Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 16 20001 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 48 49 50 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee May 16, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Also Present: None Absent: L. Ward Nelson Connie Hoag (Clerk's Note: There was no quorum for this meeting, so no official Natural Resources Committee meeting was held. Discussion of the agenda items took place and included other councilmembers COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE BY STEVE HOOD, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, REGARDING THE NOOKSACK RIVER CLEAN -UP PLAN (AB2000 -187) Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology, presented an overview of the summary implementation plan. This is how they intend to address the lower Nooksack fecal coliform. In 1996 and 1997, Joe Joy conducted a study on the Nooksack River. The result was this report. They've completed a summary implementation plan that is out for public comment through May 31, 2000. The fecal coliform amount at the mouth of the river meets state standards on average. However, it is too high too often. Some of the tributaries are, on average, too high. In the plan, there are implementation activities. Most are all existing regulations and programs. Implementing those programs will result in cleaning up the river in the next five years. The headliner in the plan is the dairy nutrient management act. They have strict regulatory responsibilities in that area. All the farms will have farm plans by December 2003. Based on their study, farm plans will do a lot to clean up fecal coliform in the Nooksack River and its tributaries. They don't think that is the entire job. There are non -dairy agricultural sources that are significant. They expect to continue watching and responding to complaints, and address non -dairy sources as well. They also have responsibilities for wastewater treatment plants. They will revise one permit and reissue two other permits soon. That revision and those permits will reflect the need for the plants to reduce their fecal coliform concentrations. One plant in Everson already meets its targets. Another plant is almost meeting the targets. The DOE hasn't decided what the targets are. They have not translated the desired results into permit language. Water coming out of the pipes should be as clean as they want the river to be. The most stringent limits are already being met by Everson and are nearly being met by Ferndale. The City of Lynden has made some great improvements. Their system is not capable of meeting the targets. They need to establish a compliance schedule to allow completion of the new plant. They will expect the City of Lynden to meet the same targets. Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, 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 48 49 50 51 52 53 Brenner questioned when that has to be done. Hood stated it has to be in place in about in three years. The City of Lynden is getting a shorter schedule since the DOE started working with them a couple of years ago. They have had a five -year compliance schedule. McShane questioned whether the five -year timeline is typical of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance schedule. Hood stated five years is not unusual. The DOE will work closely with the City of Lynden to make sure the timeline is doable. There is a limit to how fast that can be done. Hood continued to state that the County is also a partner in getting work done. He's worked with Chris Chesson from the Health Department on the onsite septic system inspection program. Components include education materials that go out to all owners, certification for contractors working on septic systems, and a capacity to do site -by -site inspections when funding becomes available. The DOE will work with the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District to prioritize areas and find funding to do additional inspection work. The County also has the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which requires animals to stay out of streams. The dairy inspectors have begun working with the compliance officers for critical areas and demonstrated that can be an effective way to get the water cleaned up. The CAO requires native vegetation along streams where there is no farm plan. Buffers are important to eliminate fecal coliform from surface runoff into the streams. If someone doesn't have a farm plan, he or she will have a buffer of fifty or a hundred feet. It applies to all agricultural owners in the county. Those are the big items. Lots of people have worked with or will work with the DOE. They have seen improvements since this study was done. They will continue to see improvements. The goal is to make sure that the water meets the state water quality standards downstream of Ferndale, where the state's jurisdiction over the water ends, in five years. Dawson asked if they know whether they will have enough nutrients to feed fish with those standards in place. Hood stated there are plenty of nutrients in the Nooksack River, based on the high turbidity all year long. They haven't looked at a concern about lack of nutrients. The Nooksack has an enormous surplus of nitrogen -type nutrients. The issue would be if they were balanced with phosphorous and other nutrients. This study is on bacteria. They based their study on fecal coliform because that is the bacterium used in the current standard. The study also looked at a -coli. It found a relationship