HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 14 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
November 14, 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:
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. UPDATE FROM THE PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT
(AB2000 -381)
Chris Woodward, Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee facilitator, thanked the Council for its continued support for both
shellfish protection districts. From November 1999 to November 2000, there has
been much coordinated effort for dealing with water quality issues in the Nooksack
Basin and as it relates to Portage Bay. The most important issue is the progress
made by the state Department of Ecology (DOE) on the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) project, which was done because the river had a history of bacteria
standards violations. The study focused on loading from various sources. She read
the Executive Summary on packet page five (on file). There has been a
cooperative effort between DOE and the Whatcom County Health and Human
Services Department to do on -site septic surveys in a priority area of concern along
Double Ditch Road. The water quality monitoring from the Northwest Indian
College (NWIC) has been an invaluable resource for looking at water quality issues
in the Nooksack watershed. Funding has been established for one more year for
the monitoring program. She requested that this funding not be grant driven, but
funded annually on a more stable basis. Without this information and monitoring,
there would be no way to establish whether the work is making the strides they feel
that it is.
McShane asked how much money the NWIC is getting.
Michael Cochrane, Northwest Indian College biology researcher, said it has
been using about $120,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) River
Witness grant, Environmental Justice grant, Centennial Clean Water Act grant, and
a contract with EPA Region 10. They've gone through the Clean Water Act grant; it
no longer exists. To replace it, they've contracted with Lummi Natural Resources to
do supplemental monitoring. He's taken the little money remaining from the EPA
River Witness grant to get a second round of samples during the month. They've
renegotiated the Region ten contract for the border stations, Fish Trap, and
Bertrand creeks. Those are the three grants that they will run through by August
or September of next year, at which time the grants will be gone. There are two
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
sources of possible funding next year. The Clean Water Act grant will be open for
bids in January and February. There is also the Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 1 process that might provide funding. It has been a scramble to keep
funding at level to do sampling to provide results.
Woodward stated the report shows a very large improvement over the work
being done in the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District in improving water
quality. She described the objectives from the matrix. Objective one is to control
agricultural sources. The Conservation District and Natural Resource Conservation
Services have a new Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) that
leases farmland for ten to 14 years. It is to establish conservation buffers of native
conifers and hardwoods among salmonid- bearing streams. She read from the
Update on Status Accomplishments, packet page six (on file). They are making
large strides for the Conservation District. She introduced Jim Thompson to speak
on the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance.
Jim Thompson, Whatcom County Land Use Specialist, stated the data being
gathered has been very useful to him. He uses this data all the time. It is a great
guide for him to begin looking for hot spots. In the last year, consultants have
conducted interviews have been doing some assessments. They are preparing an
assessment, which is in the draft stage now, to look at how effective the Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO) and its enforcement is overall. The goal in mind is to
prepare recommendations and findings that will help them fine -tune the ordinance.
Nelson asked who requested the assessment. Thompson stated the Water
Resources Division requested it.
McShane stated the company was named URS and made a presentation to
the County Council during a Water Resources work session. The County Council
approved the contract.
Thompson stated that during the next year, they could look for a finished
product with findings and recommendations that will help guide him and others who
work with critical areas and enforcement. A year ago, he and Andrew Craig
finished meetings and wrote a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) for
enforcement of animal access issues to standardize the approach they will use in
the instance a violation is found. If there is a violation, they will use the same
approach, timelines, and guidelines so it doesn't matter to a farmer or landowner
who discovers the problem. They would end up with the same product and
process. That is being reviewed to its form right now. It appears reasonable to
each of them as the staff who will be using the guidelines. Formalizing the process
continues.
Ongoing activities include referrals back and forth from DOE on violations of
the County Code and state code. The majority of violations are small farm. Due to
the numbers of instances, he spends a lot of time referring the small hobby farm
cases, not the full -scale dairies. The majority of the larger dairies have farm plans
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
or are already under permits. He does enforcement on those. Due to the numbers
involved, he spend more time on small farm.
Nelson questioned whether the CAO is administered by the Conservation
District, regarding farm plans. He questioned whether the Conservation District is
doing the farm plans for the small farms. Thompson stated yes. The Conservation
District has a quota of plans they are consistently developing. They have a list of
farms.
Nelson asked if there was a concern of whether that is an efficient way to
address small farms, and asked the definition of a small farm. Thompson stated
the definition is a matter of scale and whether it is being operated as a sole source
of income. The referrals he does for small farms are not always for dairies. Some
are horse farms or other types of farms.
Andrew Craig, state Department of Ecology, stated that anything that is a
non - commercial dairy farm is a considered a small farm under the relationship he
and Thompson have established. A commercially run dairy farm is separate from
all the other farms.
Nelson stated they should just call them non - commercial dairy farms.
Thompson stated part of it might be the product of the job description with the
Conservation District, where they have a small farm planner and a dairy planner.
McShane asked if enforcement is the only work he does. Thompson stated
this isn't the only type of work he does. It is his primary responsibility. He spends
60 to 75 percent of time involved in the CAO. He has other special projects
assigned. Of the three compliance staff assigned, he has the primary responsibility
and the other compliance staff is secondary. There is a fluctuation depending on
what is happening in the community.
