
209 https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/guidesheets/hazardousmaterials/critical-
hazardous-materials-list-information.pdf
210 https://my.spokanecity.org/business/resources/
21 https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/guidesheets/hazardousmaterials/critical-
hazardous-materials-list-application.pdf
212 https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/guidesheets/hazardousmaterials/critical-
hazardous-materials-list-information.pdf
213 https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/guidesheets/hazardousmaterials/critical-
materials-hand book. pdf
214 https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/guidesheets/hazardousmaterials/critical-
materials-list.pdf
215
https:Hstatic.spokanecity.org/documents/business/resources/guidesheets/hazardousmaterials/hazardous-
materials-inventory.pdf
216 https://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehadm/pdf/Article VI.pdf
217 -
https://library.municode.com/wa/spokane_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=TIT11 EN_CH11.20
CRAR 11.20.075CRAQREAR
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 93
Packet Pg. 167
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
An applicant may elect to meet the appropriate performance standards in
lieu of preparing a hydrogeologic report if the environmental services
director or hearing examiner finds the performance standards provide
adequate aquifer protection.
• City of Redmond (King County), Zoning Code (RMC title 21), Appendix 1. —Critical Areas
Reporting Reguirements21I details critical aquifer recharge areas reporting. The following
paragraph provides a good example of an objectives statement:
A critical aquifer recharge area report must be submitted to the City. The
purpose of the report is to evaluate the actual presence of geologic
conditions giving rise to the critical aquifer recharge area; determine the
appropriate wellhead protection zone; evaluate the safety and
appropriateness of proposed activities; and recommend appropriate
construction practices, monitoring programs, and other mitigation measures
required to ensure achievement of the purpose and intent of these
regulations. The information required by this report should be coordinated
with the study and reporting requirements for any other critical areas
located on the site.
Incentives
The Clark County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Ordinance, Title 40.410219, includes incentives
for using best management practices to avoid having to provide additional geologic and
hydrologic characteristics of the property:
Incentives
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Individuals who implement BMPs to
safeguard groundwater may not be required to provide additional geologic
and hydrologic characteristics of the subject property, pursuant to
Sections 40.410.030(B) and (C). Individuals shall implement the Washington
Department of Ecology's Stormwater, Water Quality, Hazardous Waste,
Wetland, and Solid Waste Programs BMPs; Chapter 13.26A; and BMPs from
the Washington Departments of Health, Agriculture, Transportation, and
State Conservation District Office.
218 http://onIine.encod eplus. corn/regs/redmond-wa/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=2017#secid-4221
219 https://www.codepublishing.com/\NA/CIarkCounty/?comp-
ClarkCounty40/ClarkCounty40410/ClarkCounty40410.html
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 94
Packet Pg. 168
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix D — The Growth Management Hearings
Board and Selected Decisions
Each GMA Hearings Board published a digest220 of decisions that makes it easier to find
decisions related to various topics. The digests contain case summaries through June 30, 2010.
After that, the Boards were consolidated, and a tool to look for cases and decisionS221 was
developed. In addition, the GMA Hearings Board has published a digest of decisions from July 1,
2010 onward 222. after board consolidation.
The Critical Areas Handbook223 Appendix 1.13 contains summaries of appellate court and Growth
Management Hearings Board decisions related to critical areas requirements under the Growth
Management Act.
In addition to the case law summaries for Critical Areas in general, the Handbook summarizes
several cases related to critical aquifer recharge areas. Please refer to the Handbook to see
these case summaries in full. These cases include:
• Using best available science for determining risk from pre-existing uses
• Updating maps using updated best available science
• Not relying exclusively on public water supply mapped well head protection zones because
it does not protect individual drinking water wells nor the larger aquifer
• The GMA does not necessarily require designation of an entire aquifer — However, "the
extent of these designated critical recharge areas, as distinct from the underlying aquifer
itself, is determined through a substantive consideration of Best Available Science"
• Seawater intrusion critical aquifer recharge area designation and adaptive management
The Handbook cautions:
Users of the Digest are reminded that decisions of the Board may be appealed to court
and thus some of the excerpted cases may have been impacted by subsequent court
and/or Board rulings. It is the responsibility of the user to research the case thoroughly
prior to relying on holdings of a decision.
220 http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/Global/Reader?title=Digests&path=Digests
221 http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/search/case
222 http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/pages/Documents/2010-Present_Joint_ Digest_ July20l9_Update.pdf
223 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 95
Packet Pg. 169
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
The cases mentioned in this appendix are only a partial selection. Please refer to the GMA
Hearings Board website for guidance on finding relevant cases. The Washington State Judicial
Opinions Public Access Web site has an online search tool"' to find opinions and decisions.
On the following pages are some examples of decisions from the digests from the Central Puget
Sound, Western Washington, and Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Boards
that are relevant for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Mapping and performance standards
Central Puget Sound
"The use of performance standards is recommended in the Minimum Guidelines for ...
circumstances where critical areas (e.g., aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, significant
wildlife habitat, etc.) cannot be specifically identified." WAC 365-190-040(1). However,
where critical areas are known, cities and counties cannot rely solely upon performance
standards to designate these areas. [Pilchuck ll, 5347c, FDO, at 41-42.1
Local government discretion and the GMA framework
Western Washington
The GMA provides that ultimate planning decisions rest with the local government. Such
decisions are not unfettered but must be within the range of discretion allowed by the
GMA. A GMHB does not substitute its judgment as to the best alternative available, but
reviews the local government action to determine if it complies with the goals and
requirements of the GMA. CCNRC v. Clark County 92-2-0001 (FDO 11-10-92).
Eastern Washington
The Act requires protection of critical areas, and the county is given the opportunity to
select the manner of that protection. Their choice is given great deference. Easy, et al. v.
Spokane County, EWGMHB 96-1-0016, Order on Compliance (Sep. 23, 1997).
What protecting Critical Areas (CA) means
Central Puget Sound
The Act's directive that local governments are to "protect" critical areas means that they
are to preserve the structure, value and functions of wetlands, aquifer recharge areas
224
https:Hadvance.lexis.com/container?config=OOJABiZDFhYmUOMy03MTRiLTQ1 OTYtOGFjYi02YjgOMWY
zZTYzNGMKAFBvZEN hdGFsb2f9AmKsL25rOJ32peBAIAS6&crid=c60d5fbe-e7a0-4462-b45b-
9216a88b15aa&prid=74bee516-c191-45d6-b571-e34bc0824230
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 96
Packet Pg. 170
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
used for potable water, fish, and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded
areas and geologically hazardous areas. [derived from WAC 365-195-825(2)(b)] [Pilchuck
II, 5347c, FDO, at 20.]
Western Washington
The GMA requirement to protect CAs directs a local government to adopt appropriate
and specific criteria and/or standards. Willapa v. Pacific County 99-2-0019 (FDO 10-28-
99).
Compliance monitoring and enforcement
Western Washington
If BMPs are relied upon for protection of CAs some form of monitoring and enforcement
must be included to ensure that the plans are actually implemented and followed. ARID v
Shelton 98-2-0005 (FDO 8-10-98).
Eastern Washington
Further, laws can be so vague that they simply are unenforceable. That is the case here.
Such an ordinance cannot satisfy GMA's duty to adopt enforceable "development
regulations" to "protect" critical areas. A person should be able to determine what the
law is by reading the published code. Ordinance no. 109-2003 (ICAO) relies on language
too vague to create an enforceable standard and therefore cannot not operate to
"control" land use activities and does not satisfy the county's GMA obligation to adopt
"development regulations" to protect critical areas. The enforcement measures adopted
by the county provide only for ad hoc enforcement. This does not constitute a reasoned
adaptive management program, particularly where, as here, there is no provision for the
monitoring of compliance. Larson Beach Neighbors and Jeanie Wagenman v. Stevens
County, EWGMHB 00-1-0016, EWGMHB, Order on Compliance, November 13, 2003.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Eastern Washington
The GMA directs counties to designate, classify and protect areas with a "critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water." It is necessary to determine the
location of recharge areas as a first step in designating and protecting them. The county
must provide criteria necessary to indicate when an area needs specific scientific analysis
to determine whether it is a critical aquifer recharge area. Save Our Butte Save Our Basin
Society, et al. v. Chelan County, EWGMHB 94-1-0015, Compliance Hearing Order (Apr. 8,
1999).
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 97
Packet Pg. 171
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix E - Contamination is Costly
Groundwater contamination can cost millions of dollars for a single site. It often takes a long
time for contamination to be detected at a drinking water well. Often, this is the first indication
that groundwater has been contaminated. By the time contamination shows up at a well, the
contamination has travelled from the source, through the underground, to groundwater, and
has migrated in the direction of groundwater flow.
The ongoing occurrence of contamination is not obvious — It takes attention to prevent
contamination. Best management practices for prevention of releases along with inspections
and response plans are critical for keeping groundwater clean and safe for drinking water.
After contamination shows up at a well, cleanup can take a long time, and sometimes the water
has to be treated for decades.
Currently, we do not have a readily available catalog of costs associated with groundwater
contamination. Potentially liable persons do not report their costs.
Here are some of the main categories of costs associated with contamination:
1. Identifying the contamination source(s)
2. Determining what has been contaminated (soil, groundwater) and where the
contaminants are going
3. Determining the feasibility of cleaning up
4. Remediating soils
5. Remediating groundwater
6. Identifying and testing wells in the area to determine what needs to happen to protect
public health
7. Providing alternative sources of drinking water
• Bottled water
• New well or deepened well
• Interties with another drinking water system
8. Treating drinking water to remove contaminants prior to delivery to consumers, or
blending the water with a cleaner source to lower the concentration to acceptable
levels
9. Suffering a decline in property values and difficulty selling or getting a bank loan
10. Lawsuits
Example costs can be obtained when the state or federal government does the cleanup.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 98
Packet Pg. 172
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
In addition, grants and loans to local government for remedial investigation and cleanup offer a
window into the kinds of costs faced by both the parties responsible for cleanup and the
community when groundwater is contaminated and must be cleaned up.
Grants and loans for public drinking water systems are another source for understanding the
kind of costs incurred.
Here are three examples of costs related to contaminated groundwater.
Contamination in the Freeman School District Well
Freeman is a small, rural town about 12 miles south of Spokane Valley, Washington. Freeman
has both a middle school and a high school, located next to each other. Across the highway
from the high school are grain silos. Wells supply drinking and irrigation water to the schools.
The grain handling facility at Freeman"' has leached carbon tetrachloride226 into soil and
groundwater.
r �7
F
°41 .
46
r
4
225 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/gsp/Sitepage.aspx?csid=12540
226 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfags/TF.asp?id=195&tid=35
Publication 05-10-028
Revised March 2021
Page 99
Packet Pg. 173
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Figure 15: Area around Freeman Cleanup Site.
Carbon tetrachloride was found in the high school well, and a treatment system was installed to
remove contaminants so that the water is safe to drink and to use for irrigation. After further
investigation, residential wells were sampled and the well water found to have unsafe levels of
carbon tetrachloride.
Carbon tetrachloride is a man-made chemical that does not break down quickly in the
environment. It was widely used as an agricultural pesticide and fumigant to kill insects and
rodents in grain storage facilities. It was also used to make refrigerants and propellants for
aerosol cans, metal degreasing, as a dry-cleaning agent, and other uses.
In 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of carbon
tetrachloride for agricultural and other uses, except some industrial applications.
Costs include soil sampling, groundwater monitoring, an air stripper treatment system for
drinking water treatment, monthly drinking water well sampling, and a pump and treat system
to clean up groundwater.
Costs for groundwater treatment alone for 17 years range from $7 million to $10 million
dollars.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 100
Packet Pg. 174
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Christ Community Fellowship Water System Consolidation
due to High Nitrates
The Washington Department of Health Office of Drinking Water publishes a list of recipients of
low interest loans from the Washington State Drinking Water State Revolving Fund"',
published in July 2020. The following is excerpted from this publication228 to illustrate types of
costs:
This project continues a project funded in 2016 and 2017. Christ Community Fellowship (CCF)
has been under DOH enforcement action for years to address high nitrates (17 mg/L) in its well.
The project will consolidate the CCF Water System with City of College Place.
Improvements are proposed to be constructed in two phases, and include development of a
replacement city -owned well on CCF property drilled into the same Columbia River Basalt
Group Aquifer that the city's existing wells are completed within.
Project components include installation of 4,500 feet of 12" water main (any additional costs of
increasing line size above 8" to be borne by city funding) to connect the proposed well and CCF
to the existing water system and consolidation of the city's water rights as they relate to the
new well location.
Subsidy Award: $1,756,391 for a new well and water mains.
227
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/WaterSystemAssistance/DrinkingWat
erStateRevolvingFundDWSRF
228 https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/331-534.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 101
Packet Pg. 175
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Hamilton — LaBree Roads EPA Superfund Site
The Hamilton — LaBree Superfund site is located about two miles southwest of Chehalis in Lewis
County. The EPA fact sheet229 provides an overview.
t
Y
4 r
❑ U
Mick creek
„. ti
Ham, Road
Thurman Impacted Area, O�
—11 Berwick Crp-
+� W '
Ci 'Operable Unit _
ewou bin River
"A r
Figure 16: Hamilton-LaBree Superfund Site area (after U.S. EPA, 2017).
The following is an excerpt from the EPA web page for this site210:
The Hamilton/LaBree Roads Groundwater Contamination site) is located about two miles
southwest of Chehalis, Washington. The site is contaminated with PCE. PCE is also called PERC,
perch loroethylene, or tetrachloroethene. It's a chemical used for dry cleaning, metal
degreasing, and other industrial processes. PCE and its byproducts can present a risk to
people's health and the environment.
229 https://semspub.epa.gov/work/10/100243654.pdf
230
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=1002174#bkgr
ound
Publication 05-10-028
Revised March 2021
Page 102
Packet Pg. 176
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
In the past, PCE was spilled and dumped in Berwick Creek. Also, drums and other containers of
assorted hazardous chemicals were buried in the area of what is now known as the Livestock
Market. Release of the chemical from the buried and dumped containers contaminated soil,
sediment, groundwater, and surface water.
EPA and the State conducted early cleanup actions to address immediate threats. Risks to
people's health and the environment remain. In 2013, EPA selected an interim remedy for the
site. Remedial design is underway.
The site includes two areas where releases of hazardous wastes are known to have occurred:
the 10-acre Hamilton Road Impacted Area (HRIA) and the 11-acre area now known as the
Livestock Market. The site also contains an area called the Thurman Berwick Creek Area where
a release is likely to have occurred. Contaminated groundwater plumes originating from these
areas extend to the North/Northwest of Hamilton Road (which is downgradient) as well as west
of LaBree Road.
For administrative purposes, the site has been divided into two units, called Operable Units, or
OUs. The HRIA is OU-1. The Livestock Market area, Thurman Berwick Creek Area, and
downgradient areas outside of the HRIA are OU-2.
Contamination was first identified at the site in late 1993-early 1994 by the Washington State
Department of Health (WDOH). Out of 18 water -supply wells sampled, PCE was detected in six.
EPA conducted removal actions, or short-term cleanups, to address immediate threats to
human health and the environment. Actions included removing drums, pails and cans from
beneath Building B on the property known as the Livestock Market area; supplying bottled
water to affected well owners for drinking and cooking; and expanding the Chehalis municipal
water supply system to affected residents.
The site's interim remedy for operable unit (OU) 1 includes:
• Temporarily rerouting Berwick Creek around contaminated areas;
• Removing PCE from the areas with highest concentrations, by heating the PCE-
contaminated soil and sediment then collecting the contaminants before discharging
either the air or water, and by treating contaminated groundwater using bioremediation;
• Placing limits on future activities at the site; and
• Site monitoring.
All of these activities are extremely costly, especially compared to what prevention would have
cost.
Here are EPA Region 10 cost estimates:
• Alternative sources of drinking water, $7 million: EPA Region 10 responded to community
needs for clean drinking water in 2001 by providing bottled water ($1 million) and
connecting the community to the public water system ($6 million).