between a -coli and fecal coliform in the Nooksack River. If the state was to change its criteria to e -coli standards, which is a strong possibility, it will have a good case to monitor fecal coliform as a surrogate for e -coli, and they won't have to rework this. The same total maximum daily load (TMDL) study would stand. This is just a bacterium. The state's water doesn't meet water quality standards. There are two problems. One is the criterion, which is the actual numbers of bacterium that is in the water. There are two parts to the standard: the average condition and the bad condition. The river as a whole meets the average condition, but fails the high number. The tributaries fail both numbers. The other part of the standard is about supporting beneficial uses. There are no criteria attached to that. It needs to do all the things that the water is supposed to do. One of those things is about the shellfish in Portage Bay. The modeling demonstrated that the high levels contributed to the closure in Portage Bay. Modeling also demonstrates that, if they meet the targets on the TMDL, which are based on meeting the criteria, they will also expect the shellfish beds to reopen. There are three parts of the standard, and they are currently Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, 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 48 49 50 51 failing two parts: support of beneficial uses and the criteria. They are coming up with scoping next year. At that point, they will consider all the listed water bodies in the Nooksack Basin and associated basins. About 1/5 of the water resource inventory areas (WRIA's) in the other four regions will be going through the same process. Within the Northwest Region, they will come up with a prioritized list of what needs to be cleaned up, and the other four regions will do the same. They will combine the lists. The scientists will then determine what resources are available. He anticipated that Drayton Harbor will be high on the list. Carl Weimer, citizen, stated there is high fecal coliform in a lot of the tributary creeks. In Silver Beach Creek, the Health Department has issued health advisories. He lives on Ten Mile Creek, which has a high fecal coliform count. When he went home last night, there were children playing in the creek. There was a discussion among the neighbors about what is safe and what isn't. There hasn't been a way to disseminate the information that fecal coliform may be a health risk. There are lots of families living along these creeks, which may be a more direct impact to children and families. He questioned if there is any way to figure out what is safe for the families and if there is a plan to get that in formation out to the public. Dawson asked if there was a major sickness on the lake this last summer. Hood stated there was a major illness that may have been related to bacteria contamination in the City of Everett in a stream that was listed on the 303(d) list. Ten Mile Creek is on the 303(d) list, which is a list of impaired water bodies. One of the beneficial uses that the water is meant to support is swimming. The criteria are established with the advice of the state and county health departments. If they are meeting criteria, the water should be safe to swim in. The water is not currently meeting the criteria. It has improved. That may be an issue. A county health department would have to issue the health advisories. Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the Health and Human Services Department doesn't have a policy to identify specific water in which people should not play in or drink. In response to the city's recent study about the tributaries in the lake, and how only two met some standard for service water quality, the health department issued notification that people should not drink or play in the water. The information was in the Bellingham Herald. They have not targeted any other watershed specifically. McShane suggested setting a policy for issuing notification. He suggested posting signs in areas of particular concern. Chesson stated he would discuss it with Environmental Health Services Manager Regina Delahunt. 2. GEOFF MENZIES, DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO PRESENT A STAFF REPORT AND WATER RECOVERY PLAN FOR DRAYTON HARBOR (AB2000 -188) McShane stated he was impressed with the plan straightforward with some of the recommendations. It is clear and Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, 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 47 48 Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Advisory Committee Chair, stated the Natural Resources Committee received an extensive report a few weeks ago from the Centennial Grant work being done by Chris Woodward and Julie Hirsh. Those are quarterly reports. He talked about the status report of the recovery plan. It is based on the committee's work through the grant. It focuses on the accomplishments that several agencies have made since September 1998, the date of the previous plan for Drayton Harbor. There is more detail on the recommendations. The Woodward and Hirsh report is a quarterly progress report. This is a plan. His objective is to see this plan adopted by the County Council, as the September 1998 plan for the committee was adopted. The committee has unanimously approved it. It has been driven by the January 1995 closure response strategy and the watershed planning process. He showed overheads. The trend in Drayton Harbor is not positive. Prior to 1988, the entire harbor was