Contract #HD-06-06 in the amount of $46,200 (RM-HLTH-02-0043) with Roger S. Case, M.D. - Local Health Officer as prescribed in RCW 70.05.050. #HD-06-06; Contract Amount: $46,200 (RM-HLTH-02-0043)

Contract #HD-03-05, Amendment No. 1 (RM-HLTH-02-0067) with Mary Jane Lungren, DDS - consultation to Oral Health Program through 12-15-05; amendment $3,000 for total contract in the amount of $16,000

Contract #HD-01-06 (RM-HLTH-02-0067) with Mary Jane Lungren, DDS to provide consultation to Oral Health Program in 2006. In the amount of $18,000

Contract #HS-05-05 (RM-HLTH-99-0073) Amendment with Compass Health for Chemical Dependency Treatment & Crisis Services. Contract amendment to reduce funding on this contract.; Amendment is a reduction in the amount of $17,845 for total new contract amount $732,977

Contract #0683-88552 (RM-HLTH-05-0074)with Wa. St. Department of Social & Health Services – County Agreement on General Terms and Conditions, establishing general terms and conditions applying to all contracts with DSHS for services under County governance; Contract Amount: $-0-

Contract #HD-02-06 (RM-HLTH-04-092) with Margaret Griswold to provide registered dietitian services to WIC clients on Camano Island in the amount of $3,000

Contract #0663-89030 (RM-HLTH-03-0008 and RM-HLTH-99-0050) with Wa. St. Department of Social & Health Services – Alternative Response System Services (ARS) and Early Intervention Program (EIP) continuing home visits to CPS referral families and child abuse prevention services., in the amount of $17,632

Contract #HD-04-06(RM-HLTH-01-0046) with Christopher Spitters M.D. for professional TB consultation in the amount of $10,000.

For the record at your public hearing on February 6, 2005, the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Sewage Plan and has the following responses to your memo of January 11, 2006:

Plan written as a companion document as part of the Freeland Sub-Area Plan under contract with Tetra Tech/KCM Engineers, Seattle; work began October, 2002. Public Works Department worked closely with the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee, Planning & Community Development Department, and Island County Health Department, and in cooperation with the Freeland Water District. County entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Freeland Water District to provide that in the event the plan was brought to completion and implemented, Island County would be reimbursed for expenses from the capital raised for the implementation of the plan.

Four well-advertised, well attended public meetings were held, as well as follow-up open public meetings with the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee at regular meetings to discuss and deliberate on issues brought forward regarding the plan, including development of the design of the collection system, selection of the treatment processes, review and approval of the entire program as it relates to development of Freeland sewer facilities. The Plan was written to provide service for the entire Freeland NMUGA with the exception of Holmes Harbor Sewer District and the Main Street Sewer District, through the year 2050, based on full build-out of the anticipated NMUGA at full density, in five phases:

Phase I Downtown commercial core

Phase II Infill closest to that core

Phase III Infill of the area of the NMUGA to the west of the downtown core including

the Holmes Harbor/Bercot Road area

Phase IV Low build out of the entire NMUGA with a population of approximately 4,000

people

Phase V High density build-out of that same service area.

Ultimately the system would be able to serve population equivalence of about 7,000 people. Phases were thought to be the most logical with the understanding the area to develop first would be the commercial core which is the area of greatest need.

Plan calls for a STEP system [septic tank effluent pumping]; every residence or business would have a septic tank and pump on site and a shallow burial pressure sewer that would pump the sewage effluent down to the treatment plant site on Bush Point Road. The treatment plant would use membrane technology to treat to a full Class A reuse treated quality that would allow for landscape irrigation or eventually groundwater recharge. In order to have a year-around location to use the effluent a tree farm property off Mutiny Bay Road was selected where effluent could be land-applied and percolate to the aquifer through slow recharge. As later phases develop, there could be reuse piping to serve the rest of the community for landscape irrigation. In order to keep costs reasonable, there is no plan to construct large storage basins.

