EPA 910/9-91-022
Puget Sound Estuary Program
Bellingham Bay Action Program:
7997 Action Plan
•
-
:• *
September 1991
-------
PTI
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
15375 SE 30th Place
Suite 250
Bellevue, Washington 98007
BELLINGHAM BAY ACTION PROGRAM:
1991 Action Plan
By
Michael A. Jacobson and Patricia A. Canterbury
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Office of Coastal Waters
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
EPA Contract 68-D8-0085
PTI Contract C744-24
SeDtember 1991
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables v
Acknowledgments ix
Executive Summary xiii
Introduction 1
Bellingham Bay Action Program 3
Action Plan Development 5
Implementation of the Action Plan 6
Coordination with Other Areawide Plans and
Programs 8
Technical Approach for Identifying and Ranking
Problem Areas 9
Overview of Bellingham Bay and Associated Contamination
Problems 14
General Description of Area 14
Description of Priority Problem Areas 17
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay 27
Comprehensive Plans and Programs 27
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 27
Lummi Tribe 29
Nooksack Tribe 32
Washington Department of Ecology 33
Washington Department of Fisheries 39
Washington Department of Health 43
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 46
Washington Department of Wildlife 47
Washington Department of Natural Resources 48
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 51
-------
Table of Contents
City of Bellingham Department of Planning and
Economic Development 54
City of Bellingham Department of Public Works 56
City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department 59
Whatcom County Conservation District 60
Whatcom County Council of Governments 62
Whatcom County Department of Public Works 63
Whatcom County Planning Department 65
Whatcom County Health Department 66
Port of Bellingham 67
Washington Sea Grant 70
Concerned Southside Citizens 70
Georgia-Pacific Corporation 71
Maritime Contractors, Inc 73
Bellingham Cold Storage 74
Bellingham Frozen Foods 75
Site-Specific Action Plan 76
Planning and Coordination, Pollution Control, and Data
Needs 103
Planning and Coordination Needs 103
Pollution Control Needs 105
Data Needs 106
References 107
Glossary of Terms 109
APPENDIX A Administrative Record of Agency Letters of Commitment
APPENDIX B Available Funding Sources: Urban Bay Action Plan
Implementation
APPENDIX C Public Involvement Process
APPENDIX D EPA Technical Studies in Support of Urban Bay Programs
IV
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Bellingham Bay study area 2
Figure 2. Decision points and elements of the Bellingham Bay Action
Program 4
Figure 3. Environmental indicators used to define problem areas of
sediment contamination and biological effects 10
Figure 4. Classification of stations in inner Bellingham Bay according to
action criteria 18
Figure 5. Major contaminant sources in inner Bellingham Bay 19
Figure 6. Major contaminant sources in outer Bellingham Bay 21
Figure 7. Classification of stations in outer Bellingham Bay according to
action criteria 22
Figure 8. Priority storm drains and creeks for source tracing 24
List of Tables
Table 1. Criteria used to define problem areas 13
Table 2. Source-specific actions 77
Table 3. Planning and program development actions 90
Table 4. Pollutant control actions 93
Table 5. Remedial investigations and remedial actions 97
Table 6. Sampling and monitoring actions 98
Table 7. Resource protection actions 100
Table 8. Educational actions 101
-------
VI
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AET
BCS
BFF
BMP
CCMP
CCWF
CERCLA
City Parks
City Planning
City Public Works
COG
Corps
County Health
County Planning
County Public Works
CSC
CSO
CWA
DNR
DOH
DOT
EAR
Ecology
EIS
EPA
FERC
FWS
Georgia-Pacific
CIS
HPA
HPAH
LPAH
MCI
MOA
MTCA
NEPA
apparent effects threshold
Bellingham Cold Storage Company
Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc.
best management practice
comprehensive conservation and management plan
Centennial Clean Water Fund
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department
City of Bellingham Department of Planning and Economical
Development
City of Bellingham Department of Public Works
Whatcom County Council of Governments
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Whatcom County Health Department
Whatcom County Planning Department
Whatcom County Department of Public Works
Concerned Southside Citizens
combined sewer overflow
Clean Water Act
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Washington Department of Health
Washington Department of Transportation
elevation above reference
Washington Department of Ecology
environmental impact statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
geographic information system
hydraulic permit approval
high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
low molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Maritime Contractors, Inc.
Memorandum of Agreement
Model Toxics Control Act
National Environmental Policy Act
VII
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
NPDES
PAH
PCB
PIE
Port
PSAMP
PSDDA
PSEP
PSWQA
PSWQMP
RCRA
RCW
SARA
SCS
Sea Grant
SEPA
State Parks
TSCA
WAC
WARM
WDF
WDW
WRRLC
WWTP
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
Public Involvement and Education
Port of Bellingham
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
Puget Sound Estuary Program
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Revised Code of Washington
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Soil Conservation Service
Washington Sea Grant
State Environmental Policy Act
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Toxic Substances Control Act
Washington Administrative Code
Washington Ranking Method
Washington Department of Fisheries
Washington Department of Wildlife
Waste Reduction Recycling and Litter Control
wastewater treatment plant
VIII
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by PTI Environmental Services under the
direction of Mr. Michael Jacobson. The work was conducted for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10, Office of
Coastal Waters, in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-D8-0085. The
development of this report was funded by the National Estuary
Program, under the authority of the Clean Water Act as amended in
1987. Funding was approved by the EPA Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. Mr. Michael Rylko served as the project man-
ager for EPA Region 10. The primary authors of this report are Mr.
Michael A. Jacobson and Ms. Patricia A. Canterbury of PTI Environ-
mental Services. Ms. Lucille Pebles of the Washington Department of
Ecology and Mr. Michael Rylko of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency contributed Tables 3-8 of the site-specific action plan and
the Planning and Coordination, Pollution Control, and Data Needs
section.
The Bellingham Bay Action Program has benefitted from the
participation of members of the Bellingham Bay Interagency and
Citizen Work Group. Duties of the work group include 1) review-
ing program documents, agency policies, and proposed actions; 2)
providing data reports and other technical information to EPA; and
3) disseminating action program information to constituencies or
interest groups. The past and continuing efforts of the interagency
and citizen work group are greatly appreciated. Special thanks are
extended to Dr. Fran Solomon, the former Bellingham Bay Action
Program coordinator, and to Ms. Lucille Pebles, the current Bel-
lingham Bay Action Program coordinator, for chairing the work
group activities. Members of the Bellingham Bay Interagency and
Citizen Work Group are listed below. Where two individuals are
listed, the second individual is an alternate or new staff member.
Bellingham Bay Interagency and Citizen Work Group
Phone
Name Affiliation Number
Jacqueline Anderson Concerned Southside Citizens 676-5254
Bert Brainard Whatcom County Health Department 676-6724
MikeBrennan Whatcom Chamber of Commerce 734-1330
Peggy Britt/ Washington Parks and Recreation Commission 586-2283
Doug Strong
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
Name
Affiliation
Phone
Number
Michael Clausen
Marc Crooks, P.E./
Don Kjosness
Ed Dahlgren/
John Anderson
Bruce Dierking
Don Ellis, P.E./
Jim Darling
Byron Elmendorf
Dr. Jacques Faigenblum
Lois Garlick
Jack Garner, P.E.
Bill Geyer/
Chris Spens
David Green
Diane Harper/
Sue Blake
Walt Ingram
Dr. Dave Jamison/
Betsy Striplin
Tip Johnson
Arnie Klaus/
Jackie Peyton
Ernst Limbacher
Mike MacKay
Don Melvin/
Linda Klote
Ed Melvin
Greg Mills
Jerry Mixon/John Tyler
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Becky Peterson
Pat Petuchov
Bellingham Cold Storage
Washington Department of Ecology - Industrial
Section
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Bellingham Yacht Club
Port of Bellingham
Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department
Washington Department of Ecology
Senior citizen - retired - Western Washington
University
Bellingham Department of Public Works
Bellingham Planning and Economic
Development Department
Bellingham Frozen Foods
Whatcom County Planning
Citizen
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Bellingham City Council
Puget Sounders
Retired fisherman
Lummi Fisheries
Washington Department of Health
Washington Sea Grant
North Cascades Audubon Society
Whatcom County Public Works
Washington Department of Ecology - Northwest
Regional Office
Whatcom County Council of Governments
Nooksack Fisheries
733-1640
586-0524
733-4410
733-7390
671-6411
676-6985
649-7275
676-9111
676-6961
676-6982
734-4040
676-67561
676-6724
671-9776
5S6-2653/
753-0263
676-6970
676-8094
734-6111
647-6230
586-44S4/
586-8736
676-6429
855-1694
676-6907
649-7272
676-6974
592-5176
-------
A ckno wledgments
Name
Affiliation
Phone
Number
Vallana Piccolo
Mike Rogers
Dale Ross
Paul Schissler
Mark Schuller
Dr. Fran Solomon
Art Stendal
Dr. Bill Summers
Chuck Timblin
Dirk Visser
Mike Walsh
Dr. Bert Webber
Brian Williams
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 493-9300
Maritime Contractors, Inc. 647-0080
Northwest Steelhead and Salmon Council 734-8724
Fairhaven Neighbors 671-7300
Washington Department of Fisheries 428-1520
Washington Department of Ecology - Northwest 649-7219
Regional Office
Washington Department of Wildlife 424-1260
Squalicum Beach Neighbors 676-3690
Whatcom County Conservation District 354-2035
Inner Sound Crab Association 734-1509
Puget Sound Gillnetters 647-1764
Huxley College - Western Washington University 676-3509
Washington Department of Fisheries 339-3881
XI
-------
XII
-------
Executive Summary
Previous studies of Bellingham Bay have revealed widespread
chemical contamination of sediment and marine organisms, bacte-
rial contamination, and low levels of dissolved oxygen in the water
in urban areas of the bay. Chemical contamination and low oxygen
levels pose hazards to the aquatic ecosystem. Toxic contamination
may decrease the abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrate
organisms, increase the prevalence of tissue disorders such as liver
tumors in fish, and result in the accumulation of chemicals in fish
and shellfish. Chemical and bacterial contamination may pose
human health risks when contaminated fish and shellfish are eaten.
Chemical and bacterial contamination may also result in the closure
of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting areas.
The Washington Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, working with the Washington Departments
of Natural Resources, Fisheries, and Health; the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority; the City of Bellingham; the Port of Bellingham;
Whatcom County; the Lummi and Nooksack tribes; and local
industries and concerned citizens, developed the Bellingham Bay
Action Plan to address water quality problems in Bellingham Bay.
Bellingham Bay has been the focus of studies since 1988 under the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Urban Bay Action Pro-
gram. The Urban Bay Action Program 1) identifies priority prob-
lem areas of contamination; 2) identifies current, historical, and
potential sources of contaminants; 3) establishes schedules to take
corrective actions to eliminate existing problems and to investigate
potential problems; and 4) identifies appropriate agencies and
mechanisms for implementing corrective actions. Ongoing coordi-
nation among participating agencies and citizens will be provided
by the Washington Department of Ecology, which funds a full-time
coordinator for the Bellingham Bay Action Program. Authority for
implementation of the 1991 Action Plan is derived from various
federal, state, and local environmental regulations and is specified
under the industrial and municipal discharge control element (P-13)
in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analyzed all
existing data on adverse biological effects, chemical and bacterial
contamination, and eutrophication for Bellingham Bay. Eutrophi-
cation is the biochemical process that results in high levels of
XIII
-------
Executive Summary
nutrients and low levels of dissolved oxygen in water. In the
Bellinghom Boy Action Program: Data Summaries and Problem
Identification report, the existing data were summarized and priority
problem areas were identified. For example, areas received a high
priority ranking for action if they exhibited particularly high levels
of contamination or adverse biological effects such as high mortality
rates of organisms in sediment toxicity tests. The regulatory and
management efforts of the 1991 Action Plan focus on sources that
are most directly related to priority problem areas.
Four problem areas for chemical contamination have been identified
for Bellingham Bay. The four areas are the mouth of Whatcom
Creek, the area near the Georgia-Pacific Corporation outfall dis-
charge, the area immediately inshore of the terminus of the Post
Point wastewater treatment plant outfall, and a small area off the
Fairhaven shoreline. Another potential problem area has also been
identified. This large area extends from the Squalicum Marina to
the Whatcom Creek Waterway, along the eastern shoreline of
Bellingham Bay, and then out into the central part of the bay. This
potential problem area surrounds and includes the four smaller
problem areas.
Actions to correct problems can include remedial (cleanup) activi-
ties such as source control and sediment cleanup activities. Con-
trolling individual sources may be accomplished by increasing
controls on existing permits, locating and investigating currently
unpermitted discharges, and developing specific contaminant con-
trol techniques such as best management practices. Source control
efforts include reducing concentrations or volumes of discharges to
prevent further environmental problems. Sediment remedial
actions, such as removal or capping of contaminated sediments, can
correct existing environmental problems.
The action plan specifies a broad array of actions designed to
improve the environmental quality of Bellingham Bay. These
actions include the following:
• Planning and Program Development Actions—The
Urban Bay Action Program, as outlined in the 1991
Action Plan, integrates local planning activities, ensures
consistency among the various environmental programs,
and provides a mechanism for public review to ensure
accountability for implementation of agency activities.
XIV
-------
Executive Summary
• Pollution Control Actions—The Whatcom County
Health and Public Works departments will investigate
onsite sewage disposal systems.
• Remedial Actions—The Washington Department of
Ecology will conduct initial investigations of industrial
and commercial facilities and waterways.
• Sampling and Monitoring Actions—The City of Bel-
lingham Department of Public Works will expand its
creek monitoring program to further characterize water
quality in the city's creeks and streams and to determine
the sources of contaminants.
• Resource Protection Actions—The Washington depart-
ments of Wildlife and Fisheries will assist in the protec-
tion of fisheries resources and wildlife habitat by
reviewing permits for construction affecting state
waters, including wetlands.
• Educational Actions—The City of Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department will provide interpretive dis-
plays for watersheds along trails adjacent to rivers,
creeks, streams, and public waterfront areas.
The 1991 Action Plan is a working document that will be refined
as new data are made available. An interagency urban bay action
team, composed of technical and planning staff from local, state,
tribal, and federal agencies, will meet four to six times per year to
coordinate action plan implementation, review progress made on
implementation, resolve any problems, and refine the plan to reflect
new information and activities. A Citizen's Advisory Committee
will meet four to six times per year to evaluate action plan
implementation, determine appropriate citizen activities, and pro-
vide input to the action team. The Washington Department of
Ecology's Action Program Coordinator has responsibility for the
long-term coordination of the action plan and implementation of
source control actions.
xv
-------
Introduction
In response to widespread concern over the environmental health
of Puget Sound, several agencies with regulatory, resource manage-
ment, and research responsibilities initiated the Puget Sound Estuary
Program (PSEP) in 1985. The primary objectives of PSEP are to
protect the sound and its living resources and to improve the
condition of contaminated areas. As a primary element of PSEP,
the Urban Bay Action Program was established to address the most
severe contamination problems in Puget Sound, which occur in
embayments near urban areas.
The Urban Bay Action Program focuses on identifying and reducing
chemical and bacterial contamination and eutrophication through a
series of coordinated actions by government agencies and respon-
sible parties (e.g., owners and operators of the facilities that are
sources of contamination). Contaminant control activities may
include improving drainage or treatment systems for storm water
and sewage, developing stricter permit conditions for wastewater
dischargers, enforcing hazardous materials regulations, and initiat-
ing best management practices (BMPs) or cleanup measures at sites
of concern. A guidance document, The Urban Bay Action Program
Approach: A Focused Toxics Control Strategy (PTI1990) describes
the overall goals and specific actions of the Urban Bay Action
Program in more detail.
Under the Urban Bay Action Program, Bellingham Bay was selected
in October 1988 as a priority area for problem identification and
corrective action planning. Bellingham Bay is an embayment in
northern Puget Sound with the city of Bellingham located at its
northeastern corner (see Figure 1). In August 1989, an initial data
summary and problem identification report (PTI 1989a) was com-
pleted for Belb'ngham Bay. This report summarized data collected
primarily from 1980 to 1989 and identified problem areas and
known and potential contaminant sources. This 1991 Bellingham
Bay Action Plan is based on the data summary report and on
extensive discussions with federal and state resource and regulatory
agencies, local industries, concerned citizens, city and county
government agencies, and tribes that have responsibility for pro-
tecting the environmental quality of Bellingham Bay and Puget
Sound as a whole.
-------
PROJECT
LOCATION
Bellingham city limits
Figure 1. Bellingham Bay study area.
C744-24O991
-------
Introduction
This action plan describes the comprehensive plans and programs
that address contaminant sources and problem areas on an areawide
basis, and the individual corrective actions developed for specific
sites and sources. Recommended corrective actions are described
for each problem area and potential contaminant source. Problem
areas and sources were identified by PTI (1989a) and participating
agencies during the development of the action plan. For each
problem area and associated contaminant sources, the action plan
specifies 1) the first steps toward corrective actions, 2) the agencies
responsible for implementing those actions, 3) targeted implementa-
tion schedules, and 4) any factors that may limit effective imple-
mentation of a given task. The remainder of this introduction
provides a description of the Urban Bay Action Program and an
overview of Bellingham Bay and its associated contamination problems.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
The Bellingham Bay Action Program was initiated by PSEP in
October 1988. PSEP consists of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology),
and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). Through
a process of interagency coordination, local government support,
and public participation, the Bellingham Bay Action Program has
focused new and continuing efforts to control contaminant sources
within the priority problem areas of the bay. The objectives of the
action program are to:
• Identify specific areas of concern based on levels of
chemical and bacterial contamination and eutrophication
and associated adverse biological effects and impacts to
natural resources
• Identify historical and ongoing sources of contamination
and eutrophication
• Rank contaminated areas and sources to set priorities for
development of corrective actions
• Implement corrective actions to reduce or eliminate
sources of chemical and bacterial contamination and
eutrophication and restore contaminated areas to support
natural resources and beneficial uses.
The major decision points and program elements of the Bellingham
Bay Action Program are presented in Figure 2.
-------
Evaluate Available
Information
Initial Problem
Identification
Sampling and
Analysis
,— ^
Action piart
Sediment
Management
Potential Action
Team Activities
Source Control
Permitting
Inspections
Enforcement
Sediment Remedial
Planning
Environmental
Monitoring Program
Action Program
Evaluation
Major input and decision points for the interagency
work group and the citizen advisory committee
| | Elements of the Urban Bay process
Figure 2. Decision points and elements of the Bellingham Bay Action Program.
C744-24 0991
-------
Introduction
The Bellingham Bay Action Program has followed a process in
which cooperative efforts by federal, tribal, state, and local offi-
cials; local industries; and concerned citizens have helped to define
problem areas, focus environmental monitoring efforts, and plan
and implement corrective actions. Coordination is fostered through
an interagency and citizen work group. The work group is com-
posed of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies; the
Lummi and Nooksack tribes; local industry; and concerned citizens.
The work group has been responsible for reviewing documents and
providing input to the planning process.
Action Plan The process for development of the 1991 Bellingham Bay Action
Development Plan was completed in several stages. First, existing data on
chemical and bacterial contamination and eutrophication were col-
lected and analyzed to identify and prioritize problem areas (PTI
1989a). Next, individual meetings were held with each agency or
group within the work group to determine their current or planned
actions to improve water quality in Bellingham Bay. Following the
meetings, a "contaminant-source action matrix" was developed and
presented to the work group. The matrix presented the types of
environmental problems and associated actions that agencies were
implementing to address contamination problems. In addition, the
matrix served to identify gaps in management programs, contami-
nant source control, and data collection efforts. Following presen-
tation of the matrix, agency representatives were again consulted to
cooperatively negotiate how each agency would commit resources
to help implement additional preventative or corrective actions or
gather information to fill data gaps. Ecology then sent letters to
confirm agency commitments. These letters and agency replies
constitute the administrative record for the Bellingham Bay Action
Plan and are contained in Appendix A. A second work group
meeting will be held to review and discuss the commitments of each
agency and to further enhance interagency communication and
coordination. The action plan will be continually reviewed as new
data become available to refine the definition of environmental
problem areas and contaminant sources, and as agency action
agendas evolve.
This action plan focuses on contaminant source control to minimize
inputs of contaminants and serves as a blueprint for source control
activities, including field investigations and permit reviews. Other
corrective actions may also be specified, including alternatives for
cleaning up contaminated sediments and environmental monitoring
to evaluate the success of source control. Examples of sediment
cleanup activities include capping contaminated sediments with
-------
Introduction
uncontaminated materials or removing the contaminated sediments
by dredging. Because these activities are most likely to be imple-
mented only after significant source control (to minimize the
probability of future recontamination and additional cleanup), sed-
iment cleanup is likely to be a long-term rather than short-term
component of the Bellingham Bay Action Program. Monitoring is
also a long-term component of the action program. Existing
monitoring programs will be coordinated and the data will be used
to evaluate the effectiveness of source control and sediment reme-
diation (see Figure 2).
Implementation of
the Action Plan
In 1988, EPA formally designated Puget Sound as an estuary of
national significance under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).
Section 320 of the CWA requires the development of a comprehen-
sive conservation and management plan (CCMP) for each desig-
nated estuary. The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan (PSWQMP), developed by PSWQA, meets all the require-
ments of a CCMP. Development of the PSWQMP is conducted
under Section 90.70 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Element P-13 of the 1991 PSWQMP states that the "urban bay
approach" is an essential part of a comprehensive strategy to control
sources of toxic contamination. Implementation of the Bellingham
Bay Action Plan and other urban bay action plans is part of the
overall implementation of the PSWQMP.
Regulatory Authority
Ecology, EPA, and many other agencies have regulatory authority
to implement specific elements of the 1991 action plan. This
regulatory authority stems from discharge permit programs and
inspection requirements under federal and state water quality regu-
lations such as the CWA and the state Water Pollution Control Act.
Additional authority is derived from hazardous substance control
regulations, such as the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA (also known
as Superfund)] as reauthorized by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), federal Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA), federal Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), state Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), county
regulations for solid waste and hazardous waste, and health depart-
ment regulations. Other important laws include the state combined
sewer overflow (CSO) control regulation, the state Shoreline Man-
agement Act, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, the
Washington Aquatic Lands Act provides the Washington Depart-
-------
Introduction
ment of Natural Resources (DNR) with proprietary authority to
manage the state's aquatic lands in trust for the public.
Under several of the above regulations, Ecology is responsible for
issuing and revising wastewater and industrial waste discharge
permits, conducting site inspections, and overseeing cleanup plans
for contaminated sites. Ecology also has regulatory authority over
storm drains that discharge to state waters.
Action Team
Development
As part of the Bellingham Bay Action Program, Ecology will
establish and lead an interagency action team to guide the
implementation of the action plan. The Bellingham Bay Action
Team is a subset of the interagency and citizen work group and will
include technical staff from local, state, tribal, and federal agencies.
Agencies represented may include the City of Bellingham Depart-
ment of Public Works (City Public Works), the Whatcom County
Department of Health (County Health), the Whatcom County
Department of Public Works (County Public Works), the Washing-
ton Department of Health (DOH), the Lummi and Nooksack tribes,
and EPA.
Local governments are key participants in following through on the
activities of the action plan. City and county agencies responsible
for source control and remedial activities include City Public
Works, County Health, and County Public Works. These three
agencies are responsible for a wide variety of activities crucial to
the success of the action plan, such as controlling municipal and
industrial wastewater effluent and storm water quality. Other
agencies [e.g., the Port of Bellingham (Port) and DNR] and private
companies are responsible for contaminant prevention and control
relevant to the activities on their property. Ensuring that agencies
and companies comply with environmental regulations is an import-
ant element of the action plan.
Enforcement
Ecology can ensure implementation of the action plan through legal
enforcement procedures such as warning letters, notices of viola-
tion, penalties, and administrative orders. However, the preferred
approach to implementing the action plan is to work cooperatively
with all involved parties. Voluntary commitment to perform the
actions in the action plan is the most efficient and cost-effective
approach to reducing point and nonpoint contaminant sources
impacting Bellingham Bay. Successful implementation of the action
plan will require the cooperation of all parties within the Bellingham
Bay watershed.
-------
Introduction
Funding
Successful implementation of the action plan also depends on
adequate funding. The Washington State Legislature and U.S.
Congress have passed major legislation designed to protect water
resources. This legislation includes the federal CWA and the state
Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF), the Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account, and the Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram. Various grants and low-interest loans are available through
programs administered through the above-mentioned laws. (See
Appendix B for a more thorough discussion of potential funding
sources.)
Public Involvement
Public involvement in government decision-making is a critical
component to the success of the action plan. The public is encour-
aged to comment on all actions that may affect water quality in
Bellingham Bay. The major programs that relate to water quality
include the Shoreline Management Act, SEPA, MTCA, the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and the
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA). Public involve-
ment processes for these programs are described in more detail in
Appendix C.
Future Activities
After the action plan is finalized, the action team will meet four to
six times per year to advise and assist in carrying out specific
actions, solve any problems that arise, evaluate the effectiveness of
the various implementation strategies, and maximize interagency
coordination. It is anticipated that revisions and updates to the
action plan will be produced every 4 years.
Ecology will continue to involve representatives from environmen-
tal, business, recreational, civic, educational, and neighborhood
groups through the citizen advisory committee. This advisory
committee will 1) identify public concerns and issues relevant to
agency actions set forth in the action plan, 2) disseminate action
plan information to members of organizations represented on the
committee, 3) review work products and attend scoping meetings,
and 4) help ensure that agencies perform the remedial actions or
investigations for which they are responsible.
Coordination with
Other Areawide
Plans and Programs
Coordination of the Bellingham Bay Action Program with other
planning and management programs is another component required
for timely and effective implementation. The PSWQMP and the
watershed management planning process are areawide programs
that will be coordinated with the Bellingham Bay Action Program.
8
-------
Introduction
PSWQA oversees and coordinates the PSWQMP, which is
implemented by state agencies, local governments, and other par-
ties. Activities described in the areawide plans and programs of the
action plan are consistent with the PSWQMP. Coordination of
PSWQA-directed activities with the urban bay program occurs
through the Bellingham Bay Interagency and Citizen Work Group
meetings. PSWQA will actively participate as an interagency work
group member through work group and action team meetings.
In addition to the PSWQMP, other local or subject-specific plans
and programs that may have an impact on Bellingham Bay also
require coordination with the Bellingham Bay Action Program.
Activities associated with these other programs will be coordinated
by the Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator and staff
members of the various agencies involved. The Bellingham Bay
Action Program Coordinator will attend relevant planning meetings
and also review and comment on draft plans developed through
these programs. In addition, some agencies will have representa-
tives on the Bellingham Bay Action Team. (See the Comprehensive
Plans and Programs section for a more detailed discussion of these
plans and programs.)
Technical Approach
for Identifying and
Ranking Problem
Areas
The Urban Bay Action Program relies on a "preponderance-of-evi-
dence" approach to identify and rank contaminated problem areas
and contaminant sources. Selected chemical, biological, and toxi-
cological indices are used to compare conditions at contaminated
sites with reference conditions in relatively uncontaminated embay-
ments. The contaminated sites then receive a priority ranking. The
rankings are used to determine the order in which problem areas
will be evaluated for source control and possible remedial actions.
Study areas that exhibit high values of contamination and adverse
biological effects receive a ranking of high priority. The following
types of environmental indicators are generally used to identify and
rank problem areas (see also Figure 3):
• Sediment Chemistry
- Concentrations of metals and organic compounds
- Conventional sediment variables (e.g., grain size
distribution, total organic carbon)
• Bioaccumulation
- Chemical concentrations in clams and fish
-------
SEDIMENTS
Chemistry
Cl Cl
Cl Cl
Bioaccumulation
Bioassays
Infauna
WATER
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Conventional Variables
JAN Dissolved Oxygen DEC
Figure 3. Environmental indicators used to define problem areas of sediment
and water contamination and biological effects.