• Drum removal and investigation, $7 million: The additional work during that time for drum
removal and investigation was around $7 million more.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 103
Packet Pg. 177
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Interim Action Feasibility Cost, $14 million: The work EPA is doing right now is summarized
in the Record of Decision for the Operable Unit 1 interim action has the Feasibility Cost in
more detail and that is around $14 million.
• Costs for the remainder of the site, $14 million: The site is split into two operable units.
Operable Unit 1 is about half of the contaminated area. EPA has not started investigation of
Operable Unit 2. EPA estimates that cost to be about the same as the cost for Operable Unit
1 of $14 million.
• Total estimated costs, $42 million: The total cost for cleaning up this site will be about $42
million.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 104
Packet Pg. 178
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix F — Acronyms and Glossary
This is a limited glossary of terms. For more complete explanations of terminology common to
groundwater science, please refer to the USGS Water Basics Glossary231
Aquifer - A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains
sufficient saturated permeable232 material to yield significant quantities of water to springs and
wells.
Aquitard — See confining layer.
Artesian conditions — When water rises up above the level of the well intake, sometimes above
ground level, it is because a confining layer causes water pressure to rise.
Confined aquifer (artesian aquifer) - An aquifer that is completely filled with water under
pressure and that is overlain by material that restricts the movement of water.
Confining layer — A body of impermeable or distinctly less permeable (see permeability)
material stratigraphically adjacent to one or more aquifers that restricts the movement of
water into and out of the aquifers.
Precautionary approach — A precautionary approach is one that prevents harm or damage in
the face of uncertainty or lack of scientific information. See the Critical Areas Handbook233 for
multiple references to the precautionary approach as it relates to the Growth Management Act
Preferential Flow — Water flows through the least resistant path. Preferential flow occurs when
there is a path for water to flow through that allows greater flow volume and shorter travel
time than the surrounding material. For example, clay is very resistant to water flow, however
clay can develop cracks that allows water to flow through faster than expected for clay.
Qualified licensed professional — Washington State Law, Chapter 18.220 Revised Code of
Washington211 (RCW) contains the legal requirements for licensure of geologists. Further, this
RCW defines the practice of hydrogeology. A hydrogeology specialty license is required in
addition to the geologist license.
"Practice of hydrogeology" means the performance of or offer to perform any hydrogeologic
service or work in which the public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health, environment, or
property is concerned or involved. This includes the collection of geological data, and
231 https://water.usgs.gov/water-basics_glossary.html#top
232 https://water.usgs.gov/water-basics_glossary.html#Permeability
233 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
234 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.220&full=true
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 105
Packet Pg. 179
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
consultation, investigation, evaluation, interpretation, planning, or inspection relating to a
service or work that applies hydrogeology.
SDWA — The federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Sole Source Aquifer — According to EPA's websiteZ35, EPA defines a sole source aquifer (SSA) as
one where:
• The aquifer supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water for its service area
• There are no reasonably available alternative drinking water sources should the aquifer
become contaminated
The SSA program enables EPA to designate an aquifer as a sole source of drinking water and
establish a review area. EPA then reviews proposed projects that will both:
• Be located within the review area
• Receive federal funding
The review area includes the area overlying the SSA. It may also include the source areas of
streams that flow into the SSA's recharge zone. EPA's review is intended to ensure that the
projects do not contaminate the SSA.
The federal sole source statute only applies to federal review. However, some state laws and
rules, as well as some local ordinances, list sole source aquifers as being subject to those laws,
rules, or ordinances. Not all aquifers that are functionally sole source aquifers in the state are
federally designated as such.
Unconfined aquifer - An aquifer which has a water table.
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS - United States Geological Survey
Water Table — The water level measured when water in the aquifer is at atmospheric pressure.
To put it another way, when you measure water in a water table (unconfined) well, that is
where the water actually is in the aquifer. On the other hand, when you measure water in a
well that takes water from a confined aquifer, the water level is a measure of the pressure
pushing the water up into the well, and not an indication of where the water in the aquifer is.
Well log — A written record of the geologic material through which a well was drilled. A well log
normally includes the type of materials used for construction of the well itself and the depth at
which the well screen is set.
235 https://www.epa.gov/dwssa/overview-drinking-water-sole-source-aquifer-program#What_ls_SSA
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 106
Packet Pg. 180
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Appendix G - Response to Comments on the 2005
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Guidance
Here are the answers we received from the survey, organized by topic and question, (without
blank responses).
Challenges
Have you encountered issues complying with the Growth Management Act for Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas? If yes, what would you consider the top three to be?
• Pacific Groundwater Group submitting for King County Water District #90
Comment: KCWD 90 has one site of concern as there is an asphalt batch plant located
within the wellhead protection area for its main wellfield. While low risk due to only indirect
pathways for contamination, the District believes that the CARA requirements are not firm
enough regarding allowing potential contaminant sources within sensitive areas.
Response: During the review of the draft updated guidance, it would be good to hear from
the District what they believe would be firm enough CARA requirements with respect to
potential contaminant sources within sensitive areas. The guidance is not a rule —The GMA
laws and rules plus local ordinances govern.
It would be up to the Water District to work with the county or city where the wellfield is to
upgrade CARA ordinance requirements. If the District believes the ordinance is not in
compliance with the GMA, then the remedy is appealing to the Growth Management
Hearings Board or the court.
• Jurisdictions who indicated no issues encountered in response to this question include: City
of Tumwater, City of Walla Walla, City of Spokane, Clark County, Thurston County, and King
County.
• Four Horsemen Brewery
1. Local county codes do not have acceptable surface materials listed as pervious and
exempt from permitting for new or new plus replaced surfaces. Counties should not be
allowed to word codes in a manner that require critical area reviews for any change of
use or for using your property for economic vitality.
Counties are using the GMA as a trigger for permits without being required to have rules
set for how they are allowed to make requirements, or what must be exempt because
of how long it has existed and not data shows any change to aquifer recharge or
contamination, which if true would necessitate monitoring.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 107
Packet Pg. 181
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Currently if an existing driveway is even raked or smoothed out, the county claims that
is a change of surface material, and thus requires a permit for surface water
management (SWM FEE).
2. There are no exemptions for land uses and parking areas to be exempt from
contaminants of customer vehicles for home businesses when local county roads do not
have sewer drainage systems or processing facilities for vehicle contaminants currently
allowed on roads.
3. There is no square footage minimum table for pervious surfaces compared to
impervious surface calculations. Ex. Does a 1500 sq ft impervious surface need 1500 sq
ft of natural vegetation to constitute full infiltration? Does it need 1500 sq ft of natural
vegetation located on the lower elevation from impervious surfaces.
Response: The state Critical Aquifer Recharge Area guidance is not specific to localities
enough to answer your question. This guidance does not address surface water
management fees. This guidance defers to other guidance that reflects expertise for
impervious surfaces, such as stormwater guidance. The Ecology stormwater manuals
have material on parking areas. This guidance cannot specifically exempt land use
practices because that is a function of local planning and ordinances. Local ordinances
are deemed valid unless successfully appealed before the Growth Management
Hearings Board or the court. It is possible that the Department of Commerce Growth
Management Services could provide more information about land use regulation and
critical areas, especially when it comes to what counties may or may not do.
• Constance Ibsen
Comment: Deliberate lack acknowledgement of CARAs by decision makers, i.e. No
implementation or enforcement of WWGMHB decisions.
Response: Ecology does not directly regulate the implementation or enforcement of
Growth Management Hearings Board decisions. Ecology provides guidance and review and
comment when resources allow.
The GMHB decisions apply to the jurisdiction under appeal. The Department of Commerce
Critical Areas Handbook136 Chapter 1 discusses the applicability of Court and Growth
Management Hearings Board decisions to other jurisdictions:
The GMA affords local government significant discretion in how they achieve
compliance. While this provides a significant degree of flexibility, it also creates a lack
of certainty. In reviewing critical area protection programs for compliance, local
governments are encouraged to review decisions made by the Growth Management
Hearings Board and Washington state courts. While Hearings Board decisions are not
binding on jurisdictions not subject to a particular appeal, they provide guidance on
236 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/critical-areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 108
Packet Pg. 182
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
how the Board may decide future appeals. Court of Appeals decisions are binding on
jurisdictions within their district, and provide persuasive precedent for other
jurisdictions. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all jurisdictions in the state.
Local government consideration of court and hearings board decisions can help build
defensible and effective critical area protection programs.
• City of Redmond
Comment: The City of Redmond is complying with the GMA for CARAs. Two challenges
faced by the City include:
1. Reclaimed water and source control: The Department of Health is tasked with
encouraging the use of reclaimed water and protecting source water. There is no
guidance on how to balance the two issues in CARAs that are shallow and unconfined,
such as Redmond's, that may be impaired if reclaimed water infiltrates into the aquifer.
Response: This sounds similar to a situation in Thurston County, where there is a
reclaimed water infiltration project by LOTT, the wastewater utility. Due to concerns
within the community with reclaimed water and potential impacts to groundwater
quality, LOTT initiated a multi -year infiltration study23'. Thurston County is awaiting the
results of that study prior to proposing critical area regulations (Chapter 24.10.190 —
Reclaimed Water238).
2. Temporary Construction Dewatering: The withdrawal of groundwater for temporary
construction dewatering (TCD) is not considered a beneficial use and therefore does not
need a water right. TCD can have an impact on a local jurisdiction's ability to manage
groundwater withdrawals to maintain availability for drinking water sources. With no
water right necessary, it is up to the local jurisdiction alone to regulate TCD. To provide
a context of scale, three of the City of Redmond supply wells have pumped 4.5 billion
gallons of groundwater over the past nine years. During that same time period, TCD
projects have pumped more than 13 billion gallons of groundwater out of the aquifer.
Response: Given that the state does not regulate temporary construction dewatering
via water rights, it would be up to the local jurisdiction to develop plans and ordinances
The guidance does not currently address dewatering. You are welcome to suggest
language on this topic during review of the draft.
237 https://Iottcleanwater.org/projects/reclaimed-water-infiltration-study/
238
https:Hlibrary. municode.com/wa/thurston_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=TIT24CRAR_CH24
10CRAQREAR 24.10.190REWA
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 109
Packet Pg. 183
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Best Available Science
What are the challenges your jurisdiction faces for including Best Available Science for
designating and protecting Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas? What would help?
• Pacific Groundwater Group submitting for King County Water District #90
Comment: The watershed could benefit by new groundwater -surface water modeling.
There are no recent basin -level studies of the water resources in WRIA 9.
Response: We agree with this comment. It relates to best available science, water
availability, and anadromous fisheries. Other jurisdictions have used grant funding from
Ecology to study stream flow and permit -exempt well issues. Stevens County did such a
study that is useful for stream flow restoration, water availability, and best available science
for critical aquifer recharge areas. We are referencing their study as an appendix to the
guidance as an excellent example of best available science.
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department
Comment: Our entire jurisdiction is designated as a CARA. I assume this is because all of
our soils have extreme, high, or moderate sensitivity and designating the whole city as such
is easier than having a patchwork. Might also have something to do with the history
Tumwater has with groundwater contamination and sensitivity around that issue.
Response: City-wide protection of the underlying aquifer often makes sense, especially
when there are municipal wells at risk of contamination plus commercial and industrial
activities that need to prevent contamination.
• City of Walla Walla
Comment: I would say the technical expertise. Our CARA's were identified as part of the
original CAO in 2008 but if an update were needed then resources to assist with the
technical side.
Response: Resources to assist with the technical side are very important. The question is
where the funding comes from and who would do the work. Ecology provides grants that
may be used for technical Critical Aquifer Recharge Area best available science
development, although applications for grants must compete against other proposals.
Consultants and the USGS have been used for technical assistance. Ecology has limited
resources to assist when resources are available.
• City of Spokane
Comment: The City of Spokane utilizes critical aquifer recharge areas designated by
Spokane County.
Response: This is a good approach.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 110
Packet Pg. 184
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District
Comment: Best Available Science (BAS) is appropriate for designation of CARA areas, but
not necessarily for protection.
Response: Protecting critical aquifer recharge areas depends on keeping contaminants from
going onto or into the ground. This typically involves standard best management practices
like secondary containment, spill and leak prevention, and many others. It also involves best
available science for understanding treatment technology effectiveness and strategies such
as using Low Impact Development.
Comment: The current emphasis on the Quantity of water to be recharged in the CARA, and
less emphasis on Quality of the water being recharged. Quality is included in the guidance,
but Quantity without associated quality consideration and/or monitoring seems to
dominate local regulations and reviews.
The review of quality of water proposed for recharge into a drinking water CARA needs to
include performance requirements and monitoring, or not being allowed.
Low Impact Development (LID) requirements frequently require or favor infiltration of
stormwater (quantity).
Equal weight needs to be provided to the quality, particularly those stormwater systems
that collect for roads or areas where herbicides and pesticides are likely to be in use.
Response: The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area guidance is statewide and does include both
quality and quantity. In the case of stormwater, much effort has gone into monitoring
stormwater to determine what the contaminants generally are, and what treatment
technologies remove contaminants. The monitoring and technology components of
stormwater management are extensively dealt with by the Ecology Stormwater manuals
and the UIC program. The UIC program is statewide, while the stormwater permits cover
populous counties and cities across the state.
Local regulations can be commented on and appealed during updates. Project reviews are
up to local jurisdiction requirements and are subject to the State Environmental Protection
Act239 (SEPA) and the Land Use Procedures Act240 (LUPA).
• Four Horsemen Brewery
Comment: Counties do not provide what aquifer levels are, and there is no bench mark for
what they should be maintained at.
239 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauIt.aspx?cite=43.21C
240 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70C
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 111
Packet Pg. 185
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Response: Some Counties do monitor aquifer levels — However that is a resource intensive
activity.
Comment: King county uses the GMA to trigger permits for the counties revenues and has
no limits on what they can require. The amount of rainfall in western Washington far
exceeds the eastern side of the state, where wells and water use is very limited and
completely dependent on the aquifer levels and its recharge. Adjustments should be based
on average rainfall, soil type, and if impervious surfaces allowance should be adjusted to the
soil types surrounding the surface. No chart exists for minimum infiltration rates needed
and what soil types exceed that, and should not require permitting for X (sq ft) amount of
impervious surface per X (sq ft) of surrounding soil types.
Response: Impervious surfaces are regulated at the state level by the stormwater program, which
issues permits, develops guidance, and develops tools. The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Guidance
draft refers to the Ecology Stormwater program and points out the importance of recharge for
groundwater quality and quantity. For more information about how impervious surfaces are
regulated at the state level, see the Ecology Stormwater web page241 that also has a link to the
Ecology contact for stormwater.
• City of Vancouver
Comment: A standardized list of best available science actions/submittals would provide
consistency across WA. The wetlands and stormwater guidance manuals provide a list. This
recommend listing provides support to the community as staff incorporate those actions
into policy.
Response: Volume IV of the 2019 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, and
Chapter 8 of the 2019 Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington242 are on pollution
prevention using source control BMPs. Most of these BMPs are applicable to groundwater
protection, since preventing contamination at the ground surface prevents groundwater
contamination. See Section 4, Step 6 of the newly revised guidance for more information.
• Constance Ibsen
Comment: BAS is not used. Decision makers state there is no agreement on BAS. Withhold
planning funds till jurisdiction demonstrates implementation of existing CARA ordinance.
241 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Stormwater-permittee-
guidance-resources
242
https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Perm its/Flare/2019SW MMEW/2019SW MMEW.htm#Topics/Chapt
er8_SourceControl/Chapter8_ Title Page. htm%3FTocPath%3D2019%2520SW MMEW %7CChapter%2520
8%2520-%2520Source%2520Control%7C 0
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 112
Packet Pg. 186
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Response: Ecology does not distribute or control planning funds, that is a function of the
Department of Commerce. In addition, the Growth Management Hearings Board or the
court may impact planning funds for jurisdictions who do not comply with orders.