approved for commercial shellfish harvesting. In 1988, 500 acres were closed around the mouth of Dakota Creek. It was largely a septic issue, which was solved by bringing sewer into the area. In 1995, they lost 2/3 of the harbor to numerous sources of non - point and point source pollution. A large percentage was downgraded to prohibited. Most recently in 1999, the remaining portions of the harbor were closed. Their role is to reverse that trend. A very good report that came out recently is the 2000 Puget Sound update by the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT). Drayton Harbor is sensitive to nutrient - related water quality degradation. There is season stratification, or layering, within the harbor, which predisposes the harbor to problems associated with nutrient loading. They have to continue to look at nutrient loading in California and Dakota creeks. Drayton Harbor was identified as one of the most contaminated areas for fecal pollution, based on the percentage of monitored stations that don't meet the shellfish standards. Five stations are poor, and one is fair. Recommended actions specific to nutrient loading is a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study clean up plan and making better land use and water quality connections. They've shown that there are elevated ammonia levels here. There are violations of fresh water fecal. What hasn't happened is that they haven't taken the studies and built on the recommendations with the land and the landowners to create links and ways to solve problems. The study recommended doing further investigation of these areas that are more sensitive to nutrients. Two areas in the south area of Puget Sound went through closures, and now look very good. That is a good report. McShane asked about the main problems of those locations in the south Puget Sound area. Menzies stated he would get to that question. Menzies stated a challenge is to bring in folks who fixed the problems from other areas. They need to share resources. Seventy five percent of Puget Sound tidelands are approved for commercial harvesting and marketing. That equals 100,000 acres. The area around Drayton Harbor is not characterized by extensive urban growth. The Eld Inlet and Oakland Bay were downgraded and then upgraded. The Eld Inlet had water quality associated with rainfall. The primary Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 4 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 source of pollution in the Eld Inlet was on -site sewer systems that were older. Through addressing those rigorously, they realized an upgrade. In Oakland Bay, near Shelton, the issue was sewage treatment plant collection problems and plant upgrades. In both cases, there was a primary source that was obviously affecting the water. The committee's focus since 1998 has been on sources around entrance to Drayton Harbor because of problems with the flood tide. The City of Blaine spent a lot of money working on their sewage collection system. Despite that, they've had overflows. One project has been doing a video of one of two main lines that run along Marine Drive. The sewage runs along Marine Drive. Two lines come together and go to a forced underwater main to the treatment plant on the spit. The video project was a joint effort. The Puget Sound Restoration Fund was instrumental in putting it together. Chris Woodward helped write the initial scope of work for doing the work. The videotaping work has been done, and the results are going to be an eye opener. It seems like it doesn't account exclusively for the poor water quality in Blaine Harbor. The Semiahmoo tribe, Port of Bellingham, Trillium Corporation, City of Blaine, and others put money into the project. Video inspection is the first phase of the investigation of the collection system. They came in under budget on the project. The next step is to take that money and make fixes and stop some connections that shouldn't be used. Fish processors have been a focus because they were identified as a source. The fish processors have been helpful in monitoring their waste. The Advisory Committee commented to DOE on the fish processors new permit application. Dawson questioned where fecal coliform comes from in the fish process. Menzies stated they need to look at all the processor's management practices around the plant. There are a lot of birds that are out there. There is a rat population that may be a problem. Another source may come from the wash down practices, which delivers pollution to the waste stream. One major recommendation is to take a close look at their method of operation and come up with some best management practices. Another component is to study the fish guts to determine if the fecal coliform is in the fish. It may be surface water that enters the fish's system, or it may come from workers who are going in and out of the plant. They don't know at this point. The flows out of the plant aren't great. The industry has been struggling and solutions have to be practical, but they are also charged to deal with all sources of pollution, particularly around mouth of the harbors. They also need to revisit the boat waste issues. That is an education issue. It is in the report. They need to look at surveying again and providing education for the boating community. The problem is in the commercial part of the marina. Efforts have also focused on data collection and management. Lots of groups have been involved in that, and have been lead by Julie Hirsch. She ran a data management subcommittee of the Drayton Harbor Advisory Committee. The effort supports the work that has been done. She put together the water quality- Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 5 1 monitoring framework. It is good work. This will be the framework for developing 2 a long -term monitoring program. 