C744-24 0991
10
-------
Introduction
• Sediment Bioassays
- Amphipod mortality (10-day bioassay)
- Oyster larvae abnormality (48-hour bioassay)
• Benthic Infauna Abundance
- Polychaete abundance
- Pelecypod abundance
- Gastropod abundance
- Crustacean abundance
• Fish Histopathology
- Lesion (e.g., tumor) prevalence in livers, kidneys,
and gills of English sole
• Bacterial Measurements
- Fecal coliform bacteria in water and shellfish
• Conventional Water Quality Variables
- Concentrations of dissolved oxygen
- Concentrations of nutrients (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus).
Each of the above indicators is used to assess different environmen-
tal impacts. Measurements of contaminant concentrations in sedi-
ments are used to characterize the degree of contamination and to
trace contaminant sources. Measurements of contaminant concen-
trations in tissues of aquatic organisms are used to identify large-
scale problem areas and potential human health risks. Sediment
bioassays and counts of sediment-dwelling organisms are each
valuable for characterizing effects of contamination at specific
sampling locations. In characterizing large-scale problem areas,
measurements of lesions in fish are useful. Synoptic measurements
of sediment chemistry, bioassays, and benthic community analyses
are often used together to characterize toxic problem areas in Puget
Sound (Chapman et al. 1985; PTI and Tetra Tech 1988a,b).
Bacterial measurements are used to assess microbial contamination
of water and shellfish and potential human health risks. Measure-
ments of conventional water quality variables are used to assess
eutrophication.
Identification and prioritization of problem areas for Bellingham
Bay included calculations of elevation above reference (EAR)
values, and comparison of existing data with sediment quality
11
-------
Introduction
criteria [i.e., apparent effects threshold (AET)] and regulatory
standards. EAR values are generated by dividing the measured
value by a reference value that is representative of contaminant
concentrations in nonurban areas. Puget Sound AET values were
also used as sediment quality values to evaluate chemical data
relative to predicted biological effects. AET values are chemical-
specific sediment concentrations above which a particular adverse
biological effect is predicted to occur with a statistical significance
of P < 0.05 for a given data set. Because AET values are predictive,
they are especially useful in interpreting historical data on sediment
contaminant levels where biological data are not available. In the
future, sediment management standards [Chapter 173-204 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)] recently adopted by
Ecology will be used to determine areas of sediment contamination.
Microbial and water quality parameters were evaluated and com-
pared with established state and federal standards to rank problem
areas for microbial contamination. Criteria that were used in
determining problem and potential problem areas are presented in
Table 1.
All of the available indicators of eutrophication, microbial contam-
ination, and chemical contamination in sediments and biota were
integrated to identify problem areas in Bellingham Bay. Because
there were insufficient data on chemical contamination in the water
column, bioaccumulation, and fish histopathology, these three types
of indicators were not used to identify problem areas in BeUingham
Bay. Other data gaps hindered identification of problem areas in
some portions of the bay and prioritization of problem areas
throughout the bay. For example, there was limited information
concerning contaminant inputs from the Nooksack River and storm
drains. Numerous indicators of contamination such as sediment
concentrations of organic compounds, sediment toxicity,
bioaccumulation, and fish pathology were lacking. Also, informa-
tion about the geographic extent and biological effects of contami-
nation was limited. As a result of these data gaps, problem ar
in Bellingham Bay could not be ranked numerically, and thus w
designated as problem areas or potential problem areas. Numeric
ranking or prioritization of problem areas would be possible with
more data. The results of the problem area identification are
presented in the Description of Priority Problem Areas section.
12
-------
TABLE 1. CRITERIA USED TO DEFINE PROBLEM AREAS
Classification
Condition Observed
Problem station for chemical con-
tamination
Problem station for microbial con-
tamination
Problem station for eutrophication
Potential problem station for
chemical contamination
Chemical8 concentration > HAETb or amphipod mortal-
ity > 50 percent or benthic depression0 > 95 percent
Chemical concentration >LAETb and amphipod mor-
tality is significant*1, but < 50 percent
Chemical concentration > LAET and benthic depression
>80 percent, but <95 percent
Fecal coliform bacteria concentration greater than
Washington Class A and B water quality standards
(Class A standard = 14 organisms/100 mL, Class B
standard = 100 organisms/100 mL)
Fecal coliform bacteria concentration greater than U.S.
Food and Drug Administration tissue standard concen-
tration (230 organisms/100 grams tissue)
Dissolved oxygen concentration less than Washington
Class A water quality standard (6.0 mg/L)
Chemical concentration > LAET or amphipod mortality
is significant, but <50 percent or benthic depression
> 80 percent, but < 95 percent
a Any single metal or organic compound.
b HAET - highest apparent effects threshold for all Puget Sound indicators
LAET - lowest apparent effects threshold for all Puget Sound indicators.
0 Any major taxon; abundance depression relative to value observed in reference area (i.e., abundance
at impacted station <5 percent of abundance at reference station).
d Significantly different (P^O.05) from mortality using reference area sediment.
13
-------
Introduction
Overview of Bellingham Bay and Associated
Contamination Problems
This section describes the project area and summarizes information
about the contamination and eutrophication problems in Bellingham
Bay. Additional detail on these topics can be found in Bellingham
Bay Action Program: Initial Data Summaries and Problem Identi-
fication (PTI 1989a).
General Description Bellingham Bay is a relatively large embayment located in the most
of Area northern part of Puget Sound, approximately 24 km south of the
United States-Canada border (Figure 1). For the purposes of the
urban bay program, the bay was defined by a line drawn from Point
Frances to Governors Point, and includes Chuckanut Bay and
Portage Bay. Bellingham Bay is approximately 12 km long and
8- 9 km wide. Waters of the bay are, for the most part, less than
30 meters deep. A large delta is located in the northern part of the
bay at the mouth of the Nooksack River. The delta extends
approximately 2 km into the bay. The Nooksack River watershed
is the largest source of fresh water [85 m3 (-3,000 ft3/sec)] and
sediment (—650,000 m /yr) input to the bay, although additional
drainage comes from seven other small watersheds. Bellingham
Bay receives drainage from an area of 1,679 km .
Bellingham Bay is used for many activities requiring a high level
of environmental quality, including commercial and recreational
fishing, shellfish harvesting, aquaculture, boating, wildlife habitat,
and water contact recreation (e.g., swimming). Commercially
important anadromous fish resources in the study area include
chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, and chum salmon; cutthroat and
steelhead trout; Dolly Varden; and longfin smelt. Commercially
important marine fishes in Bellingham Bay include Pacific herring,
Pacific cod, various rockfish, lingcod, rock sole, English sole, and
starry flounder. Shellfish species harvested in the bay include
Dungeness crab; Pacific oysters; and native littleneck, Manila,
horse, and butter clams. The total commercial catch of salmon,
marine fish, and shellfish from Bellingham Bay in 1983 was
approximately 3.1 million pounds, with a value of approximately
$2.75 million. At least four species of marine mammals have been
documented to exist in the vicinity of the bay including harbor seal,
harbor porpoise, killer whale, and gray whale. Additional species
that may occur in the bay on rare occasions include the California
sea lion, northern sea lion, Dall's porpoise, and minke whale.
Although Bellingham Bay is not used extensively by large popula-
14
-------
Introduction
tions of waterfowl, the bay does lie on the flight path between the
Fraser River estuary and Skagit Bay and is used as a stopover point
for waterfowl migrating between these two areas. These waterfowl
include brant, snow geese, mallard, widgeon, green-winged teal,
and pintail. Bellingham Bay is also used as an overwintering area
for diving ducks such as scoter and golden eye. A variety of public
and private recreational facilities such as marinas, boat ramps, and
shoreline parks are located in the study area, primarily in inner
Bellingham Bay.
Most of the urban and industrial activity in watersheds affecting
Bellingham Bay is confined to the area near the city of Bellingham.
The shoreline of the city of Bellingham has been influenced by
extensive shoreline modifications (i.e., dredging and filling) to
accommodate commercial and industrial uses. The area includes
three federally maintained waterways: Squalicum Creek, I & J
Street, and Whatcom Creek waterways. Intertidal areas presently
occupy approximately 42 km2 of Bellingham Bay. Approximately
1.4 km2 of the original intertidal areas in inner Bellingham Bay have
been filled.
As a result of urban and industrial influences, localized areas of
Bellingham Bay are contaminated with bacteria and toxic chemicals.
The bay may also be subject to eutrophication. Studies have shown
that chemical and bacterial contamination and low oxygen levels in
Bellingham Bay have resulted in stresses to the ecosystem and
restrictions on beneficial uses.
As discussed in Bellingham Bay Action Program: Initial Data
Summaries and Problem Identification (PTI 1989a), several studies
on bioaccumulation and sediment toxicity, and surveys of
macroinvertebrate assemblages have been conducted in Bellingham
Bay. They were conducted throughout the study area identified in
Figure 1, and the primary media sampled were sediment, shellfish,
and macroinvertebrates. These studies and surveys do not provide
a complete assessment of the bay because there are insufficient data
regarding contaminant sources from the Nooksack River system and
storm drains, organic compounds in sediment, sediment toxicity,
bioaccumulation, and fish pathology. Recommended actions to
collect additional data include 1) conduct vertical profiles of sedi-
ment contamination at selected locations in Bellingham Bay, 2)
conduct sampling at additional stations near potential contaminant
sources or in areas that have not been sampled previously (e.g.,
Squalicum Harbor marina, mouth of Nooksack River, nearshore
and shallow areas), and 3) conduct sampling for a greater range of
chemicals such as pesticides, dioxin, tributyltin, and compounds
15
-------
Introduction
characteristic of pulp mill discharges (e.g., alkylated phenols,
guaiacol, and resin acids).
Chemical
Contamination
Sediment in inner Bellingham Bay, near the cities of Bellingham
and Fairhaven, exhibit significant chemical contamination. Based
on information contained in Bellingham Bay Action Program:
Initial Data Summaries and Problem Identification (PTI 1989a),
levels of low molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(LPAHs) and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons (HPAHs) in sediment were significantly elevated at all Bel-
lingham Bay stations, mercury in sediment was elevated at 78
percent of the Bellingham Bay stations, and levels of several HPAH
compounds were elevated above reference values by 100-139
times. Numerous stations exhibited significant contamination for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals such as lead, arsenic,
and zinc. Based on the Puget Sound marine sediment cleanup
screening levels identified in the state sediment management stan-
dards, numerous areas in Bellingham Bay may be considered as
candidate areas for sediment cleanup activities.
Other measures of chemical contamination include bioaccumula-
tion, sediment toxicity, and decreases in the numbers of benthic
organisms. Past bioaccumulation information indicates that mer-
cury contamination in species collected from Bellingham Bay is
elevated above reference area levels and is widely distributed
throughout the bay. Significant sediment toxicity was found at
several stations, and decreases in the numbers of benthic organisms
were noted at numerous stations.
Bacterial
Contamination
Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria, used as an indicator of
other disease-causing organisms, have been found to exceed state
water quality standards. In addition, freshwater creeks entering the
bay are contaminated by fecal coliform bacteria. All freshwater
stations evaluated and one shellfish sample exceeded state or federal
standards for fecal coliform bacteria in water and shellfish tissue.
Eutrophication
Information on eutrophication in Bellingham Bay indicates that
dissolved oxygen levels in several locations have fallen below state
water quality standards (6.0 mg/L). Low dissolved oxygen con-
centrations cause physiological stress to organisms living at, near,
or in the bottom of Bellingham Bay and may exacerbate stress from
toxic contamination. In areas with extremely low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, organisms can die due to anoxia.
16
-------
Introduction
Description of
Priority Problem
Areas
This section provides a description of the known problem areas
associated with chemical and bacterial contamination and eutrophi-
cation and identifies potential sources of the contaminants.
Toxic chemicals are considered a problem if concentration levels
significantly exceed contamination indices, such as EAR values or
AETs. Contamination indices are generally described above in the
Technical Approach for Identifying and Ranking Problem Areas
section and in more detail in Bellingham Bay Action Program:
Initial Data Summaries and Problem Identification (PTI 1989a).
Microbial contamination is considered a problem if fecal coliform
bacteria levels exceed state water quality and shellfish standards.
Eutrophication is considered significant if dissolved oxygen levels
fall below state dissolved oxygen standards.
Problem Contaminants
and Station Locations
Based on the limited data available, polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs), PCBs, mercury, lead, silver, arsenic, zinc, copper,
and fecal coliform bacteria have been identified as problem contam-
inants for Bellingham Bay. The 13 problem stations for chemical
contamination, grouped in four problem areas, are shown in Fig-
ure 4. An additional 26 stations were identified as potential problem
stations for chemical contamination (see Figures 4 and 5). Eleven
stations were identified as problem areas for bacterial contamination
(see Figures 4 and 5) and three stations were identified as problem
stations for eutrophication (see Figure 5). Further source control
and remedial action evaluations are strongly recommended in
problem areas. More study is recommended in potential problem
areas to define the extent and severity of existing problems.
Contaminant Sources
There are six major categories of point and nonpoint sources of
contaminants to Bellingham Bay: wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs), CSOs, surface water runoff, industrial facilities,
ground water, and accidental spills. The cities of Bellingham,
Ferndale, Lynden, and Everson all have WWTPs that have been
issued NPDES permits for discharges to either Bellingham Bay or
the Nooksack River. There is only one CSO in Bellingham (the
"C" Street interceptor). Overflows from this CSO occur at an
average rate of one overflow event per year. There are numerous
sources of surface water runoff to Bellingham Bay including 11
storm drains that drain directly into the bay, 64 storm drains that
drain to creeks, the Nooksack River watershed, and 8 other
watersheds that drain directly to the bay. Additional private drains
discharge storm water to Bellingham Bay from industrial facilities
located in the city. There are 18 NPDES-permitted industrial
17
-------
LEGEND
Apparently unimpacted station
for chemical contamination
Potential problem station for
chemical contamination
Problem station for
chemical contamination
Potential problem area for
chemical contamination
Bellingham
Problem area for
chemical contamination
EZD
A
ZZ~H~ Navigation channel
Problem station for
microbial contamination
Georgia-Pacific outfall
ost Point Wastewater
Treatment Plant Outfall
Note: Problem area contours should
be considered as estimates only.
kilometers
Figure 4. Classification of stations in inner Bellingham Bay according to
action criteria.
C744-24099I
18
-------
LEGEND
Apparently unimpacted station
for chemical contamination
Potential problem station for
chemical contamination
A
D
Bellingham
Potential problem area for
chemical contamination
Problem station for
microbial contamination
Problem station for
eutrophication
Note: Problem area contours should
be considered as estimates only.
kilometers
Figure 5. Classification of stations in outer Bellingham Bay according to action criteria.
C744-24099I
-------
Introduction
discharges: 9 that discharge to the Post Point WWTP and 9 that
discharge to either the bay or streams that flow into the bay.
Nonpoint sources of contamination to Bellingham Bay include
landfills, commercial and recreational marinas, the Port dock
facilities, and disposal sites for dredged material. Numerous spills
from vessels and facilities into Bellingham Bay have been docu-
mented.
Other potential sources have been identified by the interagency and
citizen work group. All known and potential point and nonpoint
sources identified to date are shown in Figures 6 and 7 (see Table 2
on page 77 for additional discussion of these sources).
Areas of Chemical Four problem areas for chemical contamination, made up of 13
Contamination problem stations, have been identified for Bellingham Bay. The
four areas are: the mouth of Whatcom Creek, the area near the
discharge from the Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Georgia-Pacific)
outfall, the area immediately inshore of the terminus of the Post
Point WWTP outfall, and a small area off the Fairhaven shoreline
(Figure 4). Chemical concentrations, amphipod mortalities, or
depressions in benthic abundance from these areas exceeded the
problem area criteria presented in Table 1.
An additional 26 problem stations are grouped into one large
potential problem area (Figure 5). This large potential problem area
extends from the Squalicum Marina to the Whatcom Creek Water-
way, along the eastern shoreline of Bellingham Bay, and out into
the central part of the bay. This large area encompasses the four
smaller identified problem areas. Chemical concentrations, amphi-
pod mortalities, or depressions in benthic abundance from these
areas exceeded the potential problem area criteria presented in
Table 1.
Since the data summary report was completed in 1989, several other
studies have been completed that evaluated baseline conditions,
potential sources, and bioaccumulation levels in Bellingham Bay.
These additional studies have been done to fill gaps in existing data.
They have also been conducted as part of ongoing monitoring
programs and to determine baseline conditions. The information
from these studies has not been integrated with the indices used to
determine problem areas.
An extensive baseline analysis of sediment chemistry, benthic
infauna, bioassays, and bioaccumulation was done for the area near
the Bellingham Bay PSDDA open-water dredged material disposal
20
-------
LEGEND
1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
a Post Point
b City of Ferndale (Figure 7)
c City of Lynden (Figure 7)
d City of Everson (Figure 7)
2 HATCHERIES
a Bellingham (Figure 7)
b Nooksack River State (Figure 7)
3 Bellingham Cold Storage
Bellingham Frozen Foods
Brooks Manufacturing (Figure 7)
Columbia Cement Corporation
Dahl Fish Company, Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Maritime Contactors Inc. (awaiting NPDES permit)
Mt. Baker Plywood, Inc.
The Oeser Company (Figure 7)
Public Utility District #1 of Whatcom County (Figure 7)
Schenk Seafood Sales
Sea-Pac Company, Inc.
Seawest Industries
Shukson Frozen Foods (Figure 7)
OTHER POINT SOURCE
"C" Street CSO
EMERGENCY OVERFLOWS
a Edgewater (Figure 7)
b Flynn Street (Figure 7)
c Birch Street (Figure 7)
19 City of Bellingham storm sewer system
kilometers
20 SALMON NET PENS
a Alaska Ferry Terminal
b Squalicum Harbor
c Taylor Dock
21 HATCHERIES
a Maritime Heritage Center
b Skookum (Figure 7)
22 LANDFILLS
a Whatcom County Courthouse vicinity
b City of Bellingham
c Shoreline vicinity
d Lynden (Figure 7)
• Cedarvilie
f Airport Woodwaste (Figure 7)
g Hilltop Farms
h 1178 Marine Drive
/ Y-Road
/ Zell Road
23 Chuckanut Bay Residential Area (Figure 7)
24 Marine Drive (Birchwood vicinity)
25 MARINAS
a Hilton Harbor
b Squalicum Harbor
26 PORT OF BELLINGHAM TERMINALS
a Fairhaven
b Hilton
e Parkway
d Squalicum Harbor
• Whatcom International Shipping
27 Alaska State Ferry Terminal
20 DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
a Site A
b SiteB
c SiteC
d SiteD
• SiteE
r Site F
g PSDDA Site (Figure 7)
• Stormdrains
Figure 6. Major contaminant sources in inner Bellingham Bay.
C744-24 0991
21
-------
LEGEND
Bellingham city limits
Note: Refer to Figure 6 legend
for numerical references
i kilometers
Figure 7. Major contaminant sources to Bellingham Bay.
C744-240991
-------
Introduction
site in 1989 (PTI 1989b). The sediment chemistry levels for five
stations exceeded PSDDA screening level criteria for mercury, one
station exceeded the screening level criteria for mercury and
4-methylphenol, and one station exceeded the screening level
criteria for mercury, phenol, and benzoic acid. Benthic infauna
populations were not considered depressed and bioassay responses
were close to responses to sediments from a reference area. While
eight metals and three organic chemicals were found in bivalves
from the disposal site area, none of the levels were above PSDDA
tissue guidelines. The stations from the PSDDA baseline study with
elevated chemical concentrations are mostly within the area pre-
viously identified as a potential problem area by the Initial Data
Summaries and Problem Identification report (see Figure 5).
EPA recently completed the first phase of a study to trace contam-
inant sources from storm drains in Bellingham Bay [Drainage Basin
Source Tracing Study: Phase 1 Technical Memorandum (PTI
1991)]. While data from the report have not yet been integrated
with the data from the initial data summaries, the new data indicate
that sediment from several storm drains have levels of chemical
contamination that are associated with potential adverse biological
effects in the marine environment. Based on biological effects
criteria, stations BELL03, BELL08, BELL09, and BELL16 (Little
Squalicum Creek) were designated as high priority for additional
source tracing activities (Figure 8). These three storm drains and
one creek had levels of sediment contamination that are associated
with adverse biological effects in marine organisms. Stations
BELL13 and BELL14 were both classified as medium priority for
further source tracing due to the number and level of sediment
contaminants and potential adverse effects on marine organisms.
Phase 2 of this study is now underway to determine potential sources
in the drainage basins associated with the six priority stations as
well as one basin not evaluated as part of Phase 1 work (see EPA
activities in the Comprehensive Plans and Programs section on
page 27).
Additional data on sediment contamination and toxicity have been
collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to evaluate
disposal options for sediment from Squalicum Creek, I & J Street,
and Whatcom waterways (U.S. COE 1991). Six of 12 samples in
Squalicum Creek Waterway, 4 of 18 samples in I & J Waterway,
and all 3 samples in Whatcom Waterway failed PSDDA criteria for
sediment disposal in a nondispersive disposal site. Sediments
collected for PSDDA are collected from 4-foot sediment cores and
may represent historically contaminated sediments that are buried
beneath more recent, less contaminated surface sediment layers.
23
-------
Bellingham
Bay
LEGEND
Fairhaven
High Priority Stations
BELL03
BELL08
BELL09
BELL16
Medium Priority Stations
BELL13
BELL14
Low Priority Stations
SQAL01
Navigation Channel
kilometers
Figure 8. Priority storm drains and creeks for source tracing.
24
C744-Z409S1
-------
However, high zinc levels were found in surface sediments of the
Squalicum Waterway. The sediment chemistry data from these
samples indicate that much of this area has sediment contamination
levels significantly elevated above Puget Sound marine sediment
cleanup screening levels (i.e., levels that indicate an area should be
evaluated for cleanup).
Several bioaccumulation studies evaluating fish and shellfish con-
tamination have recently been completed. A study evaluating
bioaccumulation of contaminants in crabs and clams was conducted
in 1990 by Ecology and DNR. The results of the study are presented
in Bioaccumulation of Contaminants in Crabs and Clams in Bel-
lingham Bay (Cubbage 1991). The study reveals that concentrations
of metals in crabs and clams are near reference area levels. Mercury
concentration levels in crabs collected near Whatcom Waterway are
higher than background levels. Low levels of two pesticides, DDE
and chlordane, and PAHs were also found in some samples. The
concentrations of contaminants were low compared with areas of
known sediment contamination and were equivalent to concentra-
tions found at reference areas.
In 1989, DOH conducted sampling of English sole from Bellingham
Bay under the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
(PSAMP). While only a few metals and organic chemicals were
evaluated, arsenic and copper were the only contaminants that were
detected at concentrations higher than detection limits. Mercury
data were rejected due to poor laboratory quality control.
In the spring of 1991, DOH conducted sampling of shellfish
collected near the Post Point WWTP outfall, also in accordance with
PSAMP. The samples were evaluated for metals and organic
chemicals. Four organic chemicals were found above the detection
limit. Benzoic acid was the most significantly elevated, with
concentration levels between 360 and 700 /*g/kg. The other three
organic chemicals were found at relatively low concentrations.
Areas of Bacterial Four marine water stations and five freshwater stations are classified
Contamination as problem areas in Bellingham Bay due to microbial contamination
(Figure 4). In addition, levels of fecal coliform bacteria were
elevated in shellfish from three areas within Bellingham Bay. EAR
values were calculated using the Class A marine water quality
criterion of 14 organisms/100 mL, Class B marine water quality
criterion of 100 organisms/100 mL, and the Class A freshwater
quality standard of 100 organisms/100 mL. The criterion for
evaluating shellfish tissue was 230 organisms/100 grams of tissue,
25
-------
Introduction
based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration guideline. There
is a lack of data on discharges of untreated wastewaters (e.g., via
storm drains and surface runoff to Bellingham Bay). This data gap
limits knowledge of the full extent of potential microbial contami-
nation problems in Bellingham Bay.
Areas of All three stations evaluated violated the dissolved oxygen standard
Eutrophication for eutrophication (Figure 5). Problem stations for eutrophication
were determined based on the Washington state water quality
standard of 6.0 mg/L for Class A marine waters. The station near
the Post Point WWTP had the highest number of violations, and
concentrations lower than 5.0 mg/L were observed at a station near
Post Point and near the former Starr Rock dredged material disposal
site. Low dissolved oxygen levels in Bellingham Bay may be due
to incoming seawater that is low in dissolved oxygen and high in
nutrients (i.e., nitrate) (Rensel and PTI1991). The lack of data on
dissolved oxygen conditions in nearshore and shallow areas limits
knowledge of the full geographic extent of potential eutrophication
problems in Bellingham Bay.
26
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Many planned or ongoing actions to control contaminant inputs and
eutrophication to the project area are part of comprehensive pro-
grams or planning activities of federal, state, local, and tribal
government agencies. The first part of this section provides a brief
summary of these programs and the agencies involved. The second
part of this section, which consists of Tables 2-8 (see pages
77-102), presents a detailed action plan for controlling contaminant
discharges to problem areas and implementing other relevant
actions.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Comprehensive plans and programs apply to a large portion of the
project area (e.g., basin plans or the geographic area within a local
government body's jurisdiction) or a category of sources or activi-
ties (e.g., storm water management programs or development of
BMPs for an industrial category). The following programs and
plans are described in terms of actions that can be taken to identify
or control ongoing sources of contamination in the project area.
The discussion is organized by the major implementing agency,
local government body, and tribe.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
In conjunction with Ecology and PSWQA, EPA co-manages PSEP.
EPA oversees state-delegated programs and ensures that federal
minimum standards are attained. EPA also provides technical
support to state and local agencies in the planning and development
of environmental protection programs. EPA has initiated several
technical studies in support of Urban Bay Action Programs in Puget
Sound. These studies are listed in Appendix D.
Storm Water
Management
In November 1990, EPA issued the final rule for permit application
requirements for storm water discharges under the NPDES program
of the federal CWA. Under this rule, EPA will regulate both
individual industrial facilities that discharge storm water to storm
sewer systems, and municipalities serving populations greater than
100,000 that have separate municipal storm sewer systems. Storm
water discharges from municipalities with populations under
27
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
100,000 (including Bellingham) will be covered by rules that are
expected to be issued by October 1992.
Under the storm water rule, facilities discharging storm water from
industrial areas into storm sewer systems or state waters will be
required to obtain NPDES permits from EPA or Ecology. Permits
will be phased in using a four-tiered system. Under the first tier
(the initial stage), general permits will be issued to cover many
facilities at once. Specific permits will then be issued for water-
sheds, groups of industries, and individual facilities. For storm
water discharges covered by the rule, industrial facilities must
submit a permit application to Ecology within 1 year after promul-
gation of the rule (December 1991). There are three ways for a
facility to become covered by a permit. A facility may apply for
an individual facility-specific permit, apply as part of a group (or
industry-wide permit), or submit a Notice of Intent to be covered
by an agency-issued general permit. The first two methods (i.e.,
facility- and group-specific permits) are used if general or industry-
specific permits have not yet been initiated by EPA and Ecology,
or if the discharge(s) in question would not be adequately addressed
by the more general permit.
These regulations are in addition to rules Ecology is preparing for
minimum requirements for storm water management programs for
Puget Sound (see Washington Department of Ecology on page 33).
The cities of Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, and Everson and the
surrounding unincorporated areas of Whatcom County will be
affected by these storm water regulations and requirements.
EPA and Ecology are also conducting a drainage basin source
tracing study (PTI199 Ib). The focus of this study is to determine
the location, characteristics, and sources of contaminants in the city
of Bellingham storm drains and drainage basins that discharge to
Bellingham Bay. This study is being accomplished in two phases.
Phase 1, which has been completed, included sampling at or near
the terminal point of drainage basins. This sampling was done to
determine contaminant contributions from each major basin, iden-
tify potential problems, and help focus future sampling efforts.
Contamination contributions of storm drains and creeks to Belling-
ham Bay were evaluated using chemical analyses of storm drain and
stream sediments. Drainage basins were then ranked to determine
which basins will receive further sampling, evaluation, and analysis.