The plan has been reviewed extensively by the Sub-Area Planning Committee, County departments and the Freeland Water District and has been forwarded to the Commissioners for review and approval.

Island County has not developed a basinwide sewage plan. Therefore, compliance

with this requirement is a moot point.

This firm represents Main Street Sewer District (Main Street). On behalf of Main Street, we submit this letter to oppose Freeland Water District’s request for approval of its comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 57.16 RCW and RCW 57.08.065.

As you are aware from the November 17, 2004 letter from the Board of Commissioners of Main Street to the Freeland Water District (see Attachment A), Main Street intends to provide sewer service to the Freeland area, which is the same area proposed to be served by Freeland Water District (Freeland Water). Main Street’s intent was formalized in a comprehensive plan dated August 18, 2005, which was submitted to Island County for approval on August 31, 2005. Main Street is willing and able to upgrade and expand its sewage treatment plant, at a lower cost than proposed by Freeland Water, to serve the Freeland area. Main Street has encouraged Island County, and continues to encourage Island County, to take advantage of Main Street’s experience and expertise in serving a portion of the Freeland area with sewer service, and to allow the developers, property owners and citizens of the Freeland area to have sewer service for less cost than the Freeland Water proposal.

As explained in greater detail below, the County Board of Commissioners must deny Freeland Water’s request for approval of its general comprehensive plan for the following reasons:

By Resolution No. 05-3, Freeland Water has adopted the Engineering Report as its general comprehensive plan. The purpose of the Engineering Report is to describe a proposed centralized sewer collection, treatment and disposal system, and to suggest a plan for financing its construction. The Engineering Report is proposed as an appendix to the Freeland Sub-area Plan. Thus, the scope and

analysis of the Engineering Report is dependent upon the provisions and policies of the Freeland Sub-area Plan, as adopted by the County Board of Commissioners. For example, in approving the Freeland Sub-Area Plan, the Board of Commissioners will need to establish the boundary of the NMUGA, as well as the population, land use zoning designations, and infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to transportation, water, sewer, stormwater and parks facilities. The Freeland Sub-Area Plan states at page 25 with regard to sewer facilities as follows:

In other words, the Board of Commissioners must make significant decisions regarding the Freeland Sub-Area Plan, of which the Engineering Report is a part, before the final Freeland Sub-Area Plan is adopted. One of those decisions is the identification of the district that should provide sewer service to the Freeland area.

Therefore, because the Freeland Sub-Area Plan has not been adopted, County consideration of Freeland Water’s general comprehensive plan is premature.

The County Board of Commissioners is considering Freeland Water’s general comprehensive plan pursuant to RCW 57.16.010, which provides in part that:

RCW 57.02.040 provides in relevant part that:

The "development program" of the "county comprehensive plan" and the "policies in the county plan for sewage facilities" will be the Freeland Sub-Area Plan, together with the Engineering Report, after they are considered and approved by the County Board of Commissioners. Therefore, until the County Board of Commissioners considers and approves the Freeland Sub-Area Plan, the County Board of Commissioners cannot approve the Freeland Water District general comprehensive plan under the two criteria of RCW 57.02.040 quoted above.

Unlike Main Street, Freeland Water currently does not provide sewer service, and does not have any sewage facilities. RCW 57.08.065 provides that Freeland Water cannot:

By Resolution No. 05-3, adopted on September 16, 2005, Freeland Water adopted a comprehensive plan for a system of sewerage. Such a plan is the "exercise of the power to establish a

system of sewerage," as contemplated by RCW 57.08.065. Freeland Water, therefore, must obtain final certifications of necessity from both the Department of Ecology and the Department of Health before it can adopt a resolution approving a comprehensive plan. Freeland Water has obtained initial certifications of necessity from both departments. However, as you are aware, Main Street has appealed the Department of Health approval to the Thurston County Superior Court and Department of Ecology approval to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The certification of necessity from the Department of Ecology was stayed on January 4, 2006 by the Pollution Control Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 43.21B.320 and WAC 371-08-415. Freeland Water, therefore, does not yet have a final certification of necessity from the Department of Ecology. Without such final certification, Freeland Water cannot proceed with its request for approval of the comprehensive plan adopted by Resolution No. 05-03. In other words, Freeland Water must wait until receipt of a final certification of necessity from the Department of Ecology before requesting Island County to approve its general comprehensive plan.

