Groundwater in Island County ("Acronym City"):  Role of County Population Projections?
HOW DOES WHIDBEY ISLAND DIFFER FROM WESTON, CT?

Wetland regulations substantially upheld
By JESSIE STENSLAND
Whidbey News Times Assistant editor
Nov 25 2008, 1:38 PM · UPDATED

A South Whidbey environmental group’s challenge to Island County’s new wetland regulations was successful on three issues that must be fixed in the next 90 days.

Nevertheless, members of Whidbey Environmental Action Network, known as WEAN, aren’t thrilled with the 89-page decision from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, which found in favor of the county on 10 other issues.

“There were a couple of things that even they could not swallow,” said Marianne Edain of WEAN, who’s dismayed at the direction the hearings board has taken over the last few years. “They just threw us a bone.”

In addition, the hearings board didn’t agree with WEAN’s co-petitioner, Camano Action For a Rural Environment or CARE, on any of the seven issues they brought forward.

Island County Planning Director Jeff Tate is pleased with the decision and describes the three areas that need fixes as minor, “no brainers” that will be easy to amend. He points out that the board didn’t invalidate the ordinance.

“In effect, the Growth Management Hearings Board doesn’t think that the things requiring fixes are significant,” he said.

Specifically, the board ruled that the county must amend the definition of “reasonable use” so that it’s more limited in scope; remove an arbitrary 25 percent limit on increases to wetland buffers; and create a monitoring program for rural stewardship plans.

The county’s wetland ordinance, which covers non-agriculture land, was adopted by county commissioners in March. It deals with setbacks between development and wetlands as well as a myriad other issues. Under state law, the county is required to adopt a series of ordinances to protect critical areas — namely geologically hazardous; frequently flooded; aquifer recharge; wetlands; and fish and wildlife.

Instead of adopting the state’s model rules, Tate explained that the county developed a one-of-a-kind, custom-made wetland ordinance appropriate for the county’s two major islands.

“The entire structure of the county’s wetlands ordinance is so complicated that we don’t believe it’s reasonably possible to protect wetlands using this incredibly difficult tool,” Edain said.

Tate admits that it is complex, but he said it will meet the important goals.

“You can adopt something that’s black and white and really easy to understand, but black and white is really rigid,” he said. “As you add flexibility and options to an ordinance, it becomes more complicated.”

Gov. Chris Gregoire directed two state agencies to file briefs with the hearings board in support of the county’s wetland ordinance. The three-member Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board’s job is to decide if new ordinances and rules comply with the state’s Growth Management Act.

WEAN feels that the county’s wetland ordinance will ultimately lead to the destruction of wetlands because it allows, in Edain’s words, “a million-and-one, get-out-of-jail-free cards” for developers who want to drain wetlands.

Edain said WEAN, and possibly CARE, will likely ask the board to reconsider the decision, which they have 10 days to do. But beyond that, Edain expects that WEAN and other environmental groups will be able to work with the new Island County commissioners on wetland and other ordinances instead of resorting to litigation.

“Everything changed on Nov. 4,” Edain said, referring to the election of Helen Price Johnson and Angie Homola, both Democrats, to the board of Island County commissioners.

During the campaigns, both women were critical of the wetland ordinance, while the incumbent candidates trumpeted it as a model for the rest of the state.

“The reason we had to bring a challenge in the first place is that the sitting commissioners made it their policy not to listen to WEAN,” Edain said. “We’re hoping with the new commissioners we can deal with the issues earlier and not have to go through this.”


Water connects islanders, is a focus in development
By SPENCER WEBSTER
South Whidbey RECORD
Aug 04 2007

COUPEVILLE — A childhood rhyme tells rain, rain to go away. If that rhyme rang true and the rainfall ceased on Island County, a lot of people might get pretty thirsty 20 years from now.

Every glass of water Whidbey Islanders drink, every car they wash and every shower they take is supplied by a groundwater aquifer, which is fed only by rain.

As communities on Whidbey’s south end such as Freeland and Langley deal with growth management issues, they share issues and concerns about Island County’s water resources and how best to manage those resources.  Because Island County does not get water from any other source, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has designated the county as a sole-source aquifer.

“It doesn’t mean there is just one aquifer. What it means is that groundwater is your only source of water and if you lost your groundwater source, you’d be in trouble because there is no other source for you,” said Island County’s hydro-geologist, Doug Kelly.

Island County’s fresh water aquifers, he said, were formed when glaciers departed from Whidbey Island nearly 15,000 years ago leaving layers of water-bearing sand and gravel behind. Non-water bearing layers are called aquatards, and consist of silt and clay and act as filters and boundaries for aquifers, said Kelly.

Groundwater, as a sole-source of the island’s fresh or potable water, presents some challenges, however, to scientists like Kelly and can hinder development of urban areas.

One challenge to the county’s fresh water supply is that if unchecked water usage continues from a single aquifer, as a majority of the county’s wells have drilled into, the aquifers water level can drop. Because Whidbey Island is surrounded by Puget Sound, the aquifer runs the risk of contamination from what is called sea water intrusion, Kelly said.

“Sea water intrusion is the principle concern for water in this county,” he said. “With the aquifers generally connected to the Puget Sound, if you pull too much water from them, water levels will drop a little ways down, but when they reach near sea level, the salt water starts coming in. You end up with a salty aquifer.”