Phase 2 work includes determining drainage basin boundaries,
identifying sources in seven basins, and producing maps. Comple-
tion of Phase 2 will occur in September 1991.
28
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Permit Review
EPA reviews and comments on all significant permits for dredging
and fill operations in navigable waters under Section 404 of the
federal CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. While
these two programs are implemented by the Corps, modifications
suggested by EPA concerning environmental protection and wetland
impacts may be included as requirements in the final permits.
Bioaccumulation
EPA has conducted a reconnaissance survey evaluating polychlori-
nated dibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin) and polychlorinated dibenzofuran
(furan) contamination in Puget Sound crabs (PTI 199la). Crabs
were collected from 12 locations in Puget Sound, including one
station near the Georgia-Pacific outfall in Bellingham Bay. The
results of a preliminary health assessment using data from one
composite sample indicate that dioxin and furan levels in crabs from
Bellingham Bay do not appear to be a health risk.
Lummi Tribe
The Lummi Tribe has usual and accustomed fishing areas in
Bellingham Bay supported by treaty rights and manages several fish
resource enhancement projects. The tribe reviews plans and per-
mits for development projects that could affect the tribe's usual and
accustomed fishing areas.
Watershed
Management
The tribe actively participated in the development of watershed
plans for the Silver Creek, Ten-Mile Creek, and Kamm Creek
watersheds. These three creeks are lowland tributaries of the
Nooksack River and were selected as early action watersheds by
Ecology in June 1987. Early action watersheds are part of Element
NP-lofthePSWQMP.
The tribe obtained a CCWF grant from Ecology for implementation
of one component of the Silver Creek Action Plan. The tribe
completed, with assistance from the Nooksack Tribe, a stream
rehabilitation project to restore stream vegetation and limit livestock
access to streams. This project served as an example of stream
rehabilitation techniques that can be used in many areas of the
Nooksack River watershed. The tribe does not have the funds to
conduct other stream restoration projects but is willing to review
draft project plans, provide technical recommendations, and letters
of support for work done by other groups and agencies.
Nonpoint Source
Management
The tribe's Resource Protection Division routinely reviews all forest
practice applications for areas within the Nooksack River basin.
29
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Tribe personnel also conduct site visits and provide technical
recommendations to foresters. The tribe's goal is to provide
technical advice during the planning stage of a forestry or develop-
ment project to prevent activities that will increase sediment loading
to salmon spawning streams.
The tribe is also compiling an inventory of sources that cause
sediment loading to streams for selected watersheds. The tribe will
develop lists of corrective actions that can be implemented by land
owners to reduce the input of sediment to streams. This effort is
intended primarily to prevent sediment loading to salmon streams
and the Nooksack River.
Resource
Management
Salmonids
The tribe operates several salmon rearing ponds located approxi-
mately 1 mile upstream from the mouth of the Nooksack River on
the Lummi Reservation. The ponds are used to rear chinook and
chum salmon and steelhead. Fry (juvenile salmon) from tribal and
state hatcheries are transferred to these ponds in the spring and
released several months later. Warm water temperatures in the
rearing ponds allow the fry to grow quickly which, in turn, results
in higher return rates for adult salmon.
In 1990, the tribe constructed an artificial spawning channel on the
north fork of the Nooksack River at Maple Falls. In 1991, the
spawning channel produced over 34,000 chum fry. The estimated
egg-to-fry survival was 21 percent. This spawning channel protects
the fry from the impacts of sedimentation (e.g., mortality due to
smothering and low dissolved oxygen levels). Increased sedimen-
tation can also lead to stream instability and channel shifting.
Channel shifting results in a scouring or smothering of fry located
within the redd (i.e., nest).
The tribe also operates the Skookum Creek Hatchery that is located
on the south fork of the Nooksack River. Salmon released from
this facility migrate out of the Nooksack River and spend several
months in the shallow margins of Bellingham Bay and nearby
waters. The Skookum Hatchery produces about 2 million coho and
60,000 fall chinook annually, which represents about three-quarters
of the total hatchery coho and one-third of the total hatchery chinook
leaving the Nooksack River.
Resource
Enhancement
Shellfish
Oyster and littleneck clam seed from the tribe's Lummi Bay
Shellfish Hatchery are planted in the west side of Bellingham Bay
on selected tideflats in Portage Bay. Future activities may include
30
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
habitat enhancement using gravel and predator exclusion nets to
increase natural production.
The tribe has a CCWF grant to survey the shellfish resources in
Whatcom County. This survey will identify shellfish resource areas
and examine the relationship of fecal coliform bacteria contamina-
tion in shellfish to upland nonpoint sources of pollution.
Monitoring Activities
The tribe has sought funding from several federal sources to support
water quality monitoring. Present funding levels allow only a
limited amount of monitoring. High priorities are to determine
sediment and nutrient loading in the Nooksack River and Belling-
ham Bay and to monitor incidents of algae blooms that occur in the
late summer in the lower Nooksack River and Bellingham Bay. The
tribe will also follow the harvest certification status of the tribe's
shellfish beds and will attempt to determine the major sources of
bacterial contamination.
Investigations and
Studies
The tribe has completed a report entitled Nooksack Delta Investiga-
tions (Cochrane 1990) which evaluated the growth rate of the
Nooksack delta. The measure of delta growth was based on the rate
of sedimentation that occurred at one location on the outer margin
of the delta. The rate of shoaling has increased by a factor of 4.7
for the period 1956-1990 when compared to the period 1888-1956
(i.e., 0.45 feet/year and 0.09 feet/year, respectively). The report
concluded that increased sediment loading in the river has resulted
in this accelerated growth and that poor forest practices are the major
cause of increased sediment loading. The increased growth of the
delta is impairing skiff navigation, degrading adjacent shellfish
habitat, and reducing the depth of estuarine channels used by
migrating salmon. Littleneck clam beds are at risk from the
advancing delta. Markers placed near these beds will be used to
monitor the advance of the delta. Corrective actions for sedimen-
tation from past forest practices were recommended in the report
as one strategy for reducing impacts to the clam beds.
Several ongoing investigations are being conducted to better under-
stand the impacts of sedimentation on salmon and trout spawning,
egg incubation, and juvenile salmon development. Corrective
actions are being identified for specific areas in the upper Nooksack
River watershed to reduce the effects of sedimentation within critical
spawning areas. These actions include mitigation measures such as
the creation of artificial spawning areas to improve the productive
capacity of the watershed.
31
-------
733 / Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Nooksack Tribe
The Nooksack Tribe has usual and accustomed fishing rights in
Bellingham Bay and manages several fish enhancement projects.
The tribe studies aquaculture proposals and monitors environmental
conditions throughout Whatcom County. The tribe also participates
in the Nooksack Technical Spring Chinook Group.
Watershed
Management
The tribe has participated in planning committees to develop
watershed management plans for the Silver, Ten-Mile, and Kamm
creeks. Stream restoration projects identified in the watershed
management plans will soon be implemented.
Resource Management
The tribe operates a small hatchery on the Rutsatz slough and plants
300,000 chum eggs in Anderson Creek each year. The hatchery
was damaged during the flooding of 1990 and rehabilitation work
is currently in progress. The rehabilitated hatchery may rear
steelhead fry and will include a spawning channel for chum salmon.
The tribe has participated in and completed numerous fish
productivity and habitat enhancement projects along the Nooksack
River and its tributaries including 1) construction of a spawning
channel on the south fork of the Nooksack River near Skookum
Creek for overwintering chum salmon, 2) removal of a section of
falls from the middle fork of the Nooksack that serves as a barrier
to fish passage, 3) construction of an acclimation pond for steelhead,
4) restoration of habitat on Racehorse Creek (along the north fork
of the Nooksack River), 5) restoration of the portion of Silver Creek
that runs just outside the city limits of Bellingham (in conjunction
with the Lummi Tribe), 6) removal of a log and mud jam in Canyon
Creek [in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)], and 7) rehabilitation of the artificial spawning channel in
Hutchinson Creek. Fish productivity and habitat enhancement
projects planned by the tribe include: 1) chum brood stoc . Elec-
tion for eggs in the fall of 1991, 2) egg planting in the spav, ^..<Ł
channel in Hutchinson Creek in the fall of 1991, 3) removal of the
fish barrier at Canyon Creek in the summer of 1992 to add 5 miles
of prime fish habitat (in conjunction with FWS), and 4) removal of
garbage from Anderson Creek in the summer of 1991.
In conjunction with the Nooksack Technical Spring Chinook Group,
the tribe was the lead agency during the construction of an acclima-
tion pond on the north fork of the Nooksack for spring chinook fry
from the Kendall hatchery. The committee is planning to use
Deadhorse Pond as an acclimation pond for spring chinook (and
32
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
possibly steelhead) in the spring of 1992 and may also enhance the
spring chinook run in the south fork of the Nooksack River.
Monitoring Activities
Approximately every 2 months, the tribe monitors Cornell, Wells,
Racehorse, Hutchinson, and Porter creeks for temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, and scouring.
Washington
Department of
Ecology
In addition to the Bellingham Bay Action Program, Ecology has
numerous ongoing programs and planning activities related to
chemical and bacterial contamination and eutrophication in the
project area.
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System
EPA has delegated authority to Ecology to issue and enforce NPDES
permits for nonfederal facilities. Ecology generally issues NPDES
permits on a site-by-site basis, and a permit for one site may include
more than one discharge or source of contaminants. Permits for
municipal WWTPs authorize discharges throughout the plant's
service area, including CSOs. Industrial permits may include a
storm drain component for surface runoff as well as the wastewater
discharge component. NPDES permits may require effluent limi-
tations for toxic contaminants (concentration or total loading) and
may include provisions for instituting BMPs to reduce nonpoint
contaminant inputs. EPA's new NPDES regulations for storm
water require property owners and tenants in certain industrial
categories to submit data to Ecology regarding surface water runoff
(see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency section).
Ecology currently maintains 16 NPDES discharge permits in the
Bellingham Bay project area. These permits are for the cities of
Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, and Everson WWTPs; Bellingham
Cold Storage Company (BCS); Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc.
(BFF); Sea Pac Company, Inc.; Seawest Industries, Inc.; Schenk
Seafood Sales, Inc.; Oeser Company; Brooks Manufacturing Com-
pany; Columbia Cement Corporation; Public Utility District No. 1
of Whatcom County; Bellingham Hatchery; Nooksack State Salmon
Hatchery; and Georgia-Pacific.
Ecology will continue to conduct inspections and sampling efforts,
issue permits, enforce NPDES regulations, and require the
implementation of BMPs in the Bellingham Bay project area.
33
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
With the assistance of an advisory committee, Ecology is currently
developing a general permit to address concentrated animal wastes.
A draft permit will be issued for public review in the fall of 1991.
Watershed Planning
for Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Under the state nonpoint source pollution planning rule (Chapter
400-12 WAC), Ecology administers a grant program that enables
local agencies to develop plans for controlling nonpoint source
contamination on a watershed basis. CCWF is one of the financial
resources available to local agencies under Ecology's grant pro-
gram. This funding source is being used by the Conservation
District to implement the Kamm and Ten-Mile creeks early action
watershed plans and was used by the Whatcom County Council of
Governments (COG) to develop the Silver Creek early action
watershed plan.
Ecology is responsible for final approval of watershed plans devel-
oped under the nonpoint source pollution planning rule.
Monitoring
As part of its Ambient Monitoring Program, Ecology is currently
monitoring one water quality station and two sediment quality
stations in Bellingham Bay. The water quality station is located on
the north side of Portage Island, approximately halfway between
the southern tip of the Lummi Peninsula and the southern tip of
Portage Island. This station is sampled monthly. One of the
sediment stations is located 1.4 nautical miles northwest of
Governor's Point and is sampled annually. The other sediment
station is located approximately 1 mile east of the Nooksack delta,
about 2 miles offshore. This station is sampled once every 3 years.
Through this ambient monitoring effort, data have been collected
on toxic contaminants in marine sediments and conventional con-
stituents in the marine water column.
In addition to marine monitoring, Ecology's Ambient Monitoring
Section monitors conventional parameters (e.g., nutrients and oxy-
gen) at two stations in the Nooksack River. These stations are
located at Brennan and at north Cedarville. The Brennan station is
sampled annually; metals and total hardness are also monitored at
this station. The Cedarville station is sampled once every 3 years.
Data collected through Ecology's Ambient Monitoring Program is
provided to PSAMP, which is a comprehensive program to monitor
environmental quality throughout Puget Sound.
34
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Ecology's Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services
division has also been investigating the cause of recurrent coho
salmon mortality at the Maritime Heritage Fish Hatchery on
Whatcom Creek. Monitoring of the creek will occur during the
first significant storm event in the fall of 1991 and will include
metals and organic chemical analyses.
Storm Water As part of the PSWQMP, Ecology's Water Quality Program Storm-
Managemem water Unit is developing a basic storm water program that focuses
on preventing increased storm water flows and contamination, and
a comprehensive urban storm water program that focuses on
controlling storm water quality and quantity. The basic storm water
program will apply to all counties and cities in the Puget Sound
watershed. The comprehensive urban storm water program will
apply to the six largest cities (including Bellingham) and four other
urbanized areas in the Puget Sound region by November 1991. By
the year 2000, it will apply to all cities and urbanized areas of the
Puget Sound region. In support of both the basic storm water
program and the comprehensive urban storm water program, Ecol-
ogy will issue rules, guidelines, and model ordinances for storm
water management programs by November 1991.
Ecology will also produce a technical manual for use in storm water
management planning. The manual will include BMPs for the
control of erosion and sedimentation from construction sites, design
operation and maintenance standards for public and private reten-
tion/detention facilities, and techniques for the reduction or elimi-
nation of contaminants in runoff from problem land uses. An
interim review draft of the manual is currently under public review.
The final manual will be released concurrently with Ecology's storm
water rule.
In addition to requirements for municipal storm water programs,
Ecology has worked with the Washington Department of Transpor-
tation (DOT) and other interested parties to draft an administrative
rule that requires DOT to control the quality and quantity of highway
runoff in the Puget Sound basin. The rule was adopted in May 1991
and became effective June 21, 1991.
Ecology is also currently developing guidance on the disposal of
water and sediment derived from storm drain system maintenance
(e.g., catch basins). With grants from PSEP and under Section
205(j) of the federal CWA, Ecology is collecting and analyzing
sediment and discharge water associated with catch basins. The
35
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
information will be used to develop disposal and handling policies
for drainage systems within Puget Sound.
Pretreatment
Ecology's Water Quality Division is responsible for writing state
waste discharge permits for all industries that discharge wastewater
to the city of Bellingham WWTP.
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Ecology requires the development of CSO reduction plans when
overflows exceed one per year. In 1987, the city of Bellingham
submitted a CSO study to Ecology which documented that overflow
events are limited to less than one per year. Therefore, Ecology
does not require a CSO reduction plan from the city of Bellingham.
Toxics
Bioaccumulation Study
Ecology's Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services
division has carried out a study requested by the Bellingham Bay
Action Program to determine concentrations of selected metals and
organic chemicals in Bellingham Bay shellfish, compare results to
concentrations found elsewhere in Puget Sound, and determine
potential public health risks. The Lummi Tribe and DNR collected
samples in August and September of 1990. Crabs were collected
from eight sites and clams were collected from four sites. Sites
were chosen based on popular recreational harvesting locations and
where little or no bioaccumulation data exist. Based on the final
report (Cubbage 1991), concentrations of metals in Bellingham Bay
crab and clam tissues were low and approximately the same as
reference area levels. Pesticides and PCBs were not detected in
either crab or clam tissues. PAHs were found at low levels in clam
tissues.
Agricultural
Enforcement
Under the Agricultural Compliance Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between Ecology, the Washington Conservation Commis-
sion, and the Conservation District, Ecology refers farmers with
water quality problems to the Conservation District. If a farmer
fails to call on the Conservation District for help in developing a
conservation plan or refuses to implement an approved conservation
plan, Ecology may carry out enforcement activities based on water
quality violations.
Shellfish Protection
Ecology's Shorelands Program Shellfish Unit is co-chairing, with
DOH, an interagency committee that is producing a recreational
shellfish plan for Puget Sound. A draft of the plan will be issued
for public review in August 1991 and should be finalized by October
36
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
1991. The plan addresses the protection of shellfish resources and
human health. The plan identifies 146 recreational beaches
throughout Puget Sound and includes provisions for site-specific
monitoring, public notification, public involvement and education,
community outreach, and beach restoration actions at 40 of these
beaches. Monitoring actions will be conducted by DOH and will
include sampling shellfish for paralytic shellfish poisoning and fecal
coliform bacteria, conducting water quality sampling for fecal
coliform bacteria, and conducting general upland surveys to identify
probable contaminant sources. Intensive source investigations and
mitigation efforts would fall under the jurisdiction of the local health
department. Responsibilities of Ecology's Shellfish Unit include
1) implementing public involvement and education actions,
2) administering grants for beach restoration and cleanup activities,
and 3) coordinating with urban bay action teams on recreational
shellfish issues.
Chuckanut Bay is currently classified as a "threatened" beach under
the classification scenario presented in the draft recreational shell-
fish plan (see Washington Department of Health, Human Health
Risk Management section).
Hazardous Waste Sites Under MTCA, Ecology investigates hazardous waste sites and
negotiates cleanup actions. As the first step in the investigation
process, Ecology conducts a site hazard assessment to confirm the
presence of hazardous substances and determine the relative risk the
site poses to human health and the environment. Based on the
information gathered in the site hazard assessment, the site is ranked
by the Washington Ranking Method (WARM) relative to other sites
in the state of Washington. The WARM ranking incorporates
human health and environmental risks.
Sites with a WARM score of 1 or 2 usually receive first priority for
cleanup through Ecology's Toxics Cleanup program. A site may
be re-evaluated and receive a new rank if new information is
received or additional risks are identified. Private parties may also
initiate site cleanup.
Ecology has performed the following site hazard assessments in
Whatcom County: Whatcom Creek Waterway, Boulevard Park,
Little Squalicum Creek (near Oeser Cedar), Georgia-Pacific airport
landfill, and Trans-Mountain's pipeline pump station on East Smith
Road. These sites will be ranked in the fall of 1991.
37
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Shoreline Development
Ecology's Shorelands Division is responsible for reviewing shore-
line master programs for consistency with the state Shoreline
Management Act. They are also responsible for reviewing shore-
line permits. For shoreline master programs which are being
modified, Ecology is strongly advising that marine sewage pumpout
facilities be provided at marinas. Ecology also administers coastal
zone management grants to enable local agencies to modify their
shoreline master programs.
Sediment Standards
Development
Ecology has been a lead agency or key participant in several efforts
to develop tools for evaluating and managing contaminated sedi-
ments in Puget Sound. These efforts have included the Commence-
ment Bay Superfund project, PSDDA, the Urban Bay Action
Program, and the PSWQMP. Ecology has developed sediment
quality standards, a process for managing sources of sediment
contamination, a sediment cleanup decision process, and criteria for
confined disposal of dredged material. In addition, guidelines for
unconfined disposal of dredged material have been developed under
PSDDA. These sediment standards and guidelines affect sediment
remedial actions, wastewater discharges, and dredging operations
in Bellingham Bay.
Education
Ecology is involved in a variety of educational activities regarding
MTCA and waste reduction and recycling. Activities focus on the
general public, industry, and small businesses and include the
distribution of MTCA public awareness grants, other public educa-
tion grants, and brochures and educational posters published by each
program within Ecology.
The Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator is available for
educational presentations on the status of water quality in Belling-
ham Bay, in addition to programs on what citizens can do to improve
water quality. Ecology staff are also available for educational
presentations on such topics as the MTCA, Sediment Management
Standards, and storm water management rules.
Ecology's Waste Reduction Recycling and Litter Control (WRRLC)
program will be holding "Away-with-Waste" workshops in
Whatcom County during the 1991- 1992 school year. These work-
shops will educate teachers on how to use the "Away-with-Waste"
primary and secondary school curriculum, which focuses on waste
reduction and recycling. Staff from Ecology's WRRLC program
are available for educational presentations and workshops concern-
ing waste reduction and recycling efforts in business and industry.
38
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
The WRRLC program has also funded, and will continue to fund,
a wide variety of waste reduction and recycling educational activities
in Whatcom County.
Enforcement and'
Complaint Response
Staff members from Ecology's Northwest Regional Office in Belle-
vue respond to water quality complaints and work with violators of
the state water pollution laws to address water quality problems.
Ecology actions include site visits, correspondence, education,
notices of violation, administrative orders, penalties, and other
enforcement actions.
North Puget Sound
National Marine
Sanctuary
Ecology, in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, is investigating the possibility of designating north
Puget Sound as a national marine sanctuary. This designation
would ensure comprehensive management and protection of north
Puget Sound's resources and beneficial uses including recreational,
ecological, and historical qualities.
Washington
Department of
Fisheries
The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) is primarily
responsible for maintaining and enhancing fish resources for com-
mercial and recreational use and enhancing public access to fishing
areas.
Storm Water
Management
WDF addresses storm water management issues pertaining to
development projects through the Hydraulic Project Approval
(HPA) permit process and the SEPA review process. WDF has
developed standard storm water guidelines that apply to develop-
ments that require an HPA permit or involve more than 5,000 square
feet of impervious surface. An HPA permit is required if any part
of a storm water facility involves work below the ordinary high
water line of the waters of the state. Under the storm water
guidelines, storm water should be metered into streams at near the
predevelopment rate to maintain streambank and streambed stabil-
ity. In addition, pollutants in storm water should be treated using
BMPs to protect marine and freshwater aquatic life.
Nonpoint Source
Management
WDF, using the services of the Washington Conservation Corps,
has installed cattle crossings and fences along many streams adjacent
to agricultural areas. WDF also strongly encourages HPA appli-
cants to install fencing to prevent livestock access.
39
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Resource Management WDF reviews and comments on SEPA and NEPA documents and
NPDES permits as they pertain to fish habitat. WDF is the lead
agency for HPAs in areas with anadromous fish runs. HPAs are
required for any construction activities in fresh and marine waters
under the Hydraulic Code Rules (Chapter 220-110 WAC). WDF
is particularly concerned about development activities near herring
and surf smelt spawning areas, nearshore juvenile salmonid habitat,
and salmon spawning streams. WDF will review all proposals on
a case-by-case basis to adequately protect these sensitive resources.
WDF operates two hatcheries, one on the Nooksack River and one
on Whatcom Creek. Both the Nooksack River hatchery and the
Whatcom Creek hatchery raise chum, chinook, and coho salmon.
The Whatcom Creek hatchery is operated in cooperation with the
Maritime Heritage Center, a nonprofit organization. The coho
salmon raised at the Whatcom Creek hatchery suffer high mortality
nearly every year. The suspected cause of this mortality is poor
water quality (e.g., toxic contaminants) in Whatcom Creek.
WDF, in conjunction with several tribes, local agencies, and local
interest groups, places and operates salmon net-pens for raising
salmon in Bellingham Bay. Currently, salmon net-pens are located
at the Taylor Dock, in Squalicum Harbor, and at the Alaska Ferry
terminal in Fairhaven. The Taylor Dock and Squalicum Harbor
pens were established in 1990, and the Alaska Ferry terminal pens
were established in 1989. WDF issues HPAs, evaluates site-spe-
cific physical and biological data for compliance with recommended
siting guidelines, and co-manages the pens once they have been
established. Net-pens producing 20,000 or more pounds of fish
(i.e., approximately 250,000 fish) per year must have an NPDES
permit. Currently, the net-pens located in Bellingham Bay are
producing less than 20,000 pounds of fish per year.
The Taylor Dock net-pen operation consists of four pens and is
cooperatively managed by the Bellingham Samish Bay Enhance-
ment Advisory Committee and WDF. A physical and biological
survey of the site was conducted under direction of WDF in August
1990. The site will be surveyed again during the fifth year of
operation and prior to renewal of the HPA in 1996. The Squalicum
Tarbor net-pen operation consists of one pen and is cooperatively
•aged by the Bellingham Heritage Center, the Bellingham Sam-
' Enhancement Advisory, and WDF. The Alaska Ferry net
^tion currently consists of only one pen, and future
t *ain. This pen is cooperatively managed by the
Be ii Bay Enhancement Advisory and WDF. Con-
tinue A\ of both the Squalicum Harbor and Alaska Ferry
40
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
net pens are contingent on the findings of a WDF monitoring
program that targets a representative sample of net pen operations
in Puget Sound similar in size and function to these two net-pen
operations.
Several salmon fisheries exist in Bellingham Bay at various times
throughout the year: fall chinook are caught from late July to
mid-September, coho are caught from mid-September to mid-
November, chum are caught from early November to mid-Decem-
ber, and steelhead are caught from mid-December to January. In
odd years, pink salmon are caught in July. WDF monitors salmon
stocks by comparing annual run size estimates for each stock and
species. A run size estimate for a particular species and stock
includes an estimate of the total adult fish caught by coast-wide
commercial fisheries, coast-wide sport fisheries, and spawning
escapement (i.e., those fish allowed to escape capture to spawn).
Coded wire tags and spawning ground surveys currently provide
the basis for run size estimates, though other methods are being
explored in an effort to refine these estimates. Bellingham Bay is
also used as a major nursery and overwintering area for herring,
although no herring roe fishery (i.e., collection of herring eggs on
kelp) exists in the bay. Pacific cod are caught by commercial fishers
from December to March. Smelt are caught by recreational fishers
in February and March in Squalicum Harbor. English sole and
Bellingham Bay sole (a race of English sole) are caught throughout
the year.
There are also commercial and recreational fisheries for Dungeness
crab in Bellingham Bay. Approximately 100,000-150,000 pounds
of Dungeness crab are caught commercially and 50,000-75,000
pounds are harvested recreationally each year. WDF monitors the
stock size and harvest and also reviews projects (e.g., permits under
SEPA and the federal CWA) that may impact the crab resource.
Although there is currently no commercial shellfish harvesting other
than crabs in Bellingham Bay, the Lummi Tribe harvests large
quantities of clams from Chuckanut Bay.
Wetlands Protection WDF has been directed by the Governor's Executive Order on
Wetlands (signed April 21, 1990) to protect fish life by assuring
protection for the value and function of wetlands by adding condi-
tions to or denying HPAs to the fullest extent of WDF's authority.
To add conditions to or deny an HPA that will impact a wetland,
WDF must show that the wetland has a positive impact on fish life.
To protect fish life, WDF implements a policy of no-net loss of
41
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
habitat. Where applicable and as directed by Section 12 of the
Governor's Executive Order on Wetlands, WDF will implement the
following mitigation priorities:
• Avoid wetland impacts
• Minimize wetland impacts
• Rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
wetlands
• Reduce impacts by preservation and maintenance of
wetlands
• Compensate for impacts by replacing, enhancing, or
substituting wetlands
• Monitor impacts to wetlands and take corrective actions.
As a condition of an HPA, applicants must fully mitigate all negative
impacts to the value and function wetlands provide to fish popula-
tions.
Monitoring Activities Under PSAMP, two fish monitoring stations were to be established
in Bellingham Bay. One station was to be sampled annually and
the other station was to be sampled every other year. To date, one
station has been established south of Post Point about 1.25 miles
north of Gull Harbor. However, due to funding constraints, this
station will only be sampled every other year. This station was
sampled in 1989 but not in 1990. In the 1989 sampling event, three
composite samples (muscle tissue from five fish combined to make
each composite sample) of English sole were collected from each
station. The samples were tested for metals and organic chemicals.
Arsenic and copper concentrations were at 3.80 mg/kg and
0.23 mg/kg, respectively. Lead concentrations were below the
mean detection limit at 0.04 mg/kg, and mercury data were rejected
due to poor laboratory quality control. For the four organic
chemicals tested, concentrations were below the mean detection
limit. Cancerous lesions were not found in any of the samples.
In 1991, WDF attempted to establish a second station north or
northeast of the Post Point station, but was unable to catch enough
fish. Another attempt will not be made in the immediate future. In
future sampling events, WDF will analyze English sole muscle
tissue for a wider range of toxic contaminants. The sampling effort
will also include analysis of toxic chemicals in liver tissue. In the
future, additional samples may be taken as part of PSAMP.