Furthermore, the administrative rules of the Department of Ecology, and the Department of Health, which are identical, interpreting and applying RCW 57.08.065 quoted above, state that a certification of necessity should not be granted unless a sewer provider, such as Main Street, does not intend to "construct and operate a sewer system in a substantial portion of the proposed service area within the reasonably foreseeable future." WAC 246-270-040 (Health); WAC 372-52-050 (Ecology). Prior to the determinations by the two Departments on the applications of Freeland Water for certifications of necessity, Main Street declared its intent to "construct and operate a sewer system in a substantial portion of the proposed service area within the reasonably foreseeable future." There is substantial likelihood, therefore, that Main Street will prevail in its challenge to the certifications approved by the Departments.

In view of the above, Island County should act prudently and not act on Freeland Water’s request for approval of its general comprehensive plan until the certification of necessity issues are resolved.

On August 11, 2005, the Board of Commissioners of Main Street by motion approved a general comprehensive sewer plan for Main Street, and authorized it to be submitted to Island County for review and approval pursuant to Chapter 57.16 RCW. (See "Attachment "B"). A motion is the equivalent of a resolution. See, Spokane v. Ridpath, 74 Wash. 4, 132 P. 638 (1913). Main Street’s general comprehensive plan included the greater Freeland area. By letter dated August 31, 2005, Main Street forwarded the plan to Gary Hess of the Public Works Department, Keith Higman of the Health Department, and Mike Shelton of the Board of Commissioners, as required by RCW 57.16.010. (See "Attachment C"). In order to monitor Island County’s consideration and approval of the general comprehensive plan, Main Street’s letter stated that "we would like to be kept informed as the plan goes through the review process, and will be available to answer questions and attend hearings."

Island County staff has not responded to Main Street. Therefore, Main Street assumes that the plan was approved in accordance with the law. RCW 57.16.010 states that the County Engineer and the County Director of Health have 60 days to approve or reject the comprehensive plan. Those officials can extend the 60 days by an additional 60 days "if sufficient time is not available to review adequately" the plan. RCW 57.16.010(6). The 60-day extension must be approved by the end of the first 60-day period. Neither the County Engineer nor the County Director of Health granted the 60-day extension. Therefore, they both are deemed to have approved the comprehensive plan by the end of October, 2005.

The County Board of Commissioners has 90 days after receipt of the comprehensive plan to approve, conditionally approve or reject it. RCW 57.16.010(6). The County Board may extend consideration of the comprehensive plan by 90 days, as long as the extension is granted within the first 90 days. The County Board failed to grant a 90-day extension. Therefore, the County Board is deemed to have approved the Main Street general comprehensive plan by the end of November, 2005.

Having approved the Main Street comprehensive plan by inaction, the County Board of Commissioners cannot approve the Freeland Water comprehensive plan, as Freeland Water’s plan covers the same territory.

We thank you for considering our comments and arguments, and look forward to your rejection and disapproval of Freeland Water’s general comprehensive plan for the reasons discussed above.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-72; Island County and Robey Angel & Sally S. Carlos, Parcel 272-0420; Sec. 6, Twp 31N. R 3E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-92; Island County and Douglas G. Hennick & Kathleen R. McKoon-Hennick, Parcel 362-240; Sec. 12, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and Douglas Hennick & Kathleen R. McKoon-Hennick; $17,900.00/land; parcel 362-2400; Sec. 12, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-118; Island County and William C. & Ann A. Rusby; Parcel 211-4950; Sec. 1, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and William C. & Ann A. Rusby; $3,600.00/land; Parcel 211-4950; Sec. 1, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and William C. & Ann A. Rusby; $2,821.00 ($2,818.00/land, $3.00/administrative settlement); Parcel 211-4950A; Sec. 1, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and William C & Ann A. Rusby; $3,529.00/land (administrative settlement for remainder); Parcel 211-4950A; Sec. 1, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-135; Island County and Ronald M & Donald L. Watkins; Parcel 454-3870; Sec. 12, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and Ronald M. & Donald L. Watkins; $11,500.00/land; Parcel 454-3870; Sec. 12, Twp 31N, R 2E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-234; Island County and Stephanie C. Garlichs & Jeffrey L. Ried; Parcel 214-5050; Sec. 21, Twp. 32N, R 1E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and Stephanie C. Garlichs & Jeffrey L. Ried; $1,100.00/land; Parcel 214-5050; Sec. 31, Twp 32N, R 1E.