The proliferation of individual wells and the potential of drawing sea water into the aquifer as a result of those wells drawing from a single source caused sea water intrusion policy to be implemented at the state level with the Growth Management Act, said Kelly.

“The county has a sea water protection code. In 1991, Island County was the first county to create policy. We have, by far, the strictest code in the state. We actually regulate all the way down to individual wells,” he said. “If it is in an area where sea water intrusion is a problem, we say you cannot drill a well or use that well for a building permit.”

Another challenge Kelly sees is potential contamination of the aquifer during the well drilling process.

“Every hole that you drill creates a vulnerability to the water because almost everywhere in the county there are significant numbers of these layers of silt and clay that don’t stop flow downward, but slow it,” he said.

“They create a really good filter system so that contaminants that occur at land surface, whether natural or human-created, typically don’t make their way down through those big thick aquatards. When you punch a well through that aquatard, you have created a pathway vertically around that well.”

But there is a solution, said Kelly. It exists in the form of public water services and provides a number of benefits to all users of fresh water.

“One of the big benefits for public water systems is that they have the fiscal capacity to deal with problems should they occur,” he said.

“If Freeland grows, and they continue using their current well fields, and they begin to see problems, they have the financial capacity to drill a new well two miles away. No individual homeowner could afford to move a pipeline two miles inland and drill a new well.”

With a managed water service, there are fewer wells to be drilled, thus fewer ways for the groundwater to become contaminated, said Kelly.  Regular monitoring for salt and contamination is a third benefit.

“There is regular monitoring. Big water systems sample everything under the sun on a pretty regular basis,” he said. “Tiny water systems sample for almost nothing almost never and individual wells sample once and that is it. There is some assurance of water quality and management that goes on with bigger systems that does not occur with smaller ones.”

For Kelly, fresh uncontaminated water is vital to Island County’s health and managing that resource is the best way he sees to mitigate the risks to it.

“A managed water system is a good thing for the aquifer and for public health,” he said. “So both environmental and public health benefit from a managed water system as opposed to a whole bunch of individual wells.”



Our question is this:  how is it that Island County Planners are willing to extend the amount of future development...if population projections from the Office of Financial Management are accurate indicators, Island County could have 110,050 people by 2025.

The particular paragraphs in the newspaper report, for your convenience, are:

"...John Coleman, Island County Planning and Development assistant planner, presented the population projections to the Island County Planning Commission Wednesday. The process for determining the likely county population over approximately the next two decades began in 2004 when the county presented OFM’s numbers to the commission.

The commission deliberated on the figures and decided on a compromise between the medium and high figures, or 110,050. The projections were then forwarded to cities and towns to enable personnel to incorporate the numbers into their population projections.

The jump from 77,261 people in 2005 to 110,050 in 2025 represents a 20-year increase of 32,789 people or 30 percent. The projections show the county’s population increasing by about 8,000 people every five years beginning in 2005..."

Water Resources Program:  http://www.islandcounty.net/health/Envh/enviro.htm#Resources

Coupeville expands its water service
Whidbey News-Times
By Nathan Whalen
Apr 08 2006

The town of Coupeville is looking to expand its water service area boundary, ending a moratorium that goes back years.

The expansion follows system improvements that make available more water to town residents and those in outlying areas.  The proposed plan would expand the service area basically from Libby Road to Outlying Field and the border of Admirals Cove.  With expanding the service area, the town is looking to repeal an ordinance prohibiting the sale of water hookups to out-of-town customers.
 
The proposed expansion won’t affect smaller utilities, such as ones at Long Point, Crockett Heights and Barrett Road, that lie within the proposed expanded service area, Mayor Nancy Conard said.  The town is able to expand its service area because of a new well that will be drilled near Keystone Road on Central Whidbey Island.  The centrally-located well would access a large aquifer that promises a new supply of fresh water.

“It looks like there is adequate water in the aquifer,” Nancy Conard said.  Doug Kelly, hydrologist for the Island County Health Department, said the town’s current wells, located in town and near Fort Casey, are susceptible to saltwater intrusion and the new well, which is located further inland, won’t have that problem.  Kelly cited the work to research and compile the water management plan that helped find a good aquifer for the town’s water system.  He said that expanding Coupeville’s water service area will help centralize water service to an entity that has the resources to manage it.
 
“It allows us to manage the resource better than any individual can,” said Bob Clay, member of the Coupeville Town Council during a recent meeting.  The county has two wells near where the town wants to place its new well. The county uses one of the wells for irrigation at Rhododendron Park. Kelly said the county wells shouldn’t affect the town’s plans.  The town is currently accepting bids for the new well. The well is expected to produce 60 gallons of water per minute which should provide water for 200 additional customers.
 
The town prohibited new hookups for out-of-town customers in the mid-1990s because the town didn’t have the infrastructure and water supply to properly serve them.
Conard said improvements have been made over the years. Those improvements include installation of a new water tower, replacement of a water main near Fort Casey, and improvement of the water treatment system and wastewater treatment facility. The new service area boundary is based on a review of population densities, current water rights the town holds, the current water system and what areas could eventually access water mains.
 