• City of Redmond
Comment: The City of Redmond used Best Available Science (BAS) to designate our CARA
and currently uses BAS to protect our CARA. Challenges occur during implementation of the
conclusions from the BAS when there are conflicting interests, such as reclaimed water and
source control as noted in the answer to question 1. More references or links within Section
4 of the CARA guidance would be helpful for municipalities with less resources that have
trouble using BAS. For example, provide links to example wellhead protection zone plans,
USGS studies, state studies, etc. instead of a list (page 28 of the guidance).
Response: We agree with this comment and have added more specific information and links
to resources.
Permit Process
How could the guidance help with the review and approval process?
• Thurston County
Comment: Our county struggles with the different authorities between the health officer
and building official, and we are probably not alone. Guidance could provide some case
studies of jurisdictions (counties and cities) that have successfully bridged this gap in their
review process.
Response: This is a really important point and we would like to include more information on
this. We need more input from jurisdictions who have tackled this issue successfully.
Comment: At the state level there are all kinds of requirements that concern water and
should be related, but state regulators are compartmentalized and don't coordinate (even
within Ecology). County staff are always trying to balance requirements, and different
pieces of the state may be providing different direction: storm water, health, water use,
GMA, etc., etc. Guidance could help by acknowledging/understanding the role of other
existing water -related requirements, and provide tips on how to effectively and efficiently
integrate them where they overlap or complement.
Response: We strongly agree with this comment. We have tried to include helpful
information in the guidance. The review of the draft may produce some additional
recommendations. If there were resources and authorization, it would be a good idea for
Ecology to work on this more between programs together.
• Four Horsemen Brewery
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 113
Packet Pg. 187
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Comment: Guidance is not helpful when permitting staff does not offer guidance, but only
offers enforcement and overcharging for permits. A county can claim that once a property
has above 5,000 (sq ft) of impervious surface, it will always require a permit for any
addition, even when no evidence shows aquifer recharge rates being affected. It would be
helpful if properties and structures with approved BMP's, could be considered pervious
because they have the flow control needed to make them pervious. Staff is trained to
always use the GMA and surface water management as a trigger for permitting for staff and
county revenues.
Response: The requirement for a permit and fees is a county decision that has to go
through proper procedure to be enacted. The critical aquifer recharge area guidance cannot
really address this.
• Constance Ibsen
Comment: Add Ecology to the permitting process until County demonstrates understands
and is implementing its CARA ordinance.
Response: There are many aspects of development that are regulated on the local level.
Ecology does not have a way to be added to the local permitting process, except through
already established authorities, such as through SEPA.
• City of Redmond
Comment: The CARA Guidance could help with the review and approval process by
including an additional topic in Section 5 to specifically focus on what some jurisdictions
require for land -use applications within a CARA.
For example, the critical areas regulations found in the City of Redmond's zoning code (RZC
21.64.050) includes a list of prohibited activities within wellhead protection zones and
wellhead protection zone performance standards that are applied to properties and new
land -use activities within the CARA.
Response: This is a very good idea. I have included example code for allowed, permitted
with conditions, and prohibited uses from Thurston County in Appendix C — Code Examples.
Comment: The City of Redmond also requires a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area report for all
new land -use proposals located within the CARA. The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area report
includes either a Level I or Level II hydrogeological assessment with the level of study
commensurate to the risk to wellhead protection areas associated with the proposed land -
use activities (RZC 21.64.050 Appendix 1,F.).
The CARA report evaluates the existing condition of the proposed development parcel,
proposed changes to the parcel that may impact groundwater quality and quantity, and
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 114
Packet Pg. 188
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
proposed measures to mitigate or prevent impacts to groundwater as a result of the
project.
Response: I have added the City of Redmond code for reports to Appendix C — Code
Examples. I have also added a section on reports to the guidance.
Comment: The City of Redmond also prohibits infiltration of storm water from pollution
generating hard surfaces within portions of the CARA. This information is included in the
City's Stormwater Technical Notebook which is the approved storm water manual for
projects in Redmond.
All of the previous types of development review requirements could be useful examples to
any jurisdiction looking for guidance on implementing effective CARA regulations.
Response: We appreciate this comment and recommend that other jurisdictions look at the
City of Redmond's groundwater protection programs, plans, and ordinances.
Mapping
Does your jurisdiction map Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas? If not, what does your jurisdiction
need to map them?
(Please see overall response at the end of this section.)
• Pacific Groundwater Group submitting for King County Water District #90: No, [we] rely on
King County.
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: The county has a pretty high resolution of
critical recharge areas. Does not really matter for us since the entire city boundary is a
CARA, but we do map our wellhead areas. We did this in 2016 using a numerical modelling
approach.
• City of Walla Walla: Yes
• Thurston County: Yes, we map them. Current maps were made based on soils data. It would
be desirable to be able to map based on surficial geologic map and newer LiDAR, rather
than soils, and have a way to update with new information from reports that come in for
specific sites.
• City of Spokane: The City of Spokane utilizes maps created by Spokane County.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Yes
• Four Horsemen Brewery: Yes, it does have pretty colors to show the CARA, but this is not
actually based on surrounding properties with wells needing aquifer water and does not
adjust to parcels having city water lines, and no buffers are made around existing wells that
depend on surface water BMP's. It is just an overdrawn boundary to require permits for an
over -permitting scheme.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 115
Packet Pg. 189
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• Constance Ibsen: Political will.
• City of Redmond: Yes, Redmond's CARAs are mapped. Redmond has a GIS section and
mapping is not an obstacle.
Overall Response: The guidance includes information about mapping and resources that are
helpful for mapping. This question helped us get an idea of mapping of Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas by local jurisdictions.
Data Resources
What data resources would be helpful to you?
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: A centralized list of potential contaminant
sites would be nice.
Response: Ecology's Facility/Site Atlas is an online map of facilities and sites that Ecology
regulates. The Department of Health uses Facility/Site to show potential sources of
contamination within wellhead protection zones. The guidance references both the source
water protection online map of wellhead protection zones, as well as the Facility/Site Atlas.
The Ecology online map "What's In My Neighborhood""' shows toxic cleanup sites that have been
identified, which will give a good idea of what has caused groundwater contamination in the past.
• Thurston County: It would be helpful to provide technical support for updating maps
(including updated data layers)
Response: We strongly agree with this statement and we think it would be a good idea to
develop a GIS/online map of drinking water aquifers, which depends on resources. The
Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the USGS have been working
together toward subsurface mapping. There are many mapping resources at Geologic
Information Portal I WA - DNR244
• City of Spokane: More in-depth information on business activity risk potential would be
helpful.
Response: Business activity risk potential depends on the chemicals in use, the quantities,
how they are stored, how they are transferred from one container to another, how releases
are prevented during use, the structural components of pollution prevention (such as
secondary containment), the training employees have to address spills and leaks, and on-
going maintenance of pollution prevention structures and practices.
243 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood/
244 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geologyportal
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 116
Packet Pg. 190
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Ecology's 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington Chapter 8 —
Source Contro1241 has information about potential polluting sources. In addition to outdoor
controls to prevent stormwater contamination, pollution prevention controls should be
applied to indoor activities as well.
We also recommend looking at the contaminated sites list referenced in the guidance to see
what land use activities have resulted in cleanup sites.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: It would be helpful to have data on impervious surface (types and
depth) on the quality of aquifer recharge rates and contamination levels based on soil
types.
Response: Impervious surfaces retard aquifer recharge rates and separate water infiltration
from the underlying soil. The impact of soil characteristics on aquifer recharge rates and
contamination levels would be another question. There is a wide variety of conditions
across the state that factor into aquifer recharge rates, as well as contamination levels.
Contamination levels depend on the contaminant as well as surface and subsurface
conditions. A good source for the rate at which soils transmit water is the Washington NRCS
Soil Survey. The Soil Survey also has soil properties relevant for contaminant transport, such
as organic matter content and cation exchange capacity. The draft guidance refers and links
to the Washington NRCS online Soil Survey application.
City of Vancouver: A comprehensive contaminated sites layer that's accessible and can be
incorporated into local GIS (City/County). The City of Vancouver keeps a separate database
which duplicates efforts and requires significant effort to stay up-to-date.
Response: Several online data resources are included in the draft guidance, including the
Washington State Department of Ecology Facility/Site Application246 and the Ecology online
map "What's In My Neighborhood247" that shows toxic cleanup sites.
• Constance Ibsen: CARA parcel maps, inventory of existing hazardous sites on GIS layer,
monitoring & compliance activities notes.
Response: Parcel maps are available in GIS, so it would depend on whether the CARAs are
mapped in GIS. If so, they would be overlain on the parcel map. One city actually mapped
CARAs using parcel boundaries. For hazardous sites, see the above response to the City of
Vancouver. Monitoring has two elements: 1) Monitoring for compliance and 2)
245
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/Perm its/Flare/2019SW MMEW/2019SW MMEW.htm#Topics/Chapt
er8_SourceControl/App—UrbLandUsesAndPollutionGenSources/ManufacturingBusinesses.htm%3FTocP
ath%3D2019%2520SW M MEW%7CChapter%25208%2520-
%2520Source%2520Control%7CAppendix%25208-
A%253A%2520Urban%2520Land%2520Uses%2520and%2520Pollution-
Generating%2520Sources%7C 2
246 https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Facility-Site-database
247 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 117
Packet Pg. 191
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
environmental monitoring. The guidance has information on where to find groundwater
monitoring data. Monitoring for compliance is a local function. You may find Appendix A of
the draft guidance illumining — It includes Issaquah's program for inspections and tracking.
• City of Redmond
Comment: Updated list of emerging contaminants, their source activities and monitoring
techniques.
Response: This is a very large and complex question that deserves to be developed. The
draft does not currently address emerging contaminants. Reclaimed water facilities with
extensive groundwater studies are good sources of information — such as the LOTT facility in
Thurston County. Ecology's web page for more information: Reclaimed water - Washington
State Department of Ecology248, and Contaminants of Emerging Concern - Washington State
Department of Ecology249. Ecology also has numerous publications on reclaimed water, and
at least one on emerging contaminants (search Ecology Publication s250). The USGS has done
numerous studies on emerging contaminants.
Comment: Table 1 (page 31) could be updated to include regulation and guidance for LID,
specifically related to recharge.
Response: The draft guidance refers to the Ecology Stormwater program for information on
LID.
Comment: High density growth within the CARA can provide challenges to monitoring the
groundwater. Standards for conducting groundwater monitoring near basements, etc. in
the water table would be helpful to ensure monitoring efforts are providing accurate
results.
Response: Groundwater monitoring is a vast topic. The specific case of groundwater
monitoring near basements and understanding potential interference for obtaining
accurate results would require specific research or finding such research, and the draft
guidance doesn't have anything that specific.
Implementation — Question 1
How does your jurisdiction address groundwater protection beyond building permits?
(Please see overall response at the end of this section.)
2411 https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/Water-ShoreIinesMater-quality/Reclaimed-water
249 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Wastewater/Contaminants-of-Emerging-
Concern
250 https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/UlPages/Search Publications.aspx
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 118
Packet Pg. 192
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: Stormwater regs. Also... our CARA rules
restrict certain land uses and on top of that our WHPA regs restrict others. With the help of
Thurston County, we inspect businesses to make sure they have BMPs in place to reduce
the potential for discharges. We also have a groundwater monitoring program, where we
take quarterly samples throughout our WHPAs as an early detection tool.
• City of Walla Walla: Primarily building permits but we do have CARA's mapped so if a
project is proposed within the boundary our CAO provides guidance on what can and can't
be done.
• Thurston County: We have a hazardous waste program with limited funding and we have
some monitoring.
• City of Spokane: The City has several activities that are aimed at protecting ground water.
These include hazardous waste drop off, storm water handling and disposal, and sewering
requirements. Business are also required to comply with the critical materials ordinance
and above ground and underground storage tank requirements.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Not a land use agency, so we do not issue
building permits, but as a water purveyor we work to monitor applications for development
(building permits, tenant improvements, subdivisions, etc.), to verify any activities
associated with the development that might impact groundwater quality, particularly in our
Wellhead Protection areas. We look for proposals to inject and/or infiltrate stormwater and
also to the type of development and whether they may have hazardous materials on site
when completed that need to be included in the contaminant inventory.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: It requires permits for ANY SURFACE change, considers Grassed
Modular Grid Pavement impervious, and even requires a permit for me to maintain my
driveway when grading it sustainably for 30 years. It words its code in a way that mowing
my lawn can be considered a surface material change retarding water infiltration rates if
over 2,000 sq ft and requires a permit.
• Constance Ibsen: In reality, Mason county does not even consider CARAs in building
permits.
• City of Redmond: Development review, groundwater quality monitoring, water table
monitoring, contaminated site cleanup monitoring, coordination with Ecology, pollution
prevention inspections to businesses and outreach to community.
Overall response: Thank you for this information, it is valuable and much appreciated. We have
added a section on implementation that discusses authority, compliance monitoring, program
integration, and groundwater monitoring. If you have suggestions for improvement, please let
us know.
Implementation — Question 2
What are the challenges you see with respect to implementation?
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 119
Packet Pg. 193
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: I am not sure if it presents a challenge, but
one thing I wish we had was better communication across different departments within our
jurisdiction. Would be nice know we're catching wind of all development projects that
could create problems. This is partly a data/software thing. I'm sure our permit program
could facilitate knowledge sharing, but it does not do that too well in this regard.
Response: We agree with this comment. It would be helpful if there was grant funding for a
project to address this and the results shared, since this is common to many jurisdictions.
We have added a section to the draft that includes sharing information across departments
(Section 11).
• City of Walla Walla: If additional requirements are included as a result of the guidance
update what resources may be available to assist or does it become an unfunded mandate.
Response: We have added to the draft recognition of funding and resource limitations and
that funding and resources vary widely across the state. Grants can help.
• Thurston County:
Comment: Focus should shift away from new regulations to provide more support for the
existing regulations. There is no requirement for ongoing monitoring or inspections, and
very limited funding to support it, so counties can't follow up unless they get a complaint.
Response: We have added a section on Implementation —Authority, Monitoring, and
Program Integration that addresses monitoring and inspections, with recognition of
funding/resource limitations.
Comment: Limited technical expertise when doing reviews to identify issues.
Response: This is a significant problem across the entire state, especially for small
jurisdictions.
Comment: We need a better process to keep CARA-based assessments up-to-date. Modern
data are not included in CARA-base assessments. No mechanism appears to exist to factor
in modern data, or on-goingly include additional data:
1) Wellhead protection area assessments: groundwater flow and transport information
from modern and updated WHPAs
2) Recent groundwater sampling and monitoring results,
3) Hazardous materials locations,
4) Known contaminated sites,
5) Updated knowledge of chemistry/chemicals of concern,
6) Modern soils mapping,
7) 3D geologic mapping,
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 120
Packet Pg. 194
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
8) Confining layers' extents,
9) Water/wastewater systems' information,
10) Groundwater modeling,
11) LiDAR,
12) Pumping location/rate knowledge
All of these are highly beneficial to CARA-based site assessments, but are often excluded
from reviews. Data we have are not routinely part of the CARA assessment process.
Response: I strongly agree that these are very useful to have and ought to be developed so
that people can access and use them more easily. I think it would greatly help groundwater
protection, and would also help surface water/stormwater pollution prevention and
understanding the groundwater/surface water regime. It would take dedicated resources to
accomplish a better information integration. Some of these items are available online and
we have detailed them in the draft guidance. The Washington Geological Survey is involved
with a 3D geologic mapping project with the USGS. The USGS has developed groundwater
models for large areas of the state, and information from these models and the
accompanying reports are very useful.
• City of Spokane
Comment: Aquifers cross jurisdictional boundaries. Need to have uniform regulations.
Response: We have added a section on Interjurisdictional coordination (Section 10). In
addition, Chapter 1 of the Dept. of Commerce Growth Management Services Critical Areas
Handbook"' has a section on Regional Planning Efforts.