McShane asked for information on the applications and amount of relay
cropping. Thompson stated he had three observations. 1) There had been an
increase in relay crops, especially in certain areas such as Sumas. 2) Application of
manure is generally done during the summer. This year was better than last year
in terms of violations. 3) The application of liquid after the non - application period
was improving at first, then took a downturn. The autumn applications are panic
applications.
Hoag asked if compliance with the manure ordinance is only complaint
driven, or whether staff people are driving around the county to observe the farms.
Thompson stated they do both. They enforce proactively. They couldn't afford to
do it as a reaction to complaints because he has so few complaints that are called
in regarding manure application. Of the 600 cases per year, fewer than 50 are
citizen - reported CAO violations in general. He gets less than a dozen phone calls
about manure applications. He mostly drives around and finds the manure
applications.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
Hoag asked how many incidents they deal with in terms of CAO and the
manure ordinance. Thompson stated he was not sure, but estimated manure
application violations are 25 or more. Other animal access and CAO issues are in
the neighborhood of 70 or more. He always refers the agricultural - related
violations to the Conservation District. Some violators elect to participate in a farm
plan. Others discontinue the practice.
Hoag questioned the resolution of the 25+ manure - related violations.
Thomson stated that in some instances, there were monetary fines. About six of
them were exceedingly minor. After September 1, one can't apply manure within a
given buffer. Shortly after September 1, there are a few applications within the
buffer. He just wrote reminder letters. Some farm plans allow application within
the buffer in the summer time. The farm plan is a big document and that is a small
item in it.
Hoag stated she agreed with the three observations. They should send
someone to Badger Road. The DOE instituted a new award for farmers who do
follow the regulations. She'd observed that there are a lot of farmers who have
changed. They are doing a wonderful job of managing resources and nutrients.
She questioned whether the County has a similar program. Thompson stated it
does not.
Hoag stated the County ought to do that. It could get a recommendation
from various agencies such as the Conservation District, the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and the Department of Ecology to identify certain farmers
who are putting an effort into compliance.
McShane suggested writing a letter from the Council thanking them.
Nelson asked if they are talking about thanking people who are meeting the
requirements or people who are exceeding the requirements.
Hoag stated a person could do a really good job or a person could do only
the minimum to meet the requirements. For many of the farmers, they are taking
a piece of their land out of production.
Nelson stated Lake Whatcom had concern about protection of water quality.
RESources took on an effort to send out the watershed plaques. Perhaps the
Conservation District can take on something like that. He was reluctant to thank
people for doing what the law requires, but people who are going the extra effort
should get a commendation.
Hoag stated the Conservation District already has a Steward of the Land
annual award. She didn't want to duplicate that program. The County deals with
the CAO and the manure ordinance, and it should recognize some of the farmers
who are doing a really good job. They could pick out two or three whose efforts are
exemplary, and pat them on the back.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
48
Nelson questioned who would do the selection.
Hoag stated the County staff, who is dealing with this day in and day out,
would do the selection.
Woodward continued the presentation and stated she did not receive a report
from the Planning Department regarding stormwater sources.
Thompson spoke on controlling stormwater sources, objective two. It has
been overlaid on the maps they use when they bring in the building permits for any
development that requires stormwater detention structures. Generally, it has been
running without any hitches. In certain instances where there are low lying ground
and poor soils, one is still required to retain the stormwater, but it is in a situation
where the soil won't provide infiltration or is already saturated and wet. In a few
instances it has resulted in being redundant. Otherwise, it is working without any
hitches.
Woodward spoke on objective three regarding the control of sewage
treatment plants (STP) and on -site septic system (OSS) sources. She introduced
Chris Chesson from the County Health and Human Services Department, who would
provide an update. A formal letter was sent to the Lummi Nation offering any
resources that may be needed in evaluating the OSS on tribal land. The letter was
written in the late spring or early summer.
Chris Chesson, Environmental Health Supervisor, discussed their survey
efforts. The DOE identified some sites with elevated fecal coliform in the Double
Ditch area. They identified 21 residences as potential sources. He is working on a
survey of the 21 systems, and has completed 19 so far. They've identified three
failures. Of the two remaining sites, one property owner owns them both, and has
been avoiding his attempts. He will probably write a conjunctive letter with the
DOE requesting access to the site. If they still don't get any cooperation, they still
have the option of pursuing a search warrant through the courts.
McShane asked if he has gone to that level with any other sites. Chesson
stated not in his experience with the County. It has been done before. They are in
the process of upgrading the three systems within the next month.
Hoag questioned how bad the failures were. Chesson stated two were direct
discharges to the ditch. The third was a failure in the drain field and not directly
discharges to the ditch.
Hoag stated there are a number of farms along the ditch along Badger Road
from Fish Trap Creek to Depot Road. She often sees nutrients ending up in the
ditch, and questioned whether it is a closed ditch and where it goes. Woodward
stated it is almost like a swale. She was not aware that it runs anywhere.