42
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Human Health Risk
Management
WDF is working with DOH to determine if the concentrations of
arsenic found in English sole pose a human health risk.
Sampling Activities
The hatchery located on Whatcom Creek that is operated in con-
junction with the Maritime Heritage Center has experienced an
annual coho salmon mortality event during the fall months for a
number of years. The mortalities appear to correspond with the
first significant rainfall and runoff event of the fall. Ecology and
the hatchery manager have attempted to conduct water sampling to
isolate the source of the mortality events. These efforts will
continue until the source of the mortality events is determined.
Washington
Department of
Health
DOH, formerly part of the Department of Social and Health
Services, is responsible for regulating commercial and recreational
shellfish harvesting and is involved in sewage disposal control.
Currently, there are no beaches certified for commercial or recre-
ational harvesting of intertidal shellfish in Bellingham Bay, and
DOH recommends that no recreational shellfish harvesting be
conducted in inner Bellingham Bay.
Watershed
Management
DOH representatives provide technical assistance to the 12 Early
Action Watershed committees. These committees, which include
the committees for Silver, Ten-Mile, and Kamm creeks, are respon-
sible for developing plans to control nonpoint sources of pollution.
DOH's participation on these committees focuses on onsite sewage
disposal and classification of shellfish growing areas.
Nonpoint Source
Management
DOH has completed a draft revision of its onsite sewage system
regulations (Chapter 246-272 WAC). Public workshops will be
held in the summer of 1991 to discuss the proposed changes. The
proposed revisions address a number of issues, including operation
and maintenance, areas of special concern, certification of onsite
sewage system designers, installers, and regulators. The regula-
tions also require that each system be built to provide adequate
sewage treatment.
A model ordinance was developed by DOH primarily to assist
marinas in handling blackwater (i.e., sewage) coming from
liveaboard boats. However, the ordinance is considered inflexible
by marina operators and the liveaboard community. DOH, in
conjunction with the Washington Parks and Recreation Commis-
sion, Ecology, and PSWQA is revising the ordinance. The revised
43
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
ordinance will provide sewage disposal options addressing the needs
of various types o* rarina users. A state agency task force has
recently been asse. xi and an advisory committee will be formed
that will include re sentatives of boating communities. The task
force will be developing the model ordinance and drafts will be
reviewed by the advisory committee. Under PSWQMP, DOH is
to encourage local governments to implement the ordinance within
6 months of its completion. The ordinance will be accompanied by
a report providing information to local governments on designing
and installing slipside pumpouts at marinas and methods of ensuring
their use by liveaboard boaters. No sooner than 2 years following
distribution of the model ordinance, DOH shall evaluate progress
under the nonmandatory program and recommend additional action
as necessary.
Human Health Risk On September 13, 1989, the Washington State Board of Health
Management approved new regulations for recreational shellfish harvesting.
These regulations give DOH and local health departments the
authority to monitor and classify beaches for recreational shellfish
harvesting based on bacterial counts, concentrations of toxic con-
taminants, and surveys of bacterial contaminant sources. Recre-
ational harvesting of shellfish could be prohibited on beaches that
have conditions that would pose unacceptable health hazards.
Under that regulation, DOH and Ecology are developing a recrea-
tional shellfish program and preparing a draft action plan that was
Dished in July 1991 and is available for public comment. The
addresses the protection of shellfish resources and human
a and includes proposed water quality and shellfish tissue
i coring at major recreation shellfish harvesting locations
tf .ghout Puget Sound. The draft plan identifies four classifica-
tii i to rank beaches for recreational shellfish harvesting:
• Low-threat—Beaches that meet health standards for safe
shellfish harvest or are distant from recognized upland
or water-based sources of pollution.
• Threatened—Public beaches where shellfish harvesting
is threatened or potentially threatened by increasing
pollution. Adequate shellfish resources or the potential
for enhancement exists, and good public access is avail-
able.
• Correctable—Public beaches that do not meet standards
for safe shellfish harvesting due to chronic, though
reversible, nonpoint bacterial pollution. Abundant
44
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
shellfish resources or potential for enhancement exists,
and good public access is available.
• Long-term Harvest Restriction—Public beaches with
chronic or severe bacterial water quality degradation or
that are located in the immediate vicinity of sewage
treatment plants, contaminated sediments, or major
sources of toxic substances that require an area with
long-term corrective actions.
Based on completed site evaluations, most public beaches in Puget
Sound will be classified. Post Point is an example of a beach that
is likely to be classified as an area with long-term harvest restriction.
DOH will be developing a draft MOA with county health depart-
ments that addresses whether DOH or county health departments
bear the responsibility of posting health warning signs on beaches.
This draft MOA is being reviewed by several county health depart-
ments.
Monitoring Activities Under PSAMP, DOH conducts quarterly sampling of bivalve
shellfish (e.g., clams) for fecal coliform bacteria and annual sam-
pling for metals, organic chemicals, and pesticides. Samples for
fecal coliform bacteria testing are collected near Post Point. In May
1991, bivalve shellfish near Post Point were also sampled for metals
and chemicals. High levels of benzoic acid were found in the
bivalve shellfish.
As part of its Recreational Beach Program, DOH monitors water
quality at 19 stations located in Chuckanut Bay between Post Point
and Governors Point and in the Chuckanut Village Stream. Sam-
pling conducted in August 1989 and May 1990 indicate that fecal
coliform bacteria are elevated in the Chuckanut Village Stream.
DOH notified County Health about the bacterial elevations in
Chuckanut Village Stream.
Adopt-A-Beach volunteers will sample shellfish for paralytic shell-
fish poisoning toxins at Post Point and Chuckanut Bay once every
2 weeks from April 1 through October 31 during 1991. The shell-
fish will be analyzed by DOH. However, monitoring of these areas
for paralytic shellfish poisoning during the winter months is
unlikely.
45
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Washington State
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Nonpoint Source
Management
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State
Parks) has a Boater Environmental Education Program to provide
information and services to the recreational boating community.
The 1989 legislature passed a bill that allocated funds from the
Watercraft Excise Tax to fund sewage pumpouts at marinas and
environmental education efforts for boaters. In the spring of 1991,
the law was rewritten to include the funding of portable, as well as
stationary, pumpout stations. The law allocated a total of $ 1 million
for the first biennium (fiscal years 1990 and 1991) and $1 million
annually for each of the following 4 years.
For fiscal years 1990 and 1991, $300,000 was available from State
Parks for public and private marinas to install or repair sewage
pumpouts. Design criteria were developed by Ecology and were
reviewed at the April 1990 meeting of State Parks. In May 1990,
State Parks sent notices to all marinas in the state regarding the
availability of pumpout station grants, but no applications were
received from marinas in Bellingham Bay. Notices will be sent
again in September or October 1991 for the 1992 funding cycle.
State Parks will work on developing an enforcement strategy for
marine discharges after the completion of the sewage pumpout
station grant program. The strategy, Element MB-5 of the
PSWQMP, is due to be completed by the end of 1994.
Hazardous Waste
Management
State park rangers receive training in hazardous waste management
as part of ongoing programs. Because rangers sometimes use
pesticides and other chemicals, they are licensed to ensure that
proper procedures are used in applying these substances.
Education
State Parks manages the Boater Environmental Education Program.
State Parks is in the process of hiring two new staff members for
boater education. One staff person will be involved in watershed
planning and conduct outreach activities (e.g., presentations) and
one will conduct boater educational activities. With the additional
personnel conducting outreach activities, State Parks plans to
become more active in educational activities.
A slide show about boat waste management and a video on the
environmental impacts of boating are available through State Parks
for group presentations and for distribution to middle schools in the
state. In addition, a water quality interpretive sign and sewage
46
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
pumpout location and operating instruction signs are available.
State Parks and Ecology will discuss potential locations in Belling-
ham Bay for these signs.
State Parks publishes an educational brochure titled Boater's Guide
to Clean Water and Good Times. The brochure addresses boating
safety, trash and plastic disposal, sewage pumpout station locations
throughout the state, shellfish protection, boat maintenance, envi-
ronmental and economic impacts of boating, ocean disposal placard
requirements, and other general information. This brochure is
distributed to marinas, ports, educational groups, middle schools,
marine retail operations, and to other individuals and groups who
request it.
Washington
Department of
Wildlife
The Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) has responsibility
for managing the wildlife of the state. WDW is also responsible
for the Bellingham hatchery.
Storm Water
Management
WDW supports WDF's draft storm water guidelines that require
storm water detention/retention and treatment for hydraulic pro-
jects. WDW is considering adopting the storm water guidelines as
official policy after the public comment period is completed and the
guidelines have been finalized.
Watershed
Management
WDW is involved in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) process for licensing the construction of hydroelectric
dams. WDW examines in-stream flows, erosion control, and other
impacts to fish and wildlife under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act. There are currently a number of proposed hydroelectric
projects on the Nooksack River and its tributaries. WDW is
developing a list of priority habitats and species that will be used to
evaluate impacts to wildlife.
Land Use Development
WDW reviews and participates in comprehensive land use plans.
Because the review and participation is usually performed by a local
biologist who covers a large geographic area (2-4 counties and a
number of municipalities), the level of participation and review
depends on other agency priorities.
Resource Management
WDW has enhancement projects for native fish such as steelhead,
Dolly Varden trout, and sea-run cutthroat trout in place in Padden
and Whatcom creeks and several streams that empty into Lake
47
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Whatcom. In addition, sport fishing regulations have been
restricted to increase protection for native species. WDW also
manages the Bellingham hatchery that is located in Whatcom Falls
Park.
Resource Protection
WDW is the lead agency responsible for HPAs on areas upstream
from those areas of streams used by anadromous fish. WDW's
Habitat Management Section reviews all SEPA permits and forest
practice permits as an advisory agency. WDW also provides
comments to Ecology regarding the issuance of water rights. In all
cases, the comments are related to potential impacts to fish and
wildlife resources and the means to mitigate or eliminate those
impacts.
Wetlands Protection
WDW has a policy in place under which the agency may deny or
add conditions to an HPA permit for proposed projects that may
impact wetlands. No degradation of wetlands is allowed. If there
is an impact, it must be mitigated at the rate of 2 acres of new
wetlands per 1 acre lost. However, under SEPA and NEPA, WDW
is only permitted to place conditions on activities rather than deny
a permit outright. Ecology, the Corps, and local governments are
also involved in the review and any mitigation would be a result of
negotiation or consensus among all involved agencies.
Washington
Department of
Natural Resources
DNR is responsible for managing terrestrial and aquatic lands
owned by the state and for enforcing certain resource protection
laws.
Nonpoint Source
Management
Under the Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations
(Chapter 222, WAC), DNR approves applications for harvesting
over 5,000 board feet of timber or for any other forest operation
that would be located on unstable slopes or near the nesting or
breeding ground of threatened or endangered species. Approved
applications are required before timber can be harvested for sale.
Conditions placed on the approved application provide for the
protection of soil integrity, reforestation, streamside habitat protec-
tion, and fishery and wildlife concerns. Under the Timber, Fish
and Wildlife agreement among resource agencies, timber compa-
nies, tribes, and environmentalists, interdisciplinary teams may be
formed to deal with environmental concerns. The teams make
recommendations to the forest practices forester, who may then
48
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
require several habitat protection conditions to the clearing appli-
cation.
DNR also enforces rules and regulations under the Surface Mining
Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW). Specifically, DNR has authority to
oversee those operations that collectively result in more than 3 acres
of land being disturbed or that result in excavation walls more than
30 feet high and steeper than 45 degrees. The purpose of the
Surface Mining Act is to ensure that mined lands are properly
rehabilitated, that surface water quality is protected, and that public
safety standards are adhered to.
Aquatic Lands DNR leases state-owned aquatic lands in harbor areas of Bellingham
Management Bay for periods ranging from 5 to 30 years and for nonharbor areas
for a maximum of 55 years. The aquatic lands leasing program is
being evaluated to incorporate procedures for addressing contami-
nated sediment liability issues including site identification,
investigation, and remediation. In addition, all new and recently
signed leases include provisions concerning lessee liability for
releases of hazardous substances. If hazardous substances are
released on properties the lessees occupy, the lessees will be held
liable for response and cleanup costs, conducting investigations, and
pursuing corrective actions.
DNR established the Sediments Management Section in the Division
of Aquatic Lands in January 1991. The new section will encourage
DNR leaseholders to investigate and remediate contaminated sedi-
ments on state-owned aquatic lands. The Sediments Management
Section will also represent DNR when the agency is identified as a
potentially responsible party for sites containing contaminated
sediments.
In spring 1990, DNR received a grant from EPA to review aquatic
land use authorizations in nonurban areas of Puget Sound. In this
study, DNR's use authorizations were categorized by the likelihood
that the general use of the site could have contaminated state-owned
properties. Since then, DNR has expanded on this study by
developing an inventory and empirical ranking of all lease sites in
western Washington, regardless of their urban or nonurban desig-
nation. As part of the land use authorization audit, DNR completed
the Puget Sound Sediment Reconnaissance Survey, 1991 (Tetra
Tech 1991). The objective of the survey was to identify contami-
nated aquatic lands that are publicly owned. Potentially contami-
nated areas of Puget Sound (including Bellingham Bay) with few
existing data were surveyed.
49
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
DNR is also developing a user's manual that addresses contaminated
sediment management and includes policies and regulations related
to contaminated sediments. A working draft is currently being
reviewed by Ecology.
DNR and the Port are developing a port management agreement.
This agreement will assign all management responsibilities for
aquatic lands abutting port properties to the Port. The agreement
will require the Port to follow DNR's regulations for managing the
leases. Leases entered into by the Port and DNR for individual
properties would be eliminated. The agreement is the result of
legislation designed to simplify the collection process for lease
revenues.
DNR and Ecology are developing an MOA regarding contaminated
sediments on state-owned aquatic lands under which DNR will carry
out provisions of the MTCA (e.g., remedial investigations and
cleanups). One PSDDA disposal site is located within the Belling-
ham Bay project area and any sediments requiring disposal there
would be subject to PSDDA guidelines.
DNR manages the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account. This
account has money available for funding projects to acquire land
for public recreational access and public education. Account funds
are not available for cleaning up contaminated sediments or improv-
ing water quality.
Outfall Management
DNR requires use authorizations for placement of outfalls on
state-owned lands. In some cases, DNR may charge a fee if the
outfall will result in a net loss of state-owned resources (e.g.,
geoducks).
Monitoring Activities
DNR is responsible for conducting chemical and biological moni-
toring at the Bellingham Bay PSDDA site. DNR performed base-
line biological monitoring in the summer of 1990 at the Bellingham
PSDDA site for concentrations of certain problem chemicals in the
tissues of Dungeness crab. Crab density was also monitored. This
baseline monitoring was conducted in conjunction with Ecology's
Bellingham Bay bioaccumulation survey, and the results are incor-
porated in Ecology's final bioaccumulation report that was released
in September 1991. The baseline monitoring survey investigated
the concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, PCBs, and
various pesticides in crab muscle and hepatopancreas. Arsenic,
cadmium, and mercury were detected in every sample. Of the
50
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
pesticides, DDE was found in 62 percent of the samples, and
chlordane was found in 15 percent of the samples. Concentrations
of detected chemicals were generally low. DNR will conduct a crab
bioaccumulation study after at least 100,000 yards3 of material have
been disposed of at the PSDDA site.
Dredging Activities
The Bellingham Bay PSDDA open-water dredged material disposal
site is available for use from June 16 through October 31 of each
year. DNR, EPA, the Corps, and Ecology evaluate the material
that is proposed for disposal at the PSDDA site. DNR issues the
permits to use the site and monitors compliance with terms of the
permit.
The Corps and the Port are planning to use the PSDDA site during
the 1992 dredging season. Sediments from Whatcom Creek, I & J
Street, and Squalicum Creek waterways were tested under the
PSDDA guidelines. None of the Whatcom Creek Waterway sedi-
ments were approved for disposal at the PSDDA site. Only some
of the sediments tested from the I & J and Squalicum Creek
waterways were approved by the PSDDA agencies.
Habitat Mapping
In support of PSAMP, DNR is involved in a project to inventory
nearshore habitat using remote sensing techniques (i.e., aerial
photographs and satellite images). Habitat information has been
gathered and will be entered into a geographic information system
(GIS) by December 1991. New data will be collected every 3 years
by the EPA and will be added to the GIS. When the project is
complete, comprehensive habitat maps for Bellingham Bay will be
available.
Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority
PSWQA is responsible for developing the PSWQMP for water
quality protection in Puget Sound. PSWQA oversees all the
PSWQMP programs implemented by federal, state, and local
agencies; tribal governments; and federal facilities.
Storm Water
Management
Under the 1991 PSWQMP, a work group and a storm water
technical assistance service have been added to the storm water
program. The work group will help coordinate policy issues among
fisheries, storm water, and wetlands programs. The storm water
technical assistance service will be provided to local governments
by Ecology. The 1991 PSWQMP proposes that the local storm
water programs be incorporated in the comprehensive land devel-
51
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
opment plans that will be drafted under the State Growth Manage-
ment Act (Substitute House Bill No. 2929).
Ecology has drafted a proposed rule that will set minimum storm
water standards for new developments. When Ecology's proposed
rule is finalized, PSWQA will adopt a rule that requires local
governments to adopt storm water programs that include Ecology's
rule. These rules are being coordinated with the recent federal
storm water NPDES regulation (see U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency section). Adoption of both rules by PSWQA is expected
by January 1992.
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management
PSWQA is currently revising the watershed management planning
rule (Chapter 400-12 WAC) to incorporate information from the
watershed planning efforts that have occurred to date.
Under the 1991 PSWQMP, the issue of pesticide use will be
addressed in existing nonpoint pollution, education, and household
hazardous waste programs.
Also, the 1991 PSWQMP directs DOT to develop a program to
control runoff from highways in the Puget Sound basin. Ecology
has drafted guidelines for the program that were adopted as an
administrative rule in May 1991 and became effective on June 21,
1991. Under this program, the department will draft and adopt a
storm water management manual, develop a vegetation management
program, and institute other measures to control the quality and
quantity of runoff from highways in the Puget Sound basin. The
administrative rule will govern the runoff program and includes a
requirement that the department shall comply with standards iden-
tified in watershed actions plans, even if they are more stringent
than the department's manual.
Wetlands Protection
Activities
In the 1991 PSWQMP, minimum guidelines or standards for
wetland protection programs that will be implemented by local
governments are proposed. PSWQA has deferred a final decision
on the standards until summer 1991 to provide additional time for
public comment. PSWQA is seeking public comment on whether
or not to adopt mandatory standards or guidelines, in addition to
comments on the content of the standards. The program recom-
mended by PSWQA also includes expanded roles in wetlands
protection for the Corps, EPA, and FWS. In addition, PSWQA
has established a wetlands restoration program.
52
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Water Quality Planning
The PSWQMP was initially developed in 1987, revised in 1989,
and finalized in 1991. The plan was adopted in May 1991 as the
first CCMP in the nation for an estuary of national significance (as
designated under Section 320 of the federal CWA). The CCMP
contains an action plan for various programs and establishes broad
funding and program funding priorities. Based on legislation in
1990 that reorganized and reauthorized PSWQA, the PSWQMP
also includes an implementation strategy for prioritizing plan ele-
ments according to constraints faced by local governments. The
legislation also authorizes PSWQA to create a foundation for
supporting education and research activities.
Oil Spill Prevention
The 1991 State Legislature passed an oil spill bill that mandates
implementation of most of PSWQA's spill prevention and response
program. The spill prevention and response program includes
elements for contingency plans, spill prevention plans, spill preven-
tion education, and numerous other elements to increase spill
prevention and response.
Monitoring Activities
Staff at PSWQA provide technical and administrative support to
PSAMP. PSAMP provides a comprehensive, long-term monitor-
ing program for Puget Sound. PSAMP was designed to: 1) assist
agencies by characterizing and interpreting spatial and temporal
trends and identifying problem areas, 2) take measurements to
support specific program elements and measure the success of the
PSWQMP, and 3) provide an ongoing assessment of the health of
Puget Sound and the risk to human health from consuming seafood
from the sound.
Three management units comprise PSAMP: 1) the PSAMP Steer-
ing Committee, 2) the Monitoring Management Committee, and 3)
PSWQA. PSWQA will act as the chair for the PSAMP Steering
Committee and the Monitoring Management Committee and will
facilitate agency cooperation among the state agencies implementing
PSAMP. Other functions PSWQA will carry out include providing
arbitration for interagency disagreements concerning PSAMP; pro-
viding and housing staff members; managing data; and distributing
integrated, interpretive reports of PSAMP results. PSAMP
received $1 million in funding over the 1989- 1991 biennium.
Under PSAMP, there are stations for sampling sediment, fish,
shellfish, and the water column in Bellingham Bay. These stations
are described under the appropriate implementing agency.
53
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Public Involvement
and Education Fund
The Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Fund was created by
the Washington State Legislature in 1987 to sponsor model projects
for public involvement and education, community cleanup activi-
ties, and environmental monitoring by members of the general
public. An initial $1 million was distributed in January 1988
(Round 1) and June 1988 (Round 2). The 1988 legislature appro-
priated $1 million to sponsor two more rounds of funding in 1989
and 1990. Approximately $700,000 was granted in the third round
in October 1989 and another $300,000 was distributed in the fourth
round in April 1990. PIE contracts have been awarded to Whatcom
Community College, University of Washington Sea Grant (Sea
Grant), Puget Sounders, Friends of the San Juans, and the Nooksack
Tribe.
The next round of PIE funding began with the release of a request
for proposal for Round 5 on June 15, 1991. Proposals will be due
August 16, 1991. Selections will be announced on October 25,
1991. Round 6 requests for proposals will be released in January
1992, with proposals due in March and awards made in May 1992.
Although funding for rounds 5 and 6 depends on budget decisions
made by the 1991 State Legislature (not available at time of
publication), $1.1 million is identified in both the House and Senate
versions of the budget. Approximately two-thirds of the PIE fund
contract money will be awarded in Round 5 and one-third in
Round 6.
PSWQA is in the process of forming the Puget Sound Foundation
and is selecting the first board members. The board will be fully
established by the summer of 1991. The foundation is a new
program that responds to a recognized need for an ongoing structure
to coordinate strategies and funding for research and education.
The primary tasks of the foundation will be: 1) funding and
coordinating research and education programs on Puget Sound, and
2) assuming responsibility for certain elements of the research and
education program as staff and funding allow. Fund raising activ-
ities will begin after the board has been established.
City of Bellingham
Department of
Planning and
Economic
Development
The City of Bellingham Department of Planning and Economical
Development (City Planning) manages shoreline development and
issues shoreline permits, develops land use regulations, and reviews
projects to be conducted within the city limits for compliance with
SEPA.
54
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Nonpoint Source
Management
Under the State Growth Management Act, the city can now review
forest practices permits and require mitigation, provide additional
conditions, or recommend denial. As a way to place additional
controls on forest practices, the city will not approve a forest
practice permit unless a development application is also submitted
to City Planning.
Shoreline Management
The city's maritime industries are concentrated in several "urban
maritime" zones. The area near Squalicum Harbor has multiple
uses and is likely to expand in the next decade. Water-dependent
development will be encouraged in the urban maritime shoreline
areas. The Port is considering filing an application for a shoreline
master permit to expand the Squalicum marina. The cruise ship
berth in Fairhaven may be expanded beyond its current use as the
Alaska ferry terminal. There are also plans to develop a pedestrian
walkway along Bellingham Bay near Taylor Street.
Land Development
The city is considering revising the threshold levels for a determi-
nation of significance under SEPA. The threshold level determines
when environmental impacts require preparation of an environmen-
tal impact statement (EIS). This project has been put on hold due
to staff shortages.
In 1979, the city of Bellingham and Whatcom County created an
Urban Growth Boundary outside of the city limits. The areas
between the boundary and the city limits are zoned "interim urban
density" until a new comprehensive land development plan is
drafted. This means that the city will provide water and sewer
services to these areas under the assumption that they will ultimately
develop into "urban density" zones and be annexed into the city.
Regulation
Development
City Planning will develop a wetlands protection ordinance after
wetlands are confirmed through a wetlands survey. The ordinance
will include a permitting system, regulations, and a goal of no net
loss of wetlands. A wetlands map will be developed and will
become part of the ordinance.
City Planning is also developing a land clearing ordinance to provide
requirements for the clearing of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation.
The ordinance will address the amount of clearing that may be
performed, where the clearing may be performed, the types of
vegetation that may be removed, and erosion and sediment control.
This ordinance is aimed at addressing properties containing under
55
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
5,000 board feet of timber because these properties are not covered
by the DNR forest practices permit.
City of Bellingham
Department of
Public Works
Storm Water
Management
City Public Works operates the Post Point WWTP and is responsible
for controlling storm water runoff.
In July 1990, the city established a drainage utility in order to
address storm water drainage issues. At this time, the fees are
collected on all developments at the time development permits are
issued and are based on the amount of impervious surface created.
The fee for single-family homes is $400, and the fee for all other
developments is $400 for each 3,000 feet2 of impervious surface
created. The collected fees are placed in a fund that is used to
upgrade deficiencies in the drainage system, build facilities of
regional benefit, and support drainage division staff. There is no
storm water detention requirement in the city of Bellingham, but
the impacts on water quality are assessed for each project. If
necessary, the developer is given the option of correcting deficien-
cies or providing storm water detention facilities that are designed
to release water to streams at predevelopment rates. Projects with
parking lots must provide outlet traps in the catch basins to trap oil
and debris.
Watershed
Management
City Public Works is working with the County Health and County
Public Works on a study of Lake Whatcom and its watershed.
Phase I of the study was completed in 1986 and resulted in a
management plan for the lake. The plan identified several areas
that required additional attention in order to ensure protection of
the lake's existing water quality. Under Phase II of the study,
several of the concerns identified in the management plan have been
or are currently being addressed. County Public Works, under
contract to the city, has completed underground fuel storage tank
and storm drain inventories, and County Health has completed an
onsite sewage disposal survey. A draft ordinance for regulating
underground fuel storage tanks within the Lake Whatcom watershed
has been proposed and should be finalized in the summer of 1991.
County Public Works and County Health are incorporating the
information from the surveys into their capital improvement pro-
grams and are developing maintenance programs for the tanks and
storm drains within the Lake Whatcom watershed. In addition, City
Public Works has contracted with the County Health to provide a
septic system maintenance program for the entire county. It is not
56
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
known if additional corrective actions will be taken because the Lake
Whatcom Advisory Committee has been disbanded.
An approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan
must be prepared for all activities (e.g., clearing, development) that
disturb land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Larger developments
are required to have permanent erosion and sedimentation control
facilities. In areas outside the watershed, subdivisions and projects
that may impact the environment are also generally required to
provide an erosion and sediment control plan as a condition of the
development contract or permit.
Sewer System
Management
The C Street Interceptor is the only CSO in the city of Bellingham.
Ecology has approved a CSO control plan submitted by City Public
Works. While the plan allows one sewage overflow event per year,
the city continues to reduce storm water intrusion so that overflow
events will be reduced to less than one event per year. There is no
schedule to completely eliminate the occasional overflow events.
Point Source
Management
City Public Works has met all of the target dates for preparing the
plans, specifications, and estimates for upgrading the Post Point
plant from a primary treatment to a secondary treatment facility.
The city of Bellingham has an industrial user ordinance that applies
to approximately 20 companies. The ordinance allows the city to
monitor effluent from industries that discharge to the treatment
plant. If industries exceed thresholds for pH and total suspended
solids, the city can require a pretreatment program and levy
discharge surcharges.
The city's NPDES permit will be revised in March 1993. The
revised permit may include requirements for measuring effluent
toxicity using bioassay tests, effluent testing for mercury, and
sediment quality testing near the outfall.
Nonpoint Source
Management
City Public Works issues permits for development or clearing
projects within the city limits that are also in the Lake Whatcom
watershed to protect the lake from water quality degradation. The
ordinance contains erosion and sediment control requirements. City
Public Works has discontinued the use of herbicides in the Lake
Whatcom watershed for roadside maintenance.