Comment: Unclear overlap of regulations intra-media and inter -media (i.e. Municipal
NPDES, Industrial NPDES, UIC, SDWA, etc.). A diagram or flowchart visually identifying the
overlap and the agency responsible for regulation would be helpful to the user of the
guidance document.
Response: We agree with this comment and have revised the section on working with state
and federal laws and rules to be more complete. A diagram is a good idea.
Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Since we are not a land use agency, and do
not have certain police powers, implementation depends on the land use agency having
regulations that clearly address protection of the aquifer resource for new developments
and existing land owners.
Response: This situation makes it difficult for purveyors to protect groundwater they
depend on. We have added a paragraph in Section 4, Step 6 highlighting this concern.
"I https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/critical-
areas/
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 121
Packet Pg. 195
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Four Horsemen Brewery: The county codes are designed as a means to overcharge citizens
for permits. It needs to be changed to allow citizens to construct with due diligence and
awareness of infiltration rates for projects or changes of use or property use to allow
maintaining your property and lessen the overcharging for permits. It should instead offer
the BMP's as a guide for citizens to use for projects less than the max impervious surface
allowed on a parcel, and permitting staff could be paid permitting fees for people who want
guidance and lack experience with such control measures.
Response: The requirement for a permit and fees is a county decision that has to go
through proper procedure to be enacted. The critical aquifer recharge area guidance cannot
really address this.
City of Vancouver: There are multiple actions that have no clear oversight triggers for the
CARA responsible staff. See the next #8 response for particular challenges: NPDES,
secondary permittees, federal projects in Sole Source Aquifer areas, etc.
Response: The city would need to develop oversight triggers through the comprehensive
plan and development ordinances. See our response to the comment you mention. We
have added a section on implementation to the draft.
• Constance Ibsen: NO political will.
• City of Redmond: Monitoring - keeping up with pace of development and changing source
areas for municipal water supply wells during temporary construction dewatering activities.
Urban environments become complex to monitor. There are challenges in balancing
development and preservation of natural resources.
Response: These are very challenging areas to deal with especially in light of how limited
resources are.
Implementation — Question 3
What would you like to see addressed in the guidance revision with respect to
implementation?
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: It would be cool to see some guidance about
groundwater monitoring. What would a robust, mid -range, and a basic monitoring program
look like? Also, I wish it was easier to get a good inventory of potential contaminant sites.
As is its kind of difficult to compile this information.
Response: This subject deserves an entire manual — the draft guidance will not be able to be
completely detailed, but we can offer an overview. We have added information about
groundwater monitoring options to the draft guidance.
The draft guidance contains information about online resources to inventory potential
contamination sources.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 122
Packet Pg. 196
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• City of Walla Walla: Better understanding if there is technical assistance available at DOE
and navigating to know who to speak with.
Response: Ecology provides technical assistance mainly through Water Quality Program
Regional Office Senior Hydrogeologists, when resources allow. Contacts are listed on
Ecology's web page for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
• Thurston County: Solutions to address those challenges.
Response: We have done what we can in the draft and welcome further suggestions.
• City of Spokane: Some kind of state minimum standards so that could be some consistency
across jurisdictional boundaries.
Response: The draft guidance refers to the Growth Management Act Minimum Guidelines
in Chapter 365-190 WAC, and we have added a section on Interjurisdictional coordination.
The GMA allows for differences in local conditions — See Section 7 — Adapting to Local
Conditions and Settings.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Our water service area includes 3
jurisdictions, each with different practices for existing sites with potential contaminant
sources. While each jurisdiction includes CARAs in the Critical Area Ordinances, only one
jurisdiction has a program for source control inspections for businesses with quantities of
hazardous materials over a certain threshold. Requiring source control inspections would be
an added benefit.
Response: We agree with this comment and have added a section on inter -jurisdictional
coordination to the draft.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: Guidance should be given for projects that change a soil
topography with more than 3' and affect infiltration rates while giving materials exempt
from needing Clearing and grading permits for Surface Water Management.
Here is a recent result from the hearing examiner of king county. 23. Source -
(https://www.kingcountV.gov/—/media/independent/hearing-examiner/documents/case-
digest/appeals/code-
enforcement/2018/2018%20august/ENFR170114Supp Butler.ashx?la=en)
Thus, anyone who works any ground or vegetation in King County, in almost any manner,
would presumptively have "cleared" or "graded." Each person who mows the lawn in the
summer, prunes back the hedges in the fall, or adds some gravel to fill in a walkway's wet
low spots in the winter, would have the burden to affirmatively demonstrate a narrowly -
interpreted exemption to the requirement to obtain a permit.
Response: This is up to the local jurisdiction and more detailed than the draft guidance can
address at this time.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 123
Packet Pg. 197
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• City of Vancouver: We'd also like to see the guidance talk more about oversight of other
NPDES permits like sand and gravel and industrial general permits plus the secondary
permittees like the Port and other permitted agencies like WSDOT. They don't typically
require our oversight through the land use/planning process but in the name of protecting
groundwater, we would want them to come in for a review.
Response: This is going to require more research - I believe local jurisdictions can require
that permittees submit a copy of the application to the city, and that the city can inspect
and require compliance with the permit if the city gives itself authority in its ordinances.
Some jurisdictions require compliance with state laws and regulations. Some jurisdictions
adopt state laws and rules by reference. It would be a function of the local ordinance to
require that permittees with a state permit submit information to the city. In addition to the
GMA, Title 35, Chapter 35.88 RCW252 gives towns and cities broad authority to protect
water supplies from pollution.
• Constance Ibsen: Using example of SMP, Ecology review and approve and enforce CARAs,
not Commerce.
Response: From Ecology's website:
The Shoreline Management Act213 (SMA) requires all counties and most towns and cities
with shorelines to develop and implement Shoreline Master Programs 254. The law
also defines our role in reviewing and approving local programs. The SMA was passed by the
Washington Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in 1972. Its overarching goal is "to
prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's
shorelines."
It would require legislation, rule development, program development, and resources to
have a similar program for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
City of Spokane: An implementation plan of rules to be protective of the aquifer should be a
bullet in Section 1 as an element of a good groundwater protection program.
Response: Good comment, we have added a bullet for this in Section 1 as an element of a
good groundwater protection program. We have also added a section on implementation to
the draft guidance. We welcome any additional suggestions you may have.
City of Redmond: More emphasis on health of aquifer, not just the time -of -travel zones, to
set up the context for the guidance in the introduction. Consideration of how source area
for supply wells may change due to external forces, such as temporary construction
252 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.88
253 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58
254 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-
planning/Shoreline-Master-Programs
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 124
Packet Pg. 198
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
dewatering. An example quality assurance planning checklist in Section 4 would be helpful.
Solution planning for contaminant challenges.
Response: We hope we have made the need to prevent groundwater contamination across
aquifers clear in the draft. We are not sure about the quality assurance planning checklist —
Are you referring to a checklist for groundwater monitoring? It would help to understand
more about what contaminant challenges you would like to see solution planning for.
Cross -Jurisdiction
If your jurisdiction has a well or a well protection area in another jurisdiction, what has been
your experience with dealing with challenges and solutions for the associated Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area protection?
(Please see overall response at the end of this section.)
City of Sumas, Kyle Christensen, Mayor: When looking at our aquifer, the fear that always
crosses my mind is in regards to contamination from runoff of farm manure and pesticides.
The major feedback I would give is in regards to wellhead protection areas and the
protection policies in place. Currently, we easily enough protect our wells located within
City limits; however, we would have to rely on the County to safeguard our wells at May Rd
and beyond. I would love if our City had a say in any developments that happen within
proximity of those wells.
Response: This is a very common concern that would be helpful to address. We have added
Section 10 on Interjurisdictional coordination to the draft.
City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: Parts of our WHPA's do bleed into the county
(inside and outside the UGA). From my limited experience coordination has been good. I
guess the worst case scenario would be where the county permitted some sort of
problematic activity within our WHPA. I've never seen that, nor have I heard of that
happening in the past.
• City of Walla Walla: Challenge would be within the urban growth area where the City does
not have permitting authority. One change the City made in 2014 was to require
annexation for connection to city utilities. On -going coordination with the County is key
and something that requires constant work.
• Thurston County: Cities - who can require a business license, may not understand which
new businesses may use hazardous materials or pose a threat to groundwater — [They]
don't route the application to health officials to review. Even if they did, the county has no
funding to do the review, and no resources. Here is a recent example:
https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article222965980.html.
Response: This concern is common to many or most jurisdictions in the state. It takes
resources to protect the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Prevention
is expensive — Contamination is more expensive. We have added an appendix on the cost of
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 125
Packet Pg. 199
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
contamination to the draft. We have also added information on Critical Materials
inventories that some jurisdictions require to be submitted.
• City of Spokane: There is a lack of communication between jurisdictions. Water districts do
not always receive SEPA notifications of projects that within their wellhead protection
areas. Jurisdictions are not always aware of the potential impacts to wellhead protection
areas.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: See answer to questions 6-8.
There was also an issue where the land use agency allowed and then took ownership of a
UIC in an area that posed a threat to a drinking water well, and did not consult with our
jurisdiction prior to development and implementation of the structure. It took legal action
to manage the situation.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: Code enforcement officers use the code to burden responsible
home owners and require them to get permits for anything you do on your property. Codes
are written in a way that the change of use for a property would not have a path to
compliance because a county can word its codes in a way that restricts any activity on a
property without a minimum amount of exemptions they must offer in design of their
policies. If the county does not have surface water management on its county roads,
citizens should be exempt from surface water management on their properties.
• Constance Ibsen: Mason County does not recognize CARAs. Adjoining jurisdictions would
need to address [them].
City of Spokane: The guidance document would benefit from a cross -sectional view of 2
intersecting cones of depression to visually identify for the user of the manual how a single
well can influence another, as well as promote contaminant migration.
Response: This is a good idea. We have updated the contaminant transport schematic to
illustrate the cone of depression and the concept that pumping wells can draw
contamination toward the well within the capture zone.
City of Redmond: The City of Redmond's CARA extends beyond the City boundaries. One
challenge is the application of reclaimed water on the CARA. The City worked with King
County to develop an MOU to establish a cooperative relationship regarding the use of
reclaimed water within Redmond's CARA, including areas extending outside the City's
boundaries.
Overall Response: Inter -jurisdiction coordination is a very common concern that is a significant
challenge to address. The comments provide valuable insights into the difficulties local
jurisdictions face and will be very useful for continuing discussions. We have added Section 10
on Interjurisdictional coordination to the draft. We welcome additional suggestions.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 126
Packet Pg. 200
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Funding
Please describe how your groundwater protection efforts are funded. If you do not have
sufficient funding, please feel free to state what your funding needs are in order to meet the
requirements of the Growth Management Act for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
(Please see overall response at the end of this section.)
• Pacific Groundwater Group submitting for King County Water District #90: All efforts are
included as part of the District's Group A water system planning requirements under the
Department of Health. Additional efforts beyond this are difficult to undertake due to costs
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: Water rates and occasionally grants. I don't
think any funding issues are preventing us from meeting requirements.
• City of Walla Walla: Not a dedicated funding source. Probably through water plan update
and then implementing the CAO through building permit review.
• Thurston County: All permitting staff are funded by permit fees. There are very limited
options for general or proactive groundwater protection efforts, and very limited staff
available to respond to compliance complaints. Groundwater protection programs cut off
since the Site Hazard Assessment funding ended. Jurisdictions would need funding to
update CARA maps and data.
• City of Spokane: The Water department conducts groundwater testing of the Spokane
Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer using utility fees. The Fire department has inspectors and
storage tank permits funded from permit fees and the general fund. Storm water is funded
by utility charges.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Funds are provided through our water rates,
and in some cases for new developments, through monies collected during development for
review and approval of proposals within the CARA.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: I am a small business trying to gain economic vitality in the rural
area. I am a school teacher and am actively working with hundreds of businesses that are
affected by the county successfully "Complying" with the state GMA, but ignoring state laws
regarding small business, rural economies, and increasing the economic vitality of rural
area. We are not paid, but only affect with the closure of our businesses from permitting
staff.
• City of Redmond: The City of Redmond is the water purveyor and uses money generated
from the water rates to fund groundwater protection efforts.
Overall Response: We have added information on funding sources provided in these comments
to the draft under Section 11— Implementation —Authority, Monitoring, and Program
Integration.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 127
Packet Pg. 201
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Long Range Plans — Question 1
When developing, or amending, long range plans does your jurisdiction consider the long
term availability or protection of groundwater?
(Please see overall response at the end of this section.)
• Pacific Groundwater Group submitting for King County Water District #90: Only as related
to 10, above.
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: Long term availability... yes. The specific
example I am thinking of is our water system plan update we're currently working on. It has
a section on climate impacts to our aquifer over the next many, many years. (One thing it
does not do is consider the impacts of full UGA build -out, which would be interesting.)
Looks like our comp plan deals with this some too. Also of note is the North Thurston
County Groundwater Management Plan. Protection... also yes. The conservation element
of our comp plan deals a lot with this.
• Clark County: Multiple long range plans address availability and protection of ground water
in some fashion: The coordinated water system plan, stormwater management plan,
comprehensive plan, and water resource management plans for WRIAs. The two WRIA
plans are by far the most comprehensive and direct in addressing water supply. The
county's stormwater plan and associated code addresses water quality the most
comprehensively.
• City of Walla Walla: Long term availability is primarily addressed through our water system
plan which is currently being updated.
• Thurston County: Yes, however this is a new area of focus since the Hirst decision and RCW
90.94 — Streamflow Restoration rule. Still working out how those would interact with
Comprehensive Plan, ongoing streamflow restoration watershed planning, and CARA rules.
• City of Spokane: Yes, the comprehensive plan considers groundwater protection and
availability.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Yes, through our Water Comprehensive Plan.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: It thinks about groundwater, but does not have the education
level to make proper decisions and the state does not require codes and implementation be
designed in a manner to limit how much a county can burden its citizens with permitting
fees. It is designed instead as a tool to force citizens comply with codes or have their
property be taken forcefully or liens put on property for work done for disadvantaged
people and fines assed without limits.
• Constance Ibsen: NO
• City of Redmond: The City of Redmond's Comprehensive Plan includes eight policies specific
to the protection of the City's Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The policies focus on:
encouraging cleanup of contaminated sites, protection of groundwater quality and quantity,
prohibiting discharge of wastewater and potentially contaminated stormwater to
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 128
Packet Pg. 202
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
groundwater, retaining and enhancing aquifer recharge, promoting infiltration of clean
runoff, and encouraging retention of open spaces.
Overall Response: Ecology appreciates the depth of information and experience on planning
evident in these comments. We appreciate the use comprehensive planning to integrate
between various planning elements and water planning, and the complexity of these efforts.
We have included comprehensive plans in the draft guidance — Please feel free to offer further
suggestions.
Long Range Plans — Question 2
Anything you would like to say about long range plans for the long term availability or
protection of groundwater?
• Pacific Groundwater Group submitting for King County Water District #90: See 2 above.
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: Nothing specific, except to say that we're
lucky because in general water resource protection is very important to the City. I think this
is partly due to the first-hand experience we've had with groundwater contamination at our
Palermo Wellfield (TCE and PCE contamination that knocked out our primary wellfield in the
mid-90s). Also... our mayor is very knowledgeable about groundwater issues being that he
was a professional environmental engineer at ECY for a long time.
• City of Spokane: Not at this time.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District: Continue to emphasize protection and
avoidance strategies, as clean-up is almost always more expensive, and may not be feasible.
Response: We strongly agree with this comment and have addressed this in the draft.
• Four Horsemen Brewery: Ground water protection is important and people exist who will
not think about the environment with regards to their business practices. People should
have an exemption from needing permits when they agree to maintain and use a property
using the best management practices as guides for property maintenance and home
ownership.