Hoag stated there are culverts under the driveways, and was under the
impression that it goes somewhere. Between Fish Trap two and Fish Trap four, she
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
48
sees a lot of questionable manure practices on a regular basis. If the ditch runs to
the west, it could end up in Double Ditch, which is another spot where they've had
trouble.
Woodward stated the ditch at Fish Trap one, two, and three all run directly
north and south.
Hoag stated she was talking about the ditch that runs along Badger Road.
Cochrane stated those ditches run either to Depot, Benson, or Double Ditch,
which eventually end up in Fish Trap Creek. All three of those possibilities mean
that there is a potential for pollution. He would talk with her about it later.
Hoag asked if they are sampling Double Ditch separately, and questioned
whether it flows east or west. Buffers are not being observed there.
Woodward stated Double Ditch is part of the monitoring project. There are
sites two, four, and six.
Hoag stated that if they are sampling at Double Ditch, they need to know if
this is a ditch influencing Fish Trap or Double Ditch.
McShane asked the time frame from when they first become aware of the
problems with Double Ditch. Chesson stated it has been since late summer, a
couple of months. Within couple of weeks after he'd received the list of sites, he
had staff in the field making contact with property owners and initiating the survey.
McShane asked how it impacted the workload and other OSS activities.
Chesson stated only 21 sites are not that onerous to field staff, divided between
four or five staff members. Taking on a couple of hundred sites would become an
issue. He can do these types of surveys with existing staff.
Hoag stated farmers brought this forward when the County did the manure
ordinance. She remembered fielding complaints from farmers about raw sewage
coming from homes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Woodward stated they now have the data to back up the issues that were
brought forward. They will also be listing priority drainage areas to continue doing
the special on -site septic surveys.
Hoag stated this needs to be a team effort. The farmers feel who they are
being picked on. She's heard particular complaints about DOE that are well
founded. The big cities and major contributors don't get the same kind of
treatment that a farmer would get in the same situation. Dairy farmers are treated
differently. She appreciated the broad focus and that they are trying to address all
the contributors.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
48
Woodward stated that there was no response from the City of Ferndale. She
read from the report regarding the City of Lynden and Lummi Nation responses on
packet page eight (on file).
Mark Henderson, state Department of Ecology, stated the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits have been transferred to his office
and are being re- written at this time. They are re- written every five years, and are
now being re- written for another five -year term.
Hoag stated some people have been faulted as being contributors that were
overlooked. Some people pointed out that the way the contract was written, one
could either get fined for over - chlorinating or for dumping raw sewage. The
violators chose to get fined for dumping raw sewage because they don't have to
pay for the cost of the chlorine. She questioned whether the permits are being re-
written to deal with contamination of closed shellfish areas. Henderson stated they
are being written and updated. They are being written under the water quality
standards for the state. If there is a problem with an effluent, then the permit can
have a water quality based effluent limit instead of technology based limit. The
water quality based effluent limit is more complicated and lowers the limit more
than the technology based limit. He was waiting for information from Olympia to
know whether or not that will be the case. Also, the TMDL for the Nooksack has
been rolled into these permits.
Hoag stated Lynden put in the UV treatment system. She asked if Everson
or Ferndale have or are considering a similar system. Henderson stated Everson
doesn't have any plans to do that right now. They don't have a problem. Their
chlorine limits are meeting their fecal coliform limits. The chlorine is used as a
disinfectant. He was not aware that Ferndale has any plans either. The Ferndale
permit is in place and will need to be rewritten in three years.
Woodward stated the City of Everson had one issue on December 15, which
was an overflow. Other than that, they have been within their permit limits. She
asked Steve Hood to talk about TMDL limits.
Hoag asked about the Lummi Nation sewage treatment plant (STP). Last
year there was raw sewage in Portage Bay that they felt may be coming from
Gooseberry Point. She asked if that had been resolved. Woodward stated the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state Department of Health have done
a plant visitation and made recommendations for changes to be made. That is
where the dye study will come in when the tides are right. It was never decided
where the effluent came from.
Hoag asked if the recommendations from the EPA or the Department of
Health have been implemented. Woodward stated they have as far as she knew.
Steve Hood, state Department of Ecology, stated the question is where the
TMDL study is. He submitted a copy of the approval letter he received in August.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 7
1 It lists the water bodies for which the TMDL were approved. It is everything that
2 drains in the Nooksack that was known or identified as contaminated. It sounds
3 final, but it isn't. Pursuant to the DOE memorandum of agreement with the EPA to
4 do the TMDL study, they still need to complete a detailed implementation plan,
5 which is due within one year of TMDL approval. The letter was sent on August 8,
6 2000. He made a presentation about what they planned on doing. There were not
7 any substantial changes. As a result, he submitted this report. There were waste
8 load allocations made for STP's. Those are the only permitted sources of fecal
9 coliform discharge. The waste load allocations made for those treatment plants will
10 be incorporated in the permits that Mr. Henderson is writing. The waste load
11 allocations are consistent with the targets to meet clean water. He expected all
12 sources to be reduced by a fixed percentage. That will get the Nooksack River to a
13 level that no more than ten percent of the samples exceed 200. In reducing
14 everything a fixed percentage, the average condition will also improve. The
15 average condition will actually be better than the criteria of 100. They will need to
16 meet an expected geometric mean of 39 or 42, considerably below what the actual
17 criteria is. This is done as a fairness issue. They don't think they are going to
18 clean up the river by saying that just the big guys have to stop. Everyone has to
19 do his or her part. All sources have to be reduced. He expected that they would
20 also see the geometric mean go down. Those are the limits that that will be written
21 into the permit. They are limits that will get them down to what he expected the
22 river to be on average. That will be a difficult task for some of the treatment
23 plants. Some of the treatment plants are already achieving that level of treatment.
