HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 24 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
March 24, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Tom Brown
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
None
Staff Also Present
Marlene Dawson, Council Member
Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION BY JOE JOY REGARDING THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOAD (TMDL) STUDY OF THE NOOKSACK WATERSHED (AB98 -139)
Joe Joy, technical advisor for the Department of Ecology, gave background on the origin
of the study. There is a 303D list required by the state that lists all the water bodies in the state
that are not meeting water quality standards. The Nooksack River and many of its tributaries are
listed for bacteria, temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, fine sediment and flow problems.
Every two years, the list is upgraded. In 1996, one major problem was bacteria, especially in the
lower river. There are many tribes and agencies that provide information for the database. It
was decided to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is to bring substandard
waters under control through exceptional measures. Some of the sources of the problem with the
Nooksack are agricultural, point sources, and septic tanks. The purpose of the TMDL was to get
a comprehensive view of the river basin and determine where the problems are and then make a
recommendation on how to gather the sources in the most effective way. When Joy has
completed his evaluations and recommendations, they will go through a public process where the
recommendations will be examined with much scrutiny. He is viewing the entire river and how it
affects all aspects of water use. There will be an implementation plan written during the public
process. The State Department of Ecology will
need to determine if the implementation measures are working. Currently, Joy is now in the
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, Page I
I TMDL development portion of the process. He has examined studies done in the past and the
2 data that is currently available. There are two areas that are being tested monthly, one at
3 Nugents Corner and the other at Slater Road bridge. There is a large gain in bacteria between
4 the two points. The geometric mean states that a class A water cannot exceed 100 coliform units
5 per 100 mis (milliliters) of water. The Nooksack River is a class A water.
6
7 There was discussion about using the geometric mean as a measuring system. The state
8 is currently reviewing other indicators, such as E. coli.
9
10 Hoag questioned how the 10% level of bacteria was determined to be the benchmark.
11 Joy responded that he thought it was based on epidemiology and the rate people would get sick
12 while swimming.
13
14 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that regardless of
15 how clean the County and state waters are, fish have to go through Victoria's raw sewage. The
16 question was asked if anyone would be able to do anything to pressure the Canadian government
17 to clean up the gateway that the fish must pass through. Joy responded that the bacteria from
18 fecal coliform does not harm fish. It indicates there may be other problems. Knapp stated that
19 this is a joint US /Canadian problem.
20
21 Art Anderson, Associated General Contractors, asked how the samples are taken. Joy
22 explained that they are taken by several methods such as from boats, bridges, and the shoreline.
23 All samples are taken manually.
24
25 The Nooksack also empties into Bellingham Bay. There is a different geometric mean
26 for marine water, which is 14 organisms per 100 mis with not more than 10% exceeding 43
27 organisms per 100 mis. That is a FDA criterion that is related to shellfish protection.
28
29 Joy stated that he decided to limit the scope of the study to the lower river where the
30 majority of the problems seem to be occurring. He did explore the south and middle forks and
31 discovered problems that were minor. He decided to set the site most upstream at Nugents
32 Corner. There are six sites used for testing from Nugents Corner to Marine Drive. There are
33 tributary stations on the major tributaries such as Smith and Anderson Creeks. He will be
34 collecting samples through the summer and hopes to have a report done by fall. He is currently
35 sampling when there are storm events and will sample for a full year. The first nine months of
36 the study was sampled monthly.
37
38 Presently, it looks like much of the tributary loading is agricultural based. Precipitation
39 drives that loading. He further detailed the results of the samples taken at the different locations.
40 The geometric means and the averages are put together as an indicator of the variability in the
41
42
43 data. The variable goes from 10 to 800,000 parts per 100 mis. He is trying to determine the
44 sources of spikes and swings at point sources. Non -point sources are even more variable. The
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, Page 2
I Everson and Ferndale treatment plants are currently meeting their permit levels.
2
3 Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated that it appears that the standard for the
4 permitted sites is higher than regular sites. Joy responded that technology based site standards
5 are 200 with 10% more than 400. The source is expected to be diffused rapidly. The levels that
6 are permitted are coming out of the pipe. Regarding fecal coliform, he looks at
7 concentration and also loading. There can be a large source with a small concentration that has
8 the same amount of loading as a small source with a large amount of concentration. The TMDL
9 study will examine what can be done to reduce all levels so that only 10% will exceed 200 and
10 on average it would be much less than 100, taking into account the tributaries that have the same
11 allowable levels. All data will be evaluated to see what levels would be allowable to meet the
12 marine waters requirement.
13
14 Brown asked the rate of discharge at the Bellingham sewage discharge. Joy responded
15 that they are probably allowed a discharge zone; they would have to meet the marine water
16 requirement of 14 immediately outside that zone.