Response: Permits are a local requirement and jurisdictions have the flexibility to determine
alternate ways of protecting the functions and values of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
• City of Vancouver: Clarify permitting and working across disciplines as a project starts to be
entertained in the planning process. We're particularly concerned that Planning isn't
looking at water supply issues. Submitted projects are often far along a planning approval
process before those with water protection duties get involved.
Response: We have added language with respect to working across departments to the
draft in the added Section 11 on implementation.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 129
Packet Pg. 203
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Constance Ibsen: To ensure the quantity and quality of groundwater in Washington,
Ecology will need to step in and do the work and enforce.
Response: Enforcement is done at the local level under the GMA. Ecology's role is to
provide technical guidance. Where resources allow, Ecology may review and comment on
plans and ordinances.
• City of Redmond: As density increases, there are more challenges in protecting the CARA.
The City of Redmond's Comprehensive Plan strives to focus development in two urban
centers encouraging re -development of already developed land within the two urban
centers while preserving open space in the more rural area of the City. This vision to focus
development in the urban centers helps protect the CARA by:
1. Promoting infiltration of clean runoff in the urban centers will ensure that groundwater
recharge is enhanced.
2. Preserving open space by concentrating development in the urban centers will help
maintain groundwater quality and recharge.
Response: Ecology appreciates the expertise of the City of Redmond and the City's efforts
to protect Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. It is important as various jurisdictions learn how
to handle challenges to share knowledge, experience, and strategies.
General
Please share any other concerns or opinions about the Guidance revision — What would you
like to see changed or added?
• City of Tumwater, Public Works Department: Not really. Will keep an eye out for draft
documents to review.
Response: We greatly value reviews, thank you!
• Clark County
Comment: It seems like the current document is largely geared for jurisdictions to get some
background on CARAs and the need to establish them. The guidance is not that helpful for
jurisdictions that have had CARA policies and code for a while and it doesn't outline ways to
improve them. Examples of great policies, code language, implementation processes, etc.
would be useful guidance for the county, in addition to updated guidance regarding any
new relevant statutes, court cases, and best available science.
Response: We agree with your comment, and we have included more examples from
counties and cities. The Department of Commerce updated their Critical Areas Handbook,
which includes a thorough section on statutes and court cases. We have also updated the
discussion on best available science. We hope this is greatly improved and value your
additional review comments.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 130
Packet Pg. 204
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Comment: We would really like to see more guidance on helping us review uses in the use
table in future reviews.
Response: We think that the City of Spokane and Spokane County have excellent
procedures based on Critical Materials, so we think the Critical Materials Handbook is a
good existing reference for this. See the updated Guidance Appendix C under Critical
Materials. We would really like to hear from you more feedback on the updated guidance
• Thurston County
Comment: Important to use the term "hazardous materials" not "hazardous waste"
Response: We agree with this and am making changes where it makes sense.
Comment: Amend the restriction of businesses that are Medium Quantity Generator (MQG)
of hazardous waste and Large Quantity Generator (LQG) businesses within certain CARA's or
WHPA's. The problem is that your generator status is not known until you do business and
start generating waste and also your generation status can change from year to year. We
would have to kick businesses out of CARA's when their hazardous waste generation status
reaches MQG or LQG status, instead of being able to restrict them from doing business
there in the first place.
Response: We agree with you in principal. It is up to the local jurisdiction to write their own
ordinance to meet this type of need.
• King County
Comment: Update Table 1. to reflect current Solid Waste Handling WAC (173-350).
Response: We agree with this comment. We will change the WAC reference to the correct
one. Just to mention, Table 1 is being replaced by Section 6 — Working with State and
Federal Laws and rules. Ecology has listed laws and rules online 155, a better up-to-date
Comment: Add links to other Ecology NPDES permits such as Municipal and Industrial in
Appendix B.
Response: Appendix B has been replaced by information contained in Section 6 — Working
with State and Federal Laws and Rules. Links to the Ecology web page where there are links
to the Industrial Stormwater General NPDES Permit and the Municipal Stormwater General
NPDES Permit have been added.
Comment: Fix website links throughout document.
255 https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/How-we-operate/Laws-rules-rulemaking
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 131
Packet Pg. 205
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Response: Done, although we will need to be checking and updating periodically because
things change.
Comment: In reference to RCW 36.70A.200 (Siting of essential public facilities), King County
would be interested in focusing on the permitting and water use as it pertains to the
geographic limitations for siting essential public facilities including regional road
maintenance facilities.
Essential public facilities that provide emergency response actions to the public such as
snow and ice response, hazardous material spill response and cleanup, storm and
emergency road repair are functions that are critical for public safety.
It would be beneficial to include resources and information within the CARA Guidance
Document that may further allow jurisdictions to pursue siting of these facilities that King
County views as essential public facilities as it relates to water use restrictions and
groundwater protection within CARA designated locations.
Response: We think this is a function for local government to address in their
comprehensive plan and ordinances. We don't think the draft guidance restricts these
considerations.
• City of Spokane
Comment: There needs to be more alignment between storm water and ground water
protection.
Response: We agree. We have tried to include more on storm water and pollution
prevention. We would be interested in review comments on the draft.
Comment: There needs to be more discussion on non -point source contribution of
contaminants.
Response: We agree. I have added a section on Ecology's nonpoint source program and
information about the Voluntary Stewardship Program. We would be interested in
discussing this more.
• Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District
Comment: Include an emphasis on quality of water recharged as a primary tenet, that is
mentioned in the general statements, over and over. It is covered under certain associated
regulations, such as the UIC, but bringing the issues associated with the infiltration of
stormwater to the forefront would be helpful. Consideration of water quality is often
inferred, but not addressed directly.
Response: We have added stormwater infiltration to Section 4, Step 3 on inventorying
existing potential sources of groundwater contamination.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 132
Packet Pg. 206
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
• Anonymous
Comment: Guidance should be offered for citizens without farming experience, or college
degrees.
Response: This one guidance is written to be as understandable as we can since it is meant
both for local planners, local elected persons, and residents. We agree that there are
complexities to the Growth Management Act and its implementation. For more information
and answers to questions I would contact the Department of Commerce Growth
Management Services"'
Comment: It should also be offered to citizens with disabilities.
Response: Ecology agrees and so the revised guidance is using an accessible template to
help people with disabilities.
Comment: It should not be required without government having requirements for its roads
and practices first.
Response: State agencies are required to comply with comprehensive plans and
development regulations (RCW 36.70A.103217).
Constance Ibsen
Comment: Too much deference given to local jurisdictions. Lack of funding is used as an
excuse not to implement.
Response: The Growth Management Act is structured so that either the Growth
Management Hearings Board or the court can order a jurisdiction to take specific actions to
comply with the Act, and this only occurs after an appeal or suit has been brought.
Discontinue giving planning dollars to jurisdictions which have a prevent record of non -
implementation and enforcement of CARA regulations. Make "failure to Act" a real
enforcement tool.
Response: The distribution of funding for planning is a function of the Department of
Commerce.
Comment: Please develop sites guidelines for biosolids applications sites. Consider a time
limit on that application. Do not allow any sewage sludge to be applied in CARAs.
256 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/
257 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.103
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 133
Packet Pg. 207
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Response: Washington state has laws and rules regarding biosolids application to land. The
biosolids general permit is currently under development because the current permit expires
on September 4, 2020. There will be a public comment process. See Ecology's biosolids
website258 for information about the permit, laws and rules, and guidelines.
Comment: Also, mandatory that each jurisdiction have the county -wide water system
planning document. Mason County and PUD1 need to have this done for them.
Response:
o Chapter 36.70A.070 Comprehensive Plans — Mandatory elements requires that "The
land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater
used for public water supplies." This requirement should include coordination with
water system planning.
o Water systems are required to plan, and the Department of Health (DOH) Office of
Drinking Water has drafted their Water System Planning Guidebook219:
All public water systems must develop and implement a technical, managerial, and
financial plan appropriate to the system's size, complexity, and performance;
expected demographic changes; community -specific resource constraints; and
planning history (see WAC 246-290-100 and 105).
o Chapter 246-293 WAC — Water System Coordination Act. These are rules for
implementing coordinated water system plans within a jurisdiction. The trigger for a
jurisdiction to implement these rules is based on a preliminary assessment finding
problems with inadequate water quality, unreliable service, or lack of coordinated
planning.
o The Local Government Consistency Determination Form260 lists requirements for water
systems to be consistent with local jurisdiction plans and ordinances.
Comment: Change CTED to Dept. of Commerce in narrative of the document.
Response: Done.
• City of Spokane
Comment: Language that harmonizes stormwater regulatory language and groundwater
protection language should be revised and incorporated throughout the document. For
example, discharge of groundwater is similar, but not synonymous with stormwater
discharges and could be easily confused.
2511 https://ecoIogy.wa.govMaste-Toxics/Reducing-recycling-waste/Organic-materials/Biosolids
259
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1 /Documents/4200/DRAFT%20Water%20System%20Planning%20Guid
ebook.pdf
260 https://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/documents/pubs/331-568.docx
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 134
Packet Pg. 208
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Response: We agree with this comment. We will add definitions to the glossary and look for
places where terminology could be confused. If you have further examples, or see where
clarification would be helpful, please let us know.
Comment: Additionally, source control should be an element that incorporated into the
document to add another protective layer of the aquifer in that if stormwater doesn't
become impacted, the potential impacts to the aquifer are pre -mitigated.
Response: We agree with this comment, since source control is the first line of defense
against groundwater contamination. Stormwater regulations and the manuals contain
source control best management practices. Some jurisdictions are not required to follow
stormwater regulations; however, the stormwater best management practices that are
applicable to groundwater protection are very relevant. Source control is a main element of
a precautionary approach.
The Industrial Stormwater General Permit261, re -issued in January 2020, contains a section
called the Conditional "No Exposure" Exemption. This section has a list of eleven questions
related to whether stormwater would be in contact with pollutants. This would be a great
list for local jurisdictions to use to prevent groundwater contamination. The Industrial
Stormwater General Permit does not automatically apply to groundwater infiltration — See
the permit for applicability. Local jurisdictions may be more stringent and use the "No
Exposure" provisions to guide their pollution prevention provisions.
Comment: Treatment of stormwater should be an element identified in the manual to add a
layer of protection to stormwater that is meant to be infiltrated.
Response:
Ecology implements two basic approaches to stormwater treatment at the state level.
o One is to manage water quality from roads and parking lots by removing solids, oils, and
metals prior to discharge. The UIC guidance within the Eastern and Western
Washington stormwater manuals allows the vadose zone to be used as part of the
treatment train.
o The other is to implement stormwater treatment best management practices, as
required by Section S.8(D) of the Industrial Stormwater General Permit262. Stormwater
treatment prior to discharge is implemented in this permit as a corrective action after
sampling has found pollutants in the discharge.
261 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/permits/ISGP_PermitFINAL.pdf
262 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ershare/wq/permits/ISGP_PermitFINAL.pdf
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 135
Packet Pg. 209
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
Requirements for treatment of stormwater discharge to UIC wells apply statewide.
Requirements for treatment of stormwater discharge that is not to UIC wells apply
where the stormwater permitsz63 apply.
Comment: The term "salmon -bearing streams" is used in a few spots in the document, and
limits the scope of why stream -base flows should be maintained. The scope of why stream -
based flows should be maintained should be increased in breadth to encompass greater
than only the salmonids.
Response: We agree that streamflow is important beyond salmon -bearing streams.
Streamflow is important for wildlife and plants, including endangered species. The GMA
supports using an ecological approach, and streamflow is a buttress of ecological systems
Groundwater is connected to other critical areas and natural landscape issues, including
floods, landslide hazards; channel migration hazards; habitat; and surface water quality.
• City of Redmond
Comment: It would be helpful to include a section providing methodology to determine the
CARA, and guidance on suggested levels of protection for different time -of -travel zones
within CARA.
Response: The City of Redmond has completed an extensive review of Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas and has developed a map based on modeling and public review. Redmond
has designated two Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, I and II. Classification I is for the area of
groundwater that travels to a city well within five years, and Classification II is for the area
of groundwater that travels to a city from within five to ten years, plus additional sensitive
areas.
Redmond's municipal code requires additional protection in Classification I areas.
Here are some comments I would have for jurisdictions who have not completed the
excellent work that Redmond has.
CARAs for cities are generally of two types. One is the well head protection area time -of -
travel for wells, and the other is the boundary of the drinking water aquifer. For example,
the City of Vancouver has designated two CARAs — One for wellhead protection zones and
the other for the rest of the city, since the aquifer that provides their drinking water
underlies the city.
While the entire aquifer is not necessarily required to be designated as a CARA, the
pragmatic and economic need to prevent pollution suggests that a city may want to
z.. https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Stormwater-general-permits
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 136
Packet Pg. 210
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
designate the aquifer within city limits as a CARA, and require pollution prevention for uses
that may generate contaminants if they leak, spill, or are otherwise released to the ground.
In the absence of science, that assesses where drinking water sources are located, the
precautionary approach is needed to avoid contaminating the public drinking water supply,
which includes individual residential wells, small water systems, and large water systems.
On time -of -travel zones: The closer to a water well a use is, the faster contaminants may
reach the well. So many jurisdictions have stricter requirements in the one and five-year
time -of -travel zone, and some use the ten-year time -of -travel zone. In my opinion, it is
better to protect more and require pollution prevention more broadly, especially since
many time -of -travel zones are calculated circles and do not account for groundwater flow
rates or direction specifically.
So in summary, if it were me, I would prevent pollution throughout the city using
ordinances that require best management practices where chemicals are used, handled,
transported, or transferred between containers. I think there is a case for certain
prohibitions or conditional approval with mitigation of high -risk uses within the five or ten
year time -of -travel zone to a well.
I would want the city to give itself authority to inspect and enforce to require corrective
actions.
I would also want to have good maps of where drinking water is being used including both
municipal and non -municipal users of groundwater. I would want good maps of aquifers
within the city so I could let people know they are doing business over a drinking water
aquifer. The guidance has suggestions for resources on how to do these.
Along with the City of Redmond, the City of Spokane and the City of Vancouver both have
excellent programs as examples.
Comment: Some municipalities may need help to determine the proper level of effort for
protection based on the time -of -travel.
Response: If it were me, I would follow the above response for development ordinances,
and prioritize inspections and corrective action in well head protection areas.
Comment: Another major topic that would be of use to municipalities is guidance to
address impacts on groundwater quantity from climate change.
Response: This is an evolving and complex topic. Major studies have been done to
determine the impacts of climate change on groundwater. In my opinion, there are two
main impacts: 1) Change in recharge regime that relates to timing and amount of recharge
This impacts groundwater discharge to streams and also flooding that occurs when
groundwater levels are too high; 2) Groundwater mining during drought (or otherwise)
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 137
Packet Pg. 211
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Guidance
9.B.b
causes groundwater levels to drop. This is an increased risk when large water users must
turn away from surface water sources to use groundwater. In addition, population growth
requires more water.
Making development decisions about water availability in the face of climate change is not
easy. The first step is understanding the water resources, tracking water levels, and tracking
recharge sources. Some jurisdictions are turning to aquifer storage as a result. Water
conservation requirements would be a good idea.