24 It will mean a paper change for them. For Lynden, it may require a compliance
25 schedule because its current plant might not be able to meet that level all of the
26 time. They will get an interim limit that gets them about halfway there. They are
27 in the process of financing and building a new plant. When it comes online, it
28 would apply at that point. That is the waste load allocation.
29
30 The other part of the TMDL is the load allocation. In order to get the list of
31 conditions from the EPA, he went to all the streams they'd sampled and questioned
32 the percentage of reduction to get a particular stream into compliance. Based on
33 what they saw dition, they determined the average condition. They use that as
34 their target geometric mean to measure how they are doing. The data from the
35 NWIC has been tremendously useful to constantly monitor. He set up quarterly
36 goals for the percentage of reduction each month to meet the water quality
37 standards in five years. Mr. Henderson and Mr. Craig do the dairy inspections and
38 have the primary influence on getting those reductions because they are out in the
39 field. They use those goals to help see where their efforts have been successful
40 and where they need to alter their strategy. There are sources out there that are
41 probably not related to agriculture. Mark Henderson will be in charge of writing the
42 detailed implementation plans because they expect the plan to largely follow the
43 responsibilities that are part of the shellfish protection district. This is one of those
44 efforts to keep things under local control. Since there is a good and functioning
45 shellfish protection district that has a plan laid out, he hoped to use that plan with
46 additional detail. There is an annual educational effort that goes to each basin on a
47 five -year basis. He will need to put down in writing which basins are being
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
addressed over the next five years, so they can have the measurable goals and
determine that the things the County committed to are being done.
In the summary implementation plan, they discussed the possibility of doing
a basin -wide septic survey. Additional funding will probably be needed for that. He
hoped that by August 2001, through the shellfish protection district, they could
identify which basin -wide studies need to be done, lay out the schedule of when he
hoped to achieve those studies, and insure that they have an opportunity to pursue
funding.
Overall, things are working well. They need to get the measurable goals
down on paper over the next five years. On the Critical Areas Ordinance, he
understood that Jim Thompson is the lead. He would need to have a schedule on
the percentage for each year to expect to see compliance. He understood there is
quite a bottleneck for people who want to get exemption from the standard rules
because the Conservation District is extremely busy trying to prepare all the farm
plans for dairies. Perhaps the County, the Conservation District, and the DOE may
need to pursue additional funding if they see that there are many people out of
compliance with the standard rules and who are going to pursue farm planning.
The detailed implementation plan would include the number of those farms they
expect will need to get those farm plans to get the exemption from the standard
rules, determine the additional resources that the County would need, and then
pursue funding for the County. There are some additional details to be worked out.
Largely, they are expecting to use the existing program, identify which parts of the
existing program are going to be on the ground in the next five years, and how far
they expect to get each year over the next five years. They need that in the event
that they don't actually get where they thought they would at the end of the five
years. He expected that implementing the existing rules and regulations would
meet the water quality standards. There is an adaptive management scheme that
says they will reevaluate at the end of five years if they don't meet the standards.
If they haven't documented where they are existing now, it is going to be tough to
say they need additional rules. They need to have that kind of compliance schedule
in the interim to know that they are getting to the goal.
There was a question of funding. The DOE funding from the Centennial Clean
Water fund has an application due date at the end of February. There may be
changes in scoring to give additional emphasis for TMDL implementation activities,
which is good for the shellfish protection district. Clearly the goals of the shellfish
protection district are the same as the TMDL implementation.
The next round of priorities for what the TMDL will do would be out and open
for public comment in December. Internally, he will look at how they set those
priorities and put together a package that will become available in December for
public comment. His plan is to present it to the watershed planning program's
Planning Unit. He didn't expect a unified response because they need a rapid turn-
around to get the basin priorities presented at the end of February. He expected
that many interested parties would be able to provide him with additional
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
48
information on how to set the priorities and a basis for changing those priorities
around in December and January.
Hoag questioned whether all of the water bodies listed as contributing to the
Nooksack River are out of compliance with the Clean Water Act at this time. Hood
stated these water bodies are all exceeding either the "ten percent exceed 200" or
the geometric mean of 100.