Construction Easement – PW-0520-247; Island County and Craig McKenzie; Parcel 349-5060; Sec. 16, Twp 32N, R 1E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and Craig McKenzie; $13,572.00 ($3,200.00/land, $3,572.00

/improvements, $6,800.00/administrative settlement); Parcel 349-5060; Sec. 16, Twp. 32N, R 1E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-283; Island County and William L. & Elizabeth A. Swackhamer; Lot 91, Division No. 2, Plat of Pen Cove Park; Sec. 22, Twp 32N, R 1E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-284; Island County and Wesley & Pauline Nordlund; Lot 90, Division No. 2, Plat of Penn Cove Park, Sec. 22, Twp 32N, R 1E.

Quit Claim Deed – Island County and Wesley & Pauline Nordlund; $3,300.00 ($2,800.00/land, $500.00/landscaping); Lot 90, Division No. 2, Plat of Penn Cove Park, Sec. 22, Twp 32N, R1E.

Temporary Construction Easement – PW-0520-286; Island County and James P. Ringenberg; Lot 84, Division No. 2, Plat of Penn Cove Park; Sec. 22, Twp 32N, R 1E.

OPS #451/05 – Scott Hendrickson for Freeland Holdings, LLC The applicant requests that 60.14 acres of the 69.54 parcel be transferred from Designated Forest tax classification to Timber Land current use program. Parcel R23024-194-3330 and R23024-064-3150 located on South Whidbey in Section 24, Township 30, Range 2E.

OPS #439/05 – Gary & Carol Buck The applicants are requesting that 17 acres of 20 acres of land (two parcels) be enrolled into the Timber Land current use program. Parcel R32920-170-4850 and R32920-170-4160 located on South Whidbey in Section 20, Township 29N, Range 3E.

OPS #348/05 – Tom Paur The applicant requests that 18.2 acres of his 19.7 acre parcel be enrolled into the Timber Land current use classification. Parcel R23111-073-4080 located on North Camano Island in Section 11, Township 31N, Range 2E.

OPS #467/05 – Michael & Susan Murphy The applicants are requesting that 8 acres of their 10.98 acre parcel be enrolled into the Timber Land current use program. Parcel R23101-100-3150 located on Camano Island in Section 1, Township 31N, Range 2E.

OPS #454/05 – Daniel & Shelley Minzel The applicants are requesting that 16.5 acres of their 20 acres of land (on three parcels) be enrolled into the Timber Land current use program. Parcel R23020-500-0600, R23020-470-0250 and R23020-435-0600 located on Central Whidbey Island in Section 20, Township 30N, Range 2E.

Consultants - Dr. Paul Adamus; Keith Dearborn, available via conference phone:

Hand-outs: Draft Water Quality Data Synthesis and Recommendations for a Surface Freshwater

Monitoring Program by Dr. Paul Adamus, Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. and Water Resources

Graduate Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR with Island County Department of

Planning & Community Development and Joe Eilers, MaxDepth Aquatics, Bend, OR, January 18,

[GMA #8631]

Proposed Ordinance PLG-003-06 In the Matter of Establishing a Surface Water Quality

Monitoring Program for Non-Tidal Waters [also available on the Planning website posted

Underneath the Draft Plan] [GMA #8628]

Memorandum from Doug Kelly, Hydrogeologist, Island County Health Department, to Jeff Tate,