Publication 05-10-028 Revised March 2021 Page 138
Packet Pg. 212
9.B.c
ROBIN ON
N Q B L.E=
OLYM PI C VII EW WATE R AND S EWE Fl DISTRICT
WE L LHEAD PSI OTEGTI O N AFC EA DELI N EATI ON
OEE R GRE EK SPR I NGS AND 228� STR EET VVE L Lr I ELL)
August 2015
by
Max T. Wills. LH G
Associate Hydrogeoiogist
NwX Thom" N1ll*
N05 Sw1h -C Sumo 17525 13DM Avemps NE, Suite 102
Taco s, Mshingion BRA02 weraw_robi n son • n obl o xom VQ4"dinlrilr-q, iNashinyban 9EM72
p' 253-475.7711 1 F: 253.4 �2.564 P. J25.486.0594
Packet Pg. 213
9.B.c
Olympic View Water and Sewer District
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
Deer Creek Springs and 2281h Street Wellfield
August 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................................................1
2.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA DELINEATION................................................................1
2.1 GENERAL...............................................................................................................................1
2.2 NUMERICAL GROUNDWATER MODEL.......................................................................................2
2.2.1 Previous Studies and Other Model Input Sources........................................................2
2.2.2 Conceptual Model.........................................................................................................3
2.2.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units.........................................................................................4
YoungerAlluvium (Qyal).................................................................................................5
Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvr)...............................................................................5
VashonTill(Qvt)..............................................................................................................5
Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva)....................................................................................5
Pre-Vashon Transitional Beds (Qtb)................................................................................6
2.2.2.2 Boundary Identification..........................................................................................6
2.2.2.3 General Flow System.............................................................................................
7
2.2.3 Numerical Model Construction.....................................................................................
8
2.2.3.1 Numerical Model Inputs.........................................................................................8
2.2.3.2 Model Calibration.................................................................................................10
2.3 WELLFIELD AND SPRING SOURCE WHPA DELINEATION..........................................................
10
3.0 SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................11
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................12
5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................12
FIGURES
1 . VICINITY MAP WITH SERVICE AREA
2. CONCEPTUAL MODEL
3. SURFICIAL GEOLOGY MAP
4. MODEL BOUNDARIES
5. MODEL CALIBRATION
6. POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR MAP
7. WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA MAP
8. ADDITIONAL PRECAUTION AREA MAP
TABLES
1. HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
2. MODEL CALIBRATION STATISTICS
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A Packet Pg. 214
9.B.c
Olympic View Water and Sewer District
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
Deer Creek Springs and 228th Street Wellfield
August 2018
1.0 Introduction and Background
The Olympic View Water & Sewer District (District) provides water to an estimated 13,000 cus-
tomers within an approximately two square mile service area in southwestern Snohomish
County (PACE, 2009). The District currently receives about 60% of their supply water through
an intertie with the City of Seattle. The remaining 40% is derived from the District's water
treatment plant at Deer Creek Springs. The District is also currently in the process of develop-
ing an additional groundwater source at their 228th Street wellfield. This wellfield will augment
the supply from Deer Creek Springs and reduce dependency on the water purchased from Se-
attle. The District recently completed the construction and testing of two supply wells at the
228th Street site and is currently in the process of constructing site infrastructure. Figure 1 pre-
sents a map of the District's service area and shows the locations of the Deer Creek Springs
and 228t" Street wellfield source areas.
In anticipation of bringing the new wellfield online, the District is updating their existing Well-
head Protection Program (WHPP) to include the new wellfield source and a more current as-
sessment of the spring source. As part of the WHPP update, Robinson Noble was retained to
delineate wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) for the 228t" Street wellfield and to re -delineate
and update the WHPAs for the spring source. This report documents the methods utilized to
complete the delineation process and presents the new wellfield WHPAs and the updated
WHPAs for the existing spring source.
2.0 Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
2.1 General
The Washington State Department of Health's (DOH) Wellhead Protection Program Guidance
(DOH, 2010) states that all Group A public water systems' must prepare a Water System Plan
(WAC 246-290-100), which will include a Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP). The WHPP will
in turn include Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) delineated for each well, wellfield, or spring
source (WAC 246-290-135). DOH requires that each source have three designated WHPAs, la-
beled Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3, based respectively on the one-year, five-year, and ten-year
time -of -travel capture zones2. Per DOH guidance (DOH, 2010), Zone 1 (the one-year capture
zone) should also include a six-month capture zone to focus greater protection on potential viral
and microbial contamination that may pose a higher degree of risk to the drinking water supply.
A Group A public water system is defined by WAC 246-290 generally as any pubic water system that serves 15 or
more connections on a year-round bases.
2 The capture zone refers to the zone of groundwater contribution for a given source. Specific time -of -travel capture
zones (i.e. one-year capture zone) refer to that portion of the total capture zone in which water will travel to the
source within the specified travel time. Travel times to the source, and consequently the size and shape of the
time -of -travel capture zone, will vary depending on the hydrogeologic properties associated with that specific
zone (i.e. gradient, porosity, pumping rates, etc.).
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A Packet Pg. 215
9.B.c
DOH has also established the use of a buffer zone as required to provide additional source pro-
tection up -gradient of the ten-year capture zone. According to DOH guidance (DOH, 2010),
buffer zones may incorporate the entire capture zone for a given source or select portions of it
and, as appropriate, may also include areas outside of a given capture zone. As described in this
report, buffer zones which incorporate the entirety of the defined capture zones for both the
2281" wellfield and Deer Creek Spring sources are included with the WHPAs for each source.
The WHPAs for both the 228' Street wellfield and the Deer Creek Springs sources were delin-
eated using a numerical groundwater model that was specifically developed for this project.
Because there is a reasonably sufficient amount of geologic and hydrogeologic data available
for the study area, a modeling approach for WHPA delineation was deemed to be more accu-
rate (and more appropriate) than the standard calculated -fixed radius (CFR) method. Model de-
velopment and calibration are described below in Section 2.2. WHPA delineation is described in
Section 2.3.
2.2 Numerical Groundwater Model
The development of a numerical groundwater model involves several key steps, starting with
the review and compilation of data from existing studies and other sources, which provide in-
formation pertaining to the various model inputs. Once the available data have been compiled
and evaluated, model construction begins with the development of a conceptual model. The
conceptual model, which is typically diagrammatic, provides a generalized overview of the ma-
jor model components and guides the overall groundwater model construction. Once a basic
groundwater model is constructed, it is then finalized by calibrating outputs to known data
points (i.e. head values, discharge, etc.). The calibrated model can then be used to perform a
number of analytical tasks, which for this project includes the delineation of the wellfield and
spring source WHPAs.
2.2.1 Previous Studies and Other Model Input Sources
Parameter inputs for the groundwater model developed for this project were obtained from a
number of sources, including well construction and testing reports, geologic and hydrogeologic
studies, government databases, and geologic maps. The following is a summary of the key data
sources utilized for this project.
King County, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division,
2003; Brightwater Treatment Plant, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 6-B
(Geology and Groundwater). This study provides key data pertaining to subsurface geologic
conditions and aquifer elevations. Groundwater monitoring data and potentiometric maps
from this study were also utilized in part for final model calibration.
Liesch, B.A., Price, C.E., and Walters, K.C., 1963; Geology and Groundwater Resources of
Northwest King County, Washington. Washington State Department of Conservation, Wa-
ter Supply Bulletin No. 20. This study provides key information for the southern portion of
the modeled area, including recharge and model unit descriptions.
Minard, J.P., 1983; Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles,
Washington; USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-1541. This map was utilized for a
variety of model inputs, including the surficial distribution of geologic units, estimated re-
charge values, and aquifer elevations.
Newcomb, R.C., 1952; Groundwater Resources of Snohomish County, Washington; USGS Z
Water Supply Paper 1135. This report provides detailed information about the geologic and
a
Page 2 1686-007A Robinson No Packet Pg. 216
9.B.c
hydrogeologic units within the project area, as well as information pertaining to general flow
characteristics of area aquifers.
Robinson Noble, Inc., 2003: Olympic View Water & Sewer District, Modification and Testing
of the 228' Street Production Well (Shop Well). This report provides key model input data
for the area around the 228th Street wellfield. This includes hydraulic conductivity values and
aquifer elevation data. Groundwater elevation data for this site was also utilized in part for
final model calibration.
Robinson Noble, Inc., 2015; Olympic View Water & Sewer District, 8605 228th Street Test
Well. This report provides additional information pertaining to model feature elevations in
the area of the 228th Street wellfield, hydraulic conductivity values, and other hydrogeologic
parameters. Survey data from this study also provided key information pertaining to the
gradient and flow directions of groundwater in the area of the 228th Street wellfield. Water
level data from this study was also used for model calibration.
Robinson Noble, Inc., 2018; Olympic View Water & Sewer District, Construction and Test-
ing of Production Well 2. This report provides key model input data for the area around the
228th Street wellfield. This includes hydraulic conductivity values, production rates, and aqui-
fer elevation data. Water level and drawdown data from this study were also used in part
for final model calibration.
Shannon and Wilson, Inc., 2016; Hydrogeologic Report New Madrona K-8 Project, 9300
236th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington. This report provides specific model input data, in-
cluding hydraulic conductivity values, water level data, and flow directions, in the up -
gradient areas east of Deer Creek Springs. Monitoring data from this study was also used in
part for final model calibration.
Thomas, B.E., Wilkenson, J.M., and Embrey, S.S., 1997; The Groundwater System and
Groundwater Quality in Western Snohomish County, Washington; USGS Water Resources
Investigations Report 96-4312. This report provides detailed information regarding the char-
acteristics of the hydrogeologic units within the project area. It also provides key infor-
mation regarding aquifer elevations, recharge values, and flow data that was utilized in part
for final model calibration.
In addition to the reports and studies listed above, this project utilized a number of other mis-
cellaneous sources to support model development. Between 2004 and 2010, in conjunction
with the Brightwater sewer tunnel construction, Robinson Noble conducted extensive ground-
water monitoring at the both the Deer Creek Springs site and the original shop well (located
near the current 2281h Street wellfield). Hydrographs created during this monitoring were used
for final model calibration, and precipitation data collected during the monitoring effort were
used to evaluate the modeled recharge values. We also accessed the Washington State De-
partment of Ecology's (Ecology) online well log data base. We estimate that this database con-
tains approximately 1,200 well reports (well logs) for the study area. These logs were first
screened for reliability, and then reliable logs were utilized for a variety of model input infor-
mation (i.e. aquifer elevation, water levels for calibration, etc.).
2.2.2 Conceptual Model
A hydrogeologic conceptual model is a representation of a groundwater flow system that sim-
plifies and organizes various geologic and hydrologic information so that the flow system can
be more readily analyzed (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). The conceptual model synthesizes
available data (maps, cross -sections, hydrographs, well logs, etc.) into a generalized representa-
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A Packet Pg. 217
9.B.c
tion of the geology as it affects the groundwater flow system in a given area. Ideally, a concep-
tual model should be as simple as possible but still contain all of the applicable components
necessary to recreate flow system behavior. Once it is developed, the conceptual model serves
as a guide for the construction of the final groundwater model.
Figure 2 presents the conceptual model that was developed for this project as a schematic
cross section. The conceptual model for this project contains three major components: hy-
drostratigraphic units, model boundaries, and general flow system inflow and outflow infor-
mation. These components are described in detail below.
2.2.2.1 Hydrostratigraphic Units
A key step in developing the conceptual model is to define the various hydrostratigraphic units
that will affect the flow system being modeled. Hydrostratigraphic units are groupings of sedi-
ments that exhibit similar hydrogeologic properties. They are typically divided into two general
groups which include aquifers and confining units and may or may not correspond with the area
geologic units.
Within the project area, the hydrostratigraphic units modeled do generally correspond with the
area geologic units. Figure 3 shows the surficial geology within the study area (Minard, 1983).
Table 1 summarizes the hydrostratigraphic units applicable to this project, which are listed from
top to bottom in stratigraphic order (youngest to oldest or in general order of deposition).
Table 1: Hydrostratigraphic Units
Hydrostratigraphic
Hydrogeologic
Unit Description
Unit
Classification
Aquifer (when in
Fluvial sands and gravels with lesser organic mate -
Younger Alluvium
direct contact with
rial. Thin and limited lateral extent. For modeling
(Qyal)
Ova)
purposes, this unit is grouped with the Ova aquifer
when it is in direct contact with Ova materials.
Aquifer (when in
Sands and gravels with lesser clay and silt. For
Vashon Recessional
direct contact with
modeling purposes, this unit is grouped with the
Outwash (Ovr)
Qva)
Qva aquifer when it is in direct contact with Qva
materials.
Dense, unsorted clay -through gravel- and cobble -
size material. This is the most extensive surficial
Vashon Till (Qvt)
Confining Unit
deposit in the study area. It has a low permeability,
is upwards of 100 feet thick, and forms a protec-
tive cap over the Qva aquifer.
Sands with lesser gravel. Laterally extensive
Vashon Advance
Aquifer
across the study area with thicknesses ranging
Outwash (Qva)
from 100 to 150 feet. This unit is partially saturated
and considered an unconfined aquifer system.
Low permeability sequence of layered clay -
Transitional Beds
Confining Unit
through find sand -size material. This unit is relative-
ly thick across the model area and forms the base
of the model.
Page 4 1686-007A Robinson No Packet Pg. 218
9.B.c
Both the Deer Creek Springs and the 228t" Street wellfield derive groundwater from the Vashon
advance outwash (Qva), which is referred to in this study as the Qva aquifer. As shown on Fig-
ure 3, the Qva aquifer is exposed at the surface in several parts of the study area, but is largely
overlain by Quaternary Vashon till (Qvt). As shown in Figure 2, the Qvt forms the upper surface
of the model where it is present. In areas where the Qvt is absent, the Qva forms the upper
surface of the model. The Qva aquifer is underlain across the study area by pre-Vashon transi-
tional beds (Qtb). This unit constitutes the lower surface of the model (see Figure 2). A detailed
description of the hydrostratigraphic units utilized for this project is presented below.
Younger Alluvium (Qyal)
As shown in Figure 3, the Qyal hydrostratigraphic unit has limited aerial extent within the study
area, and is generally constrained to narrow zones along stream corridors. As described by vari-
ous authors (see Section 2.2.1), the Qyal consists of fluvial sand and gravel deposits with some
organic materials. The Qyal is relatively thin and typically underlain by adjacent map units. Be-
cause the Qyal is relatively porous, when it is in direct contact with the Qva aquifer, it responds
hydraulically as an extension of the aquifer. In these situations, the Qyal is considered part of
the Qva aquifer. In situations where the Qyal is geologically isolated from the Qva, there isn't
hydraulic continuity with the Qva aquifer, so it is grouped with the Qvt hydrostratigraphic unit.
Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvr)
Similar to the Qyal, the Qvr has limited aerial extent within the study area and is relatively thin.
The Qvr is comprised of stratified sands and gravels with lesser silt- and clay -size material,
which were deposited by the receding Vashon continental glacier. Similar to the Qyal, the Qvr
is relatively porous, so when it is in direct contact with the Qva aquifer, it responds hydraulically
as an extension of the aquifer. As such, the Qvr is considered part of the Qva aquifer in these
situations. Where the Qvr is geologically isolated from the Qva it is grouped with the Qvt hy-
drostratigraphic unit.
Vashon Till (Qvt)
The Qvt consists of a dense, unsorted mixture of clay- through gravel- and cobble -size sedi-
ments that were deposited in situ by the Vashon continental glacier. The Qvt is the predomi-
nant surf icial deposit within the study area, and typically extends to depths of over 100 feet.
The Qvt has a low permeability, and where present, it impedes infiltration of precipitation. This
provides a protective cap for the underlying Qva aquifer. The Qvt often contains isolated pock-
ets of more permeable material, which may contain perched groundwater'. However, these
perched zones are usually very limited in extent, and the Qvt hydrostratigraphic unit, for the
purpose of modeling, is considered to be unsaturated.
Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva)
The Qva is comprised of stratified sands with lesser gravel- and silt -size materials, which were
laid down by meltwater issuing from the advancing Vashon continental glacier. The Qva is lat-
erally extensive within the study area, but there are a few isolated areas, primarily along the
study area boundaries, where the Qva is not present. The thickness of the Qva within the study
area generally ranges from between 100 to 130 feet. The Qva materials are not fully saturated
within the study area, and the Qva aquifer is considered an unconfined aquifer system. As
3 Perched groundwater is groundwater that accumulates in isolated pockets of permeable material at elevations
above that of the local water table (hence the term "perched").
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A Packet Pg. 219
9.B.c
mentioned previously, the Ova aquifer is the groundwater source for Deer Creek Springs and
the 2281" Street wellfield.