“We have been very careful in understanding what the maximum density will be,” Mayor Conard told the council.  The Coupeville Town Council approved the first reading of the proposed ordinance during a late March meeting. The ordinance comes up again during its April 11 meeting that begins at 6:30 p.m. in the commissioners’ hearing room at the courthouse annex building.
 
The council will also look at an ordinance that would allow the purchase of in-town water hookups without a building permit application.

Get involved

The Coupeville Town Council could approve a resolution to expand the water service area and to allow the sale of water hookups without a building permit.  The council meets Tuesday, April 11, 6:30 p.m. at the Commissioners Hearing Room in the Courthouse Annex Building.
 

Island County water plan stirs debate
South Whidbey RECORD
By ERIC BERTO
May 28 2005

Despite the county’s best efforts, just how much water is available underground is still not known, nor is it ever likely to be.

At a public hearing Monday about the proposed Watershed Management Plan, a riptide of criticism was evident in the comments.  North Whidbey resident Donna Painter said that the plan, which has been five years and $500,000 in the making, contains a lot of uncertainties and non-answers.

Oak Harbor resident Al Williams said that the plan does not adequately protect the existing water supply.

“What is this going to level to?” Williams asked during the hearing. “Particularly when there’s an insurgency of people that are looking at this as an area that is prime for development.”

Don Lee, chairman of the Water Resource Advisory Committee, said that serious threats to the county’s water supply do exist, but there is no need to panic about the availability of water in the future.

“We’re not involved with planning; we’re not involved with land use,” he said. “We are involved with trying to figure out the water situation.”

Island County is in a unique situation with its water supply. It has more than 850 water systems, which supply water to all of the county, except Oak Harbor and NAS Whidbey. Most places in the state only have one or two water systems.  Island County relies on five different aquifers for its drinking waters. It does not rely on lakes or rivers like the rest of the state.

“We’re a different beast than the rest of the state,” Island County Environmental Health Director Keith Higman said. “We don’t rely on a river or lake source.”

The plan’s biggest focus is on combating seawater intrusion, which is when saltwater moves into a freshwater aquifer. It affects areas near the shore and those that are below sea level. The plan would modify the county’s seawater intrusion policy to include data on the water elevation of a proposed well.

Proposed new wells will also be subject to a review of their effects on the aquifer as a whole. If in an area that is at risk of intrusion, a well would be subject to evaluation.  Higman said that only one way exists to determine how much water is available for the future.

“The only way we’ll ever know how much water we have is to dig up the whole island and see what we have,” Higman said.

The county has also developed a critical aquifer recharge area map. This map outlines areas that allow for better recharge of the aquifers. According to the plan, only 20 to 34 percent of the rain that falls in the county makes its way back into the ground.  With the new map, developers will be better able to plan improvements around areas where water is more likely to be available.

In places with shallow aquifers, for example, rainwater may not be filtered of all contaminants. The plan also encourages low-impact development in order to maintain the recharge rates.  This means limiting the amount of clearing, paving and retention of runoff in developing areas.

The plan also proposes utilizing reclaimed water for uses such as farm irrigation. In addition, the idea of using “hauled water for emergency or short-term water supply. Water could be hauled by truck or boat,” is proposed in the plan. 

Navy, county to test private wells
Whidbey News-Times, March 23, 2005
By Susan Mador

Whidbey Island Naval Air Station plans to sample privately- owned wells adjacent to Navy property to detect whether a chemical has migrated past the current treatment system.

According to a news release the base issued Tuesday, representatives from the base and Island County Health Department will discuss the situation in a media briefing today.  The chemical, 1,4-dioxane, was used as a stabilizer in degreasing solvents used to clean aircraft parts. In high levels, the chemical can cause cancer.

“At this point we don’t know the extent of the contaminant,” Keith Higman, Island County’s environmental health director, said Tuesday morning.  For the past 10 years, the Navy has been treating contaminated groundwater beneath an old landfill on Navy property known as Landfill 6. This former landfill is south of Ault Field Road and west of Highway 20.

Higman said Island County will work with the Navy to develop a testing program to discover where the dioxane has spread.  Higman stressed that the Enviromental Protection Agency’s recommended concentration level of 4 milligrams per liter is far above the level of dioxane in groundwater found at the Navy’s property line. That level is 7.95 parts per billion (ppb). The maximum level found in groundwater is 14 ppb at the landfill site
.
Recent sampling has detected groundwater concentrations ranging from a high of 14 parts per billion to about 7 ppb at the Navy property line. While a federal Maximum Contaminate Level for consumption of 1,4-dioxane in drinking water has not been developed, Washington state has established a groundwater cleanup level of 7.95 ppb.

Higman said most residents in the area use city water but there are private wells in the area.  Higman referred to a data sheet issued by the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that lists dioxane as a compound that is “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer in humans.  In the early 1990s, solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) were identified as contaminants and a treatment system was installed to remove them from the groundwater and return the treated water to the aquifer.

Ten years ago, when the base began monitoring the site, low levels of 1,4-dioxane could not be detected. New methods now make it possible to detect this chemical, according to the Navy’s news release. Tests of monitoring wells at Landfill 6 indicate the presence of 1,4-dioxane.

Web sites, including Clu-in.org, Envirotools.org and checnet.org, classify 1,4-dioxane as a “possible” or “probable” factor in human cancer. These sites list “chronic, long term exposure” as the most likely to cause cancer. Workers inhaling the chemical at industrial sites face the greatest human danger. Laboratory animals have developed certain kidney, liver and gall bladder cancers after exposure.