Wetlands Protection
Activities
As one element of a Floodplain Management grant from Ecology,
City Public Works has performed a wetlands assessment of
57
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Squalicum Creek. Flood control, open space, wildlife habitat, and
development opportunities are the other elements that will be
assessed. As a result of these assessments, a plan will be developed
to protect the wetlands. This plan may involve rezoning. Much of
the watershed is currently zoned for commercial and industrial uses.
A draft plan will be completed in April 1992 and the final plan will
be completed in June 1992.
Monitoring Activities
In January 1990, City Public Works began a monthly testing
program for all creeks within Bellingham city limits. The testing
is done to compare existing conditions to Class A water quality
standards. Parameters tested are temperature, pH, turbidity, dis-
solved oxygen, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Hazardous Waste
Management
City Public Works, in conjunction with County Public Works and
County Health departments, operates a model household hazardous
waste program. The program includes a permanent drop-off site
for household hazardous wastes.
Education
The focus of City Public Works' educational activities is the Lake
Whatcom watershed. It receives the highest priority for city
activities because it is the source of the city's drinking water. With
funds received under the Interim CCWF program (Referendum 39),
City Public Works has conducted or is conducting the following
educational activities through the Lake Whatcom Education Pro-
gram:
• Preparing written materials on water quality for third
and sixth graders.
• Organizing sixth graders to participate in developing a
conservation site within the watershed and in a poster
contest.
• Organizing interpretive walks for children in middle
schools that are specifically targeted at Squalicum,
Whatcom, and Padden creeks where water quality issues
are discussed.
• Coordinating with schools and teachers to incorporate
watershed protection themes in their curricula. Work-
shops have been held for teachers where kits for analyz-
ing basic water quality parameters were prepared for the
workshop attendees.
58
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
• Publishing pamphlets that are distributed to all watershed
residents and all city of Bellingham utility customers.
The information contained in them is applicable to any
watershed.
City Public Works also provides educational materials and conducts
educational activities on garden and household hazardous wastes.
City Public Works presents a slide show and a public seminar and
publishes informational brochures on "lake-friendly" gardening.
City of Bellingham
Parks and
Recreation
Department
Storm Water
Management
The City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department (City
Parks) is responsible for managing city park land and providing
environmental education opportunities.
City Parks owns the storm drains that are located on the property
owned by City Parks. City Parks removes sediment that accumu-
lates in the storm drains as needed.
Park Land
Management
A draft site management plan for Little Squalicum Park was
prepared in April 1990. The plan calls for maintaining the majority
of the site east of the Marine Drive bridge in a natural state, while
developing the west meadow portion of the site west of the Marine
Drive bridge for more intense uses (e.g., playfields and picnic
areas).
Wetlands Protection
Activities
City Parks completed a planning study of Padden Creek and its
associated wetlands in June 1990. The study assessed existing
conditions and recommended policies and actions for public access
and wildlife and landscape management. Initial recommendations
are currently being developed. A grant from the DNR Aquatic
Lands Enhancement Account has also been secured to increase
public access and enhance wildlife habitat along the creek. The
improvements are scheduled to begin in late summer or early fall
of 1991.
Human Health Risk
Management
Based on recommendations from the state or county health depart-
ments, City Parks is willing to post health advisory warning signs
(that are supplied by the state Department of Fisheries or Depart-
ment of Health) on appropriate beaches in Bellingham Bay.
59
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Education
City Parks currently has one person working half-time at the
Maritime Heritage Center who provides interpretive information
about environmental issues. City Parks would like to make this
position full-time and place more emphasis on overall environmental
issues. This position is currently funded by British Petroleum, the
Bellingham School District, and the city of Bellingham. However,
no additional funds are available to make the position full-time.
Additional staff teach classes on issues regarding fish rearing.
City Parks would like to increase the opportunities for environmen-
tal education associated with watershed and water quality issues.
City Parks will request funds in the 1992 city budget to place
watershed and water quality related interpretive signs at parks.
Whatcom County
Conservation District
The Conservation District is involved in watershed planning and
controlling nonpoint source pollution from agricultural sources.
Watershed
Management
The Conservation District is the lead agency for two watershed
planning programs: the Kamm Creek early action watershed and
the Ten-Mile Creek early action watershed. Implementation of the
Kamm Creek Watershed Plan began in the spring of 1990. The
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, a division of
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), provided $475,000 for the
Kamm Creek Watershed Plan through a Water Quality Special
Project grant. At least 50 percent of the farm waste management
plans detailed in the Kamm Creek plan have been implemented.
One of the major issues addressed in the Kamm Creek plan was
controlling nonpoint pollution from agricultural sources. In addi-
tion, newsletters have been published and a booth was established
in the summer of 1990 at the Northwest Washington Fair to
distribute educational materials on watershed management.
Implementation of the Ten-Mile Creek plan could begin in July
1991. The Conservation District applied for $200,000 CCWF grant
for implementation of the plan. Based on a draft ranking, the project
ranks 30th out of 86 projects and was proposed to receive funding.
Farmers in the Bertrand-Fishtrap Creek watershed continue to
implement waste management plans, either voluntarily, or in
response to notification of water quality violations (as provided by
the conditions of the compliance MOA between the Conservation
District and Ecology).
60
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Nonpoint Source
Management
The Conservation District and SCS assist dairy farmers in develop-
ing farm plans. By using BMPs, the farm plans help reduce soil
erosion and animal waste discharges. The farm plans address how
waste is collected, stored, and applied as fertilizer to fields. There
are cost-sharing opportunities through the U.S. Agricultural Stabi-
lization Service to implement the BMPs. Cost-share assistance is
denied to farm operators who fail to respond to being notified of a
water quality violation. SCS recently placed one additional person
in the SCS Lynden field office, who spends most of their time
following up with farmers to ensure that they are implementing their
waste management plans.
The Conservation District has an MOA with Ecology regarding the
enforcement of water quality laws on farms. If a farm is causing
water quality problems, Ecology will refer the case to the Conserva-
tion District. The district will then develop a farm plan with the
farmer to reduce water quality problems. If the farm plan is not
developed or implemented, Ecology may cite the farmer for water
quality violations.
Wetlands Protection
Activities
SCS identifies and inspects wetlands to ensure that farmers are in
compliance with the federal Food Security Act of 1985. Under the
Conservation Reserve Program, individuals who farm in wetlands
or on highly erodible land are not in compliance with the law;
therefore, they are not eligible for SCS and Department of Agricul-
ture funds. Although there are many opportunities to work on
habitat enhancement projects, SCS is not able to pursue these
projects because funding is extremely limited.
Education
The Conservation District writes a waste management news article
that the Whatcom County Cooperative Extension publishes monthly
in the Whatcom County Dairyline. The Conservation District will
begin publication of a quarterly newsletter in 1991. Funding for
this program is from the State Conservation Commission sponsored
through a CCWF grant.
The Conservation District, in conjunction with the Whatcom County
Cooperative Extension, is in the process of producing two videos
on farm animal waste management. These videos may be completed
by June 30, 1991. The district also publishes a brochure that
addresses conservation practices for farmers.
61
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
The Conservation District, in association with Georgia-Pacific,
sponsors a 3-day conservation camp where sixth graders are taught
the value of soil conservation.
Whatcom County
Council of
Governments
Watershed
Management
The COG is active in watershed planning activities.
The COG is the lead agency for development of the Silver Creek
Early Action Watershed Plan. Silver Creek drains into the
Nooksack River. The plan includes the following programs:
1) education, 2) monitoring, 3) agriculture, 4) pesticides, 5) solid
waste disposal, 6) forestry, 7) onsite septic systems, 8) storm
water/erosion control, and 9) household hazardous waste. The
watershed plan was approved by Ecology in April 1990 and
implementation began in January 1991 with CCWF funds.
Non point Source
Management
Under the Silver Creek Watershed Plan, SCS and the Conservation
District have been contracted by the county to complete an inventory
of the farms in the county to determine the impacts of the farms on
water quality. The farmers will then be encouraged to develop farm
plans and implement BMPs.
Monitoring Activities
The Institute for Freshwater Studies at Western Washington Uni-
versity will conduct water quality monitoring in Silver Creek as part
of the Silver Creek Watershed Plan. The Institute will test for
pesticides, PCBs, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals.
The first round of sampling was scheduled to begin June 1991.
Education
Educational activities are an ongoing part of the Silver Creek
Watershed Plan. Activities include the Master Watershed Program,
the development of a contractor's manual that identifies BMPs, and
participation in the county fair. There are approximately 20 volun-
teers in the first round of the Master Watershed Program. Training
for the first group of volunteers was completed in mid-June 1991.
Additional funding was granted to Washington State University,
Extension Service - Whatcom County, for continuing the program
beyond the funding allocated through the Silver Creek Watershed
Plan.
A manual describing BMPs for contractors was developed by the
Association of General Contractors of Washington. The manual
has been distributed to the Whatcom County Building and Codes
62
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Department and the city of Ferndale for distribution to contractors
when building permits are issued.
The Conservation District also participates in the county fair to
distribute educational materials to the community on nonpoint
pollution and water quality issues.
Whatcom County
Department of
Public Works
County Public Works is active in storm water management. Shore-
line, zoning, building, and clearing permits are all issued by the
County Public Works.
Storm Water
Management
County Public Works is developing storm water standards that will
be included in the Lake Whatcom Watershed Plan. The standards
will incorporate elements of the King County Surface Water Manual
and the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual and will include
requirements for onsite retention/detention, erosion and sediment
control, and the treatment of storm water. The standards should be
completed by September 1991. The county intends to adopt these
standards for the entire county and the areas of the city of Belling-
ham that are included in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The city
of Bellingham currently is not planning on adopting the standards.
Storm water detention ponds constructed during development pro-
jects are maintained for the first 2 years by the developers. Upon
the third year, the county assumes the maintenance responsibility,
but it is compensated by the developer for the maintenance. Cur-
rently, maintenance of these ponds by the county is on an infrequent
basis, and the maintenance conducted by the developers is not
regulated by the county. The current standards (Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code as modified by county ordinance) do not
contain provisions for scheduling maintenance by the county or for
regulating the maintenance conducted by the developers. Currently
proposed standards do include provisions for a maintenance sched-
ule of the ponds for the county. Sediments removed from the ponds
are deposited in fill sites throughout the county.
In 1991, County Public Works received a budget increase for the
maintenance of ditches. Approximately 200,000 cubic yards of
material will be removed per year. This funding will continue on
an annual basis as approved by the county council. County Public
Works anticipates that the council will continue to approve the
funds. Present plans provide for maintenance of 2,000 miles of
ditches on a 15-year cleaning cycle.
63
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
County Public Works will install oil/water separators if necessary
when doing routine drainage system maintenance. Oil/water sepa-
rators are currently required for all newly constructed parking lots
in the county.
County Public Works supports the establishment of a county-wide
drainage district to generate funds for storm water management
activities. However, no such district is currently planned.
Watershed
Management
As part of a city of Bellingham study of the Lake Whatcom
watershed, County Public Works has completed an inventory of
storm drains and underground fuel storage tanks located within the
watershed. County Public Works adopted an ordinance to regulate
underground fuel storage tanks that are not currently regulated by
state laws. Actions, including enforcement of the new ordinance,
will begin on July 1, 1991.
Nonpoint Source
Management
County Public Works has initiated a model program addressing the
use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers in the county. The
county maintains a full-time position for overseeing vegetation
management practices including herbicide application, noxious
weed control, and mowing. The county has enforcement ordinances
that limit the application of pesticides and herbicides in several
sensitive areas including the Lake Whatcom watershed, Lummi
Island, and areas where citizens have "owner will maintain" agree-
ments. County Public Works participates on state and regional
boards to stay current with developments on this subject.
Landfill Management
County Public Works is in the process of closing all the active county
landfills. Solid waste that is not recyclable or compostable will be
incinerated.
County Public Works is preparing an environmental impact state-
ment for the proposed Georgia-Pacific Evergreen Wood Waste
landfill.
Education
County Public Works is willing to participate in a volunteer storm
drain stencilling project. Storm drains that discharge to streams
will be stenciled with educational messages to prevent intentional
dumping of oil and other contaminants.
64
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Whatcom County
Planning Department
The Whatcom County Planning Department (County Planning)
participates in a variety of environmental planning efforts.
Nonpoint Source
Management
The county has an ordinance for regulating impacts from forest
clearing operations. This ordinance requires that a clearing permit
be issued by County Planning even if the clearing operation is
regulated under the Forest Practices Act. This clearing permit may
include conditions to protect water quality or habitat. Forest
clearing operations for single family houses are exempt from the
ordinance.
Shoreline Management
County Planning has recently revised the Shoreline Master Plan for
Whatcom County. This revision is the first comprehensive update
to the Shoreline Master Plan in over 6 years. Major issues
addressed in the revision include siting moorage and community
docks, increasing public access, increasing drainage provisions, and
determining approaches to modify present development setbacks.
The revised plan was recently adopted by the county council.
Wetlands Protection
Activities
The county has completed a wetlands inventory through an aerial
photograph survey. An ordinance to help protect wetlands is being
developed by County Planning.
Water Quality
Protection Activities
County Planning and County Public Works are developing a water
and sewer plan as part of a comprehensive land development plan.
The water and sewer plan will address groundwater and surface
water protection. Issues to be covered in the plan include jurisdic-
tional conflicts over regulatory authority; water rights for the
Nooksack River and county groundwater supplies; and water quality
impacts from logging, agriculture, development, and waste dis-
posal. As part of the plan, a Nooksack River study will be
conducted to evaluate the pattern of groundwater and surface water
interchange. This study will be completed by June 1992.
Hazardous Waste
Management
County Public Works, together with City Public Works and County
Health, operates a model household hazardous waste program. The
program includes a permanent drop-off site for household hazardous
wastes.
County Planning has also discontinued its use of herbicides in areas
considered environmentally sensitive, including the Lake Whatcom
watershed.
65
-------
1991 Act/on Plan for Bellingham Bay
Whatcom County
Health Department
County Health has responsibilities for environmental and human
health protection.
Nonpoint Source
Management
From January to July 1990, County Health conducted a Lake
Whatcom watershed sewage disposal survey. The survey was
conducted in response to the identification of onsite sewage disposal
as a concern in the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. The results
of the survey show a failure rate of 8 percent. Onsite sewage system
failures occur when sewage is not properly distributed to the
drainfield and, therefore, receives inadequate treatment. The sur-
vey includes the following recommendations for areas with the
highest failure rates:
• Conduct a more intensive survey of older seasonal
residences during the months of June, July, and August.
Inadequate systems should be upgraded to conform as
closely as possible to current standards.
• Consider the extension of public sewer service into the
Academy and Haggin streets and Toad Lake Road areas.
• Initiate a public education program to encourage proper
septic system maintenance. Mail brochures describing
septic system functions and proper maintenance to all
residences with onsite sewage disposal systems in the
watershed. Maintain a list of all such residences in a
computer database and send septic tank pumping
reminder notices every 3-5 years.
• Perform an onsite sewage disposal survey within the
watershed at least once every 5 years.
As a result of these recommendations, the city of Bellingham now
charges a fee of 0.5 cent/gallon of sewage from onsite sewage
systems pumpouts that is deposited at the Post Point WWTP. The
money generated from this fee is dedicated to the septic tank system
maintenance and education program. There is no cap on the total
amount collected each year. The estimated amount to be collected
in 1991 is about $18,000. All dwellings with failing onsite sewage
systems found during the Lake Whatcom survey have been resur-
veyed, and the necessary repairs were made to them so that all are
in compliance with sewage control regulations. No schedule has
been set for public sewer installations or future onsite sewage system
survey work.
66
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
County Health requires that all septic tank drainfields located within
the Lake Whatcom watershed have at least 4 feet vertical separation
(i.e., the vertical distance between the drainfield and groundwater)
and be located where the slope is not greater than 15 percent.
Outside the Lake Whatcom watershed, a minimum vertical separa-
tion of 2 feet is required. These requirements equal or exceed the
state's current requirements. In addition, County Health operates
a training program for new inspectors that ensures that systems are
installed properly.
Landfill Management
County Health issues permits for landfills and is responsible for
monitoring when required.
There are over 20 closed and 5 active landfills in Whatcom County.
Ecology regulations mandate that landfills that have been closed
since 1985 must have groundwater monitoring systems and
implementation schedules. Currently, of the 20 closed landfills,
Cedarville is the only facility being monitored. Monitoring results
there show some groundwater contamination. Active landfills must
have groundwater monitoring systems in place with approved
closure and post-closure plans. All active facilities are monitored
quarterly. Active landfills being monitored are Recomp, Olivine,
and Intalco. Also being monitored are Airport Wood Waste and
Hilltop Farms Wood Waste, owned by Georgia-Pacific. Each of
these active landfills has closure and post-closure plans.
Human Health Risk
Management
County Health currently does not monitor shellfish in Bellingham
Bay. If funds were available, County Health might set up a marine
water quality monitoring program.
County Health and DOH also may negotiate an MOA that addresses
responsibility for posting warning signs at recreational shellfish
beaches, if funding becomes available.
Hazardous Waste
Management
County Health, City Public Works, and County Public Works
jointly operate a model household hazardous waste program. The
program includes a permanent drop-off site for household hazardous
wastes.
Port of Bellingham
The Port operates marinas and boat launches in Squalicum Harbor
and Fairhaven. The Port also operates several terminals throughout
Bellingham Bay and owns and manages properties that are located
67
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
within the terminals that are used for commercial and industrial
activities.
Storm Water
Management
The Port owns some of the storm drains that are located on its
properties. The city of Bellingham and other parties own the
remaining storm drains located on the Port's properties. Material
accumulated in catch basins in the storm drains owned by the Port
is removed at least annually or more frequently, if needed. The
Port encourages the stenciling of information on its storm drains by
the appropriate agency to increase public awareness about dumping
of oil and other contaminants into storm drains that discharge to
creeks or Bellingham Bay.
Nonpoint Source
Management
The Port operates marinas in Squalicum Harbor and Fairhaven
Terminal. The Squalicum Harbor location has two sewage pump-
outs and a waste oil tank for commercial and recreational boats.
Shoreline Management
The Port is considering filing an application for a Shoreline Master
Permit to expand the Squalicum marina and add a hotel with piers
and overwater access near Boulevard Park. The Port is also
considering placing a new marina in Fairhaven Terminal, and a
citizens committee is being formed to review the proposal. In
addition, the cruise ship berth in Fairhaven may be expanded beyond
its current use as the Alaska ferry terminal. The Port also plans to
develop a pedestrian walkway along Bellingham Bay near Taylor
Street.
Port Property
Management
The Port will be working with its tenants to minimize the potential
contamination of the properties. Beginning in 1992, the Port will
use a combination of educational techniques, questionnaires, and
field investigations to encourage tenants to employ business prac-
tices that will keep pollutants out of surface water and groundwater.
Copies of applicable environmental regulations will be distributed
to tenants. The Port maintains a clause in their standard lease that
places responsibility for discharges of hazardous substances on the
tenant.
Hazardous Waste
Remediation
The Port owns property located at the intersection of 4th and Harris
streets that has been contaminated with diesel fuel. The Port has
hired a contractor to begin remedial activities on this property.
Iron-laden surface water runoff from the northwest corner of the
property will soon be diverted to the sewer system. In addition,
68
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
onsite excavation has revealed a pool of "C"-grade oil. A new
remediation plan to address the contamination is being developed.
The Port also owns the property upon which the Tollycraft facility
is located. This property is currently in violation of state dangerous
waste regulations and federal land disposal restrictions for hazard-
ous waste and may also be contaminated. Tollycraft is working
directly with Ecology to come into compliance with the regulations
and restrictions.
Sampling Activities
The Port sampled sediments from Whatcom Creek, I & J Street,
and Squalicum waterways in September 1990 to determine whether
the sediments could be disposed of at the PSDDA open-water,
unconfined disposal site in Bellingham Bay. The Bellingham Bay
PSDDA open-water dredged material disposal site has numerous
site restrictions and testing requirements to permit dredged material
disposal (PSDDA 1989). Based on these evaluation criteria, none
of the sediments from Whatcom Waterway, and only some of the
sediments from the I & J Street and Squalicum waterways, may be
disposed of at the Bellingham Bay PSDDA site. The Port will be
considering all alternatives for disposal of dredged sediments.
Dredging in the areas of the waterways that are eligible for disposal
at the PSDDA site could begin in the summer of 1992.
The Port is also conducting sediment sampling at the boat repair
grid located in Squalicum Harbor. The sampling results will be
used to determine if boat repair activities are adversely affecting
water quality. A report will be available in the fall of 1991.
Waste Reduction
Activities
In conjunction with Sea Grant, the Port established recycling
facilities at the Squalicum Marina for cardboard, aluminum, scrap
metal, wood, plastics, nets, and waste oil.
Education
The Port currently publishes a bimonthly newspaper entitled Port
Report. The most recent issue contained the results of a State Parks
recreational boater survey that included information on the types of
waste disposal equipment and practices used aboard boats and the
facilities and programs that are needed to control boat wastes.
Future issues of the Port Report will include information on sewage,
used oil and maintenance wastes, litter and plastic debris, safety,
and education. The Port is willing to feature environmentally
oriented educational information in future issues.
69
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
The Port participated in the development of a Sea Grant brochure
for boaters that explains the growing problem of marine debris and
contains a map of Squalicum Harbor showing the locations of the
oil and waste recycling facilities. In addition, the brochure provides
information on the proper disposal of plastic and other wastes
generated by commercial fishing fleets.
Washington Sea
Grant
Sea Grant provides educational and technical information about
marine resource issues.
Waste Reduction
Activities
Sea Grant worked with the Port to develop improved waste collec-
tion facilities at Squalicum Harbor. Currently, facilities exist for
the collection of plastics, boat garbage, cardboard, aluminum, scarp
wood and metal, nets, waste oil, sewage, and hazardous materials.
Cardboard, aluminum, and scrap wood and metal are recycled.
Education
With funds received from a PEE grant, Sea Grant published three
education brochures regarding the problems with marine debris and
how recreational boaters and commercial fishermen can help
address this problem. These brochures are available for $0.50 each
through Sea Grant's North Sound office in Bellingham. Sea Grant
is currently considering reprinting these publications.
Sea Grant is also interested in planning educational efforts to
improve water quality in Bellingham Bay to the extent that Sea
Grant's resources allow. Sea Grant may participate in education
events depending on the priorities that emerge from the action plan
process, available resources, and existing commitments.
Concerned
Southside Citizens
Concerned Southside Citizens (CSC) is a citizen group concerned
about environmental protection in Bellingham Bay.
Shoreline Management
CSC is cooperating with City Parks to enhance habitat in the
100-foot setback west of Padden Lagoon obtained through CSC's
agreement in 1989 with the Port and the city of Bellingham. CSC
has attended and actively participated in the planning meeting for
this project. The project was recently approved by the Shoreline
Committee of the city's Planning Commission. Work will begin in
the summer of 1991, and CSC will provide funds and citizen labor.
70
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Wetlands Protection
Activities
CSC is working to protect wetlands in the Padden Creek watershed
from proposed development and participated in the scoping process
for an EIS for a proposed 1,400-unit residential development. CSC
has also participated in workshops to refine a proposed wetlands
ordinance for the city of Bellingham.
Water Quality
Protection Activities
CSC has been involved in evaluating shoreline development projects
that will affect water quality in southern Bellingham Bay. As a
result of CSC's efforts, the Port is taking quarterly soundings at the
Alaska Ferry Terminal to monitor scouring from ferries. To date,
the soundings reveal that little, if any, scouring is taking place. If
the soundings continue to show little scouring, they will be discon-
tinued after 1 year.
Hazardous Waste
Remediation
CSC has been involved with the Port to ensure that the cleanup of
the contaminated site at the intersection of 4th and Harris streets
proceeds in a timely manner.
Dredging Activities
CSC is monitoring the status of possible dredging projects in the
Whatcom, Squalicum, and I & J waterways.
Education
CSC is helping to sponsor a political candidate forum on environ-
mental issues that will take place in the fall of 1991. This forum
will give the public an opportunity to examine candidates running
for county, city, and port offices with regard to their stand on
environmental issues.
Georgia-Pacific
Corporation
Georgia-Pacific maintains an industrial facility that produces pulp
and paper on Port property at the Whatcom International Shipping
Terminal.
NPDES Source
Management
Surface water runoff from the Georgia-Pacific site is collected and
conveyed to the secondary treatment lagoon. Discharge of effluent
from the lagoon to Bellingham Bay is regulated under an NPDES
permit. Georgia-Pacific's NPDES permit was reissued on May 15,
1991. The permit, which is valid for 5 years, has new requirements
for effluent toxicity testing, effluent chemistry analyses, and
macroinvertebrate sampling near the plant outfall; however, Geor-
gia-Pacific, in conjunction with other pulp and paper industries in
Puget Sound, has contested the new permit conditions. The old
71
-------
733 / Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
permit remains in effect until litigation over the new permit is
resolved.
Landfill Management
Georgia-Pacific has the following historic and currently active
offsite wood waste landfills:
• Airport Wood Waste (12 acres) - active
• Hilltop Farms Wood Waste (30 acres) - active
• Y-Road - closed
• 1178 Marine Drive - closed
• Zell Road - closed.
Primary treatment and secondary treatment solid wastes (consisting
of settleable solids, bark, sand, sodium hydroxide, and chlorinated
compounds) have been deposited at the Airport Wood Waste landfill
site. This site has been active since 1984. The Hilltop Farms site
has been active since 1976. Currently, only log yard waste (con-
sisting of bark and dirt) is deposited at the Hilltop Farms site.
Primary treatment solid waste was also deposited there in the past.
No facility records exist for the two closed sites. The Zell Road
landfill was operated in the late 1980s on agricultural land. The
landfill was not permitted or monitored. In addition, Georgia-
Pacific has proposed opening a new landfill at the headwaters of
Ten-Mile Creek. The site will probably be used primarily for
clarifier sludge ash and stack ash. County Public Works is prepar-
ing an environmental impact statement for the proposed landfill.
Waste Reduction and
Recycling Activities
Georgia-Pacific has reduced its water consumption from 59 to 35
million gallons per day through recycling and new equipment.
Approximately 10 percent of primary treatment solid waste is
currently reused by another local industry. Other potential outlets
for waste reuse (e.g., fuel) are under consideration.
A project to burn solid waste residue from primary treatment for
fuel is expected to begin early in 1992. In addition, a corporate-
wide review is underway to consider use of recycled fiber in the
production of tissue products. Georgia-Pacific also has participated
in the Industrial Materials Exchange to find markets for its industrial
by-products.
72
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Hazardous Waste
Management
The pulp and paper process results in a variety of waste products.
Bleach pulping wastes, evaporator condensate including methanol
and acetic acid, and papermaking effluents are processed in the
company's aerated stabilization lagoon (treatment pond). Bark and
primary clarifier solids are taken to approved solid waste sites.
Mercury-containing brine solids are taken to an approved hazardous
waste site.
Georgia-Pacific has developed a nonchlorine pulp bleaching process
that uses caustic soda, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide. The present
market for this pulp is primarily in Europe for tissue products.
Additional production of nonchlorine bleached pulp at Georgia-
Pacific will depend on market demand, cost of production, and
regulatory developments.
All large electrical capacitors located at the Georgia-Pacific plant
containing PCBs have been removed. Fourteen above-ground
petroleum storage tanks exist onsite, and no underground tanks are
in use. All solvents and waste paints are removed from the site by
a contractor.
Maritime
Contractors, Inc.
Maritime Contractors, Inc. (MCI) operates a ship repair facility that
consists of two dry docks and one marine railway.
Shoreline Management
The company is planning to build an additional pier and extend the
stub pier, owned by the Port, located on the east side of the Alaska
Ferry Terminal. Neither of these projects will require dredging.
NPDES Source
Management
MCI has applied for an NPDES permit. While the company does
not currently have any storm water facilities, the NPDES permit is
likely to require some measures for containing storm water runoff.