Hoag questioned whether the percentage of reduction would be required for
everyone who is contributing, regardless of how much they are contributing. Hood
stated they deal with the permitted sources, which get the waste load allocation,
differently than the non -point sources, which get the load allocation. All the water
bodies are assigned a load allocation. That is the percent reduction. Based on the
sampling he did, there is a target geometric mean. For the permitted sources, they
will expect the water to be as clean as they expect the water to be when it gets to
the end of the river. That is what they based their decision on regarding how much
they are allowed to discharge. Their discharge is expected to be as clean as the
point of compliance, which is just downstream of Ferndale.
Hoag stated they talked about requiring the same percentage of reduction
from all of them, to be equitable. She questioned whether the water quality would
be based on a percentage or on a certain standard. Hood stated the standard is
how they treat the point sources. They don't issue permits to the non -point
sources. They expect the percentage reduction from the non -point sources.
Hoag stated they would look at the percentage of reduction for each stream
needed for load reduction. She questioned whether they are going to apply the
same percentage to a stream that is very loaded as a stream that is not very
loaded. Hood stated no. The highest percentage reduction is a very small stream
that requires a 98 percent reduction.
Hoag questioned whether they are just going to look at the percentage
required to bring the streams into compliance, and that is what the contributors
have to meet. Hood stated that was correct. When they get done, all the streams
will have no more than ten percent of their samples above 200. He expected those
geometric means to vary quite a bit based on the historical variation in the
streams.
Hoag asked about other water bodies on the back of the list, and questioned
whether they are all the TMDL's in the county. Hood stated they are all the TMDL's
associated with the Nooksack River. They have eight TMDL's in the Johnson Creek
watershed. Four are for fecal coliform and four are for dissolved oxygen.
Woodward introduced Julie Hirsch, who would present information on the
Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District water quality summary.
Julie Hirsch, district consultant, submitted pages from the summary (on file).
The summary was part of the contract with the Health and Human Services
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, 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
47
48
Department and the Conservation District. It was to compile much of the data from
the implementing agencies. She looked at the data from NWIC, the state
Department of Health, DOE, the water treatment intakes, and the wastewater
plants. The data included the time range up to March. She is updating the
database, which will be put on the internet by the end of the year. The water
quality summary is currently on the website.
Woodward stated that the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 1 project
requested Ms. Hirsch's information, which she's made available to them for their
project.
Hirsch stated one purpose of looking at this data was to compare it to water
quality standards, including the National Shellfish Sanitation Program standards
from the Department of Health and the DOE standards. The big picture indicated
that 46 percent of the monitoring done by the Department of Health failed to meet
the estimated 90th percentile. Of the freshwater stations, 75 percent of all of the
stations failed to meet the geometric mean standard and 84 percent of the stations
failed to meet the standard of not more than 10 percent being greater than 200 for
fecal bacteria. The percentage greater than 43 should be ten percent or less to
meet the standard.
Hoag stated there are a couple of standards that exist. One of the standards
is the Department of Health's (DOH) shellfish standard, at which point they close
the beds. There is another standard for marine waters in general. Hirsch stated
the most important thing to look at is the estimated 90th percentile standard,
because that is the data that is closing the shellfish beds. The 90th percentile for
the DOH station ten in March was 35. That is a passing number, but is in the early
warning zone. It passes because it is less than 43. If the 90th percentile is above
43, then the shellfish bed should be closed.
Nelson questioned who was doing the data collection. Hirsch stated that the
NWIC has a few of the marine sites, as well as the Department of Health. Some of
those testing sites are done at different dates and at different frequency levels.
That is why the data sets look different.
Hoag questioned if only the 90th percentile standard can close the shellfish
beds. Hirsch stated that only the Department of Health standards can close the
shellfish beds.
Hoag questioned whether a 90th percentile standard of 43 would be open or
closed. Hirsch stated she guessed that if the standard stayed at 43 over a period of
time, and is not just a spike, then it would be closed. There has been a significant
increase in the estimated 90th percentile. There has been an increase over time.
Her data goes back to 1995. She needed 30 data points to get a geometric mean
or an estimated 90th percentile. It takes two years to get 30 data points.
Nelson questioned whether or not they would know the effectiveness of
programs for two years.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 11
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
Hoag stated they could be watching the monitoring and knowing that the
numbers are going down, but they can't get the beds reopened without the 30
consecutive data points.
Hirsch stated she looked at the trends for all the stations, and then the
salinity. She split the samples into high salinity and low salinity groups. Low
salinity is less than ten parts per million. In some of the stations, it was clear that
the low salinity numbers were much higher than the high salinity numbers, which
would give credence to the theory that the Nooksack River plume, when the
southeast winds are prevalent, pushes the fresh water up against the eastern shore
of the peninsula and causes the problems. This is information that has been
presented before. She found that there are violations at high salinity conditions as
well as low salinity conditions at some of the stations.
Hoag questioned whether high salinity indicates that the water is coming in
and there shouldn't be much influence from the Nooksack River. Hirsch stated
violations under high salinity conditions indicate to her that they need to look at
other sources as well as the fresh water sources.