One Web site calculates a person would have to drink two liters of water with a level greater than 3 ppb for more than 70 years to generate one additional cancer case out of a population of 1 million people.


Water resource plan surfaces
By Eric Berto, Whidbey News-Times
Mar 23 2005

As the crowd of approximately 12 people poured into their seats, the speakers each took a sip of water.

A fitting beginning for a presentation on the upcoming Water Resource Management Plan, which occurred Monday night in Oak Harbor. Currently under development, the plan will recommend how to protect Island County’s water.

Approximately 70 percent of the county’s residents rely on groundwater for their potable drinking water. But the status of the hundreds of aquifers is still largely unknown.

“To accurately assess how many gallons there are is impossible,” said Don Lee, chairman of the Water Resources Advisory Committee. “And you can’t do something that’s impossible.”

County residents currently draw approximately 1 billion gallons of water out of the aquifers each year. By 2025, when the county’s population is expected to expand to 100,000 residents, an additional half billion gallons will be used.

“The big thing is that nobody knows how much is down there,” said Barry Meaux, who manages a water system for approximately 30 people outside of Oak Harbor.  The plan will evolve out of five years of work by the WRAC. In an effort to address the future of the county’s water supply, it has developed a series of papers that offer suggestions of how to conserve water, Lee said.

“We’re trying to make the plan itself only 30 to 40 pages,” he said. “Maybe we have a better chance of people using it if we make it terse and to the point.”  The plan will address such threats to the aquifers as sea water intrusion. When salt water infiltrates a well, it renders that water undrinkable because of salt and other contaminants.

“The biggest threat is still sea water intrusion,” Lee said. “Most people want to live near the water, but as they develop along the coast, it’s more likely they will develop a problem.”

Oak Harbor resident Bill Applegate said he attended the forum to learn more about the future of his water supply.

“We are reliant on ground water,” he said. “I think it’s one of the most important issues in Island County.”
Applegate said that a plan for Island County has been a long time coming.

“I can’t believe all of the work that has gone into this,” he said. “When we moved here, they had no idea what was down there.”

The open house was the first of four that are planned before a draft is finished by May 9. All forums run from 6 to 8 p.m. and will occur March 23 at the Bayview Community Hall, April 4 at the Coupeville Rec Center and April 13 at the Camano Senior Center.


Minutes of the Island County Board of Health
Regular Meeting Monday April 19, 2004 (NOTE: only part of this agenda)

Members Present:  Commissioners:  William J. Byrd; Mac McDowell, Mike Shelton; Barbara Saugen, WGH Commissioner and Captain Susan B. Herrold, NC USN (Naval Hospital Oak Harbor); Roger S. Case, M.D., Executive Secretary to the Board

Absent: Mayor Patty Cohen, Oak Harbor...
 

Presentation: U.S. Geological Survey – related to this paper?
http://www.islandcounty.net/health/WRAC/WaterResourceManagementPlan(Old)/Seawater Intrusion _Final Code_.pdf
This report was given by S.S. Sumioka, Mark Savoca, and Doug Kelly.  During the past five years USGS has conducted a study about ground water in Island County.  80% of Island County’s population uses ground water as its potable water.  The study included:

·         Estimating ground water recharge from precipitation

·         Applying a Deep Percolation Module

·         Estimating groundwater recharge in 6 study basins-South Camano, North Camano, North Whidbey, Penn Cove, Cultus Creek, and South Whidbey State Park. They considered certain variables — range of precipitation, types of soils, (most of island is made of impermeable soils), and vegetation effects on the water for recharge

·         Estimated recharge “average”: Whidbey = 5.71”; Camano = 5.98”

·         Deep Percolation model showed annual average recharge for the 6 study basins to be approximately  6”; the Chloride Mass Balance approximately 2” (within expectations).
 
 

Doug Kelly gave a brief summation of Why & What are we going to do with the information that was gathered:

—     groundwater flow modules for county

—     surface water modeling

—     watershed planning

—     model calibration (gives lots of information.)
 
 

Water Shed Planning — the assessment: Phase II (Numeric quantification of water resources)

·         looking at sea water intrusion

·         Artificial Recharge – is it possible? – how possible?

·         Readying for Phase III
 
 

Post-presentation comments: Commissioner Shelton thanked Steve Sumioka and Mark Savoca for their work in this study, and said that they could always depend upon Doug Kelly to give science-based information regarding our water and not information based on politics. . . “even though it may not be what we want to hear”.  Rufus Rose, a resident of South Whidbey, then asked if this presentation could be given to the “Old  Goats” on South Whidbey. Doug’s answer was in the affirmative.


South Whidbey RECORD, Dec. 27, 2004
Arsenic in water needs to go in 2006
By STEPHEN MERCER

Arsenic in water is odorless, tasteless and may only cause health problems if consumed in large quantities over the course of decades. Yet by 2006, many Island County residents may have to start spending big bucks to remove arsenic from their water supplies.

Doug Kelly, a hydrogeologist for Island County, said 18 to 20 percent of all Island County wells have tested for arsenic in the last couple years at levels exceeding the upcoming 10 parts per billion federal standard (ppb). When compared to the state’s other counties, this is an unusually high percentage, said Vin Sherman, Island County’s water program supervisor.