Assistant Director, Island County Planning Department dated October 13, 2005 RE:

Agricultural Water Quality Impacts [GMA #8499]

Review Schedule for Water Quality [GMA #8615]

Using his hand-out projected on-screen, Doug Kelly explained what was done: took existing groundwater data base from about 6200 wells in the system now, and extracted 3 key pieces of information: (1) how deep the wells are; (2) location of wells [coordinates of each well]; and (3) chemistry from the wells through a series of nitrate samples from the wells and date samples taken. That information used to look at groundwater quality trends as it pertains to nitrate concentrations through time, related to land use to the degree possible and to critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA).

Looking at the entire county for wells, on a 5-year time span – see the chart in the hand-out "Nitrate Concentration in Wells County Wide". Example, 1980-1984 inclusive took all the data from water quality samples from those wells for that time period segregated by the depth of the wells, and created two groups: wells less than 200’ deep and wells greater than 200’ deep. For that time span, then came up with two numbers: average nitrate concentration in the deep wells and what was the average nitrate concentration in the shallow wells. Moving forward with 5-year time spans, ended up with the plot on the chart; found exactly what was expected: shallow wells have a significantly higher nitrate concentration than the deep wells slightly more than double both in trend and rate of increase.

Late two years ago as part of the watershed planning process CARAs were mapped using DOE Methodology, ending up with four maps, rating each of those, summed together, coming up with a CARA susceptibility scoring – how susceptible are aquifers to surficial contaminants, and came up with three categories: low, moderate and high. Well location data inserted across that map, through GIS, then extracted for every well in the data base what area CARA ranking it fell into.

Refer to Charts: Nitrate Concentration in Wells, CARA Low, CARA Moderate, CARA High. Average nitrate concentrations are significantly lower in the low susceptibility CARA than county wide, true of both the deep aquifers and the shallow aquifers, although the rate of increase is higher county wide. Moderate susceptibility – comparing shallow and deep aquifers, maps out almost identical to county wide trends. High susceptibility – seeing significantly higher average concentrations and a significantly higher rate of increase in the shallow aquifers than county wide, but in deep aquifers about the same.

Same exact exercise done looking at CARAs. Looked at zoning, divided zoning up into two categories [refer to chart "Nitrate Concentrations In Wells – Agricultural parcels] Agriculture, and Non-Agriculture and mapped all of the AG and rural zones, commercial AG and rural AG parcels, dropping well information on top of that map, to then question does this well fall within one of the three categories of AG. The same questions then asked about AG parcels v. non AG parcels. What was found was that average concentrations in the shallow wells are very slightly higher than the County wide average; however, the trend appears to be decreasing. There is a relatively small data set so there is not a lot of wells in the AG areas. It may be because either the regulations for AG have been getting progressively more restrictive as far as pollution potential over the years or just a movement overall County wide away from AG. For deep wells, fairly equal to the County wide averages; rate of increase is slightly higher and the average nitrate concentrations are slightly higher. Between 1998 and 2002 shows a slight decrease; if that is real, it may be the improvement seen in the shallow wells is beginning to have an impact on the deep wells. Non AG parcels – represents the majority of wells and mirrors both in the shallow wells and deep wells almost exactly the same as county wide averages.

Overall average nitrate concentrations appear to be slightly higher in agricultural areas. However, after about 1996 that is no longer true, is actually dropping and therefore below what the non-AG areas are showing. It is known that both AG land uses and other activities, such as residential land use, can contribute to groundwater contamination; therefore, proper management of agricultural nutrients, wastes and chemicals are essential for prevention of serious groundwater contamination problems. Similarly, proper septic system designs, siting and maintenance are necessary for the exact same reasons, especially as we see significant growth in the residential sector.

The highest rate of increase and the highest average nitrate concentrations were found in high susceptibility CARAs. One type of protection could be those measures already in place, coupled with an adaptive management approach. There is in Island County a long term groundwater monitoring network which should provide warning; that network benefits from a significant quantity of free data from public system monitoring and water available identification from permitting.

There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on February 13, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.