Hoag stated that if it was just the Nooksack plume, it would only happen
under low salinity conditions. Hirsch agreed. Based on the decay theory from the
TMDL, they should see a reduction in fecal coliform from the mouth of the Nooksack
along the eastern peninsula. She didn't see that. She saw reductions from the
mouth to station two, which is midway down the eastern peninsula. She also saw
increases at stations 11 and 12, which also indicate that there may be additional
sources closer to Portage Bay.
In the Nooksack River, fecal coliform levels increased from the upper
watershed to the mouth. Also, the area between station M2 and M4 had the
steepest increase. That is between Lynden and Ferndale. That was a finding of the
TMDL. The TMDL study showed very high levels.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Hirsch continued to state that she hasn't had much emphasis on urban
stormwater sampling to date. She suggested a possibility that there could be
significant sources during storms. They need to make sure they look at an
adequate number of storms.
Over time, she saw reductions in the Nooksack River and its tributaries.
There is a significant decrease in the percent of samples over 200. The peaks
appear to be coming down. Most, but not all, of the tributaries also showed
decreases. Even though they do have water coming across the border that is
higher than the geometric mean standard or the 90th percentile standard, there are
still get increases as it comes down into Whatcom County. If they were only
getting pollution from Canada, there ought to be a continuous reduction. They are
getting chronic loading all the way down the rivers.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 12
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
There are recommendations and conclusions. She thanked the Department
of Ecology for its recommendations and review comments. They have regular
instances of fecal coliform levels in the thousands in many of the tributaries. They
ought to start looking at making people aware that it isn't okay for kids to play in
the creeks. They ought to begin educating people that the creeks are not okay.
They ought to look at the septic systems on the Lummi peninsula and any other
sources that there may be, as well as the sources in the Nooksack River basin itself.
She believed they would want the various ordinances and programs to operate by
an adaptive management principle. As they see improvements or find that some of
the programs need to be tweaked, there should be an instituted way to do that.
There could be representatives from the DOE inspection program, the County
inspection program, the Conservation District, the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), and anyone who had a program that dovetailed should meet on a
regular basis to communicate and recommend interagency improvements. There
has been a great deal of communication going on now. She got comments from
DOE related to the Conservation District program.
Hoag stated she'd been trying to get information on the border stations. She
asked for an explanation of the results on page 26. Hirsch stated there is a
geometric mean of 96 for one of the stations. The geometric mean standard is
100.
Hoag asked that more information be sent to her. If there are significant
contributions coming across the border, they need to do something about it. Hirsch
stated that was one of her recommendations.
Woodward stated the DOE has been in contact with Canadians regarding
pollution issues on the higher watersheds. She introduced Michael Cochrane.
Cochrane stated he had an unpublished summary report for the Clean Water
Act grant. He took the water quality data for the stations he did for the Clean
Water Act grant, compared it to the TMDL data from 1997, and ran yearly averages
for the stations. They have a comparison between 1997 through this year. Kamm
Creek looks better. Scott Ditch is worse. Fish Trap looks about the same.
Bertrand looks better, although it could be due to the fact that his sampling station
is above where Duffner Ditch comes into Bertrand, and the TMDL station was below
that location. Ten Mile looks about the same. When they look at Marietta station
M1, Ms. Hirsch's data goes to March of this year, and his data goes to September.
The mouth of the Nooksack met class A water quality standards. During the last
seven months, the mouth has had a geometric mean of 45, which is less than half
of the state's standard for a geometric mean. It's only had eight percent of its
counts be over 200. During this time, the number of high counts coming out of the
Nooksack River has been within the class A water quality standard. It has
decreased radically. In the TMDL data from 1997, 17 percent of the counts were
above 200. Those are the counts that affect Portage Bay. That is the good news.
There has been a substantial improvement in the amount of high counts coming
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 13
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
down the Nooksack River. There are still high counts, but they are lower than the
previous high counts.
The bad news is that it is not impacting Portage Bay water quality that much.
A count of 50 out of the Nooksack is wonderful, but three miles downstream it
causes a violation because the standards are so different and they are so close
together. When there is a freshwater plume coming out of the Nooksack at any
kind of level that violates the water quality standards on the shellfish grounds, it
will cause high counts over the shellfish beds. If they lower the geometric mean to
39 at the mouth, the idea is that there won't be that percentage of high counts that
will cause violations in the shellfish beds. They are getting close to that geometric
mean of 39 at the mouth of the Nooksack River, according to the latest data. From
the last seven months of sampling, 37 samples produced a geometric mean of 45.
Hoag questioned whether the rewritten permits for the sewage treatment
plants would help the shellfish beds. Cochrane stated the treatment plants are not
a significant part of the water quality problem in the Nooksack River to begin with.
On a few occasions, there might be significant counts, but the amount of water
going into the Nooksack River from the treatment plant gets diluted so fast that
they can't really pick up a detectable increase very far downstream. The big
impacts in water quality are places that are putting out a large flow at a large
concentration. It will be problematic to see how many behaviors they can change
to get the counts down. It takes a lot of effort to get a geometric mean down.
Woodward thanked the Council for its support and encouraged continued
support. The continued effort is to look at all the conditions in the watershed, not
just selective ones.