The 10 ppb standard is part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Water Drinking Act. Passed in 2002, it drops the highest acceptable level of arsenic in water from 50 ppb to 10 ppb starting in 2006. That change put far more water systems in violation of the rule, Kelly said.

“When we were at 50, we had very few systems that exceeded that value,” he said.

Andy Campbell, a South Whidbey water systems manager who maintains a number of community water systems, said more than 5 to 6 percent of the water systems he tests are above the 10 ppb benchmark, at least triple the amount of water systems that were above 50 ppb.

Vin Sherman said the county’s unusually high arsenic levels is due to high levels of unconsolidated sand and gravel eroding into the water table. When water moves through an aquifer, stream or river, arsenic bonds to the iron in the sand and gravel. The arsenic is eventually drawn into community water supplies, he said.

Sherman and Kelly said arsenic has been linked to various types of cancer and other diseases, although Kelly said someone may have to drink from the same water source for 50 to 60 years to develop an illness. There’s a “one in a million” chance that someone would become ill, he said.

But with stricter federal laws going into effect about one year from now, Island County residents may have to collectively pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to either filter the arsenic from the water or use another method to meet arsenic standards.

Though many Whidbey Island communities getting an early start to meet the lower standards, the impending regulation has been met with a fair amount of resistance, said Coupeville water systems manager Clyde Desty.

“It can be a significant financial burden,” he said.

Small water systems will be hit the hardest. Desty said the smaller the number of hookups, the more each water customer will have to pay.

A typical community system will likely have to pay $40,000 and $600,000 to design and test an arsenic filter system, and to monitor it, said Andy Campbell and Desty. The whole process could take 18 months, Desty said.

Campbell said if a community can’t afford the system, state public works trust fund loans are available. He said communities should mention the arsenic levels when funding,

“Arsenic is the ticket to get the loan,” he said.

With the coming financial impact of the impending arsenic standards, Steve Hulsman of the state Department of Health noted that no affected water system is required to lower arsenic levels immediately after the new rule goes into effect. Instead, the timeline will take into consideration the levels of arsenic in the system. The higher the concentration, the more quickly water systems must act, he said.

Who is affected

County residents most affected by the new standard are those who live on a water system used by more than either 15 homes or 25 people. School and other non-transient non-community water systems day cares and schools are subject to the new requirements, as well.

Labeled as Group “A” water systems, these systems fall under the federal government’s guidelines, with enforcement authority granted to the state. The state adopted the rule on Jan. 14.

More unclear are what standards will apply to water systems used by communities with less than 15 homes, called Group “B” water systems, and individual wells. Island County’s Sherman said the state Board of Health is still deciding if the 10 ppb level will apply to the Group B water systems.

Not wanting to wait until 2006 to lower arsenic, some Whidbey Island communities are already tackling the problem, hiring water system managers.

According to water system managers Campbell and Desty, the best option to meet the upcoming arsenic standards is a filtration system. Campbell said several filtration systems have already been installed around South Whidbey, including one on a well near Sunlight Beach, Campbell said.

Desty said the filtration machine begins to work when arsenic-tainted water reaches the filtration machine’s contact tank. At that point, a chemical reaction enlarges the arsenic particles. A filter then removes the particles.

This is the most expensive option, but also appears to be the most reliable, Campbell said.


BEACHWATCHERS UNITED!

Beaches monitored for water quality
South Whidbey RECORD
By GAYLE SARAN
May 18 2005

Safe swimming means more than knowing how or where to swim. It also means making sure the water won’t make swimmers sick. That’s why the Island County Health Department will be testing water for bacteria at five popular beaches beginning this month.

Called the BEACH program, it is funded by the state departments of Ecology and Health.

Kathleen Parvin, environmental specialist for the county health department said the BEACH program is for marine beaches only. Fresh water lakes are monitored under a separate program.

Island County received $12,000 from the state to fund this year’s program at five popular marine parks from May 31 through Sept. 16. One-half of the funds will be used for laboratory testing fees.

The five county beaches slated for weekly monitoring are Dave Mackie in Clinton, Freeland Park on Holmes Harbor, Oak Harbor City Park and Lagoon and Cavalero beach on the east side of Camano Island.

Parvin said the beaches were selected based on popularity.

Water quality will be monitored for an indicator organism call enterococci.

“The bacteria is an indicator for the risk of getting a gastrointestinal or upper respiratory illness from swimming in marine waters,” Parvin said.

Pollution can come from sewage treatment plant problems, boating waste, malfunctioning septic systems and animal waste.

Island County has participated in the program since it began in 2003 and health officials say since the inception of the BEACHES program, Island County beaches tested have met water quality standards.

The same five parks and Fort Ebey were monitored through the program in 2004.

“Fort Ebey is not on this year’s list because of its excellent water quality,” Parvin said.

There are more beaches along the 212 miles of shoreline on Whidbey and Camano that Parvin would like to monitor.

“Unfortunately, there isn’t funding to check more areas,” she said. “We can only do so many.”

Washington state has over 3,500 miles of coastal waters with 900 public recreational beaches. Seventy-two were identified this year as priority beaches for monitoring. These were chosen based on the number of people swimming, scubas diving, surfing or wading.


