Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 15 20041 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee June 15, 2004 Committee Member Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy Also Present: Dan McShane Sam Crawford SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY STEVE HOOD, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, ON THE TMDL FOR LAKE WHATCOM (AB2004 -241) Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, stated a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study starts with examining existing loading into the lake. Look at how much comes from all sources in the lake. Estimate how much is related to stormwater and what is directly coming off. The purpose is to determine how much the lake can accept without violating the criteria, and how much needs to be reduced. TMDL is a misnomer in many ways. They may not want to measure on a day -by -day basis. Look at what it takes for the health of the lake, and make an allocation. For dissolved oxygen, they are putting into the lake things that cause algae to grow. Examine what bad stuff they need to allocate. In this case, phosphorus. The study will determine existing conditions and where they need to go. The study will figure out how much can come from permitted sources and how much from non -point sources, such as backyards. At that point, when they set the TMDL, they make a determination about reasonable assurances that non -point sources will be reduced before making a determination for permitted sources. Construction sites that are currently greater than five acres have regulations. After the TMDL, regulations will apply to construction sites greater than one acre. They need to make allocations specifically for those areas. The County will have to address stormwater systems in an urban growth area or a census - defined urban growth area and water that goes through a conveyance system. The regulations are clear. They can only make allocation on the storm system if there is reasonable assurance that those reductions will take place. That's about allocation related to the total maximum daily load. They don't allocate the use of oxygen. They control the consumption of oxygen. Pollutants cause more algae to grow. As the algae die, they sink to the bottom of lake. In summer, no oxygen gets into the lake, and the oxygen that's Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 1 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. there is consumed. That rate of consumption is accelerating. The TMDL decides the natural rate and decides what they have to do to get back to the natural rate. Oxygen criteria for the lake must show no change from the natural rate of consumption. Oxygen is a big deal because they have to limit the every day pollutants, which will help the oxygen level. If they eliminate overflowing septic systems, leaking sewers, and pet waste, which are all sources of phosphorus, then they will limit the risk to the drinking water supply from virus and other bad things. Low oxygen reduces available aquatic habitat. When the oxygen is reduced, it creates ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, which are both toxic. Low oxygen enhances mercury methylation, which gets into the food chain. Low oxygen releases metals from the sediment, including phosphorus. Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the lake. When it's released, it fertilizes the lake. They're starting to see changes in basin two and three. Those are not changes in terms of how they solve the problem. They are changes that increases the urgency of the problem. If they are slow to respond, there will be a difficult situation if the lake starts to supply a lot of the nutrients. Limiting what happens upland makes it difficult to solve the problem. A positive feedback loop starts with some sort of cause for an increase in algae. They fall to the bottom of the lake and consume the oxygen, which releases additional phosphorus, which can cause more algae. The positive feedback loop has outcomes other than increased phosphorus and algae, and include increased methyl mercury and disinfection byproducts. There was evidence of the decline of basin one in the early 1990's and the decline in basin two in 2000. Recently, they have seen the decline in basin three. They haven't seen much to reverse the trends. They have seen actions that will slow down the trend. They haven't begun to address reversing the trend. Regarding alternatives for drinking water source, some people talk about going to a completely different source. He doesn't know of any readily available sources with a surplus of water. People talk about moving the intake from basin two to basin three, but the lake is still degrading. They would still have habitat loss and a violation of the water quality criteria. Moving the intake will not reduce disinfection byproducts, and it would be costly. The chlorophyll levels since 1988 show there's not a lot of difference between basins two and three. The levels are slightly higher in basin two. Moving the intake doesn't solve the problems. Mercury's biggest source is from the atmosphere. Some sources are from the earth, such as coal. Deposits that get to the lake can go into the sediments. There's not a lot of legislation they can do about that. Fleetwood asked what mercury is specifically. Hood stated mercury is a metal that is a neurotoxin that adversely affects the brain. It is an element that is Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 2 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. part of the earth's crust, and they're exposed to at low levels all the