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING REPAIRING SEWER
LINE AND MANHOLE PROBLEMS AS A MECHANISM FOR REDUCING
FECAL COLIFORM LEVELS IN DRAYTON HARBOR (AB2000 -399)
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Chair, stated he is also a part time employee with Puget Sound
Restoration fund. Activities focus on Blaine Marine Drive sewer line repair efforts.
As background, a little over a year ago, the fund came to the advisory committee
and asked to help with key problems. This non - profit agency has a lot of shellfish
growers on board. The focus is clearly on shellfish restoration. It is also involved
in non -point pollution efforts. He suggested taking a close look at the older of two
sewer lines that run along Marine Drive to a pump station and from there go across
the mouth of the harbor to the sewage treatment plant. After six or seven months,
they were able to put together a video inspection project, funded by money from
the state Department of Ecology, which it received from a $9,000 fine levied
against the City of Blaine. Blaine put an additional $5,000 into the project. In
addition, Semiahmoo First Nation put money to the video inspection. It was phase
one of investigating the older sewer line. The work was done in May under budget.
It left some money that Blaine and Semiahmoo First Nation had contributed to that
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 14
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
project. They have left over about $9,000. Money is available through agreements
between the Puget Sound Restoration fund, the City of Blaine, and Semiahmoo First
Nation. After the video was done, they invited all the agencies and community to
look at the two videotapes of the inspection. There were mixed reactions. People
wanted to see a big gaping hole near the marina. Instead, they saw lots of little
problems by the marina. This is a major issue to the shellfish committee because
there are chronic, ongoing violations of fecal coliform levels in the commercial part
of the marina, which continue. The most recent samples taken by the Port were
also high. There were a couple of opinions on what to do after looking at the video.
They did manhole inspections and examinations of the sewer lines. Twenty -four
manholes were inspected, and two - thirds of those had integrity problems. Many of
those were in the vicinity of the commercial marina. Those are the ones that the
shellfish group targeted. The cost of those repairs is estimated at $8,000. In
addition, there are several problems with the older line in the same area. The
problems are little things such as loose pipe seals. The cost of making the line
repairs is about $4,000. The other main area with serious problems was closer to
the city near railroad tracks at the Cain Creek crossing. There are two major
breaks in that old clay line. Further down Marine Drive, there is a long section of
pipe with numerous cracks. Repairs involve inserting a new section of pipe that
would be sealed within the existing pipe. An initial estimate of the cost is $8,000.
The committee feels that they either need to abandon the line entirely or fix
the line. Those are the opinions. The City of Blaine agreed to put $4,000 into
making these repairs. Semiahmoo First Nation still dedicated its original $5,000.
There is an estimate of $21,000 for the work. He was notified by the Public Utility
District (PUD) 1 of early action money through the Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 1 project. He and Becky Peterson put together a proposal. Guidelines
weren't developed at the outset. When the guidelines were finalized, he adjusted
the proposal to meet the guidelines. They asked for $11,000 from WRIA. It is not
going to be a quick process. The major reaction from folks is why Blaine is not
paying for the repairs, and DOE's position on the fixes. It would be nice if Blaine
made the repairs. Shellfish interests are not a high a priority of the city. The city
has other problems they are dealing with through DOE, which are mainly
improvements at the sewage treatment plant and lift stations to avoid overflows in
the future. They are willing to put staff time in the process to go out to bid for the
project. The city will do that when the district has about $20,000 in place.
He hoped that the WRIA process would move along quickly. He was not clear
on the status of the Shellfish Protection Coordinator position. That person would
support both the Portage Bay and Drayton Harbor shellfish protection districts.
Along with that, there is project money to do high - priority projects for the districts.
He spent time this fall trying to raise funds to get this going. The most important
thing about the effort is that they have to show improvements in water quality and
that there are also actions on the ground. If they make an improvement like this
on the ground, it goes a long way with the state Department of Health. Other
efforts are going on up there by the Port of Bellingham and his activity with the
Puget Sound Restoration fund are shown as a match in their budget.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 15
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
McShane stated Blaine submitted a request for support through the
Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT) process. He
believed the project was highly ranked by the Council. He questioned the status of
that process. Menzies stated it was ranked quite high. The WA -CERT ranking only
gets them to the table. Then WA -CERT works with rural agencies to identify
sources of funding. The city is pursuing about $5 million in funding to do two major
projects. One project is for improvements at the sewage treatment plant because
there are violations at the plant. These are interim repairs. This is a sewage
treatment plant that may be there for five to ten years at the most. That plant is
going to be closed down for various reasons. The city is going for money to make
improvements at the plant and also to do a lift station upgrade to develop
additional storage along Marine Drive to not have the overflows. The sewage
treatment plant improvement is an interim improvement and would be a tough sell.
The other improvement would support their system even if they go to a regional
system. They are still looking at two years' worth of potential pollution. It will
provide good water quality data in the marina, which would help in the bay.