State hands county major victory in fight over farming rules
South Whidbey RECORD
By BRIAN KELLY
Sep 02 2006

In a lopsided victory for Island County, a state growth board said this week that the county’s new rules for farming will protect both farmers and the islands’ streams and wetlands.  The landmark decision ends a dispute between the county and the Whidbey Environmental Action Network that stretches back to 1998.

WEAN has fought the county’s rules for farming near “critical areas” — environmentally sensitive areas with wetlands and streams — because the activist group believes the county’s regulations aren’t tough enough.  Unlike previous growth board and court rulings that resulted in split decisions, the Wednesday decision was a one-sided win for county officials.

County officials called it “unprecedented.”

“I was thrilled,” said County Commissioner Mike Shelton. “This had been going on since 1998. Here we are eight years later and we finally got a decision that we believe the people of Island County, specifically the agriculture people ... can live with,” he said.

“My hope is that they will continue to do their agriculture practices, and I think that’s critical to maintaining the rural character of Island County,” Shelton said.

In its decision, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board heaped praise on the county’s new farming rules.

“Island County has achieved compliance in an impressive way that could be a model for other jurisdictions,” the board said in its decision.  County commissioners unanimously adopted new farming rules to regulate existing farms in May.  The rules require farmers to apply “best management practices,” called BMPs, to their agriculture operations or complete custom farm plans that detail how they will manage their farms in earth-friendly ways.

WEAN spokesman Steve Erickson called parts of the growth board’s 22-page decision inaccurate. But he stopped short of saying the group would fight the ruling.  WEAN can ask the hearings board to reconsider its decision, or WEAN can appeal it to Superior Court.

“We’re evaluating this decision and we’ll be deciding whether or not we’ll appeal,” Erickson said. “We need to talk that over between the people involved in WEAN, and various people in the community.”

“It’s not a trivial decision, it’s also real expensive,” he said, adding that a challenge that would go all the way to the Court of Appeals could cost between $30,000 and $50,000.  WEAN has intensely criticized the new farming rules, which were highly controversial with farmers, as well. The rules led to the biggest public hearings in Island County history and attracted crowds numbering in the hundreds. Many farmers said the rules were excessive and would drive them out of business.

WEAN, however, said the rules did not go far enough. The activist group claimed that existing and ongoing agriculture operations is hurting environmentally sensitive lands, and polluting streams and groundwater.

WEAN also said the county’s plan to protect critical areas focused too much on water quality, and was too reactive, because nothing would happen until state water quality standards are violated.  The group complained that no one would be able to know if farmers were following the new rules, because farm plans will be kept secret from the county and public.

WEAN also said the regulations were not based on “best available science,” which the state requires as the basis for creating critical areas regulations.

The growth board, however, lauded the new rules.

“Island County has done a thorough analysis of its local circumstances and (has) come up with an admirable commitment to preserving its rural character while protecting the functions and values of critical areas...The involvement of landowners is one of the many strengths of the county’s program, since it makes the consideration of the protection of critical areas an everyday part of agricultural practices,” the decision said.

“The county’s involvement in every step of the process — from gathering questionnaires to working with the Conservation District on farm plans, to investigation of complaints, to monitoring of water quality, to prompt adaptive management of ineffective BMPs — represents an active engagement in the protection of critical areas,” the growth board concluded.

“The growth board unanimously ruled in favor of the county on every single point - every single point,” said Phil Bakke, Island County’s planning director.

“I think this is a community victory, whether you own agricultural land or a home next to the golf course,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if you’re a farmer or a homeowner on a little lot, it goes a long ways to protect rural character.”

Even so, the new rules are not popular with farmers who already feel over-regulated.

“One of the things that I’ve always been concerned about is even though the county has won this, this puts a significant burden on farmers,” Shelton said.  It won’t be business as usual for farmers, he added.  Farmers will be need to fill out a questionnaire, and some will be required to complete custom farm plans.

“I just hope that farmers will do that rather than saying ‘This is too much trouble, I’m just going to bag the whole thing and forget about agriculture,’” Shelton said.

Farmers who don’t complete the questionnaires will lose their ability to farm by using only BMPs, and will be forced to abide by even more restrictive critical areas regulations.  Erickson, of WEAN, was skeptical that the new rules will work.

“Overall, our expectation is that water quality is going to be impacted and is going to continue to deteriorate because this ordinance is not going to do the job,” Erickson said.
 
Editorial: Growth should pay its way
Whidbey News-Times
Oct 11 2006

Island County will grow by 8,000 people every five years from now through 2025.

So says the state Office of Financial Management, which came up with a 20-year population projection of 110,050 people by 2025, up more than 42 percent from the present population.

What the office doesn’t say is where to put all these people and how to provide them with the resources they need.

It’s easy to draw larger growth boundaries around Whidbey Island’s three incorporated towns, and easy to persuade builders to construct homes for all these newcomers. The island life, after all, is appealing to millions of well-heeled citizens sweltering in the southwest sun or freezing in the northeast winters. And home prices here aren’t bad compared to there.

But where do we get the resources to handle all these new people? Only Oak Harbor has an outside water source, and that is limited by how much Anacortes can sell us from the Skagit River. Elsewhere, the county is entirely dependent on ground water.

With non-source pollution a problem, the county hardly needs thousands of more septic systems. But existing sewer systems are centered in the three towns and limited to how much growth they can handle. Who’s going to pay for the major expansions needed to accommodate the increased population?