17
18 Bob Andersen, citizen, asked Joy to relate experiences of other TMDL studies and their
19 results. Joy responded that the TMDL program has been ongoing for 15 years. Spokane had a
20 phosphorous problem that they were successful in handling through the study. He outlined other
21 TMDL programs that have been successful. Much of the success depends on implementation of
22 the recommendations.
23
24 MacConnell asked about the implementation of actions once the maximum daily loads
25 are set. He asked the approach that will be used for limiting the loading from the non -point
26 sources. Joy responded that required farm plans have been used in other areas in the past, which
27 were aimed at getting better control of dairy waste. Also, other states have reviewed limiting
28 the number of animals per acre.
29
30 Hoag asked if the fecal coliform that is discharged into the river at Nugents Corner is still
31 being dealt with at Marine Drive or if those bacteria died off and the Marine Drive bacteria is
32 from further down the river. Joy responded that he took samples every quarter mile to determine
33 die out. His results showed that after five or six miles and two hours there was no die out. Hoag
34 asked how long it takes for water at Nugents Corner to flow to Marine Drive and if that was
35 equal to the lifespan of fecal coliform. Joy explained that there are too many variables including
36 storm events. Under normal conditions the flow from those two points is half a day. The
37 lifespan of fecal coliform in this environment is very difficult to determine because it cannot be
38 marked for tracking. Factors to take into account are the temperature of the water, the amount of
39 sunlight, salinity, nutrient sources, and others. It is possible the fecal coliform could go into a
40 dormant state in the sunlight.
41 Carl Weimer, RESources, asked if the government has ceased funding TMDL studies.
42 Joy responded stated that they did not choose to fund additional resources for TMDL studies.
43 They still have the funding they currently are working with.
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, 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
Sutter questioned who is going to provide the funding for monitoring enforcement of the
regulations that would be put into place as a result of this process. Dick Grout, Department of
Ecology, responded that it will be the County's responsibility to fund.
(Clerk's Note: Committee concurred to continue discussion of this item under Other
Business on the agenda to discuss agenda item #2.)
2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON STEVE SEYMOUR SALMON
REPORT (AB98 -115)
Sutter moved to recommend sending the proposed letter to the Council of Governments
(COG).
Brown stated a concern is that the County is down to eleven months to act on the
Endangered Species Act decision. He did not think that COG could facilitate, handle, and
determine a course of action in eleven months. It would be up to Council to take these actions in
the next eleven months. He was not opposed to sending the letter to COG.
Skip Richards, citizen, asked for clarification about past presentations before the Natural
Resources Committee. Hoag briefly explained summaries of the presentations.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
(Clerk's Note: This is continued committee discussion of agenda item #1)
Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services, asked Dick Grout, Department of
Ecology (DOE), about the legislative status of the County's responsibilities of action and
enforcement. Grout responded that the new dairy waste legislation changed the dairy inspections
significantly. All inspection agencies will be meeting soon to coordinate the changes. In general,
it changes the type of relationship the DOE had with the Conservation District. Currently, there
is one inspector for 300 dairy farms in Whatcom County. Under the new legislation, there will
be more positions starting in June or July. One more inspector will be added. There are specific
responsibilities of the inspectors. Some of the responsibilities are to implement or enforce
critical areas. In the future, a cooperative arrangement may be worked out between DOE and the
County for compliance of farm plans.
The DOE inspector may determine violation of a farm plan and then report it to the County. The
County would continue to be responsible for enforcement per the critical areas ordinance (CAO).
It would be helpful to have coordination with the both the DOE and County CAO inspectors.
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, Page 4
I Hoag quoted page 7 of the Portage Bay Closure Response Strategy regarding
2 enforcement of approved farm plans. She questioned that the content may be covered by the
3 DOE and enforceable by the dairy inspector. Grout responded that the DOE looks for water
4 pollution, not violations outlined in the CAO. They may be able to report violations to the
5 County. This type of coordination needs to be worked out.
6
7 Chris Woodward, citizen, requested clarification regarding the dairy waste inspector. She
8 assumed the inspector was for the Sumas area, not the entire watershed. Grout responded that
9 the inspector is funded by an Environmental Protection Agency grant. That inspector works
10 solely in the Sumas Basin. That contract expires in September. The assumption is that the DOE
11 inspector would move elsewhere. This is another issue that would have to be worked out.
12
13 Jeff Griffin, Planning & Development Services, explained that the County hired two
14 positions. One position is an enforcement officer and one position is a farm inspector. Those
15 positions were funded for two years. It is estimated that the cost for these positions is $183,000
16 for two years.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: According to Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
19 Director, these two positions are only in the proposal stage)
20
21 Hoag stated the boundary has changed several times. With the information presented by
22 Joe Joy, she is inclined to open up the boundaries to the whole watershed.
23
24 Brown stated that he did not find any fecal coliform levels in the upper reaches of the
25 Nooksack River. For those reasons, he is not willing to include the entire watershed. Joy stated
26 that there have been complaints on agricultural practices on the south and middle forks, and there
27 are areas of concern of septic tanks causing problems in the river. Everyone in the watershed
28 must contribute somehow to make the watershed healthy.