The permit will cover the entire site and contain monitoring
requirements. Ecology's Water Quality Program is currently draft-
ing the permit.
Best Management
Practices
With assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard, MCI has developed a
hazardous waste management and contingency plan. The plan calls
for containment booms to be in place when pier-side work is
performed and small sorbent booms, sorbent pads, and sorbent
material to be available for upland spill containment. AH employees
will receive training on the plan. MCI also has a spill prevention
control and counter measure plan for the shipyard.
73
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
All sandblasting conducted on the dry docks is done with fabric
curtains in place. Dry docks are cleaned of used sandblast grit
before they are sunk. The grit is stored in a concrete bunker onsite
and is hauled offsite and recycled by a contractor.
Oil is stored in one above-ground tank. Used oil is removed for
recycling by a contractor. Commercial cleaners are responsible for
taking bilge water from ships that are being repaired.
Hazardous Waste
Management
MCI must follow state requirements for hazardous waste genera-
tion, storage, handling, transport, and disposal. Hazardous wastes
handled at MCI include sandblast grit, paint residues from cleaning,
still bottoms from solvent recycling, and waste oil.
Bellingham Cold
Storage
BCS owns and operates a seafood processing plant, and has plans
to build a new dry storage plant at the main plant for BFF. They
are currently waiting for permit approval.
Storm Water
Management
The BCS drainage system discharges to Bellingham Bay at approx-
imately 10 locations. The system includes catch basins to collect
sediments but does not include oil/water separators. The property
is owned by the Port and it is unclear if the Port or BCS is responsible
for the maintenance of the drainage system.
NPDES Source
Management
BCS discharges noncontact cooling water to Bellingham Bay under
an NPDES permit. Water used to process seafood is discharged to
the Post Point WWTP. BCS has reapplied for a NPDES permit,
and Ecology is currently writing the draft permit.
Best Management
Practices
BCS trains all maintenance, foremen, cleanup, and most forklift
personal in cleanup procedures. BCS maintains a safety committee
which is in the process of drafting a policy that addresses discharg-
ing materials to storm drains. Currently, waste oils are stored in
two onsite waste oil containers that are emptied by a private
contractor.
74
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Waste Reduction
Activities
BCS is considering the following activities to reduce its waste
discharge:
• Using a closed glycol system for cooling rather than
water in both engine rooms. BCS currently uses a closed
glycol system in Engine Room 1.
• Using a chilled water/chlorination system in which
product transfer water is hydro-chilled, screened, and
chlorinated for reuse. Solids removed through pretreat-
ment are sent to a Tenderer.
Hazardous
Substances Control
Activities
All transformers at BCS have been changed so that they do not
contain PCBs. Abandoned fuel tanks at a dock on the site were
removed in 1989.
Bellingham Frozen
Foods
BFF owns commercial vegetable processing operations in Belling-
ham.
Point Source
Management
BFF discharges water used in processing vegetables to the Post Point
WWTP. This discharge is monitored for total suspended solids,
chemical oxygen demand, and solids.
The company is planning to discontinue discharges to the Post Point
WWTP through the use of a land treatment facility where the wastewa-
ter can be applied to the land. An EIS has been completed and
appropriate permits have been issued. A draft NPDES permit has gone
through the public comment period and is being finalized. Construction
on the land treatment facility has begun and should be completed in the
fall of 1991. The facility will include a 20-million gallon storage lagoon
that will be used as a retention basin for the wastewater. Oxygen will
be supplied to the lagoon to minimize any odor. Groundwater at the
facility will be monitored for nitrate and heavy metals.
Waste Reduction
Activities
In 1988, BFF began recirculating the water used to transport peas
through a closed loop system. This system hydro-chills and screens
the water and then treats it with chlorine dioxide. This system has
reduced BFF's water use by 400,000 gallons per day during the pea
season, which lasts about 60 days. BFF has implemented similar
systems for corn and carrot processing. The system used for corn
processing will reduce water use by about 200,000 gallons per day,
and the system used for carrot processing will reduce water use by
about 120,000 gallons per day.
75
-------
1991 Action Plan for Bellingham Bay
Site-Specific Action Plan
The site-specific action plan addresses areas with known chemical
and bacterial contamination and eutrophication and potential con-
taminant sources. The site-specific action plan is intended to
prioritize source identification, source control, and remedial activ-
ities according to priority problem areas. Source-specific actions,
presented in Table 2, identify specific contaminant sources and
source-specific control actions that will be taken to improve envi-
ronmental conditions in Bellingham Bay. Sources listed in Table 2
are those identified in Bellingham Boy Action Program: Initial Data
Summaries and Problem Identification (PTI 1989a) and by the
members of the interagency and citizen work group (see Figures 5
and 6). Source characteristics and statuses were identified in the
data summaries document and by work group members. Actions
are those activities specifically related to source control or contam-
inant remediation that have been agreed upon by the individual
agencies in the work group. The implementation date lists actual
and projected start and finish dates for each action. Limiting factors
represent requirements needed by agencies to implement specific
actions. Blank areas indicate gaps in knowledge of the source
characteristics or actions to limit or remediate contamination prob-
lems. One of the ongoing tasks of the work group is to further
refine priorities and secure commitments from participating agen-
cies to perform additional source identification and implement
source control measures.
Tables 3-8 summarize general programmatic actions that will be
taken to improve environmental conditions in Bellingham Bay.
There is some overlap among the programmatic action tables
(Tables 3-8), and also between the programmatic action tables and
the source-specific action table (Table 2). Table 3 lists area-wide
planning and program development actions, Table 4 lists pollutant
control actions, Table 5 lists remedial investigations and remedial
actions, Table 6 lists sampling and monitoring actions occurring in
the project area. Table 7 lists resource protection actions, and Table
8 presents the various educational activities and programs that will
be implemented. Each of these tables gives a brief description of
the action, lists the agencies involved, and notes the starting or
ending target dates when known. More detail concerning activities
in the action column can be found in the Comprehensive Plans and
Programs section of this report.
76
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Action Agencies Involved
Target
Date
Limiting
Factors
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
POINT SOURCES
Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTPs)
City of Bellingham Post
Point WWTP
vj
>J
City of Ferndale WWTP
Primary WWTP; average flow 9.8-11.7 million
gallons per day (mgd); per Consent Decree dated
2/5/88 limitations during food processing season
(i.e., July-January) include 230 mg/L and
22,000 Ib/day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD). 85 mg/L and 7.0OO Ib/day total sus-
pended solids (TSS), end 700 fecal coliform
bacteria/100 mL effluent. Limitations during
February through June include 110 mg/L and
8.510 Ib/day BOD, 55 mg/L end 6,000 Ib/day
TSS, and 700 fecal coliform bacteria/100 mL
effluent. When secondary treatment goes on-
line in 12/93, weekly average limitations will be
45 mg/L and 3,340 kg/day BOD, 45 mg/L and
3,340 kg/day TSS, and 400 fecal coliform bac-
teria/100 mL. Monthly average limitations will
be 36 mg/L and 2,225 kg/day BOD, 30 mg/L and
2.225 kg/day TSS, and 200 fecal coliform bac-
teria/100 mL. NPDES permit to discharge to
Bellingham Bay expires 3/16/93. NPDES dis-
charges to WWTPs must have a pH within the
range of 6.0-9.0 unless otherwise noted in per-
mit.
Secondary WWTP; average flow 0.6 mgd; limita-
tions include weekly averages of 45 mg/L BOD,
210 kg/day TSS, and 400 fecal coliform bac-
teria/100 mL effluent. NPDES permit to dis-
charge to Nooksack River expires 9/5/94.
NPDES discharges to WWTPs must have a pH
within the range of 6.0-9.0 unless noted in per-
mit.
Review and renew NPDES permit.
Renewed permit will include require-
ments for measuring the level of
toxic chemicals in effluent.
Upgrade WWTP from primary to
secondary treatment
Meet ell requirements of NPDES
permit including best management
practices (BMPs)
Review and renew NPDES permit,
include toxic chemical limitations
Meet all requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology)
City of Bellingham Public
Works (City Public Works)
City Public Works
3/93
12/93
Ongoing
Ecology
City of Ferndale
9/94
Ongoing
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Target
Action Agencies Involved Date
Limiting
Factors
City of Lynden WWTP
City of Everson WWTP
Hatcheries
. Bellingham Hatchery
00
Nooksack River State
Hatchery
Industries
Bellingham Cold Storage
(BCS)
Secondary WWTP; average flow 1.3 mgd; limita-
tions include weekly averages of 45 mg/L BOD,
200 kg/day TSS, and 500 fecal coliform bac-
teria/100 ml effluent. NPDES permit to dis-
charge to Nooksack River expires 5/9/93.
NPDES discharges to WWTPs must have a pH
within the range of 6.0-9.0 unless noted in per-
mit.
Secondary WWTP; average flow 0.2 mgd; limita-
tions include weekly averages of 45 mg/L BOD,
22 kg/day TSS, and 400 fecal coliform bac-
teria/100 mL effluent. NPDES permit to dis-
charge to Nooksack River expires 4/30/94.
NPDES discharges to WWTPs must have a pH
within the range of 6.0-9.0 unless noted in per-
mit.
Hatchery effluent. Effluent limitation: 679 Ib/
day TSS. NPDES permit to discharge to What-
com Creek expires 6/30/96.
Hatchery effluent. Effluent limitations: 27.4
mgd; 4,408 Ib/day TSS. NPDES permit to dis-
charge to Kendall Creek expires 5/17/93.
Review and renew NPDES permit,
include toxic chemical limitations
Meet all requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit,
include toxic chemical limitations
Meet all requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permjt,
include BOD limitations
Meet all requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit,
include BOD limitations
Meet all requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
Screened wastewater from fish processing. Review and renew NPDES permit
Effluent limitation: daily maximum of 10,000
gallons per day (gpd). NPDES permit to dis- Meet all requirements of NPDES
charge to Post Point WWTP expires 8/12/93. permit including BMPs
Ecology
City of Lynden
Ecology
City of Everson
5/93
Ongoing
4/94
Ongoing
Ecology
Washington Department of
Wildlife
Ecology
Washington Department of
Fisheries
Ecology
BCS
6/96
Ongoing
5/93
Ongoing
8/93
Ongoing
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Action Agencies Involved
Target
Date
Limiting
Factors
Bellingham Frozen Foods
(BFF)
Brooks Manufacturing Co.
Columbia Cement Corp.
Dahl Fish Co., Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Screened waste water from vegetable processing.
Effluent limitation: daily average of 2.0 mgd. A
new draft NPDES permit to discharge to Post
Point WWTP is currently being reviewed.
Plant runoff; sump drainage; cooling water from
wood-treating operations. Effluent limitations:
daily maximum of 100 mg/L total oils and 0.1
//g/L pentachlorophenol (PCP). NPDES permit to
discharge to Whatcom Creek and Bellingham Bay
expires 6/20/94.
Process wastewater. Effluent limitations:
130.000 gpd; 0.005 pound TSS per 1,000
pounds of product. NPDES permit to discharge
to Bellingham Bay expires 3/2/93.
Screened wastewater from fish processing.
Effluent limitation: daily average of 60,000 gpd.
NPDES permit to discharge to Bellingham Bay
expires 7/22/93.
Effluent limitations include 41,300 Ib/day BOD,
62,600 Ib/day TSS, a pH range of 5.0-9.0, and
0.05 Ib/day total mercury (Hg). NPDES to dis-
charge to Bellingham Bay was reissued in 5/91.
Review and issue new NPDES per- Ecology
mit, include toxic chemical limita-
tions
Meet all requirements of NPDES BFF
permit including BMPs
Construct a land treatment facility BFF
that will be used as a retention basin
for the wastewater. Monitor
groundwater for nitrate and heavy
metals.
Review and renew NPDES permit Ecology
Meet all requirements of NPDES Brooks Manufacturing
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit
Meet all requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit
Meet ell requirements of NPDES
permit including BMPs
NPDES permit was reissued on
5/15/91. The permit has new re-
quirements for effluent bioassay
tests, effluent chemistry analyses,
and macroinvertebrate sampling near
the plant outfall; however, Georgia-
Pacific has contested the new per-
mit conditions.
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Ecology
Columbia Cement
Ecology
Dahl Fish Co.
Ecology,
Georgia-Pacific
7/93
Fall 1991
Ongoing
6/94
TBD'
3/2/93
TBD
7/22/93
TBD
Georgia-Pacific
Ongoing
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Action Agencies Involved
Target
Date
Limiting
Factors
Maritime Contractors Inc.
(MCI)
Paint chips, tributyltin, lead in surface water
runoff
Mt. Baker Plywood, Inc.
Oeser Company, The
00
O
Public Utility District #1 of
Whatcom County
Schenk Seafood Sales
Sea-Pac Co., Inc.
Seawest Industries
Press pit oil/water subnatant wastewater and
boiler blowdown. Effluent limitations: daily
average of 3,000 gpd; daily maximum of 100
mg/L total oils and 1.0 mg/L total phenolics.
NPDES permit to discharge to Post Point WWTP
expires 3/14/93.
Sump drainage, cooling water from wood-treat-
ing operations; steam condensate and blow-
down. Surface water limitations: daily maxi-
mum of 100 mg/L total oils and 0.1 fjg/L PCP;
daily average of 10 mg/L total oils. NPDES per-
mit to discharge to Little Squalicum Creek and
Bellingham Bay expires 6/20/94.
Water treatment plant decant water. Effluent
limitations: 2.4 mgd; 0.01 mL/L settleable sol-
ids. NPDES permit to discharge to Nooksack
River expires 6/26/92.
Screened wastewater from fish processing.
Effluent limitation: daily maximum of 8,500 gpd.
NPDES permit to discharge to Post Point WWTP
expires 7/26/93.
Screened wastewater from fish processing.
Effluent limitation: daily average of 3,000 gpd.
NPDES permit to discharge to Bellingham Bay
expires 7/22/93.
Screened wastewater from fish processing.
Effluent limitation: daily average of 70,000 gpd.
NPDES permit to discharge to Post Point WWTP
expires 3/2/93.
Review application for NPDES permit
that will require measures for treat-
ing and containing storm water
runoff and monitoring
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit,
include toxic chemical limitations
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit,
include toxic chemical limitations
and storm water BMPs
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit
Review and renew NPDES permit
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Review and renew NPDES permit
Meet all requirements of the NPDES
permit including BMPs
Ecology
MCI
Ecology
Mt. Baker Plywood
Ecology
Oeser Company
Ecology
Ecology
Schenk Seafood Sales
Ecology
Sea-Pac Co.
Ecology
Seawest Industries
6/92
Ongoing
3/93
TBD
6/94
TBD
6/92
7/93
TBD
7/93
TBD
3/93
TBD
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Action Agencies Involved
Target
Date
Limiting
Factors
OTHER POINT SOURCES
Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOsl/Emergency
Overflows (EOR
"C" Street CSO - city of
Belling ham
Edgemoor EOF - city of
Bellingham
Flynn Street EOF - city of
Bellingham
Birch Street EOF - city of
Bellingham
NONPOINT SOURCES
Untreated sewage and storm water runoff
Reduce storm water intrusion to City Public Works
limit overflow events to one or less
than one per year
Untreated sewage (one overflow event due to Installed two new electrical pumps City Public Works
pump failure)
Untreated sewage (one overflow event due to
vandalism)
Untreated sewage (one overflow event due to Install backup generator in case of City Public Works
power feilure) power failure
Ongoing
Completed
TBD
2 Watersheds
General (applicable to all
watersheds)
Fecal coliform bacteria-laden surface water from
failing septic systems; nonpoint sources includ-
ing agriculture (dairy), urban, and logging runoff
Develop environmental elements of
comprehensive land use plan re-
quired by the Growth Management
Act
Establish county- wide onsite sewage
disposal system maintenance pro-
gram
Install oil/water separators as
needed
Whatcom County Planning Spring 1993
Department (County Planning)
and Whatcom County Depart-
ment of Public Works (County
Public Works)
Whatcom County Health De- Ongoing
partment (County Health)
County Public Works Ongoing
Develop storm water standards
Issue and enforce clearing permits
for developments involving > 5,000
board feet of timber
County Public Works
County Public Works
11/91
Ongoing
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Target
Action Agencies Involved Date
Limiting
Factors
Nooksack River and
tributaries:
- Silver Creek
- Ten Mile Creek
- Kamm Creek
- Bertrand Creek
- Fishtrap Creek
Nonpoint sources including agricultural (dairy),
urban, and logging runoff; leachate from Cedar-
villa landfill and illegal dump sites; fecal coliform
bacteria-laden surface water from failing septic
systems.
00
rO
Implement the Silver Creek Early
Action Watershed Plan
Implement the Ten-Mile Creek Wa-
tershed Plan
Implement the Kamm Creek Water-
shed Plan
Assist farmers in developing waste
management plans and implement-
ing BMPs. Conduct follow-up in-
spections to ensure compliance with
plans and BMPs.
Complete general NPDES permit for
concentrated animal wastes.
Issue and enforce clearing permits
for developments involving > 5,000
board feet of timber
Compile an inventory of sediment
sources and develop lists of correc-
tive actions to reduce the input of
sediment to streams
Whatcom County Council of
Government (COG)
Whatcom County Conserva-
tion District
(Conservation District)
Conservation District
Soil Conservation Service
Conservation District
Ongoing
7/91
Ongoing
Ongoing
Receipt of
Centennial
Clean Water
Fund grant
for $200,000
Ecology and Interagency Advi-
sory Committee.
County Public Works
Lummi Tribe
8/92
Ongoing
Summer or
fall 1991
Conduct site visits and provide tech-
nical recommendations to foresters
Lummi Tribe
Ongoing
Squalicum Creek
Residential storm water runoff; nonpoint urban
and industrial runoff; fecal coliform bacteria-
laden surface water from failing septic systems.
Provide technical advice during the
planning stage of a project to pre-
vent activities that will increase
sediment loading to salmon spawn-
ing streams
Draft plan to protect wetlands
Lummi Tribe
City Public Works
Ongoing
6/92
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Action Agencies Involved
Target
Date
Limiting
Factors
Whatcom Creek (including
(Lake Whatcom)
00
CO
Padden Creek
Salmon Net-Pens
Alaska Ferry terminal
Squalicum Harbor
Taylor Dock
Residential, commercial, and industrial storm
water runoff; nonpoint urban industrial and log-
ging runoff; contamination from marinas and
powerboats; fecal coliform bacteria-laden surface
water from failing septic systems; leachate from
landfills in Whatcom Creek vicinity.
Residential and commercial storm water runoff;
nonpoint urban, industrial, and commercial run-
off; fecal coliform bacteria-laden surface water
from failing septic systems.
Nutrient loading and BOD
Nutrient loading and BOD
Nutrient loading and BOD; operates under hy-
draulic project approval (HPA) permit that expires
in 1996
Revise a model ordinance for live-
aboards (i.e., boats used as primary
residences) that deals primarily with
how marinas should handle black-
water (i.e., sewage) coming from
liveaboard boats
Conduct an inventory of under-
ground fuel storage tanks and de-
velop ordinance regulating the tanks
Issue and enforce clearing permits
for developments (conversions)
Apply strict requirements to the
construction of septic systems
Develop policies regarding public
access, wildlife, and landscape
management in wetlands (based on
a planning study of Padden Creek
and its associated wetlands and
recommended improvements)
Identify and implement BMPs
Identify and implement BMPs
Site to be surveyed again during 5th
year of operation and prior to re-
newal of the HPA in 1996
Washington Department of
Heelth (DOH), Washington
State Parks and Recreation
Commission (State Parks),
Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology), Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority
(Authority)
County Public Works and City
Public Works
County Public Works
County Health
City of Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department (City
Parks)
Washington Department of
Fisheries (WDF)
WDF
Conducted a physical and biological WDF
survey in 8/90
WDF
TBD
Inventory
completed/
Ordinance
has been
proposed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Fall 1991
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Target
Action Agencies Involved Date
Limiting
Factors
00
Hatcheries
Whatcom Creek Hatchery
Skookum Creek Hatchery
Landfills
Airport Wood Waste
landfill - operated by
Georgia-Pacific (active)
Hilltop Farms Wood Waste
landfill - operated by
Georgia-Pacific (active)
Y-Road landfill - operated by
Georgia-Pacific (closed)
Zell Road landfill - operated
by Georgia-Pacific (closed)
1178 Marine Dr. - operated
by Georgia-Pacific (closed)
Whatcom County
Courthouse vicinity landfill
(closed)
Nutrients and BOD
Nutrients and BOD
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Monitor water quality
WDF
TBD
Apply for state general NPDES per- WDF/Maritime Heritage Center Ongoing
mil
Identify and implement BMPs Lummi Tribe
Determine if leachate is contaminat- Georgia-Pacific
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding for site hazard County Health
assessment
Determine if leachate is contaminat- Georgia-Pacific
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to
conduct site hazard assessment County Health
Determine if leachate is contaminat- Georgia-Pacific
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to County Health
conduct site hazard assessment
Determine if leachate is contaminat- Georgia-Pacific
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to
conduct site hazard assessment County Health
Determine if leachate is contaminat- Georgia-Pacific
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to County Health
conduct site hazard assessment
Determine if leachate is contaminat- Georgia-Pacific
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to County Health
conduct site hazard assessment
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Type/Name
City of Bellingham
landfill - Georgia-Pacific
vicinity (closed)
Shoreline vicinity landfill
(closed)
Lyndon landfill - Nooksack
drainage area (closed)
Cedarville landfill - Nooksack
00 drainage area (active)
01
Characteristics
and Status
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants
Potential leaching of metals and organic chemical
contaminants; surface water runoff
Corrective Actions
Action
Determine if leachate is contaminat-
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to
conduct site hazard assessment
Determine if leachate is contaminat-
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to
conduct site hazard assessment
Determine if leachate is contaminat-
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to
conduct site hazard assessment
Determine if leachate is contaminat-
ing groundwater or surface water
Pursue funding from Ecology to
Target
Agencies Involved Date
County Health
County Health
County Health
County Health
County Health
County Health
County Health
County Health
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Limiting
Factors
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
No funding
Onstte Sewage Disposal
Systems
Chuckanut Bay residential
area
conduct site hazard assessment
Fecal coliform bacteria-laden surface water due Conduct an inventory of septic tank County Health
to septic system failures. Direct drainage to systems and repair the failing sys-
Bellingham Bay. terns
County-wide onsite sewage disposal County Health
systems maintenance program
Loan program for homeowners to County Planning
improve, replace, or repair septic
system
TBD
Ongoing
Ongoing
No funding
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Target
Action Agencies Involved Date
Limiting
Factors
00
0>
Marine Drive (Birchwood)
vicinity
Terminals and Marinas
Port of Bellingham terminals:
- Fairhaven
- Hilton
- Parkway
- Squalicum Harbor
- Whatcom International
Shipping
Alaska State Ferry terminal
located in Fairhaven
Fecal coliform bacteria-laden surface water (over Conduct an inventory of septic tank County Health and property
20,000 organisms/100 mL in drainage ditch systems and repair the failing sys- owners
samples). Direct drainage to Bellingham Bay. terns
terns
County-wide onsite sewage disposal County Health
systems maintenance program
Loan program for homeowners to
improve, replace, or repair septic County Planning
systems
Potential sources of chemical and biological Determine types and levels of con- Port and lessees
contamination taminants present or being released
and follow-up actions to be taken
Implement storm water BMPs
Port and lessees
Performed a site hazard assessment
on Whatcom Waterway to determine Ecology
potential threat to human health and
the environment
Potential for contaminated water due to resus-
pension of contaminated sediment from pile-
driving; turbulence created as ferries maneuver
may contaminate waters in immediate and adja-
cent areas
Quarterly soundings for depth/sedi-
ment disturbance
Port
TBD
Ongoing
Ongoing
1992
1992
Site hazard
assessment
report com-
pleted 8/91;
site will be
ranked for
cleanup 9/91
Quarterly in
1991
No funding
Limited staff
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corractive Actions
Action Agencies Involved
Target
Date
Limiting
Factors
Squalicum Harbor Marina
Potential source of metals, sewage, fuel, oil, and Administer boat sewage pumpout State Parks
boater waste grants
Determine types and levels of con- County Health;
taminants being released and follow- Port has taken samples at the
up actions to be taken Squalicum Marina repair grid
Establish oil and other waste collec- Port
tion facilities
Ongoing
Report avail-
able fall
1991
Complete
except for
boater repair
waste
No funding
Hilton Marina
00
Establish BMPs for small boat repair 'Port
grids
Potential source of metals, sewage, fuel, oil, and Determine types and levels of con- Port
boater waste taminants being released and follow- County Health
up actions to be taken
Administer boat sewage pumpout State Parks
grants
Establish oil and other waste collec- Port
tion facilities
Establish BMPs for small boat repair Port
grids
Dredged Material Disposal
Sites
Site A
Site B
Contains contaminated wood fibers and organic
material dredged in 1969 from Whatcom Creek
Waterway. Nature of contamination is unknown.
Contains sediment dredged in 1966 from the I &
J streets waterway. Sedimentation of this wa-
terway was probably due to agricultural and
logging activities upstream.
Sample sediments to characterize
contamination and determine what.
if any, actions should be taken
Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR)
Sample sediments to characterize DNR
contamination and determine what,
if any, actions should be taken
TBD
TBD
Ongoing
Complete
except for
boater repair
waste
TBD
TBD
TBD
No funding
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
Sources
Characteristics
Type/Name and Status
Corrective Actions
Target
Action Agencies Involved Date
Limiting
Factors
Site C
Site D
Site E
Site P
Puget Sound Dredged
°° Disposal Analysis (PSDDA)
disposal site
Contains sediment from I & J streets, Squalicum
Creek, and Whatcom Creek waterways
Contains sediment dredged in 1963 from the
Squalicum Creek waterway. Sedimentation of
this waterway was probably due to agricultural
and logging activities upstream.
Contains sediments and sludges dredged in 1974
from Whatcom Creek Waterway.
Contains sediments from 1981 dredging of the
inner tidal flats of the mouth of Squalicum Creek
Will contain dredged material that passes the
PSDDA criteria for unconfined, open-water dis-
posal
Sample sediments to characterize
contamination and determine what,
if any, actions should be taken
Sample sediments to characterize
contamination and determine what,
if any, actions should be taken
Sample sediments to characterize
contamination and determine what,
if any, actions should be taken
Sample sediments to characterize
contamination and determine what,
if any, actions should be taken
Determine if dredged material passes
PSDDA criteria for unconfined, open-
water disposal
Conduct chemical and biological
monitoring
Conduct physical monitoring
DNR TBD
DNR TBD
Georgia-Pacific TBD
Port TBD
DNR, Ecology, U.S. Environ- Ongoing
mental Protection Agency,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DNR Ongoing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ongoing
* TBD - to be determined.
-------
TABLE 2. SOURCE-SPECIFIC ACTIONS (Continued)
POTENTIAL SOURCES TO BE INVESTIGATED BY ECOLOGY
oo
to
Absorption Corp.
Advanced Combustion
Allied Transmission
Al's RV Service
Bellingham Chemical
Bellingham Chrysler/Bellingham Mitsubishi
Bellingham Collision
Bellingham Detail
Bellingham Herald
Bellingham Marine Service
Bellingham Transmission
Bill Bailey Tires
Bob's Texaco
Bomac Machine
Bond's Texaco Service
Bucks Texaco
Capp'n Glass Boat Works
Chemical Services Northwest
Coastline Equipment
Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
Colt Construction
Concur & Pittman
Dewey Griffin
Oiehl Ford
Ferrotek
Fishwrapper (The)
Foreign Auto Repair
German Car Repair
Grand Central Collision
Harmony Motor Works
Hawley's Boats
Heath Technica
Herb McNutt Auto Service
Higher Plane Cabinets
Hilton Harbor Marine
Hunnicutt's Truck Shop
Hydro Chem
Hydro Swirl
Import Motors
Ipero Construction
Marine Services Northwest
McClusky's Auto Body/Radiator
Mill's Auto Repair
Minute Lube
Motor Weld
Mustang Floatation
Myers Northwest
Nordan
North Cascade Machine and Fabrication
Northland Diesel
Northwest Honda
Northwest Marine Fabrications/ALFA
Aluminum Fabrications
Old Fairhaven Parkway Chevron
Olson Auto Body
Pacific Printing
Padden Creek Marine
Penderson Bros Inc.