In Island County, growth has not been paying for itself. It might be time to rethink the old idea of adopting impact fees for basic necessities, like schools, roads, parks and sewer systems. Islanders can’t afford to continue to pay for everyone else to move here.

Sewer Surprise!
Whidbey News-Times
By Jessie Stensland
Apr 21 2007

Many residents of the Dillard’s Addition, an Oak Harbor waterfront neighborhood, were surprised when work crews started digging up their streets.

They were even more shocked to learn that a unique type of sewer system was being installed and that they would have to help pay for it, to the tune of an estimated $15,000 to $20,000 for each household.

Several of the residents complained at the Oak Harbor City Council meeting held Tuesday night.

“Being kept out of the loop has created a great deal of turmoil in my neighborhood and has created a lot of distrust in the city of Oak Harbor,” said Duane Dillard, a 40-year resident of the neighborhood, which was named after his parents.

As Dillard explained, the residents aren’t just upset that they weren’t notified about the project, but they don’t like the type of pressurized sewer system that was chosen for them.

“We would have liked to have some input,” he said.

In an unusual response to public comments, City Administrator Paul Schmidt defended the city staff, explaining that city code was followed. He pointed out that staff held a special meeting for the residents after they complained. But he hinted that the code may need to be tweaked.

“That’s not to say this is a perfect system,” he said.

Councilman Larry Eaton pointed out that this wasn’t the first time that residents have complained about a lack of communication coming from city staff. Afterward, he said while he has great respect for the dedicated staff, communication continues to be a problem — from changing the zoning on car dealerships without letting them know to simply not returning phone calls.

“Even if we had to hand carry the message to the public, we should have done that,” Eaton said.

On March 6, the Oak Harbor City Council OK’d the preliminary approval of a latecomer’s agreement submitted by Rob Anderson of the Granite Park Holdings Company LLC. His company is constructing two houses in the neighborhood and they need to connect to city sewers. He proposed extending sewer lines to the entire subdivision and applying for a latecomer’s agreement, under which residents would reimburse him for the cost of the lines when they hook in.

City Attorney Phil Bleyhl said the neighborhood, which annexed into the city in 1992, was supposed to be hooked into sewers soon thereafter under the annexation agreement.

Bleyhl wrote the city code dealing with sewer construction and public notice years ago. He admits that he only had gravity sewers in mind when he wrote it, which are the typical system and are unlikely to cause controversy.

As Bleyhl explained it, the city isn’t required to tell the neighborhood residents of the meeting for preliminary approval of the latecomer’s agreement. He said most communities don’t even hold a meeting for preliminary approval. But he said there’s nothing that would have stopped the city from notifying residents as a courtesy, though it was advertised in the News-Times.

Bleyhl said notice is required, however, for the more-significant meeting for final approval of the latecomer’s agreement. At that meeting, which will be held after construction is complete, the council will decide whether to approve the latecomer’s agreement and if the cost of building the system — a cost which will be passed on to the residents — is reasonable.

Yet Dillard points out that now it’s too late for residents to have any input into the system itself. He said that, with the unique type of system, each residence will have to have its own pump and grinder. He heard that the pumps have to be replaced after five years. The homeowners will be left without sewage service when the power goes out, unless they have individual generators.

Dillard said Anderson originally designed a regular gravity system, but switched because it was too expensive.

“I would have rather had a simpler, hassle-free system,” Dillard said.

While Bleyhl said city code states that the 26 homes currently on septic systems need to connect to the sewer system as soon as it’s complete, he said the council could decide to give residents some leeway.

In response to the controversy, Councilman Paul Brewer made a motion to set the issue on the agenda for the next council meeting, but the other council members rejected the idea. Councilwoman Sue Karahalios suggested a workshop.
  
Island County unveils new wetlands regulations
Gayle Saran/Record file 
By BRIAN KELLY
May 12 2007

For property owners who own land with wetlands, getting permits is going to become a lot more complex. There will also be no easy answers.  And that’s a good thing, said Phil Bakke, director of the Island County planning department.

The county has just finished revising rules that cover lands with wetlands, the first major rewrite of the regulations in more than two decades.

The revisions are necessary as the county updates its “critical areas ordinance,” the set of rules that restrict development on properties with environmentally sensitive features such as streams, wetlands and steep slopes.

“Of all the critical area components, wetlands is the most complicated and controversial,” Bakke said.

Although Island County was the first in the state to adopt wetland regulations in the early 1980s, little has been done to the rules since then.

“We’ve made very few changes since 1984,” Bakke said.

“The science has evolved tremendously since 1984. So what you have here is basically a complete rewrite of the ordinance,” he said.

In the earlier set of rules, the no-go areas around wetlands called “buffers” were based solely on the type of the wetland being regulated.

That will change.

Now, the county will categorize wetlands into four classes, and the county will work with property owners to determine the size of buffers, which will range from 20 feet to 300 feet based on a number of factors.

But Bakke said that means there will no longer be quick-and-easy answers for property owners at the permit county.

The county learned its lesson during its rewrite of critical areas rules for farmlands last year, which led to public meetings packed with angry farmers and disappointed environmentalists and the resumption of a lawsuit against the county over the regulations. Some thought the farm rules were too restrictive, while others thought the regulations were too lax.