time. It's also a metal that readily goes into the atmosphere. There have been increased levels of mercury in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. It travels around the world. When the atmospheric mercury circles the globe, it is distributed all over the earth. It's a source that's beyond their ability to control from the TMDL, County Council, or State. It needs to be addressed internationally. Mercury winds up in lake sediments. It comes out of the sediments as methyl mercury, which is combined with carbon. If mercury attaches to the carbon in the methyl form, it is absorbed by our bodies and stays there for a long time. If it goes into algae, fish eat algae and the mercury is attached to their body. Larger fish eat the smaller fish, which is part of the biocumulative effect. As methyl mercury settles into the sediments, there is also a conversion of methyl mercury back to an inorganic form that doesn't bio- accumulate. The bad news is that as they run out of oxygen at the bottom of the lake, they are favoring methyl mercury. Low oxygen encourages bacteria that converts inorganic mercury into methyl mercury. To address the problem, address the dissolved oxygen. The State Department of Ecology needs to complete a technical study in April 2005. Then it will work with the City and County on an implementation plan over six to 12 months. They will make it part of the TMDL to implement the TMDL through issuing permits. They must track the implementation and improvements. Caskey- Schreiber asked what the TMDL permits will apply to. Hood stated the City and County will both have stormwater permits for their discharges into lake Whatcom. Currently, under stormwater permits, they are encouraged to look at a larger piece of the picture, not each individual outfall. They would like to focus on the entire county as one source. However, there may be different impacts depending upon where they discharge into the lake. So, they will determine how much they need to concentrate on in different areas of the lake. Caskey- Schreiber asked how current areas that exceed the recommended levels would be asked to lower their levels. Hood stated that if the DOE doesn't have reasonable assurance that the non -point sources are reduced, the City and County discharge levels for waste load allocation, which is the amount allowed by the permit, will be reduced. If the County or City doesn't take any action to reduce the non -point sources, eventually they may not be allowed to discharge any stormwater into Lake Whatcom. They'd have to pump it elsewhere. Given the cost of that, it's not an attractive alternative, so they'll work out something. They'll need to do more than they have in the past. The reasonable assurance provision has some written guidance that says they need a plan, a commitment to follow the plan, and financial backing to get the best management practices (BMP's) in place. The history they have with existing development is not great, so they will have to change it. The DOE informed the County in the 1990's of a list of deficiencies, which the County didn't address. As a result, they don't have the same level of flow control in the County that DOE suggested in 1992. Since then, have revised guidance, which has more stringent flow control. Those haven't been adopted Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 3 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. either. He hoped Whatcom County will show it will make progress on reducing non - point sources of phosphorus. In addition to fertilizer, erosion of creek banks is another non -point source of phosphorus. Fleetwood asked for a summary of what Whatcom County should implement to reduce non -point sources. Hood stated the County needs something to show that existing development will produce lower amount of phosphorus. That means retrofitting the existing development. Now, they know that the lake has too much pollution overall. The existing levels of pollution need to be reduced. Options range from the City of Bellingham's attempt to filter it out of the storm drainage systems to keeping stormwater on individual home sites, and infiltrating stormwater from as big a storm as possible, and only allow overflow from very large storms. A typical construction will connect drains to a sidewalk drain, then into a storm drain. That puts higher levels of water into the streams where the storm drainage discharges during storms. They'd like to see that water infiltrating into the ground, where it will come into the stream much later, after traveling through the ground. The DOE won't tell the County how to do it, it just needs some kind of assurance that sources will be reduced. Fleetwood asked if will impose an obligation on existing homeowners to retrofit. Hood stated it could. Allow whatever they can to ensure reduction will take place. If they make reductions across the basin, they will also get reductions in the storm drainage system. Tighten control of application of fertilizer. Septic inspections are part of the program already, but look at how much they can actually reduce from identifying and fixing the septic systems in the county, and identify a financing program to do that. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's heard controversy about DOE loaning Sudden Valley money for a new sewer line without the condition of requiring existing hookups to move from the current faulty sewer line to the new line. There are still many residents hooked up to that old sewer line, which is fraught with problems. The new sewer line didn't address the problems, just allowed more development. Dick Grout, Department of Ecology Bellingham Field Office Manager, stated that issue was debated within the agency. The argument was that the new line might result in increased development. There are sewer overflows they were experiencing, with associated public health problems. The debate came down on the side of public health, which is why the project was funded. Sudden Valley was required to make improvements to the old trunk line, but the big problem is the collection system in Sudden Valley. It was not an easy decision. Hood stated the County needs to reduce the rate at which the problem can grow. It has taken some good steps, such as land purchases, the rezone, and additional conditions for development. Determine the amount by which they can be reasonably assured that non -point sources can be reduced. Until they know that, they won't know how much stormwater discharge the DOE will allow. Start Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 4 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 1 examining the system now so they know what they will be allowed to use when the 2 TMDL comes out. 3 4 Fleetwood asked if they can approximate now the results of the TMDL, so 5 they can begin to speculate what the fixes will be. He asked how they would 6 analyze different ways to reduce pollution levels. Hood stated Silver Beach Creek is 7 an example of having several times the amounts of phosphorus than other creeks. 8 It is a highly developed area. Look at things to reduce the phosphorus. Change a 9 highly developed area into a less developed area. They know the highest levels of 10 pollutants come from the most developed areas, but they don't know the 11 particulars of why they are higher. Construction mostly happens in developed 12 areas. The DOE is attempting to examine whether construction site pollution is 13 equal to or significantly larger than a developed site if people do a good job of 14 stormwater prevention on the construction site. 15 16 Fleetwood stated what they do with and how they fund stormwater is a big 17 concern to him. 18 19 Crawford stated there was a development near the lake a few years ago. 20 Development was stopped because the City or water district couldn't provide water 21 or sewer. The developer proposed tearing out the entire Park Place drain structure 22 and putting in something that is state -of- the -art and would mitigate the impact of 23 the new development by reducing existing loading into the lake. The developer 24 claimed that would actually reduce overall pollution loading in the lake. He asked if 25 the TMDL would allow that kind of banking. He asked if there is anything like point 26 loading to address mitigation and future development. Hood stated they have 27 investigated water quality trading, which would allow that. This is analogous to the 28 bubble in the Clean Air Act. Examine all the sources, and reduce or buy someone 29 else's reduction. In the Clean Water Act, flexibility was added to do that. They just 30 received word that there is money for examining the feasibility of that. A question 31 to ask is if a pound of phosphorus in one area of the lake equals a pound of 32 phosphorus in another part of the lake. Another question is the costs for the 33 reduction to take place in one place versus another place. The goal is to get the 34 necessary reductions in the most economically feasible way. The Environmental 35 Protection Agency (EPA) granted the DOE money to explore that option. It's not 36 commonly done with TMDL's. There are other programs in the exploratory phase. 37 38 Crawford asked about the idea of artificially aerating oxygen into basin one. 39 Hood stated he doesn't have a recommendation one way or the other. It's very 40 expensive. Per the Clean Water Act, no one has a right to pollute. They have to 41 understand they have to do their best to control the pollution before introducing 42 mechanical means to produce oxygen. It's not a logical first step. Spreading the 43 cost among all in the community is not equitable to those who aren't living in the 44 watershed and don't contribute. They don't know how far down the path they've 45 gone regarding the positive feedback loop. It may be necessary. Most of the year, 46 there's plenty of oxygen in the lake. If they failed to reduce the pollutant levels Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 5 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. down to natural levels, but the lake's internal fertilization is causing a problem, then they would be open to putting in oxygen or restoring by natural means. Caskey- Schreiber asked about the timeline. In a couple years, they will have quantifiable numbers on what they need to see changed in the basins. Hood stated that's correct, but they can start taking the first steps now. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's trying to figure out what they can do now to halt degradation, and to plan for having to possibly do some costly fixes in 2006. They have to figure out who pays for it and set up a funding mechanism for the fixes. Hood agreed. It's not too early to start exploring the options. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Hood continued to state they can start doing the easy stuff now. Caskey- Schreiber stated start doing things now so they don't have to do it all at once in a couple of years. Fleetwood asked if the State will require the County to address the issue stringently. Hood stated the County will have a permit from the State, and if violated, will be subject to penalties and lawsuits. If the County thought it has addressed the TMDL, but the actions don't result in reductions, the State will have to lower the levels allowed in the TMDL permit. Whatcom County has a lot of land use decisions that can make a big impact. The statute says they can't pollute or allow pollution. Everyone in this community is interested in protecting the lake. Talking about hammers is not the most useful discussion. Talk about what is going to work. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the DOE will talk to the State Department of Natural Resources when it implements their logging plans to make sure it produces zero pollution. Hood stated a zero level of phosphorus isn't a goal. The goal is to restore natural levels of phosphorus. The scientist who designed the Lake Whatcom study is looking at the undeveloped forested areas of the lake to determine the natural levels of phosphorus loading into the lake. Those measured levels may be slightly above the natural loading rate, which may reduce how much the City and County must reduce their loading. However, that level is probably not measurable. The DNR is adopting the landscape plan and may make a change. Over time, they may want to revisit it. Look at whether or not the rules result in a lower level of discharge. Now, they are talking about enormous reductions. It is not feasible to focus on that small level of reduction from forestry. What is important is whether people follow the forest practice rules. They do see discharges from forestry activities that fail to maintain good road surfaces or ditches. Following forest practice rules will be important. Fleetwood asked about the permit being the primary hammer. He asked if the permit relates to point sources only or also non -point sources. Hood stated Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 6 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 1 stormwater was separated from industry. Congress says stormwater is a source of 2 pollution, but is different than large factories, for example. The TMDL system was 3 phased in, starting with large cities in phase one. Now, they're doing smaller cities 4 in phase two. Water from a roadside ditch owned and operated by Whatcom 5 County and is inside an urban area will be considered a point source, even though it 6 was considered non -point last year because it was stormwater. It will become a 7 point source and subject to permitting. 8 9 McShane asked what happens if the County decides not to reduce non -point 10 sources or change anything in terms of land use because it doesn't have the 11 resources. He asked if there is one allocation or allocations for different areas, 12 depending on the levels. Hood stated the DOE needs to submit a schedule of what 13 will happen and what will be achieved. If they don't see that reduction, the EPA, in 14 review of the TMDL, will tell the DOE that it needs to reduce those levels. If the 15 County doesn't do things to reduce the load allocation, then the DOE would have to 16 reduce the permitted load. A negative result of that would be, for example, two 17 neighbors that may have different requirements if one's stormwater goes into a 18 County collection system and the other's goes straight into the creek. The neighbor 19 whose stormwater goes into the collection system, that person will have to do 20 additional things to reduce the pollution load, above what the neighbor has to do 21 that discharges straight into the creek. That becomes a difficult political decision 22 for the Council to explain and enforce to the public. Penalties for failure to commit 23 and third -party lawsuits may ensue. 24 25 McShane stated they're already exceeding allocation to the point where 26 they've created an impaired water body. New development needs stringent 27 requirements, and they have to do something about the existing problem. To a 28 degree, this area of Lake Whatcom does not have equal development requirements. 29 Hood stated that if they continue to discharge levels above what the lake can 30 handle, they can have yet another level of stringency between those who discharge 31 into the stormwater system and those in the watershed who don't. 32 33 McShane stated they're already there. Hood stated they don't have a permit 34 yet, so the DOE isn't enforcing what the County is doing. 35 36 McShane stated they might have to go into areas already developed and 37 treat all those neighbors as equitably as possible to get them to meet a standard. 38 Right now, people are draining their lawns so they can walk across them in the 39 winter. A big impact is that they're dumping a large amount of water into the 40 stormwater systems. The natural systems are no longer used. Hood stated Silver 41 Beach Creek is a classic example of pollution coming from development. 42 43 McShane asked what would happen in Silver Beach Creek, for example. 44 Hood stated they've seen anecdotally that the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) had 45 a terrible time with the gauge in Silver Beach Creek because the stream bank was 46 so unstable. Peak flows were increasing as development occurred. Gravel was Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 7 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. moving through and changing the cross section of the stream. Those are changes they're seeing across the Silver Beach Creek area. Other creek areas are similar. McShane asked if the County needs to do better with new development and address the problem with the existing development. Hood stated that's correct. The question is how much more development can take place. That is a function of how much they can reduce the loads from existing development. McShane stated they don't know now