Phillips Furniture
Precision Tune
Rainbow Auto & Paint
Ray's Auto Repair
RC Automotive
Rising Sun Motors
Roger Joby Motors
S&F Auto Body
SCINTILLA
Smitty's Auto
Special T Sign Co.
Strider Construction
Sunshine Printing
Timber Haulers
Tri County Engine Inc.
Trottners Mobile Auto Repair
Union Printing
V-Twin Supermarket
Weekly Construction Reporter (The)
Wafer Truck Parts
Weld Craft
West Coast Marine Services
Western Concrete Pumping
Western Roofing
Whatcom Skagit Crane Services
Whatcom Special Transport
Whatcom Tire Center
Whole Sale Auto
Wight Corp.
Wilder Construction
Woodcraft by Terry
Wright Bros./Sea Sport Boats
-------
TABLE 3. PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date"
Limiting Factors
CO
O
Developed Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
Develop Squalicum Creek watershed plan
Develop Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Whatcom County Health
Department (County Health) and Washington Department of Health (DOH) to
sample shellfish and post signs at contaminated recreational shellfish beaches
Administer boat sewage pumpout grants
Storm water and drainage utility established (fees based on one-time fee for
amount of impervious surface created; erosion and sediment control plans re-
quired)
Establish county storm water district to address water quality and quantity
problems (including sedimentation and erosion control)
Create development standards for all port-owned or administered properties
Complete general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for concentrated animal wastes
Adopt revisions to Whatcom County Shoreline Master Program
Complete, review, and adopt comprehensive land use plan
Puget Sound Water Quality Adopted 5/91
Authority (Authority)
To be determined (TBD) TBD
County Health, DOH TBD
Washington State Parks and Ongoing
Recreation Commission (State
Parks)
City of Bellingham Department Ongoing
of Public Works (City Public
Works)
Whatcom County Public Works TBD
Department (County Public
Works)
Port of Bellingham (Port) TBD
Washington Department of Ecol- August 1992
ogy (Ecology) and Interagency
Advisory Committee
Whatcom County Planning De- 12/90
partment (County Planning)
City of Bellingham Planning and TBD
Economic Development Depart-
ment (City Planning), County
Planning, and resource agencies
No lead agency
No funding for local
participation
Awaiting public
discussion and
county approval
Establish lead agency (e.g., Whatcom County Public Utility District #1) to
address and coordinate water quality issues
Issue land clearing permits for clearing operations not under the Washington
Department of National Resources (DNR) jurisdiction
Review shoreline master programs and shoreline permits
Whatcom County Council
County Public Works
Ecology
TBD
Ongoing
Ongoing
Limited staff and
funding
-------
TABLE 3. PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (Continued)
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date*
Limiting Factors
Developed highway surface water runoff rule
Develop transboundarv pollution controls and resource protection activities
Negotiate MOA between Ecology and DNR addressing liability and responsibility
for investigation and cleanup of state-owned and state-leased lands
Negotiate port management agreement to assign management responsibilities
(including liability) of state-owned lands contained within Port operations
Develop rules, guidelines, and model ordinances for storm water
Develop a best management practices (BMPs) manual for storm water
Develop storm water management requirements for cities with populations less
than 100,000
2 Create development standards for the Lake Whatcom watershed
Develop critical areas protection ordinance
Review and approve local wetland protection plans
Developed sediment quality standards, dredged disposal criteria, and remedial
action criteria
Conduct an inventory of underground fuel tanks in the Lake Whatcom water-
shed and develop ordinance regulating these tanks
Survey areas within the Bellingham Bay watershed with known failing septic
tank problems
Conduct an inventory of storm drain systems within the Lake Whatcom water-
shed; incorporate this information into capital improvement programs and
develop maintenance programs
Ecology and Washington De-
partment of Transportation
(DOT)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Ecology, National
Marine Sanctuary Program
DNR and Ecology
DNR and Port
Ecology
Ecology
EPA
City Public Works and County
Public Works
City Planning
Authority and Ecology
Ecology
County Public Works and City
Public Works
County Health
County Public Works and City
Public Works
Adopted 5/91
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
11/91
11/91
1992
Adopt summer
of 1991
12/31/91 (end
of review per-
iod)
3/92 (interim
ordinance)
8/91
Completed
Inventory com-
pleted/ ordi-
nance has been
proposed
TBD
Ongoing
Field confirmation
of wetland inven-
tory data needed
No funding
-------
TABLE 3. PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS (Continued)
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date'
Limiting Factors
CO
10
Investigate the possible designation of north Puget Sound (including Bellingham
Bay) as a national marine sanctuary
Revise model ordinance for boater waste disposal
Develop and adopt land clearing ordinance that is water quality protective
Revise the thresholds for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Develop a Squalicum Creek drainage improvement plan
Establish stream protection ordinance regarding livestock management
Provide guidance on the disposal of materials derived from storm drain system
maintenance
Add conditions to state leases to prevent and/or remediate contamination of
state-owned aquatic lands
Administer watershed management plan grants
Approve watershed management plans
Renew expired state waste discharge and NPDES permits
Finalize recreational shellfish plan for Puget Sound
Complete BMPs policy
Participate in the protection of water quality through attendance at public
meetings, reviewing pertinent documents, and involvement in field projects
Ecology and the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration
DOH and State Task Force
City Planning
City Planning
City Public Works
City Planning
Ecology
DNR and lessees
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology and DOH
Bellingham Cold Storage
Concerned Southside Citizens
Ongoing
TBD
TBD
TBD
6/92
Fall 1991
Winter 1991
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
October 1991
Fall 1991
Ongoing
No staffing
Limit staffing and
funding
End date for action, except where noted.
-------
TABLE 4. POLLUTANT CONTROL ACTIONS
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date*
Limiting Factors
CO
(*>
Apply strict requirements to the construction of septic systems within the
Lake Whatcom watershed
Conduct an inventory of and correct failing septic tanks in the Lake What-
com watershed
Investigate sources of elevated fecal coliform bacteria in Chuckanut
Village stream
Provide recycling bins at all parks
Provide permanent collection facility for household hazardous waste
Compost and reuse all organic materials collected from park maintenance
Provide permanent collection facility for household hazardous waste
Discontinue use of herbicides in Lake Whatcom watershed
Implement water quality-sensitive vegetation control program
Establish oil and other waste collection facilities for marina tenants in
Squalicum Harbor
Establish best management practices (BMPs) at Squalicum Harbor small
boat repair grids
Incorporate the use of environmentally friendly products for park mainte-
nance and reduce or eliminate chemical use
Add staff to perform follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with farm
waste management plans
Whatcom County Health De-
partment (County Health)
County Health and City of Bell-
ingham Department of Public
Works (City Public Works)
County Health
City of Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department (City
Parks) and Washington Parks
and Recreation Commission
(State Parks)
County Health
State Parks and City Parks
City Public Works and County
Health
City Public Works and What-
com County Public Works
Department (County Public
Works)
County Public Works
Port of Bellingham (Port)
Port
City Parks and State Parks
Whatcom County Conservation
District (Conservation District)
Ongoing
Completed
TBD
Ongoing
Ongoing
State parks - imme-
diately
City Parks - ongoing
Ongoing
Complete
Ongoing
Complete except for
boater repair waste
TBD
Fall 1991
Completed (1 staff
person added)
-------
TABLE 4. POLLUTANT CONTROL ACTIONS (Continued)
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date'
Limiting Factors
to
-P-
Apply storm water management guidelines to developments that are
subject to hydraulic project approval permit or that contain over 5,000
square feet of impervious surface
Restrict livestock access to streams with fencing
Work with lessees to minimize potential contamination of their properties
and adjacent waters
Require or assume responsibility for construction and maintenance of oil
water separators, catch basins, and other storm water facilities on all Port-
owned or administered properties
Investigate sources of elevated fecal coliform bacteria in stream near
Chuckanut Village
Establish a routine maintenance schedule for storm drain systems
Implement Ecology guidance on the disposal of sediment and decant water
derived from maintenance of storm drain systems
Regulate dredged material disposal in Bellingham Bay
Dredge and dispose of sediments from:
Squalicum Waterway
Whatcom Waterway
I & J Streets Waterway
Washington Department of
Fisheries (WDF)
WDF, Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology), Conser-
vation District, and private
property owners
Port
Port
County Health
City Parks
City Public Works, County
Public Works, City Parks, and
Port of Bellingham
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), Ecology,
and Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR)
Corps and Port
Corps and Port
Corps and Port
Ongoing
Ongoing
1992
Ongoing
TBD
To be determined
(TBD)
Ongoing
Fall 1992
TBD
Fall 1992
Limited funding and
public acceptance
Development of
guidelines by Ecology
Half of tested sedi-
ments unsuitable for
in-water disposal
All tested sediments
unsuitable for in-
water disposal
Some tested sedi-
ments unsuitable for
in-water disposal
-------
TABLE 4. POLLUTANT CONTROL ACTIONS (Continued)
CO
01
Action
Under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), investigate hazardous waste
sites and negotiate cleanup actions
Upgrade provisions of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits that involve toxics monitoring and reduction
Coordinate and implement spill prevention and response activities for
Puget Sound
Comply with provisions of NPDES permit
Comply with provisions of NPDES permit
Agencies Involved
Ecology
Ecology
Ecology
Maritime Contractors, Inc.
(MCI)
Cities of Bellingham, Lynden,
Target Date*
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Immediately
Ongoing
Limiting Factors
Limited staff and
funding
Issuance of permit by
Ecology
Comply with provisions of new NPDES permit
Pursue opportunities for waste reduction and recycling
Implement less toxic bleaching process and use recycled paper fibers
Investigate additional steps that can be taken to prevent sandblast grit and
other contaminants from entering Bellingham Bay (e.g., via storm drains)
Establish a storm drain system maintenance program for building complex
(i.e.. Icicle, BFF, BCS, Trident Seafoods, and San Juan Seafoods)
Require or assume responsibility for construction and maintenance of
retention/detention basins and oil/water separators for all new permitted
construction within the city of Bellingham
and Everson wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs), Geor-
gia-Pacific, Public Utility Dis-
trict No. 1 of Whatcom County
City of Ferndale WWTP, Bell-
ingham Cold Storage (BCS),
Bellingham Frozen Foods (BFF),
Sea Pac, Seawest, Schenk
Seafood, Dahl Fish, Mt. Baker
Plywood, Oeser Company,
Brooks Manufacturing, Colum-
bia Crest, Bellingham Hatchery,
and Nooksack State Salmon
Hatchery
Georgia-Pacific, BCS, BFF, MCI
Georgia-Pacific
MCI
Port and businesses
City Public Works
TBD
Ongoing
TBD
TBD
Immediately
Ongoing
Issuance of new
permit by Ecology
Need for market
demand of un-
bleached products;
increased production
costs
Determination of
responsibility
Development of
guidelines by Ecology
-------
TABLE 4. POLLUTANT CONTROL ACTIONS (Continued)
CO
O)
Action
Construct and maintain retention/detention basins and oil/water separators
for all new municipal development
Encourage use of constructed biofiltration swales for processing storm
water runoff
Enforce conditions of general NPDES permit for concentrated animal
Agencies Involved
City Public Works
County Public Works and City
Public Works
Ecology
Target Date*
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Limiting Factors
Development of
guidelines by Ecology
Development of gen-
wastes
Conduct enforcement inspections and permitting activities under Agricul- Ecology
tural Compliance Memorandum of Agreement
Establish maintenance programs for all existing public and private storm County Public Works and City
drain systems Public Works
Fund purchase of boater sewage pumpout stations
Construct and maintain oil/water separators, catch basins, and storm
water systems in unincorporated areas
Require or assume responsibility for construction and maintenance for
retention/detention basins and oil/water separators for all new permitted
construction in unincorporated areas of Whatcom County
Conduct an inventory of septic tank systems in other areas of the Belling-
ham Bay Watershed known to have failing septic tanks. Correct the failing
septic tank systems.
Evaluate all NPDES permits to determing loading to Bellingham Bay
State Parks
County Public Works
County Public Works
County Health and property
owners
Ecology
Ongoing
County Public Works
has established main-
tenance schedule for
open drainage
ditches
Annually
Ongoing
Ongoing
TBD
TBD
era! permit; limited
staff and funding
Limited staff and
funding
Awaiting develop-
ment of guidelines by
Ecology
Awaiting develop-
ment of guidelines by
Ecology
Funding
Limited staff and
funding
a End date for action, except where noted.
-------
TABLE 5. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date* Limiting Factors
CO
Conducted site hazard assessments for:
- Whatcom Waterway
- Little Squalicum Creek
- Boulevard Park
- Georgia-Pacific airport landfill
- Trans-Mountain's pipeline pump station
Revise 4th and Harris streets site remediation plan and begin treatment or
containment of surface water runoff
Comply with state dangerous waste regulations and federal land disposal
restrictions at Tollycraft site
Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology)
Completed
Port of Bellingham
Tollycraft Inc., Port of Bellingham,
Ecology (Solid and Hazardous Waste
Program)
Summer 1991
Fall 1991
Prioritize inspections and conduct initial investigations, including sampling
of water, sediment, and soils, at industrial facilities
Investigate hazardous waste sites and negotiate cleanup actions as re-
quired under the MTCA
Conduct sampling to identify contaminated state-owned aquatic lands
Identify contaminated sediments requiring cleanup
Ecology
Ecology
Washington Department of Natural
Resources
Ecology
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Staff
" End date for action, except where noted.
-------
TABLE 6. SAMPLING AND MONITORING ACTIONS
-------
TABLE 6. SAMPLING AND MONITORING ACTIONS (Continued)
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date'
Limiting Factors
Under the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program conduct: Ecology
- Sediment triad sampling
- Marine water quality sampling
- Freshwater quality sampling
Investigate cause(s) of recurrent Coho salmon mortality at the Maritime Ecology
Heritage Fish Hatchery
Determine sources of contaminants in city of Bellingham storm drain systems Ecology
Establish a marina water quality monitoring program County Health
Ongoing (annually)
Ongoing (monthly)
Ongoing (annually)
Monitoring in fall 1991,
report spring 1992
Fall 1991
TBD
Funding
End date for action, except where noted.
CO
CD
-------
TABLE 7. RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIONS
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date'
Limiting Factors
o
o
Conduct salmon enhancement activities
Issue hydraulic project approval permits for all construction affect-
ing state waters, including wetlands
Review Section 10/404 permits for dredge and fill activities in
wetlands
Review shoreline permits and building and rezoning permits for
development projects
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review
SEPA approval
Protect tribal shellfish beds in Bellingham Bay
Respond to and investigate fish kills
Nooksack Tribe, Lummi Tribe, Washington Depart- Ongoing
ment of Fisheries (WDF)
WDF, Washington Department of Wildlife Ongoing
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ongoing
Whatcom County Public Works Department, City of Ongoing
Bellingham Planning and Economic Development
Department (City Planning), City of Bellingham
Department of Public Works, Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology (Ecology)
All agencies Ongoing
City Planning and County Public Works Ongoing
Lummi Tribe, Ecology, Washington Department of Ongoing
Health
Ecology and WDF Ongoing
" End date for action, except where noted.
-------
TABLE 8. EDUCATIONAL ACTIONS
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date"
Limiting Factors
Continue public education program to encourage proper septic system
maintenance
Continue public education program to protect the Lake Whatcom water-
shed (e.g., pamphlets, school curriculum, water quality test kits)
Distribute on request the household hazardous waste education pamphlet
Expand Lake Whatcom education program regarding water quality-friendly
gardening
Provide watershed interpretive displays along trails adjacent to streams
and public waterfront areas (e.g., Padden Creek)
Distribute information about facilities at Squalicum Harbor for disposal of
waste oil. toxics, and other waste
Distribute boating survey summary flyers
Continue providing spill prevention and response education programs
Provide educational signs to marinas with pumpout stations
Distribute/present boater education information on boater waste manage-
ment
Develop educational materials on shellfish contamination at recreational
beaches
Provide funding to local agencies for public involvement and education
projects
Distribute Aquatic Land Enhancement Account grants to local agencies for
public education and interpretive projects
Hold workshops to inform agencies of available monies to provide public
access to shorelines
Whatcom County Health
Department (County Health)
City of Bellingham Depart-
ment of Public Works (City
Public Works)
Whatcom County Public
Works Department (County
Public Works) (Solid Waste
Division)
City Public Works
City of Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department (City
Parks)
Port of Bellingham
Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission
(State Parks)
Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology)
State Parks
State Parks and Washington
Sea Grant (Sea Grant)
Washington Department of
Health (DOH)
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR)
DNR
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
To be determined
(TBD)
Will request additional
funding in 1992 bud-
get
Summer 1991
Ongoing
Ongoing (continued
schedule TBD)
Ongoing
Ongoing
1990 (as requested)
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
-------
TABLE 8. EDUCATIONAL ACTIONS (Continued)
Action
Agencies Involved
Target Date*
Limiting Factors
O
ro
Distribute grants for public involvement under Model Toxics Control Act
Post recreational shellfish harvest advisory signs where appropriate
•
Publish a quarterly newsletter on farm practices
Produce and distribute videos on farm waste management (waste pond
management and maintenance and waste use)
Distribute funds for waste reduction and recycling educational activities
Hold presentations or workshops pertaining to Ecology regulations or
programs
Reprint and distribute marine debris educational pamphlets at no charge
Participate in educational planning efforts and events
Ecology
County Health, DOH, City
Parks
Whatcom County Conserva-
tion District (Conservation
District)
Conservation District and
Cooperative Extension
Ecology
Ecology
Sea Grant
Sea Grant
Ongoing
TBD
12/91
Summer 1991
Ongoing
Ongoing
TBD
TBD
Finalization of
Memorandum of
Agreement
Limited staff and
funding
" End date for action, except where noted.
-------
Planning and Coordination, Pollution Control, and
Data Needs
The Site-Specific Action Plan tables (Tables 2-8) present a sum-
mary of many ongoing and needed activities to improve water
quality in Bellingham Bay. Several planning and coordination,
pollution control, and data needs are either not addressed in the
action plan or are found in the action plan but have no committed
agency or time frame for completion. This section summarizes
these additional water quality needs for Bellingham Bay, and will
provide a beginning framework for Action Team discussions and
individual agency actions. Both are needed to address further data
needs, and to coordinate actions for controlling contaminant inputs
to Bellingham Bay.
Planning and Coordination Needs
Ecology needs to work towards a geographic focus for review and
reissuance of NPDES permits. If all permits for Bellingham were
evaluated at the same time, the permit review process could be used
to determine the total quantity of pollutants entering the bay. This
bay-wide pollutant loading information could be taken into consid-
eration when reissuing these permits. For NPDES permits, Ecol-
ogy also needs to develop and include BMPs specific to the industry
being permitted.
Ecology needs to prioritize discharges to Bellingham Bay. The
discharges should be prioritized by toxicity, type of contaminant,
volume, and contaminant concentration. This would help to focus
resources on the discharges of greatest concern.
Ecology and DNR are continuing to negotiate the terms of a
Memorandum of Understanding concerning the roles of each agency
when considering sediment contamination on state-owned aquatic
lands. This memorandum needs to be finalized so that future
cleanup activities can proceed in a timely manner.
DNR and the Port of Bellingham are currently negotiating a Port
Management Agreement which will address liability for cleanup of
contaminated aquatic lands. This agreement needs to be finalized
to ensure that future cleanup activities proceed in a timely manner.
103
-------
Planning and Coordination, Pollution Control, and Data Needs
An MOA between DOH and County Health needs to be developed
delineating responsibilities of the two agencies in the implementa-
tion of the Recreational Shellfish Rule (Chapter 248-52). The rule
states that a "joint plan of operation" should be developed to outline
how recreational shellfish beaches will be managed. However,
Whatcom County has limited funds to take on additional responsi-
bilities. This issue needs to be resolved and the requirements of the
recreational shellfish rule carried out.
Enhancement of both water quality and aquatic habitats should be
the key elements in planning for the future development of Belling-
ham's urban waterfront. As the city of Bellingham continues to
grow and as port activities change in response to changing economic
conditions, land uses along the urban shoreline will inevitably
change. The City of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham need
to develop a common vision for the future of the community's
waterfront. That vision should provide for protection and enhance-
ment of water quality and aquatic habitat.
Standards for development in the city of Bellingham and Whatcom
County, and on Port of Bellingham property need to be created.
These standards should address storm water quantity as well as
storm water quality issues. Ecology is developing rules, guidelines,
and model ordinances for storm water as well as a BMP manual. These
documents are expected to be completed by November of 1991.
The City of Bellingham and Whatcom County need to develop a
storm and surface water utility to focus on water quantity and quality
issues. The utility could be funded entirely by user fees. The
establishment of such a utility would enable the pursuit of actions such
as the creation of development standards and the creation of a regular
maintenance program for both public and private storm drain systems.
City Public Works and County Health need to coordinate activities
regarding water quality and hazardous substances. This is import-
ant because upstream activities in Whatcom County can affect water
quality in the city of Bellingham. Specifically, these two agencies
need to work together to identify and mitigate the sources of elevated
fecal coliform bacteria found in creeks within the Bellingham city limits.
The City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the Port of Belling-
ham need to identify and develop BMPs for activities which could
be adversely affecting the environment. For example the City needs
to develop a water quality protective land clearing ordinance, the
Port guidelines for their boat repair grid at Squalicum Harbor, and
the County an ordinance to limit livestock access to surface waters.
104
-------
Planning and Coordination, Pollution Control, and Data Needs
The educational efforts implemented by the City of Bellingham for
the Lake Whatcom watershed need to be expanded to address the
entire Bellingham Bay watershed. Potential lead agencies include
City Public Works, County Public Works, and COG.
All agencies need to look for opportunities to implement the actions
described in this plan and any other actions which could improve
the quality of water in Bellingham Bay. Opportunities may exist in
other plans and programs.
All agencies and the communities of Bellingham and Whatcom
County need to develop a sense of stewardship towards Bellingham
Bay. Numerous beneficial uses of the bay provide an increased
quality of life. By preventing further environmental degradation
and addressing problems early, agencies and citizens can ensure
protection for the bay that is both cost-effective and long term.
Pollution Control Needs
The landfills listed in Table 2 of this plan need to be prioritized for
environmental audits or site hazard assessments. These investiga-
tions will determine the potential threat the site has to human health
and the environment. The prioritization should begin immediately
and a schedule developed for accomplishing these assessments.
This work should be done by Georgia-Pacific and/or County Health
for the Georgia-Pacific landfills and by County Health for the
remaining landfills. Funds are available through Ecology for local
health departments to perform site hazard assessments.
Areas known to have failing septic systems in the Bellingham Bay
vicinity should be investigated and repaired. Sources of funds need
to be actively pursued and a civil penalty created to aid in the
achievement of this goal. Potential lead agencies include County
Health and County Planning.
Ecology and identified potentially liable persons need to work
towards the remediation of Whatcom Waterway, Little Squalicum
Creek, Boulevard Park, Georgia-Pacific Airport Landfill, and
Trans-Mountain's pipeline pump station.
To reduce the amount of pollution being discharged to Bellingham
Bay from storm drains, City Public Works, County Public Works,
and the Port of Bellingham need to:
.105
-------
Planning and Coordination, Pollution Control, and Data Needs
• Perform drainage basin source tracing studies, which
include:
- Monitoring storm drains to characterize contami-
nants being discharged
- Correlating contaminants associated with particular
land uses to determine potential sources
• Work with dischargers identified in source tracing stud-
ies to target and implement BMPs
• Develop and implement a routine maintenance program
for all storm water facilities (including those privately
owned in the city and county).
The Port of Bellingham needs to clearly delineate maintenance
responsibility for storm drains located on their properties. If that
responsibility is not the port's, a regular maintenance program
should be required of lessees.
Data Needs
Data are needed on nutrient and contaminant inputs to Bellingham
Bay from the Nooksack River. The river contributes a large volume
of freshwater to Bellingham Bay and could be a significant source
of contaminants. Potential lead agencies include the Lummi Tribe
and County Planning.
Sediment sampling is needed at the dredged material disposal sites
shown on Figure 6 (see Numbers 28a, 28b, and 28c in the legend)
to characterize contamination and determine what action, if any
should be taken. The sampling should be done by DNR for disposal
Sites A through D, by Georgia-Pacific for Site E, and by the Port
of Bellingham for Site F.
Additional sediment sampling is also needed at the Post Point
WWTP outfall, the Georgia-Pacific outfall, and the contaminated
area near the Fairhaven shoreline. A greater range of chemicals
should be analyzed for in these samples and the horizontal and
vertical extent of contamination determined. Georgia-Pacific
should perform the sampling at their outfall and the City of
Bellingham at the Post Point outfall. DNR should perform the
sampling at the contaminated area near Fairhaven.
106
-------
References
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, R.M. Kocan, and E.R. Long. 1985.
An overview of biological effects testing in Puget Sound, Washington:
methods, results, and implications, pp. 344-362. In: Aquatic Toxicol-
ogy, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium. Spec. Tech. Rpt.
854, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Cochrane, M. 1990. Nooksack delta sedimentation investigation.
Lummi fisheries technical report No. 91-1. Lummi Indian Business
Council, Department of Fisheries, Bellingham, WA.
Cubbage, J. 1991. Bioaccumulation of contaminants in crabs and
clams in Bellingham Bay. Prepared for Puget Sound Estuary
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Fran Solo-
mon and Lucy Pebles, Northwest Regional Office, Washington
Department of Ecology. Washington Department of Ecology,
Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Olympia,
WA.
PSDDA. 1989. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis manage-
ment plan report: unconfined open-water disposal of dredged
material, Phase n (north and south Puget Sound). U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Seattle, WA; Washington Department of Nat-
ural Resources, Olympia, WA; Washington Department of Ecol-
ogy, Olympia, WA.
PTI. 1989a. Bellingham Bay action program: initial data summa-
ries and problem identification. Prepared for the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget Sound. PTI
Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1989b. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis: baseline
survey of Phase n disposal sites. Prepared for the Washington
Department of Ecology. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue,
WA.
PTI. 1990. The urban bay action program approach: a focused
toxics control strategy. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Region 10, Office of Puget Sound. PTI Environmental
Services, Bellevue, WA.
107
-------
References
PTI. 199 la. Dioxin and furan concentrations in Puget Sound
crabs. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Office of Coastal Waters. PTI Environmental Services,
Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 19915. Drainage basin source tracing study. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget
Sound. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI and Tetra Tech. 1988a. Elliott Bay action program: analysis
of toxic problem areas. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget
Sound. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI and Tetra Tech. 1988b. Everett Harbor action program:
analysis of toxic problem areas. Final Report. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Puget
Sound. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Rensel and PTI. 1991. Nutrients and phytoplankton in Puget
Sound. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Office of Coastal Waters. Rensel Associates, Seattle,
WA and PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1991. Puget Sound sediment reconnaissance survey,
1991. Prepared for Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Aquatic Lands. Tetra Tech, Bellevue, WA.
U.S. COE. 1991. Memorandum for record: Decision on the
suitability of dredged material tested under PSDDA guidelines for
Bellingham maintenance dredging in Whatcom Creek Waterway,
Squalicum Creek Waterway, and I & J Street Waterway to be
disposed of at the Bellingham Bay nondispersive open water dis-
posal site and Rosario Straits dispersive site. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Dredged Material Management Office, Seattle, WA.
108
-------
Glossary of Terms
Amphipod
Anadromous
Apparent effects threshold
Benthic
Benthic community
Best management practice
Bioaccumulation
Bioassay
Biochemical oxygen demand
Biota
Combined sewer overflow
Small shrimp-like crustaceans, such as sand fleas, that
are often benthic dwellers and feed on algae and
detritus.