“We really have taken from the ag experience in developing this program,” Bakke said. “People wanted us to be catering our regulations to what they have on site.”

For wetlands, the county will consider the type of wetland, the vegetation found there, and the use of the land before applying a set of rules to the property.

To assist property owners, the county has created a “welands identification guide” to assist property owners.  A brochure explaining the changes to the program should also start landing in mailboxes across Island County this weekend, Bakke said.  A series of public workshops on the new wetlands rules will also be held this month and next.

County officials said property owners should bring their property tax parcel number if they want to meet individually with a county planner to learn how the new regulations may affect their land.

The schedule is:

Monday, May 21 (6 to 8 p.m.) at South Camano Grange Hall, 2221 S. Camano Dr., Camano Island;

Wednesday, May 30 (6 to 8 p.m.) at the Race Road Fire Station, 1164 Race Road, south of Coupeville;

Thursday, May 31 (7 to 9 p.m.) at the Taylor Road Fire Station, 3440 Taylor Road, North Whidbey;

Saturday, June 2 (10 a.m. to noon) at Four Springs Lake Preserve, 585 Lewis Lane, Camano Island;

Wednesday, June 6 (6 to 8 p.m.) at the Race Road Fire Station;

Thursday, June 7 (6 to 8 p.m.) at Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 Highway 525, Freeland.

The county planning commission is expected to review the rules in September and November, with the new regulations eventually going before the county commissioners for approval.

Information on the new rules, including the draft ordinance and studies conducted in support of the regulations: http://www.islandcounty.net/planning/caupdates.htm

TIDAL LIFE: The story on the water
NANCY BARTLETT, Columnist
Published: July 06, 2008 1:00 PM
Updated: July 06, 2008 1:20 PM

One day last August, after snorkeling off our Holmes Harbor beach, my son stood dripping on the lawn.

“What happened to the eelgrass?” he said.

“What about it?”

“It’s gone.”

“You’re kidding,” I said, thinking of the times I’d been tangled in the long strands.

“Nope, nothing but sand. I did see three kelp crabs. I’ve never seen more than one before.”

“You’ve been honored.” These reclusive, long-limbed crabs are hard to spot.

“Not really,” he said. “They were dead.”

A few days later my neighbor Gerry returned from kayaking saying he could see nothing but sand on the bottom of the harbor. He, too, asked, “What happened to the eelgrass?”

Knowing eelgrass was important, Gerry and I sought answers. He called state agencies that monitor eelgrass meadows. I sent panicky notes to scientists who study eelgrass, crabs and water quality.

My friend Sandy Wylie-Echeverria, of the University of Washington’s Friday Harbor lab, told me loss of eelgrass has a cascading effect.

“When you lose eelgrass,” he said, “you lose structure in the water column.”

In other words, there’s no place for little fish to hide and grow into big fish. The sediment changes. Invertebrates, waterfowl and salmon all suffer.

Gerry and I jumped to conclusions. There must be one culprit, scofflaw or evildoer to blame for the disappearance of eelgrass. We learned instead that a major cause is all of us. The potential salvation is the same, all of us. The reason we should care about eelgrass disappearing — drum roll please — all of us.

And what are we all doing that can harm eelgrass and other sensitive species? Nothing diabolical, just living our lives. Cleaning our roofs with moss killers and letting the residue flow to the bay. Planting roses, then treating them with spray that drifts over the bay. Dosing hot tubs with chemicals, then draining them into ditches that lead to the harbor. Cleaning up after our dogs and throwing their poop into the bay. Taking our kids water skiing, then cleaning the boat with detergents as it sits right on the waters of the bay.

For the privilege of living at the waterfront, we willingly pay a premium.

But Gerry and I demonstrated something else we need: to pay attention. We’re the front line, here to notice changes in the sea we look out on every day. It’s not a bad job; we also enjoy front row seats on the antics of the aquatic world. The seasons of marine life get ingrained in us. We get up one morning thinking it’s been too long since we’ve heard a loon, then a few days later wake to that haunting laugh.

On the flip side, we’re here year-in and year-out, witnessing reduced numbers of scoters, realizing at the end of summer that no gray whales have cruised by, watching the very reasons we came here disappearing. We have great views, but one of the oh-so-lovely sights is the local outfall that dumps tainted runoff onto the beach.

Our bluffs slough, algae blooms perfume the air and our shellfish are inedible. Something is wrong, but we’re not sure what to do.

In the fight for Puget Sound, our worst enemy is our own innate desire to do things the easiest, cheapest way. Another is the confusing array of products and methods touted as “environmentally friendly.” No one has time to sort it all out.

I’ve been dragging my feet about some house and garden projects because I know my choices matter to the health of the Sound and I’m unsure what’s best.

Other islanders are in the same boat. So, rather than grab the quick-and-easy fix, I’m diving in to look for better methods and report what I find. I’ll investigate such topics as bluffs, roof maintenance, native plants, hot tubs, marine mammals, sea birds, cleaning products and more on eelgrass.

On Whidbey no one lives far from the beach. Runoff makes its way from every part of the island to the waters that cradle this exceptional community. No matter where we live, we need to do things differently now for the future of Puget Sound. We’re writing the next chapter in the adventure of island life. Lets make it a blockbuster with thousands of heroes.