McShane asked if the process is to apply to WRIA for funding.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated one of the things they are
getting into is the early action criteria. Mr. Menzies' proposal brought in clearly
defined criteria for the early action items. If everyone agrees on the criteria, it
would go forward. Regarding funding, there is potential from the second round of
the Ecology grant, which is approximately $250,000 and which the joint board
currently has not applied for. It can be applied for according to their DOE
representative, Jim Bucknell, and the Planning Unit. It could go to planned
development and early action items. This is an example of one of those to be
funded through the mechanism. He's heard similar concerns from some Planning
Unit members on why Blaine is paying for it. This is a monster. Eighteen groups
have to agree to spend the money here. It is not a simple task to bring these in.
Other issues include making sure the assessment studies support the decision
support system (DSS). They are beginning to address the issue in the Planning
Unit, but he can't say it would have immediate approval.
McShane stated his intent is to provide familiarity to the Council on the
project when it comes up if it is approved through the WRIA process.
Menzies stated the way he framed this in the WRIA process is that there are
a lot of partners that have come to the table on this issue. It is a problem. People
in the county, when talking about non -point pollution, have said they want more
projects and less process. He presented this as something that is blossoming.
People are coming forward to contribute. A concern at the last meeting was that
they could go through the entire WRIA process to find out that there isn't a funding
source. That is a concern. There have been other folks whose proposals have been
pulled for various reasons.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 16
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
Nelson stated the small cities have options with the federal government for
these types of grants. He questioned whether that has been done. Menzies stated
not for these small amounts.
Nelson stated it might be an option for the overall sewer system. Menzies
stated there are a couple of issues. One is funding for a regional system, which
would require a team to go for federal appropriation. For the interim improvements
required by the DOE, they've identified sources of funding. There isn't a block
grant for this small amount. Blaine doesn't qualify for community block grant
funds.
Hoag thanked Menzies for his efforts over the years. Regarding WRIA
funding, she asked where the money comes from. Roll stated the two identified
sources are the Water Resources fund and money from DOE, which was spent on
start up pieces of the planning process. There is potential for an additional
$250,000 for early action and planned development. The joint board will need to
apply for that. It would come as dedicated from the state. The group hasn't
identified where the money will come from. As they begin to get collective buy -in,
he will begin looking for funding sources. He hasn't pursued that actively. They
haven't found any other funding sources, but there may be some from other
entities involved. Other things are coming in, but are mostly in -kind in nature.
Hoag asked about the Cain Creek complaint by Mr. Goff regarding a cross -
connection. This proposal identified some stuff near Cain Creek. She asked if any
of this looks at that issue. Menzies stated there are two issues at Cain Creek. One
issue is Cain Creek itself, and the other is a nearby storm drain to where Cain Creek
outfall in the Semiahmoo Bay. That stormwater outfall has consistently high fecal
numbers. Sampling ended in September. There is an old clay line under a railroad
track that is subject to vibrations from railroad. There are two breaks in the clay
pipe that require expensive inserts. The concern is that there is leakage getting
into Cain Creek and contributing to those high levels. This is an older line that is 40
to 50 years old and also serves North Blaine. The more doors they open, the more
trouble they find. There is a possibility that this line crosses a storm outfall. The
next stage of investigation may be to go up that system and see if there is a cross -
connection with the storm drain. It was picked up in the video that there are three
service connections that went to the north, toward Semiahmoo Bay. There are no
facilities to the north. That is another immediate concern. He's asked the city to
dig them up and find out if they are capped or go somewhere. They may be a
problem under overflow conditions. That work hasn't been done. It is something
that should be done. Those fixes are not identified in this repair. They would not
be significant in terms of cost.
Hoag stated Mr. Goff's problem at Cain Creek is not related to what Mr.
Menzies talked about. Mr. Goff talked about a storm drain and a sewer line
crossing over each other right at Cain Creek, and that they are interconnected. She
questioned whether they'd identified a connection. Menzies stated they had not.
The timeframe is an issue. He was not clear on when a source of funds would be
identified through the WRIA process.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/14/2000, Page 17
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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Menzies continued to state that, because the criteria for accepting the
proposals have not been agreed upon, that this proposal would go forward through
the process, which has been put off to December. He suggested finding other
sources of funding if this is not resolved by the end of the year. It may be possible
to get a contribution from the Port of Bellingham.
Hoag stated it has been an ongoing problem with Blaine that they have so
much to fix and an unwilling City Council to allocate funds. She questioned the
sewer rate that the citizens pay. Menzies stated it is on the high end. DOE
supports this, but not formally through a consent decree or agreement.
Hoag stated the citizens are already heavily taxed. Even though Blaine
should pay the $11,000, she was not sure it was workable. Menzies stated the
polluter pays to an extent the cost of the TMDL study of the Nooksack Basin and
the industries. Part of keeping the community resources, such as water quality,
clean falls on polluter, but also on the community. It is not uncommon to have
federal, state, and local grant money to solve problems.
Hoag stated she didn't want to set a precedent to help cities with their
sewage problems. Menzies stated they help dairy farmers, raspberry farmers, and
many other interests that benefit from federal money. He submitted a more
detailed evaluation of the sewer.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 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, 11/14/2000, Page 18