Pre-Vashon Transitional Beds (Qtb)
The Qtb is a layered sequence of very low permeability materials that were laid down in lakes
and non -glacial fluvial systems prior to the deposition of the Ova sands. The Qtb consists of
beds and laminae of clay-, silt-, and very fine sand -size material, with occasional zones of peat
and organic material. The Qtb is consistently present across the study area and has an estimat-
ed thickness of approximately 130 feet within the model area. As mentioned previously, the
Qtb forms the base of the model for this project (see Figure 2).
2.2.2.2 Boundary Identification
Generally there are two types of hydrologic boundaries: physical boundaries and hydraulic
boundaries. Physical boundaries are formed by the presence of a physical impediment to
groundwater flow such an impermeable geologic unit or the truncation/absence of an aquifer.
Hydraulic boundaries are groundwater conditions that impede groundwater movement, such as
a large lake or a groundwater divide. Ideally, model boundaries can be placed along naturally
occurring boundaries such as groundwater divides or surface water bodies. However, this is
not always feasible.
Figure 4 presents the aquifer boundaries and how they were represented in the model. The
western edge of the modeled area corresponds to the exposure of the Ova aquifer in the cliffs
along Puget Sound and where the Ova drops to sea level and is bounded by Puget Sound (in
the extreme southwest corner of the model area). In the real world, this is a discharge bounda-
ry for the Ova aquifer. Water in the aquifer discharges through springs, as evapotranspiration to
vegetation on the bluffs, and (where the boundary is below sea level) as underflow into Puget
Sound. In the model, we've represented the western boundary with drains4, set with relatively
low conductance values along areas where minor seepage occurs and with relatively high con-
ductance values at points were streams emanate from the exposed Ova aquifer. The most
prominent of these is Deer Creek (which emanates from Deer Creek Springs), but also includes
(to the north of Deer Creek) Shell Creek, Shelleberger Creek, and an unnamed creek.
A similar aquifer boundary occurs in the southeast corner of the model area where Lyon Creek
has eroded down to and through the base of the Ova. Here water discharges from the aquifer
as springs, seepage, and evapotranspiration above the creek. Again, this natural discharge
boundary is represented in the model with drains.
Within the modelled area, there are a number creeks and lakes which are bedded in the Ova, or
are in other ways in hydraulic continuity with the Ova (bedded in Qyal or Qvr materials that are
in direct contact with the Ova). These include the before mentioned streams on the northwest
and southeast sides of the model as well as Hall Creek, McAleer Creek, Hall Lake, and Lake
Ballinger in the interior of the model. Where streams and lakes are in direct continuity with the
aquifer, groundwater discharge or recharge naturally occurs depending on the head relationship
4 A drain is a model condition that allows water to flow out of the model if the groundwater level in the model cell
containing the drain exceeds the drain's assigned elevation. The amount of flow out of the drain is controlled by a
conductance value assigned to the drain as well as the groundwater elevation. Drains are often used to model
springs and groundwater seepage. Drains only allow water to exit (discharge) from a model and not to enter (re-
charge).
Page 6 1686-007A Robinson No Packet Pg. 220
9.B.c
of the surface water and the groundwater. These surface water bodies are represented in the
model as general head boundaries'.
The natural real -world northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the Qva aquifer system
are not present within the study area. In order to keep the size of the model reasonable, these
distant boundaries are represented in the model as groundwater streamlines. Streamlines rep-
resent a direction of groundwater flow (flow line) within an aquifer. Within the project area, flow
in the aquifer in the northern and southern portions of the modeled area is generally east -west.
Because these areas are distant from the portion of the model that will be affected by modeled
production from the 2281h Street wellfield, it is very unlikely that there is any significant contri-
bution of flow into the aquifer from either the north or south sides of these streamlines. There-
fore, in the model, they are represented by no -flow boundaries placed parallel to the general
flow direction.
Such no -flow boundaries are conceptually valid for the model as long as no modeled stresses
are placed near the boundaries that would alter the direction of the natural flow lines that are
essentially parallel to the boundaries. Consequently, the northern, southern and eastern model
boundaries, were also purposely located a significant distance away from the main areas of in-
terest, namely the Deer Creek Springs and 228th Street wellfield source areas. This was done
specifically to minimize any significant boundary effect in these areas of the model. In the
model, flow is generally parallel to these boundaries except for near the lower reaches of Hall
Creek. However, this area is distant enough from the area of interest that it does not likely im-
pact the model results.
2.2.2.3 General Flow System
The final step in developing a conceptual model is to define the general flow system. This es-
sentially amounts to diagraming the basic pathways by which water enters, passes through,
and exits the model. Figure 2 presents the conceptual model that was developed for this pro-
ject, which diagrams the various flow pathways in cross-section view.
As shown on Figure 2, water enters the system primarily as precipitation. When precipitation
falls on the land surface, only a portion of it actually infiltrates into the ground. The portion that
is not infiltrated may flow overland as runoff or evaporate back to the atmosphere. Runoff may
be infiltrated further down -slope or flow overland out of the model area. A portion of the water
that infiltrates into the ground may be taken up through the roots of plants and trees and tran-
spire back to the atmosphere through their leaves. Typically, the combined effects of evapora-
tion and plant transpiration are considered together as evapotranspiration. That portion of water
that infiltrates into the ground and is able to replenish the aquifer system is referred to as re-
charge. Recharge is always a percentage of the total precipitation value and varies from place
to place depending on specific conditions (i.e. plant cover, temperature, soil permeability, etc.).
For this study, recharge is largely a function of the surficial geology. For the surface areas
mapped with Qvt (see Figure 3), because the Qvt has relatively low permeability, recharge
rates are fairly low and much of the precipitation that falls on these areas flows overland as
runoff. Conversely, because the Qva is fairly permeable, in areas where the Qva is exposed at
e General -head boundaries are model conditions that allow water to flow out of the model (discharge) if the ground-
water level in the model cell containing the general -head boundary exceeds the assigned boundary elevation or
into the model (recharge) if the groundwater level is lower than the assigned boundary elevation. The amount of
flow into or out of the boundary is controlled by a conductance value assigned to the drain as well as the
groundwater elevation.
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A Packet Pg. 221
9.B.c
land surface, infiltration (and recharge) is significantly higher. Furthermore, much of the precipi-
tation that runs off in the Qvt covered areas is readily infiltrated when it reaches areas of ex-
posed Ova. Additional recharge occurs where streams (or lakes) have losing reaches (when
streams lose water through infiltration into the ground).
As shown on Figure 2, groundwater that reaches the Qva aquifer flows primarily horizontally
down -gradient through the aquifer. This occurs because the underlying Qtb has a very low
permeability compared to the Qva, which impedes downward migration of water. As with most
confining units, there is some vertical leakage from the Qva aquifer downward through the Qtb.
However, it is minor and is not considered a significant out -flow for this modeling project.
Aside from minor leakage to the underlying Qtb, groundwater exits the Qva aquifer through one
of several routes. As shown on Figure 2, groundwater may be extracted from the system
through production withdrawal from a well (i.e. the 2281h Street wellfield). It may also flow out
of the system through one of the major springs (i.e. Deer Creek Springs), it may exit the sys-
tem as minor seepage through the Qva exposures in the cliffs along the west side and south-
east corner of the model, it can become stream (or lake) flow in gaining reaches, or it can be
discharged into Puget Sound (which is not shown on Figure 2 and only occurs in the extreme
southwestern corner of the model area).
2.2.3 Numerical Model Construction
The numerical groundwater model developed for this project was constructed using the De-
partment of Defense Groundwater Modeling System (GMS). GMS is a comprehensive graph-
ical user program that serves as a pre- and post -processing interface for a variety of groundwa-
ter modelling and analytical programs. For this project, GMS was used to interface with MOD -
FLOW, which is an open -source and widely utilized finite -difference groundwater model' devel-
oped and distributed by the USGS (Harbaugh, 2005). The model developed for this project was
constructed as a steady-state groundwater model'.
2.2.3.1 Numerical Model Inputs
Once a conceptual model is developed, the initial step for constructing the numerical model is
to create a finite difference grid to cover the horizontal (aerial) and vertical space to be modeled.
The horizontal model area for this project is shown on Figure 4, which covers the area within
the model boundaries previously described in Section 2.2.2.2. Figure 4 also shows the finite
difference grid (grid) used for the final model. As shown on Figure 4, horizontal dimensions of
the individual grid cells are refined around the two primary source areas (Deer Creek Springs
and the 228th Street wellfield) to provide more detail in the near -field areas around these two
sources. The horizontal dimension of the cells adjacent to the two sources is 50 feet square.
The cell size was increased at increments of 10% away from the source areas to a maximum
cell size of 250 feet square. The horizontal elements of the model are geographically referenced
to NAD83/UTM Zone 101.
For the vertical space, the model utilizes a single layer of grid cells (a one -layer model) to repre-
sent the Qva aquifer flow system. Because the Qvt is unsaturated, it is not necessary to set up
a separate layer to represent the till because there is no flow within the Qvt to simulate. As
6 The finite difference approach utilizes a grid system to represent individual flow cells, which are hydraulically
(mathematically) connected to surrounding cells and manipulated together to simulate a flow system.
7 In a steady-state groundwater model, the magnitude and direction of flow is constant with time, versus a transient
model where the magnitude and direction of flow varies with time. For a steady-state model, the volume of wa-
ter within the model domain is constant (flow into the model is equal to the flow out of the model).
8 The North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)/Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10; EPSG:26910.
Page 8 1686-007A Robinson No Packet Pg. 222
9.B.c
discussed previously in Section 2.2.2.3, leakage through the underlying Qtb is negligible, and
the top surface of the Qtb was used to represent the base of the model. Cell elevations for the
top of the model were incorporated into the model by importing LIDAR9 data available for the
study area. Cell elevations for the base of model were derived by importing and interpolating
data from a combination of sources, including published USGS maps of the top surface of the
Qtb (Thomas, et al, 1997), the elevations of the exposed contact between the Qtb and the Qva
(Minard, 1983), and several cross sections that traverse the study area generated by King Coun-
ty during the construction of the Brightwater sewer tunnel (King County, 2003).
Once the model grid was established, additional model inputs were incorporated into the mod-
el. The elevations of the drains and general -head boundaries shown on Figure 4 were set re-
spectively to the mapped elevations along the Qtb/Qva contact and the mapped elevations of
the streams and lakes bedded in the Qva (see Section 2.2.2.2). There are no established con-
ductance values for the drains and general -head boundaries for the study area. As such, some-
what arbitrary conductance values were initially set for these features, and these values were
adjusted during the calibration process. Initial conductance values for the drains corresponding
to major springs (i.e. Deer Creek Springs) were set relatively high as compared to the other
drain features without obvious discharge points. Similar proportions were maintained during the
calibration process.
As discussed in Section 2.2.2.3, recharge is largely a function of surficial geology, with highest
recharge occurring in areas where the Qva is exposed at the surface, and lessor recharge oc-
curring in areas covered by the Qvt. Aerial recharge values were applied to the model using this
assumption by creating aerial coverage-polygons10 corresponding to the areas mapped as Qvt
and Qva (Minard, 1983). During monitoring efforts conducted by Robinson Noble between 2004
and 2010 (see Section 2.2.1), it was established that the average annual precipitation for the
study area is approximately 37 inches/year. This is in agreement with other area studies (see
Section 2.2.1). Regression analyses conducted by the USGS (Woodward, et al, 1995) and other
information provided specifically for Snohomish County (Thomas, et al, 1997) indicate recharge
values of 13 and 26 inches/year, respectively for areas mapped as Qvt and Qva. These values
were applied accordingly to the current model for the areas mapped as Qvt and Qva.
Similar to the recharge, different values of hydraulic conductivity (K) were applied to the model
(again using a series of polygons created in GMS). Pumping test data for the wells constructed
at the 228th Street wellfield (Robinson Noble, 2003, 2015, and 2018) indicate K values of 50
feet/day for the near -field area around the wellfield. Testing of injection wells at the recently
constructed Madrona Elementary School (Shannon & Wilson, 2016), which is located just south
of the 228th Street wellfield, indicate similar K values of 55 feet/day. These K values were ap-
plied to these two areas of the model accordingly.
Elsewhere, the K values are less known. However, the USGS (Thomas, et al, 1997) indicates
that K values for the Qva in the southwest corner of Snohomish County ranges from 3 to 310
feet/day with a median value of 42 feet/day. This is comparable to the K values established for
the 22811 Street wellfield and the Madrona School site. Median K values were initially applied to
all of the areas of the model, save for the areas around the 228th Street wellfield and the Ma-
drona School site, and then adjusted accordingly during the calibration process (see Section
2.2.3.2). For the final calibrated model, in 24 separate polygons used to designate K values
9 Light imaging, detection, and ranging (LIDAR) is a surveying method that uses lasers to produce high -resolution
digital maps, including topographic maps.
10 GMS utilizes polygons that are created by the user to apply aerial or map -view features such a recharge and hy-
draulic conductivity to groups of cells within the model area.
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A Packet Pg. 223
9.B.c
across the model area, K values ranged from 10 to 60 feet/day with a median value of 50
feet/day. This is comparable to the K values determined by the USGS for the Ova aquifer in this
portion of Snohomish County.
2.2.3.2 Model Calibration
Following initial model construction, the overall flow pattern simulated using the initial model
inputs was compared to known flow patterns (potentiometric surface maps) developed for the
area by previous workers. These include potentiometric maps created by the USGS (Newcomb,
1952; and Thomas, et al, 1997) and by King County during the construction of the Brightwater
sewer tunnel (King County, 2003). The initial flow pattern simulated by the model was noted to
approximate the general flow patterns and heads (water level elevations) of these other poten-
tiometric maps.
At this point, select model parameters were systematically modified to adjust simulated heads
to approximate observed heads in a series of model observation wells". Select model parame-
ters were also modified to adjust the modelled discharge rate for Deer Creek Springs to approx-
imate actual rates recorded by the District. For this project, the model parameters available for
calibration were limited to drain and general -head conductance values, and the K within the
specified range of values determined by 1997 USGS study (Thomas, et al, 1997). Recharge, the
known areas of K, and various elevation information are considered fixed values and were not
modified during the calibration process.
The final groundwater model was considered calibrated when the simulated heads and dis-
charge rate from Deer Creek Springs were in general agreement with observed conditions. Fig-
ure 5 presents a plot of the calibration results for the observation wells. It should be noted that
the three outliers indicated in red on Figure 5 are for observation wells located along the north-
ern and southern margins of the model, areas where the model might be expected to be less
calibrated due to the boundary conditions. The calibration residuals12 for the remaining observa-
tion wells (disregarding the noted outliers) range from -13.1 to 8.7 feet, with a mean residual
value of 1.5 feet and a root mean squared (RMS) error of the residuals of 5.1 (see Table 2). The
calibrated residual value for the flow of Deer Creek Springs is 60 gpm. These are all considered
acceptable calibration values. Figure 6 presents a potentiometric map of the Ova aquifer show-
ing simulated heads that were generated from the final calibrated model.
Table 2: Model Calibration Statistics
Number of Water Level
Mean Error of Water Level
Observations
23
Residuals
1.5
Mean Absolute Error of Water
Root Mean Squared Error of
Level Residuals
3 2
Water Level Residuals
5.1
Deer Creek Springs Observed
Deer Creek Springs Modeled
Flow
840 m
gp
Flow
780 m
gp
2.3 Wellfield and Spring Source WHPA Delineation
Using the calibrated groundwater model, WHPAs were delineated for the 2281" Street wellfield
and Deer Creek Springs sources using the MODPATH module of GMS. MODPATH is a particle -
Observation wells are calibration points that are incorporated into the model at the corresponding locations of real -
world wells with recorded water levels.
2 The difference between observed and computed head.
Page 10 1686-007A Robinson No Packet Pg. 224
9.B.c
tracking post -processing prograM13 designed to work directly within MODFLOW (Pollock,
2017). Within the MODPATH interface, a porosity value of 20% was set for the Qva aquifer.