3 4 Another major effort has been the committee and agency meetings to talk 5 about implementation. It steers the efforts of the agencies. It takes time to get 6 meaningful recommendations. The number one priority, as they wind down with 7 the Centennial Grant, is to continue implementing the strategy. It requires that the 8 agencies do things beyond the normal daily operations. They have to see and also 9 document the improvements. 10 11 The marina area has been a problem area. There are five stations, A through 12 E, monitored by the Port of Bellingham. When the state closed the commercial 13 shellfishing. It is completely closed. They don't grow oysters or clams. The state 14 recommended all the areas are closed. People have been out there recreational 15 harvesting. The state Department of Health (DOH) recommended to the County 16 that the shellfish isn't safe. There are signs around the spit saying it is 17 recommended that people not harvest. There are also shellfish poisoning signs. 18 People need a better understanding. The County needs to communicate this to the 19 people. Neither the Department of Fish and Wildlife nor the County have the 20 authority to fine folks who are harvesting in areas that are downgraded. They can 21 only tell the people that the shellfish are unsafe for consumption. He is concerned 22 because Drayton Harbor is not typically heavily impacted by PSP. The levels set are 23 conservative, to account for a small percentage of people that are hypersensitive to 24 PSP. If someone digs clams, brings them to the family, and someone turns out to 25 be sensitive, it can kill that person. The way the DOH and the County need to get 26 involved is through an educational program. There is a cadre of folks that might be 27 more involved if they are impacted. One can have gastro- intestinal and other 28 problems. 29 30 One of the stations is monitored by the Port of Bellingham. The marina is an 31 issue because the flood tide water goes out of marina over the shellfish beds. 32 There seems to be a seasonal pattern of low numbers in early spring. The last 33 three samples have been below ten, which is very low. If they can correlate a 34 correction action in the area to this improved quality, the upgrade is more likely. 35 They need to have a statistical analysis to this. 36 37 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 38 39 Menzies continued to state that the key importance is to look at the 40 processing days for a correlation. To support efforts, he looked at Puget Sound 41 Water Quality Action Team's attempt to go to the communities to determine the 42 priorities. The Council of Governments (COG) Executive Board identified Drayton 43 Harbor and Portage Bay shellfish restoration as priorities. Priorities included local 44 priority setting, communicating success, adequate and consistent funding for 45 stormwater management and on -site septic systems in Lake Whatcom and Drayton 46 Harbor, dairy waste handling, and public education and involvement. The PSWQAT 47 also came to the Whatcom County forum of folks in the trenches. Priorities for that 48 group include funds for monitoring, education, enforcement of the Clean Water Act, Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 6 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 better control of municipal and industrial discharges, more projects and less process, and a TMDL study for Drayton Harbor. The current needs for restoring Drayton Harbor includes adoption of this recovery plan and a secure and sustainable funding source to implement this plan, beginning January 1, 2001. The committee identified the Flood District Fund as the most likely source of funding to continue the work, track, and implement the recommendations of the closure response strategy. Shellfish protection has been identified on some property tax notices in 1999. He will talk to the water team about key tasks that they see the Water Resources Division doing to continue the implementation efforts. Restoration efforts will focus on priority recommendations in the plan, with a focus on projects rather than a process, community involvement, pollution source identification and remediation, linkage of sources to solutions, and communication of successful projects and efforts. Whatcom County has a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) that is complaint driven. There are not a lot of complaints in the Drayton Harbor watershed. The Conservation District worked to educate hobby farmers. They need a more proactive approach by someone who wants to work with the landowners and bring the sources and solutions together. One of the things missing in the Centennial Grant is the public education and public relations portion. There is reason for hope. They need the plan adopted to go to the water team with an adopted plan to move forward. Dawson asked about fecal strep analysis using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methodology, referenced on page 26 of the report, item number nine. The City of Blaine did another harbor analysis of types of fecal coliform, but the results weren't reliable. She questioned the cost for this test that is more valid. Menzies stated this accomplishment is what was done through 1998. That strep fecal methodology was designed to differentiate between human and animal waste, but it isn't reliable. The Port is continuing to sample water quality in the marina. The monitoring they are doing is tied to marina expansion. Their ongoing monitoring is going to continue to address fecal bacteria. McShane stated he would need to create an ordinance based on this language. He asked for input from County staff, including the Health Department and the Water Resources Division. A steady revenue stream is needed for the plan. Going to the Water Resources Division is a logical step. It is a high priority for him. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated there is parallel work of similar nature occurring in the WRIA that needs to be linked. As they kick off the technical portion of the WRIA process, they are looking at water quantity, water quality, and a lot of the land use issues. He encouraged Menzies and the others to engage in that process in the next month or two. This area is part of the WRIA. Many of the technical studies can be integrated. Some of this work in the plan is a slight duplication. The County Council has made an enormous investment for the WRIA. This is an opportunity, especially for the water quality and land use issues, to incorporate the science. Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, 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 48 McShane stated he agreed that there are some parallel tracks. He is also concerned that Drayton Harbor could get lost because WRIA is so big, especially as the Centennial Funds drop off. A couple months ago, the County Council went through the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT) project application process. It was set up as a means to provide federal money to the state to make up for impacts of the spotted owl on timber counties and also on fisheries. When the applications came forward, the Council needs to look at how they are ranked for priority. Things related to shellfish were ranked highly. It made sense to rank them highly. Another highly ranked item was a regional shellfish program. There is some money there for projects that will score highly. He was disappointed in the quality of the applications. There is some opportunity there, besides the flood fees. The flood fees may be the seed money. Menzies stated there is a shellfish component in the water plan. It may be a natural direction to go. They have a lot of people in the watershed who pay the flood fee. It is one way they can get a return on their investment. He would like to clearly identify the tasks and approach to the water team to find out whether it is something the Water Resources Division is interested in doing. It is important that funding has a time frame attached to it. Dawson stated one success was a small farm compost workshop. She asked if this is a presentation that could be given at County Council meeting. The meetings are filmed and it could be an educational opportunity for the general populace. Menzies stated that part of their program is to have workshops with hobby farmers. The challenge is to get people together. The hobby farmers are not linked. There is not an association that brings them together, however there are ways to work with the hobby farmers. They have been monitoring the creeks for years. They have not built on those reports and looked closely at the drainages to determine land use issues. Involve landowners and have them become more involved in water quality monitoring and stewardship would be a focus. Instead of making them feel targeted, they would be involved in a program to understand the problems and make improvements. This is going to happen through hands -on educational programs in the community. The creek issues are not going to go away. The hobby farms workshops where held by the Conservation District. There are staffing issues with the Conservation District. Hobby farms were historically a concern compared to commercial dairies. They are being dealt with well right now. Mapping shows where the dairy farms are in relation to Drayton Harbor. Education has been missing over the last couple of years. Many programs are funded over a one -year period. They need a program that will be there for at least a couple of years. McShane asked about signage. Menzies stated that there are about six signs provided by the DOH. There should be more signs. There are several access points to the tidelands. In talking to DOH and also Fisheries, their approach is to develop an education program in areas where there is continued harvesting in areas that are recommended for closure. They have offered to be involved. They can put a program together so folks understand what the threats are. Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, 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 Jan Hanson, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee member, stated that many years ago they discussed ways to make people aware of Drayton Harbor being a sensitive area. At that time, they suggested signs at every access point in the watershed. It may be a recommendation tucked into the 1995 plan. No one ever picked the idea up and ran with it. No one funded it or implemented it because there was not staff and time allotted to see it through. They need the staff and time. McShane asked staff to take a look this plan. It will come forward as an ordinance, and he wants to know of any red flags or concerns that might cause problems. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 5/16/2000, Page 9