29
30 Hoag stated committee is trying to determine if the effects are cumulative at Portage Bay.
31
32
33 Sutter stated that the County can identify where the greatest source of loading is located.
34 Spreading the resources thinner to cover areas that may or may not be a problem will not work.
35 She would like to see the resources that exist applied to the problems that are
36
37
38 already identified. The upper watershed does not need to be included. There is no significant
39 agriculture on the north and middle forks of the river. The amount of loading done on the south
40 fork is not significant.
41
42 Hoag stated that given the volume of water in the south fork, the volume is not going to
43 be the same at Marine Drive. She inquired how the loading requirements transfer given a larger
44 volume of water. Joy responded that when loads are added from other creeks, they would
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, Page 5
I examine how much could be added before the standards are reached.
2
3 Sutter stated that if problems could be cleared up that are increasing the load, the County
4 could put off dealing with the smaller problems.
5
6 Hoag moved to expand the boundaries to include the entire watershed.
7
8 Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
9
10 Sue Blake, Water Resources Planner, requested clarification on the relationship between
11 the shellfish closure program and the TMDL program. If the boundaries remain as they are, it
12 does not prevent the County from developing a TMDL program for the entire watershed and
13 revisiting the upper watershed to come up with additional recommendations. Joy responded that
14 one option might be to try to lower background at Nugents Corner.
15
16 Brown stated he wished testing was being done more frequently and at more locations.
17 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services, stated that it is important to keep in mind
18 the purpose of establishing a shellfish protection district, which is to have a funding mechanism
19 in place for any activities that take place. If the boundary is extended to the upper watershed, it
20 does not mean there must be any activities. Brown responded that if a tax is enacted, residents in
21 the area may be taxed for clean -up activities further down the river that do not affect them.
22 Delahunt stated that sub - districts could be set up to avoid that problem. When the TMDL study
23 is completed and if it states the upper watershed is a problem, then the County would have
24 planned for that in the district.
25
26 George Boggs, Conservation District, stated that the science the committee has received
27 is that the contributions to loading above Nugents Corner are substantial. He recommended
28 including the entire watershed in the district.
29
30 There was much discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of setting the
31 boundaries to include either the entire watershed or only up to Nugents Corner.
32
33 Hoag questioned whether inspection and enforcement activities would be limited to the
34 areas within the district boundaries. Griffin responded that the priorities would be farmers
35
36 within the district. Brown clarified that there will be two DOE investigation officers that would
37 not have to work within the boundaries.
38
39 Brown questioned whether there are any records for the Peaceful Valley sewer treatment
40 plant. Delahunt stated that they discharge their effluent into the groundwater. Questions have
41 been raised about whether or not bacteria remain in groundwater and if that affects the Nooksack
42 River or its tributaries. Fecal counts in that area have been as far up as 13,000.
43
44 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, confirmed that if there
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, 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
were a complaint upriver from a taxing district, his department would follow up on the
complaint. The effects on the district would need to be determined.
Woodward discussed the lack of fecal testing in the upper watershed. Much of the
testing in the upper watershed is for baseline monitoring purposes. Fecal coliform does not
come into that count. Baseline monitoring is generally for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and
pH. The purpose is to determine what the water quality is for future impacts. Fecal coliform
monitoring requires a strategy and quality assurance /control program. It is very expensive to
have fecal coliform tested on a monitoring basis.
Hoag moved to amend the boundaries to include the three forks for testing and if the tests
include elevated level of fecal coliform or if inspectors show problems, it would trigger review
of the district boundaries.
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the motion.)
Hoag moved to amend the program, section 16.20.016, to include "with amendments"
which would be to test up to the confluence of the river and trigger review of the boundaries of
elevated levels of fecal coliform.
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the motion)
Hoag further amended the Objectives and Tasks section to make the farm inspector two
positions; one would be as an inspector; the other an enforcement officer. Both positions would
be brought from in- house.
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the motion)
Boggs suggested looking at task 4.3 which states, "conduct water quality monitoring in
the Nooksack basin including fecal testing... ". He believed this is broad enough to embrace
committee direction.
Hoag stated there is no language that would trigger boundary review. Boggs replied that
evaluation and progress reports will be generated periodically under task 625.
Hoag moved to amend the strategy response to include two separate in -house positions,
one for enforcement and one for inspection.
Motion to include two positions carried 2 - 0 with Brown abstaining due to lack of
understanding the discussion.
Hoag moved to adjust the boundaries to include the entire watershed.
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Motion failed 2 - 1 with Hoag in favor.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
NaDean Hanson, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 3124198, Page 8