This value, which is near the lower end of typical porosity values for sand aquifers like the Qva
(Heath, 2004), was used to generate conservative WHPAs.
The WHPAs for the 228th Street wellfield were delineated using a simulated withdrawal rate of
500 gallons per minute (gpm), which is the full instantaneous quantity (Qi) allocated by District's
current water right14. The current allocated annual quantity (Qa) for the water right is 560 acre-
feet/year, so the wellfield can feasibly only be pumped at a maximum continuous rate of 347
gpm without exceeding the allocated Qa. However, there are only minimal deference's be-
tween the WHPAs delineated using a rate of 347 gpm and those delineated using a rate of 500
gpm. Delineation at the higher rate results in slightly larger, more conservative WHPAs for the
wellfield, which is intended to cover all conceivable pumping conditions.
Using MODPATH, particles were introduced at the 228th Street wellfield and Deer Creek
Springs, and then tracked up -gradient for specified time intervals. Particle tracking at both
sources was conducted for six-month, one-year, five-year, and ten-year intervals. Additional par-
ticle tracking was also conducted using the "to beginning" option in MODPATH to track the
particles to their ultimate origin within the model. This allowed delineation of the entire zone of
contribution for the two sources. MODPATH was then used to convert the particle tracks to
specific time -of -travel capture zones (see Section 2.1) for the two sources. Figure 7 presents
the time -of -travel capture zones (WHPAs) that were delineated for the two sources. In addition
to the standard six-month, one-year, five-year, and ten-year WHPAs, the capture zones that
were calculated for the entire zone of contribution for each of the two sources were used to
define the recommended buffer zones.
3.0 Summary
DOH requires the definition of wellhead protection zones based on travel rates of groundwater
(DOH, 2010). DOH defines five zones for which wellhead protection strategies should be con-
sidered. These include the following:
• The sanitary control area: Typically the 100-foot radius of control around a wellhead or a
spring (WAC 246-290-135).
• Zone 1: The one-year time -of -travel capture zone. Zone 1 also includes an additional six-
month time -of -travel capture zone to focus greater protection on potential viral and microbial
contamination.
• Zone 2: The five-year time -of -travel capture zone.
• Zone 3: The ten-year time -of -travel capture zone.
• The buffer zone: This zone may extend up -gradient of Zone 3 to include the entire zone of
contribution for a given source.
The first four of these zones are required components of a WHPP and define areas requiring
differing levels of response to a contamination event based on the expected time of travel to a
given groundwater source. The buffer zone is considered optional, but is often vital in planning
13 MODPATH mathematically tracks particles from a given source, up -gradient along the flow lines in a MODFLOW
model for a user specified time -frame.
14 Water right G1-26021 allocates an instantaneous withdrawal (Qi) of 500 gpm and an annual withdrawal (Qa) of 560
acre-feet/year for the District's 228th Street wellfield.
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A P Packet Pg. 225
9.B.c
for comprehensive protection of the supply sources (DOH, 2010). These specific WHPAs, in-
cluding buffer zones, have been delineated for the 2281" Street wellfield and the Deer Creek
Springs sources and are presented in Figure 7.
4.0 Recommendations
The recommended WHPAs, which correspond to the one-year, five-year, and ten-year time -of -
travel zones (Zones 1, 2, and 3, respectively), for both the Deer Creek Springs and the 228t"
Street wellfield are shown on Figure 7. However, the Qva aquifer is a relatively shallow system
which is directly exposed at the surface in many places within the study area and extra protec-
tion is recommended. As such, we also recommend the incorporation of a buffer zone as part
of the WHPAs for both sources. The recommended buffer zones, which incorporate the entire
zone of contribution up -gradient of Zone 3 for both sources, are shown on Figure 7.
Within the recommended WHPAs presented on Figure 7, there is cause for additional concern
in the areas where the Qva is mapped as the surficial geologic unit. Figure 8 presents a compo-
site map that identifies these specific areas. The Qva aquifer has no natural geologic protection
in these locations and is highly vulnerable to impact from various activities that may occur with-
in these areas. As such, additional precautions are warranted for these specific areas.
Additionally, the buffer zone (zone of contribution) for the 2281" Street wellfield reaches Hall
Creek (see Figure 8). This indicates that water from Hall Creek directly recharges a portion of
the aquifer that supplies water to the wellfield. Based on the current modeling, water from the
creek will reach the wellfield within an estimated period of about 18 years. It is recommended
that the District interface with any agencies or entities monitoring water quality along this por-
tion of the creek and request that the Department of Ecology and Snohomish County Environ-
mental Health inform the District of any catastrophic pollution events that may occur in this
reach of Hall Creek.
5.0 References
Anderson, M.P., and Woessner, W.W., 1992; Applied groundwater modeling, simulation of
o
flow and advective transport, San Diego, Academic Press, Inc.
Q
Golder Associates, Inc., 2008; Hydrogeologic conditions, greater Hall Lake, Hall Creek,3.1
a
_
Chase Lake, Echo Lake, Lake Ballinger, and McAleer Creek watershed; Technical Mem-
00
orandum
r
N
Harbaugh, A.W., 2005: MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground -water
2
model, the ground -water flow process; U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods
6-Al 6
Q-
E
Heath, R.C., Basic groundwater hydrology, 2004; USGS Water Supply Paper 2220, (revised)
21
p
King County, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division,
2003; Brightwater treatment plant, final environmental impact statement, Appendix 6-B
E
(geology and groundwater)
a
Liesch, B.A., Price, C.E., and Walters, K.C., 1963; Geology and groundwater resources of
Q
northwest King County, Washington; Washington State Department of Conservation,
Water Supply Bulletin No. 20. 3 plates
Minard, J.P., 1983; Geologic map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles,
Washington; USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-1541, scale 1:24,000
a
Page 12 1686-007A Robinson No Packet Pg. 226
9.B.c
Newcomb, R.C., 1952; Groundwater resources of Snohomish County, Washington; USGS
Water Supply Paper 1135. 2 plates
Pace Engineers, Inc., 2009; Olympic View Water & Sewer District, 2009 comprehensive
water system plan
Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc., and Robinson Noble, Inc., 1999; Olym-
pic View Water & Sewer District, Deer Creek water supply protection plan
Pollock, D.W., 2017; MODPATH v7.2.01, A particle -tracking model for MODFLOW; U.S.
Geological Survey Software Release, 15 December 2017
Robinson Noble, Inc., 2003; Olympic View Water & Sewer District, modification and testing
of the 22811 Street production well
Robinson Noble, Inc., 2015; Olympic View Water & Sewer District, 8605 228, Street test
well
Robinson Noble, Inc., 2018; Olympic View Water & Sewer District, construction and testing
of Production Well 2
Shannon and Wilson, Inc., 2016; Hydrogeologic report new Madrona K-8 project, 9300 23611
Street SW, Edmonds, Washington
Thomas, B.E., Wilkenson, J.M., and Embrey, S.S., 1997; The groundwater system and
groundwater quality in western Snohomish County, Washington; USGS Water Re-
sources Investigations Report 96-4312. 9 plates
Washington State Department of Health, 2010; Washington State wellhead protection pro-
gram guidance document; Washington State Department of Health, Environmental
Health Programs, DOH 331-018 (revised)
Woodward, D.G., Packard, F.A., Dion, N.P., and Sumioka, S.S., 1995; Occurrence and quali-
ty of groundwater in southwestern King County, Washington; USGS Water Resources
Investigation Report 92-4098. 4 plates
The statements, conclusions, and recommendations provided in this report are to be exclusively
used within the context of this document. They are based upon generally accepted hydrogeologic
practices and are the result of analysis by Robinson Noble, Inc. staff. This report, and any attach-
ments to it, is for the exclusive use of Olympic View Water & Sewer District. Unless specifically
stated in the document, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Robinson Noble, Inc. 1686-007A P Packet Pg. 227
9.B.c
Figures
Q
m
�L
U
O
C
O
v
7
O
L
r
C
r-
O
Q
NCD
O
Q
a.
2
00
r
O
N
3
m
Q
E
O
M
C
d
E
L
V
R
r
r
Q
C
N
E
t
V
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 228
9.B.c
�4+5 -fit � � y1 • i �' ' '}' ' , � } i� 4 �' � 4 "
ueer �,reeK opnngs
S
0' 4000'
.1 1
Note: Basemap from PM: MTW Snohomish County
USGS Edmonds August 2018 T 27 N/R 3,4 E
West and East 1686-007A Scale 1" = 4000'
ROBINSON Quadrangles
NOBLE
dp
' + � 4 ■ ; �.■ � � � �4 .,,' I.M.
i
O
,Olympic View Water and Sewer District Service Area
Q
Wellfield pw
2a
r6—
fJ
y
00
r
� k
3
#,.
•..sue. '
2
>
■! i4
—_
_
Olj
•r'
_
+
Figure
Vicinity Map with Service Areu
mpic View Water and Sewer Dis
Packet Pg. 229
I 9.B.c I
Model
Boundary
Runoff
Infiltration
Qvt
Precipitation
Runoff
Qvt
Spring --
Discharge r, Flow Direction
Puget Sound
Well
Discharge
Qtb
1G� Precipitation
Z* Runoff
i Infiltration
v_
Qva
Leakage
Model
Boundary
Qvt
Stream _ _ v _
Water Table
L
.3
Q
U
Y
L
U
0
0
U
0
r
c
PM: MTW Snohomish County Figure
August 2018 T 27 N/R 3,4E Conceptual Mods;
ROBINSON 1686-007A Drawing Not to Scale
NOBLE Olympic View Water and Sewer Dis
Packet Pg. 230
9.B.c
Legend aI
OModel Boundary e__1
— Qvt t
Geological Symbols: - ^ i
Qyal Holocene younger alluvium
Qvr Vashon recessional outwash
Qv t Vashon till / o'er = • Ll to a ';� ZS
Qva Vashon advance outwash \ 1 -91: � + , •. l' � ` Q
Qtb Pre-Vashon transitional beds r
ovaOyal
016
Ow ,j / O
0%4or I
A/ •r
1, o.t
oie opt I I r o
M, Orsow-
. : �, s w, �< .� ► r c
oa � 01a li U�� !• '�,� Q
Oyal
CL
0.
Ova
)ovt
IP
;'i • :� r \ ova Q I `y1 E
01 2.00 /ar. s�z ., - 1 crt Q
ell)
�? �l (f E
t
r Note: Geological PM: MTW Snohomish County Figure '
Map from Minard August 2018 T 27 N/R 3,4 E
1983 USGS 1686-007A Scale 1" = 3200' Surficial Geology MaN
ROBINSON Edmonds East and
NOBLE West Quadrangles Olympic View Water and Sewer Dis
Packet Pg. 231
;w lot
9.B.c
ROBINSON
NOBLE
Mrs
340
320
300
a)
280
Q
E
0
U
260
240
220
200
200
PM: MTW
August 2018
1686-007A
I I I I I /11 Model Observation Well
Outlier Perfect Correspondence
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I♦ I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I♦ I
I I I I I I I
I I I I ♦ I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I ♦ I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I♦♦-- I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
♦ I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Observed Head (feet)
Figure 5
Model Calibration
Olympic View Water and Sewer District: 2018 WHPA
Packet Pg. 233 1
Legend
Water Sources
Groundwater Contours
Groundwater Flow Direction
Model Boundary
Y
9.B.c
• L
e
Jk U
0
c
0
� v
0
c
f r
L
0
IZ
M
2
y� r
8
Ilfield ee Q
IL
00
I L i
•Q
E
21
r� o
M
41
Note: Basemap from PM: MTW Snohomish County
USGS Edmonds August 2018 T 27 N/R 3,4 E
West and East 1686-007A Scale 1" = 3200'
ROBINSON Quadrangles
NOBLE
7
t
aD
E
Figure
Potentiometric Contour MaN
mpic View Water and Sewer Dis
Packet Pg. 234
9.B.c
d Legend
6 Month Travel Time Zone
. � �I m � f � �'� �" ;� }�•~� ���'�� ; Zone 1 (1 Year Travel Time Zone) !
- 4 � •--,: ,- —�� _ � Zone 2 (5 Year Travel Time Zone) 3
Zone 3 (10 Year Travel Time Zone) a
{* ■# , rt� �� ■+ ,* y • +:. +L L J Buffer Zone R
1C + 3 I M a U
Water Sources
f * ; # I��'t. ■M * O Olympic View Water and Sewer District ServiceAr V
�f
F. ■ + O
if IT.
O
jr
* qL
a +
Cala w,,n t O
y ♦�
f Deer Creek
,,,,Springs�
ao L
j * F U. 41 P IBLO
1.01
Cal
•
Ir
• i I =
20 0' . + • ^. '�' ail L * # , G' .. '; `
Ole
E
t
Note: Basemap from PM: MTW Snohomish County Figure c
.± USGS Edmonds August 2018 T 27 N/R 3,4 E
West and East 1686-007A Scale 1" = 2000' Well Head Protection Area MalN
ROBINSON Quadrangles
NOBLE Olympic View Water and Sewer Dis
Packet Pg. 235
9.B.c
2,3 4� Legend
6 Month Travel Time Zone
+ \ Ed m 8 FF - �;• �f - L_ J Zone 1 1 Year Travel Time Zone
` Tt1Gu�l1S f � rb 1 Zone 2 (5 Year Travel Time Zone) 3
.� N,' , �" , �� f E: J Zone 3 (10 Year Travel Time Zone) Q
_ ! ~ J' `, { 11 f • • L_ Buffer Zone U
'� Water Sources +�
Edwards Pa, Additional Protection Areas for Exposed Ova Aquif V
' , I / ? I • • ' Olympic View Water and Sewer District Service Ar
• f f' Tarts • 4 I +. O
Ck
;� I ��•
0000
Kk
�• , '.I••••te}`kss `4 1 •1 A
O
228thj,Stat Weil ..:r •1�-�•�.' . WHPA
'';! ; •; . Influenced I o
--Deer Creek > '� ` '. •• // Hall Creek a
��Springsolt�/ .!; .,
00
cm
iin ails • sf�. • •• 1 3 t �. ` �, •• • y+ - •' ~• •' y d'r`• +�1 ` +1 •E
Ballinger O
00,
2 IL}' - - -> ,•
is - 3 '• !
• E
t
r Note: Basemap from PM: MTW Snohomish County Figure U
USGS Edmonds August 2018 T 27 N/R 3,4 E
West and East 1686-007A Scale 1" = 2000' Additional Protection Area
ROBINSON Quadrangles
NOBLE Olympic View Water and Sewer Dis
Packet Pg. 236
10.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/24/2023
May 24 Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Narrative
The May 24 extended agenda is attached for review. Staff is currently working with the City Council's
office on the logistics and specifics of the June 14 special joint meeting with City Council, which is
scheduled to begin at 6 pm in the Brackett Room, immediately before the board's regular meeting.
Attachments:
May 24 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 237
10.A.a
Planning Board Extended Agenda - May 24, 2023
Q
Ln
Ln
Ln
0
0
4
00
N
l6
M
M
l0
r�
r-I
Ln
BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment)
Tree Code Update (Code Amendment)
D/R*
PH
Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment)
I
PH
Recommendation on Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
D/R
Joint Workshop with Council - Recap of 2023 Housing -Related
Legislation and Impacts on Comp Plan and Code Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Kick -Off with Consultants
I
Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment)
I**
D/R
Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update
B
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (No
Presentation)
R
R
Planning Board update to City Council - Report rather than
presentation?
R
Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment)
I
D/R
Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment)
I
PH
* Invite Tree Board to Discuss Draft Code Amendments
** Joint Meeting with Architectural Design Board
KEY
I- Introduction & Discussion
PH- Public Hearing
D/R- Discussion/Recommendation
B- Briefing
R- Report with no briefing/presentation
Future Items
Additional Code Modernization Projects
Parks Acquisition - Hurst Property (TBD)
Neighborhood Center Plans
ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
CIP/CFP
Comp Plan Goal/Policy Review
Housing Bills Policy Implementation
Packet Pg. 238