the total. Hood stated they don't know how much loading would result in a change in dissolved oxygen. They will know in April 2005 from the final report. Now, no one can answer what Whatcom County is willing to do to reduce pollution from existing development. They will need to know that answer before submitting the TMDL. McShane stated they don't know the amount of the current loading that causes a measurable change. Hood stated that's correct. The system has a capacity to absorb some change at a natural level. McShane stated Mr. Hood played a significant role in working on the DNR landscape plan. McShane asked if the study will say what the County needs to do lake -wide or basin -wide. Hood stated the study will follow the same basin delineation as was used for watershed planning. The areas are divided into separate basins. They're looking at sources by land cover class in conjunction with the work Utah State University is doing. If an area falls into a category of low density residential, then they will expect on average a certain level of pollution. The next step is to decide how to change from the pollution level they are producing now to a future pollution amount that is less. There is existing developed and proposed development, so they'll need to start examining more land cover classes as development continues to occur. Future restrictions will be a result of how much they can reduce the existing levels of pollution. Start doing the easy actions to demonstrate they can work. Grout stated the DOE stresses the fact that they know the lake is overloaded, but they don't know how much, so every new development that doesn't do everything it can to minimize the impact to the lake becomes an existing development they have to deal with down the road. Everything the County does between now and plan implementation will reduce what they have to do for the plan when it comes out. Fleetwood stated he can hear Council critics, when the Council takes action, saying that they are doing all sorts of things without knowing the positive effect. He asked how Mr. Hood would answer those critics. Hood stated he is not a politician. His politicians wrote that the TMDL permit requires water quality standards. If what they do isn't enough, they'll have to examine more that would be necessary. Eventually, they will need to do enough to reduce loading. In the Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 8 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. event the lake is already feeding itself, they'd have to examine the how to reach the point at which the lake can reach an equilibrium with the loading they have. Even positive feedback loops have some sort of control. They'll examine different ways to meet the standards. In the end, the DOE needs to submit a plan that meets the standards and need to write a permit for the City of Bellingham and County that meets that plan. The County must meet the plan. It's something they know needs to be done, even if it's not adequate to solve the problem. They'll have to do it now or later, at a greater cost. Caskey- Schreiber stated she asked why the flushing effect is not an option, which a lot of people keep bringing up as an option. Hood stated flushing the lake isn't natural. When they evaluate the natural conditions, they'll turn off the diversion. If they can assure that a quantity of water will be there, they'll include that. They are prohibited from saying a similar capacity is a beneficial use of water, so they have to put water in the lake. They can't require someone to put water into the lake to reduce pollutants. They have to look at what is likely to be there in the long -term. They can model something that is realistic for the diversion. McShane referenced the chlorophyll levels between basins two and three being similar. Dr. Matthews talked about nitrogen limitation. Besides disinfection, nitrogen limitations will encourage bacteria to grow. The bacteria don't make nitrogen out of the air and produce bad things. He asked if it can be readily removed. Hood stated toxins from blue -green algae can't be readily removed from the water. They need to fix problems long before they get to that point. Nitrogen limitations in basin one is a cause for concern. The same cause is what they need to fix now. Reduce phosphorus going into the lake. When that happens, those periods when nitrogen becomes limiting will no longer become limiting because less phosphorus is there. If they encourage blue -green algae, they increase the risk of a toxic algae bloom. Gary Lisne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated the highest concentrations of pollution, per Dr. Matthews, is in Park Place and Silver Beach. The City points the finger at the County. Dr. Matthews' study also show Anderson Creek is the natural flow. He asked if the County would be held accountable or the City. He also asked about the filtering system they have and its effectiveness for removing phosphates. Hood stated Anderson creek is not a natural flow because it receives water from the diversion. A natural is more like Grandy Creek or Smith Creek flows. Not every inch of the watershed gets studied. Where there is a high density of development, they see high concentrations of pollutants. They will make the assumption that low density residential will generate a certain amount of pollution per acre. The City and County will each be responsible for controlling their sources of pollution. How that is separated will be worked out in the future. They'll each have their own permit. If they decide they want to be responsible jointly and the goals will be met, it may be an option to generate a single permit for both jurisdictions. Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 9 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Fleetwood asked when phase two permits have to be issued. Hood stated they had to be permitted by March 2003. They're already late. The DOE is still working on developing a permit. Whatcom County has applied for the permit, which DOE suggested so the fault lies with the DOE, not the County. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated they keep working on tiny factors throughout this process. They could eliminate the harvest of forestry, and there wouldn't be a big impact on pollution levels. They need to retrofit the areas that are the problem. Form a big local improvement district (LID) or stormwater management district. Focusing on forestry won't do it. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT SALMON RECOVERY PLAN (AB2004 -232) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated staff is working on the salmon recovery plan. They must send a draft plan to Shared Strategy, which is part of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan for National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). There is a working draft that the co- managers and others will forward to Shared Strategy. This is the last opportunity for the Council to provide information on whether this plan should be sent out. John Thompson, Senior Planner, stated additional work will be done through the summer and fall to get the details. At the end of the month, they will send down four pieces of material. First is the response to the six Shared Strategy questions. They are currently developing the responses. They are providing information on the key things that need to be done, the results for salmon recovery, the effect salmon recovery will have, the timeline, the cost, the commitments that need to be made, and who makes the commitments. Second is the eight key actions that specifically need to be done. Third is the preliminary draft of the water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1 salmonid recovery plan. Fourth is the WRIA 1 salmonid habitat restoration strategy. Roll stated Shared Strategy will review the materials from a technical standpoint and provide feedback to the County. That will be written up as a formal document between now and June 2005. The Council will have to approve that formal document then. Begin to think about what the County is willing to support next June. Now, he's looking for input on any items that shouldn't be sent to Shared Strategy. McShane asked what Shared Strategy would base their comments on. Thompson stated they will comment on format, context, and the political setting. Shared Strategy will take all the items and hand them off to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) Fisheries Division technical team, who will Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 10 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 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. review the draft plan for Puget Sound. On August 10, staff will talk about those comments with Shared Strategy. They will make revisions and do public outreach in the fall. In January or February, they will have a clear understanding so they can all make their commitments. Roll stated the County is forced to think about its priorities. There are limited resources. Think about where they'll get the biggest benefit for their money. Regarding mercury, a report should be released within the month. There has been a decrease in the deposition of mercury in the lake. There has been a global decrease in mercury emissions. The issues of mercury at the levels in the lake are different from the levels in the drinking water supply. They are two separate issues. The levels in the mercury studies of the bio- accumulation effect are a thousand fold less than the maximum contamination levels for a drinking water supply. There is information lacking relating to THM formation. There are a series of tests for how waters generate THM's. The tests can show how water changes overtime and its impact on THM formation. Also, many utilities are switching from the current process of free chlorination. Free chlorination will always produce THM's. The question is the amount that is acceptable. There are alternatives that don't produce THM's. Look at that in the context of the drinking water supply. McShane stated that's one issue. He asked if that plays much of a role in the TMDL criteria the County will have to deal with. Roll stated he didn't know if the DOE will get into THM formation issues. He doubts it. Hood stated they need to fix the dissolved oxygen problem. When that is fixed, they'll be in a better situation so THM's are not a problem. OTHER BUSINESS Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the Planning Department got a response on the application for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding. The County received $1 million. Of the applicants for this round, all had Jordan exploration leases on the property that the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) didn't want to deal with. They can get a contract amendment on those properties. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Olason stated the money the County received should match the three applications they have. The one application from last year is still underway, and the County is still trying to buy it. Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:02 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Committee Member Natural Resources Committee, 6/15/2004, Page 12