Migrating up rivers from the sea to breed in fresh
water. Salmon have anadromous life cycles.
Chemical-specific sediment concentrations above
which a particular adverse biological effect is always
found to be statistically significant (P<0.05) for a
given data set.
Pertaining to the bottom of a water body.
A group of interacting species populations found within
the benthic zone.
A method, activity, maintenance procedure, or other
management practice to reduce the amount of contam-
inants entering a water body.
The accumulation of a substance in tissues of an
organism. Bioaccumulation of toxic substances may
lead to disease or other health problems and may render
organisms unfit for human consumption.
A laboratory or field test used to evaluate the toxicity
of a material (commonly sediments or water) by measur-
ing behavioral, physiological, or population response of
organisms.
A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed in the
biological processes that break down organic matter in
water.
The animal and plant life of an area.
A discharge of raw sewage and stormwater, which
occurs when the hydraulic capacity of a combined
sewer line is exceeded.
109
-------
Glossary of Terms
Contaminant
Crustacean
Diversity
Effluent
Elevation above reference
Erosion
Estuarine
Eutrophication
Gastropod
Geographic information
system
Groundwater
A substance that is not naturally present in the environ-
ment or is present in amounts that can, in sufficient
concentration, adversely affect the environment.
A group of primarily aquatic invertebrate animals
(phyllum Arthropoda, class Crustacea) with a hard
exterior skeleton, segmented body, and paired jointed
limbs, including crabs, lobsters, and amphipods.
The number of species in a community, or a mathemat-
ical index of the variety of species that also accounts
for the relative abundance of each species.
The liquid that flows out of a facility (e.g., treated
wastewater).
An index of toxic contamination or biological effects
that is equal to the measured value of a variable (e.g.,
chemical concentration) at a study site divided by the
measured value of the same variable at a relatively
clean reference area. For measuring impacts on ben-
thic organisms, this index is inverted so that a depres-
sion below reference is measured.
Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detach-
ment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, and
other mechanical and chemical forces.
Pertaining to an estuary. An estuary is a semienclosed
body of water where ocean water is diluted by fresh
water.
The biochemical processes in a body of water that result
in high levels of nutrients and low levels of dissolved
oxygen.
A group of invertebrate animals (phyllum Mollusca,
class Gastropoda) with a shell, including snails, lim-
pets, and abalone.
A computerized database system used to integrate
geographic or natural resource information and pro-
duce maps.
Water found in permeable rock layers underground.
110
-------
Glossary of Terms
Habitat
Hazardous waste
Hepatopancreas
Histopathology
Hydrocarbon
Hydraulic permit approval
Infauna
Influent
Intertidal
Invertebrates
•
Larvae
Lesion
Loading
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
The specific area or environment in which a particular
animal or plant lives.
Any solid, liquid, or gaseous substance which, because
of its source or characteristics, is classified under state
or federal law as hazardous and is subject to special
handling, shipping, storage, and disposal require-
ments.
A gland in crustaceans and certain other invertebrates
that combines the digestive functions of the liver and
pancreas of vertebrates.
Study of tissue lesions.
An organic compound composed of hydrogen and
carbon (e.g., petroleum compounds).
Under Washington's Hydraulic Code Rules, approval
is required from Washington Departments of Fisheries
and Wildlife for construction and dredging activities in
state waters that support fish life.
Animals living within the bottom sediments.
The liquid that flows into a facility (e.g., sewage into
a wastewater treatment plant).
The area between high and low water marks.
Animals without backbones.
(Singular: larva)-A juvenile stage of fish or inverte-
brates with a body form that differs greatly from the
adult stage (e.g., an oyster larva is a small, free-floating
organism).
An abnormal structural change in the body due to injury
or disease (e.g., a liver tumor in fish).
Quantity of a substance that enters a water body during
a specified time interval (e.g., pounds per year).
A part of the federal Clean Water Act which requires
point source dischargers to obtain discharge permits.
111
-------
Glossary of Terms
Nonpoint source contaminants
Nutrients
Organic compound
Paralytic shellfish poisoning
Pelecypod
Point source contaminants
Polychaete
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons
Sediment
Contaminants that enter water from dispersed and often
uncontrolled sources (such as stormwater runoff)
rather than through pipes.
Essential chemicals needed by plants and animals for
growth. Excessive nutrients may lead to water quality
problems by promoting excessive growth and subse-
quent decay of plants such as algae.
Chemical compounds that contain carbon (e.g., petro-
leum hydrocarbon).
An illness, sometimes fatal to humans, caused by a
neurotoxin produced by a type of plankton called
Gonyaulox. These organisms proliferate in blooms
(sometimes called red tides) and can concentrate in
clams, mussels, and other bivalves.
Also known as bivalves, pelecypods are molluscs that
have two shells, are generally filter feeders, and
include clams, oysters, and mussels.
Contaminants from a single source such as a pipe (e.g.,
discharge from a sewage treatment plant or factory).
A large group of segmented worms found in the marine
environment (e.g., feather dusters).
A group of manufactured chemicals including 209
different but closely related chlorinated hydrocarbons.
These compounds are toxic, persistent in the environ-
ment, and are probable human carcinogens.
A class of complex organic compounds, formed by the
combustion of organic material, that are persistent and
widespread in the environment and are known to cause
cancer. Low molecular weight polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons have up to three carbon rings. High
molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
have greater than three carbon rings and are more
carcinogenic than the lower weight polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.
Material that settles to the bottom of a water body or
collects on the bottom of pipes such as sewers and storm
drains.
112
-------
Glossary of Terms
Toxic Poisonous, cancer-causing, or otherwise directly
harmful to life.
Toxic contamination Presence of toxic substances, often caused by release
of metals or synthetic organic chemicals to the envi-
ronment.
Washington Ranking Method A process used by the Washington Department of
Ecology to rank hazardous waste sites and prioritize
these sites for cleanup activities.
Watershed The geographic region within which water drains into
a particular river, lake, or body of water.
113
-------
APPENDIX A
Administrative Record of
Agency Letters of Commitment
-------
Appendix A
Table of Contents
Letter to Lummi Tribe A-l
Lummi Tribe response A-4
Letter to Nooksack Tribe A-9
Nooksack Tribe response A-l 1
Letter to Washington Department of Fisheries (Marine Habitat
Manager) A-13
Washington Department of Fisheries response A-15
Letter to Washington Department of Fisheries (Regional Habitat
Manager) A-19
Washington Department of Fisheries response A-21
Letter to Washington Department of Health A-23
Washington Department of Health response A-26
Letter to Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission A-33
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission response A-36a
Letter to Washington Department of Wildlife (no response) A-37
Letter to Washington Department of Natural Resources A-39
Washington Department of Natural Resources response A-42
Letter to Puget Sound Water Quality Authority A-46
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority response A-50
Letter to City of Bellingham Department of Planning and
Economic Development (no response) A-56
Letter to City of Bellingham Department of Public Works A-59
City of Bellingham Department of Public Works (Public Works
Director) response A-63
City of Bellingham Department of Public Works (Public Works
Superintendent) response A-66
A-ii
-------
Letter to Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department A-68
Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department response A-71
Letter to Whatcom County Conservation District A-74
Whatcom County Conservation District response A-77
Letter to Whatcom County Council of Governments A-80
Whatcom County Council of Governments response A-82
Letter to Whatcom County Public Works Department A-84
Whatcom County Public Works Department response A-88
Letter to Whatcom County Planning Department A-91
Whatcom County Planning Department response A-95
Letter to Whatcom County Health Department A-96
Whatcom County Health Department response A-101
Letter to Port of Bellingham A-103
Port of Bellingham response A-107
Letter to Washington Sea Grant A-110
Washington Sea Grant response A-112
Letter to Concerned Southside Citizens A-l 14
Concerned Southside Citizens response A-l 17
Letter to Georgia-Pacific Corporation A-l 19
Georgia-Pacific Corporation response A-122
Letter to Maritime Contractors Inc. A-125
Maritime Contractors Inc. response A-127
Letter to Bellingham Cold Storage A-128
Bellingham Cold Storage response A-131
Letter to Bellingham Frozen Foods A-132
Bellingham Frozen Foods response A-134
A-iii
-------
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 22, 1991
Mr. Michael T. MacKay
Lummi Fisheries
Natural Production Department
2626 Kwina Road
Bellingham, WA 98226
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear
This letter is in follow-up to the August 28, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques Faigenblum
(EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with you and Michael
Cochrane, regarding actions that the Lummi Tribe is taking to
reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below our
understanding of the Lummi Tribes actions and have asked
additional questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and
address the new questions through a written response. This
letter, as well as your response, will be included in the
Bellingham Bay Draft Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Fish Enhancement
The Lummis operate the Skookum Creek Hatchery and several
salmon rearing ponds on the Nooksack River.
In the summer of 1990, an artificial spawning channel was
constructed at Maple Falls on the north fork of the Nooksack
River. Was this constructed in response to sedimentation
problems?
Net pens were being proposed, in conjunction with the
Washington Department of Fisheries, at the Taylor Street
Dock as well as at the Alaska Ferry Terminal. What is the
status of the net pens? What environmental processes are
they subject to? What is the Lummis role? What other
groups or agencies are involved in the placing of net pens
in Bellingham Bay?
What other fish enhancement projects do the Lummis have
planned?
A-1
-------
Mr. Michael MacKay
May 22, 1991
Page 2
Shellfish
With Centennial Clean Water Funds (CCWF), the Lummis have
conducted an investigation addressing: the Nooksack delta
growth rate and its effect on shellfish beds, littleneck
clam populations along the entire Whatcom County coastline,
and fecal coliform levels in the Nooksack River and in
shellfish tissue. The final report on this effort was
scheduled to be completed in December of 1990. What is the
status of the final report? Please send me a copy. What,
in general, were the results of the investigation?
The Lummis also assisted the Washington Department of
Ecology in the collection of crabs and clams for a toxic
chemicals bioaccumulation study.
Watershed Management Plans
Participation by the Lummis in Early Action Watershed
nonpoint pollution activities has assisted in the
development of watershed management plans for Silver Creek,
Tenmile Creek, and Kamm Creek. These creeks are lowland
tributaries of the Nooksack River. What specifically was
the Lummis role in developing watershed management plans for
these creeks?
Stream Restoration
The Lummi and Nooksack tribes participated in the
restoration of a short section of Silver Creek. The
restoration involved the clearing of canary grass, the
installation of logs and the creation of a plunge pool. Are
there other stream restoration projects planned?
Sedimentation
To reduce the effects of sedimentation within critical
spawning areas in the upper Nooksack watershed, the Lummis
are identifying specific corrective actions such as the
creation of artificial spawning areas. The Lummis also have
several ongoing studies investigating the impacts of
sedimentation on salmon and trout spawning, egg incubation
and juvenile rearing. What other projects are planned to
reduce the impacts of sedimentation? What is the schedule
for these projects? What, in general, are the results of
your various studies? Please send me a copy of these
studies.
A-2
-------
Mr. Michael MacKay
May 22, 1991
Page 3
Water Quality
The Lummis, in conjunction with the Whatcom County Planning
Department, applied for CCWF monies to perform a study of
the Nooksack River. The study would establish baseline data
on the river and assess impacts from logging and
agricultural practices. The information gathered would be
placed on a GIS computer system. This proposal was not
selected for funding. Will another attempt be made to
obtain CCWF monies, or other monies, to perform this study?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, June 7th.
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:Ip
A-3
-------
LUMMI FISHERIES DEFT TO 16497098 p. 0s
14 June 1991
MS. Lucille Pebles. P.E.
Belleingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
Department of Ecologyt Northwest Region
3190 160th Ave. S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 980008-5452
RE: Comments to Bellingham Bay Draft Action Plan
Dear Ms, Pebles:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Action
Plan. Included below are resposes to questions you had concerning
actions the Lummi Tribe is taking to reduce pollution to Bellingham Bay.
Q: In the summer of 1990, an artificial spawning channel was constructed
at. Maple Falls on the north fork of the Nooksack River. Was this
constructed in response to sedimentation problems?
A: Yes, the Tribe developed this project to mitigate for the impacts of
sedimentation to fisheries in the upper Nooksack River Watershed.
Investigations by us and others have shown that many of the once
productive salmonid spawning areas have been impacted by a
significant increases in sedimentation. In most cases this has
resulting from past poor forest practices. Increased sediment
loading has occured to the extent that many spawning reaches used by
salmon become highly unstable. Instability results in increased
channel shifting. This causes a scouring, dewatering, or smothering
of salmon eggs located within the nest or "redd". The end result is
a marked decrease in survival during the overwinter egg incubation
period.
The spawning channel was constructed in a location that provides
protection from channel shifting. This year the spawning channel
produced over 34.338 chum fry. The estimated egg-to-fry survival was
20.9%. In contrast, eggs from salmon observed spawning in nearby
sidechannels which had been later dewatered by channel shifting,
would be expected to have near zero egg survival.
Q: What were the results of a Lummi Fisheries report investigating the
growth rate of the Nooksack Delta and the effects on adjacent
shellfish beds?
A: The Lummi Fisheries report, "Nooksack Delta Sedimentation
Investigations" discusses a measurement that was taken and compared
with historic bathymentric charts of the area. This measure of
delta growth was based on the rate of vertical shoaling that occured
at one location on the outer margin of the delta. The rate of
shoaling was found to have increased by a factor of 4.7 for the time
period 1956-1990 when compared to the period 1888-1956 (0.43 ft./yr.
& 0.09 ft./yr. respectively).
This report identifies littleneck clams as one species most at risk
A-4
-------
JuN-i, -15'rl 0^:1.4 t->-'.j-\ i_!jf1Mi PiSHEFItD DEri TO
from t'he progradaticn of the delta front into productive clam beds
located on the Lummi Reservation. Markers placed near these beds
will be used in the future to monitor the advance of the delta.
Aggressive corrective actions for past forest Practice was
recommended as one strategx for reducing impacts to these shellfish
beds.
0: what was the Lummis' role in developing watershed management plans
for Silver Creek, Tenmile Creek, and Kamm Creek?
A: These Early Action Watersheds recieved letters of support from the
Tribe during the nomination period. The Silver Creek proposal was
nominated bx the Tribe and was awarded Centenial Clean Water funds.
The grant was administered bx the Whatcom Countx Council of
Governments at the Tribe's request. The Tribe activelx participated
during the development of watershed plans for all three watersheds.
The Silver Creek Plan identified a demonstration project that was to
be undertaken bx the Lummi Tribe with the help of the Nooksack
Tribe. This work was completed last fall and resulted in the
demonstration of several techniques to restore stream-side
vegetation and to prevent livestock access. The final report is
available from our office.
0: Are there other stream restoration projects planned?
A: The Silver Creek Stream Restoration project, discussed above, was
intended to provide an example of stream work that is needed in manx
areas of the Noooksack lowlands. It was the Tribe's expectation
that local governments and the Washington Department of Fisheries
would take the lead in encouraging this type of stream work for manx
other areas requiring stream canopx and livestock fencing. The
Whatcom Countx Council of Governments has grant monexs available for
some of this work.
At present our office does not have the resources to head up stream
restoration projects. We would, however be available to review
draft project plans and to provide technical recommendations and
letters of support for work done bx others. The Tribes Personel
Department has qualified personel that could be used as a labor pool
for stream work. The Nooksack Tribe and/or the Department of
Fisheries Youth Conservation Corps who assisted us with the fencing
on the Silver Creek Demo Project and would be excellent choices for
taking the lead in future stream restoration work.
Q: What projects are planned to reduce the impacts of sedimentation?
A: Our Resource Protection Division routinely reviews all forest
practice applications (FPAs) within the Nooksack Basin. Our
biological and geological staffs provide technical recommendations
to foresters, often after site visits (ID Teams). Our goal is to
provide sound technical advise during the planning stage to prevent
activities which will increase sediment sources, especiallx to
A-5
-------
LUNMI FISHERIES L€FT TO 16497058 -.04
sensitive salmon spawning streams.
We are also conducting sediment source inventories for selected
sub^water sheds and are developing specific lists of corrective
actions as that can be taken by land owners to reduce sedimentation
impacts.
Enclosed, please find a list of technical reports available from the
our office. Let us know which reports you would like.
Q: Will the Tribe be pursuing other funding sources for developing
baseline measures for establishing impact from logging *
agricultural impacts?
A: The Tribe has sought several federal funding sources to provide
water quality indicators to measure progress in providing sound
forest agricultural practices. Present funding levels allow only a
limited amount of water quality monitoring.
High priorities are for determining sediment and nutrient loading in
the Nooksack and Bellingham Bay and to monitor incidents of nusiance
algae blooms that occur in the late summer in the lower Nooksack and
in Bellingham Bay. We wil also be monitoring the certification
status of our shellfish beds and will be attempting to determine
major sources of bacterial contamination that threaten the
certification of shellfish growing waters.
Q: Will the Lummi Tribe and What com County Planning Department be
requesting CCWF funds to provide Nooksack water quality/quantity
invest igat ions?
A: There are no plans at present, but the Tribe is committed to provide
its technical staff with computerized mapping tools and to conduct
specific investigations to identify resources at risk from
detrimental changes in water quality/quantity.
I hope this information wjill assist you in the Bellingham Bay Action
Program. Please call me at 647-6230 if I can provide any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Michael MacKay, Manager
Resource Protection Div.
Lummi Natural Resources
A-6
TOTAL P.04
-------
JUN-lT-1991 13:1" FROM LLM1I i-IbHEKlES DtPT
LUMMI NATURAL RESOURCES
RESOURCE PROTECTION
REFERENCE LIST
(Updated 6/17/91 )
Cochrane, Michael and Michael T. MacKax. 1989. Lummi shellfish pro-
tection plan. Report #89-1. Lummi Fisheries Oept. Bellingham, WA.
86p.
Cochrane, Michael. 1990. Nooksack Delta Sedimentation Investigations.
Report #91-1. (from "Impacts of Nonpoint Pollution on Fisheries
Resources"). Lummi Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham, WA. 22p.
Cochrane, Michael. 1990. Nuisance algae bloom investigations in
the lower Nooksack River. Report #91-2. (from "Impacts of Nonpoint
Pollution on Fisheries Resources"). Lummi Natural Resources Oept.
Bellingham, WA. 18p.
Cochrane, Michael. 1990. Investigation of fecal coliform bacteria.
Report #91-3. (from "Impacts of Nonpoint Pollution on Fisheries
Resources"). Lummi Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham, WA. 18p.
Cochrane, Michael. 1990. Shellfish resource maps of Whatcom Countx.
Report #91-4. (from "Impacts of Nonpoint Pollution on Fisheries
Resources"). Lummi Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham, WA. 20p.
Dunphx, Gregg S. 1989. Outmigrant fish trapping in Silver Creek,
Whatcom Countx, Washington March-April, 1989. Lummi Fisheries Dept.
Be11i ngham, WA. 6p.
Dunphx, Gregg S. 1991. November 1990 flood events: preliminarx
anadromous salmonid impacts. Report #91-1. Lummi Natural Resources
Dept. Bellingham, WA. 7pp.
Dunphx, Gregg S. 1991. Maple Falls side channel progress report.
Report #91-3. Lummi Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham, WA. 5p.
Dunphx, Gregg S. 1991. Maple Falls side channel chum salmon overwinter
survival, evaluation, and outmigration timing studx. Report #91-5.
Lummi Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham, WA. 7pp.
MacKax, Michael T. 1983. 1982 Spring Chinook holding pool and redd
counts from the Nooksack River South Fork. Lummi Fisheries.
Bellingham, WA. 14p.
MacKax. Michael T. 1987. Using a "Reverse Peterson" method to estimate
the river escapement of Nooksack Spring Chinook in 1985. Lummi
Fisheries Dept. Bellingham, WA. 15p.
MacKax, Michael T. and R.M. Kocan. 1990. In situ and laboratorx
assessment of herring embrxo survival at Cherrx Point, Washington,
April/Max 1990. Report #90-1. Lummi Natural Resources Oept.
Bellingham, WA. 17p.
MacKax, Michael T., s.S. Dunphx, and V. Johnson Jr. 1991. Silver
Creek Rehabilitation Demonstration Project. Report #91-5. Lummi
Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham, WA. 21p.
A-7
-------
Juf i-j. , -isri ij^i, ,-,-.61 i !_url['U r.onepics ^tr , iu lOHaTdSb r.d,i
PEAK Northwest. 1986. Nooksack River basin erosion and fisheries
study: Lummi Tribal Fisheries Department. Bellingham, WA. llOp.
Schuett-Hames, J.P. and D.E. Schuett-Hames. 1984. Spawning gravel
fine sediment levels and stream channel stability ratings for salmonid
streams in the Nooksack Basin, Washington, 1982 and 1983: Lummi Tribal
Fisheries Department. Bellingham, WA. 26p.
Schuett-Hames, J.P. and D.E. Schuett-Hames. 1984. Juvenile salmonid
survey of lowland Whatcom County streams, spring 1983. Lummi Tribal
Fisheries Department. Bellingham, WA. lOp.
Schuett-Hames, J.P. and D.E. Schuett-Hames. 1987. North Fork Nooksack
Spring Chinook surveys: 1986 survey results: a historical count review;
and habitat observations. Lummi Tribal Fisheries Department & U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service Joint Report. Bellingham/Olympia, WA. 20p.
Schuett-Hames, J.P., D.E. Schuett-Hames, M.T. MacKay, K. Doughty.
and P. Wampler. 1988. An Assessment of the Availability and Quality
of Spring Chinook Holding and spawning habitat in the South Fork
Nooksack River, 1986. Lummi/Nooksack Tribal Fisheries Department i
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Joint Report.
Bellingham/Demming/Olympia, WA. 20p.
Schuett-Hames, D.E., J.P. Schuett-Hames and D. Mike. 1988b. Nooksack H.
Basin and associated drainages: stream monitoring data - 1982 to 1987:
Lummi Tribal Fisheries Deptartment. Bellingham, WA. SSp.
Thompson, John N. 1990. November 1990 flood events: preliminary
summary. Report #90-2. Lummi Natural Resources Dept. Bellingham. WA.
Whatcom County Conservation District. 1986. Agricultural impacts on L.
water resources in Tenmile Watersheds prepared for Lummi Tribal
Fisheries Department by Whatcom Conservation District. Lynden, WA.
58p.
Whatcom County Conservation District. 1986. Agricultural impacts on M.
water resources in Kamm Watershed: prepared for Lummi Tribal
Fisheries Department by Whatcom Conservation District. Lynden, WA.
48p.
FN: LUMREF (6/91 )
A-8
TOTAL P.03
-------
CHRISTINE O. CRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190- 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
May 22, 1991
Ms. Pat Petuchov
Nooksack Tribe
P.O. Box 157
Deming, WA 98225
Re: ~Bellingham Bay Action Plan
/&'
Dear Ms^Eefcuehov:
This letter is in follow-up to the August 28, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques Faigenblum
(EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with you regarding
actions that the Nooksack Tribe is taking to reduce pollution in
Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the
Nooksacks Tribe's actions and have asked additional questions.
Please confirm or modify the summary and address the new
questions through a written response. This letter, as well as
your response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay
Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Fish Enhancement
The Nooksacks have been involved in a number of fish
productivity and habitat enhancement projects in the
Nooksack River and its tributaries. In July of 1990 a
portion of Silver Creek just outside the Bellingham city
limits was restored; in August of 1990, in conjunction with
the U.S. Forest Service (U.S.F.S.), a jam in Canyon Creek
was cleared; revisions to the artificial spawning channel in
Hutchinson Creek were completed in August of 1990. The
Nooksacks have also received funds from the U.S.F.S. to
clean out an acclimation pond on Dead Horse Creek and to
perform channel improvements.
As part of the Nooksack Technical Spring Chinook Committee,
the Nooksacks were also involved in the constuction of an
acclimation pond on the north fork of the Nooksack River.
What other projects are planned by the committee? What
other fish enhancement projects do the Nooksacks have
planned?
A-9
-------
Ms. Pat Petuchov
May 22, 1991
Page 2
Watershed Management
The Nooksacks participate in the Nooksack Watershed
Cooperative which addresses region-wide concerns affecting
the Nooksack River. What projects are currently planned by
the cooperative?
What has been the Nooksacks role in recent watershed
management plans such as Silver Creek, Kamm Creek and
Tenmile Creek?
Mon itor ing
Approximately every two months, the Tribe monitors Cornell,
Wells, Racehorse, Hutchinson, and Porter Creeks for
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and scouring. Are fecal
coliforms or any chemicals being monitored? Please send me
a copy of the monitoring results.
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, June 7th.
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
ltp:lp
A-10
-------
NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE
P.O. Box 157
Deming, Washington 98244
Telephone (206) 592-5176
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Department of:Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 - 160th Ave S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98008
June 12, 1991
RECEWED
JUH 1 * m
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
- 5452
Dear Lucille:
This letter is in response to your follow-up letter of May 22,
concerning additional comments to be included in the the draft
Bellingham Bay Action Plan.
Regarding the first paragraph under Fish Enhancement: a mud and
log jam shonidd qualify ..."a jam in Canyon Creek"...
Also, the U.S.F.S. completed'•• the clean out of Deadhorse acclimation
pond, not that the Nooksack Tribe received funds to do this
work.
Additional editing in the second paragraph: please substitue
"lead agency" fbr.\.',;s, "also involved"... .and subtitue ..."construction
of an" for "construction of two". Insert "in 1989 and 1990"
after ..." the Nooksack River"...
In answer to:your questions concening Fish Enhancement:
1) what other projects are planned by the committee?
Deadhorse pond will be useed as an acclimation pond for
spring chinook and possibly steelhead in the spring
of 1992. Possible enhance of the South Fork spring chinook
run is also planned. t*WT
2) What other fish enhancement projects do the*, Nooksacks have
planned?
- Rehabilitaion work at our hatchery at Rutsatz slough is
underway. The facility was damaged during the flood
event of 1990. The facility will feature a spawning channel for
chum salmon and possible rearing of steelhead besides chum.
A-11
-------
Page 2
- Brood stock collection for chum eggs in Fall 1991
- Fall 1991 egg planting in spawning channel of Hutchinson CReek
- Removal of fish barrier at Canyon Creek, to open up 5+ miles
of prime fish habitat, as a cooperative effort with USFS, in
the summer of 1992.
- Clean up of Anderson Creek - remove 40 years of accumulated
dumping, in summer of 1991.
The following relates to comments/questions concerning Watershed
Management:
The Nooksack Watershed Cooperative is currently inactive.
The Nooksack's role in watershed management plans:
The Nooksacks have participated in the planning committees on
Silver, TenMIle and Kamm Creeks, and are now getting ready
to implement stream restoration actions. A new watershed
management committee on Drayton Harbor has been formed and the
Nooksack Tribe is participating on this committee.
I hope that this letter clarifies the additions and comments
we have. If you have any additional questions, please call
me at 592-5176.
Sincerely,
Pat Petuchov - Fisheries Biologist
A-12
-------
CHRISTINE O. GRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 • 160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Brian Williams
Washington Department
of Fisheries
Hillcrest Plaza, Unit 7
430 - 91st Avenue N.E.
Everett, WA 98205
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
^•7/i?'V
Dear Ifa. Williuma;
This letter is in follow-up to the September 25, 1990 conference call
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you regarding actions that the Washington
Department of Fisheries is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham
Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the Department of
Fisheries actions and have asked additional questions. Please confirm
or modify the summary and address the new questions through a written
response. This letter, as well as your response, will be included in
the draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Fish Enhancement Projects
The Department of Fisheries operates a hatchery on the Nooksack
River as well as one on Whatcom Creek, in cooperation with the
Maritime Heritage Center. The Maritime Heritage Center hatchery
has frequently experienced high coho salmon mortality. Has the
cause of this high mortality been determined?
What is the status of placing net pens in Bellingham Bay? What
environmental processes will they be subject to? What is the
Department of Fisheries role? What other groups are involved in
the placing of net pens in Bellingham Bay?
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP)
As part of the PSAMP, the Department of Fisheries sampled English
Sole in Bellingham Bay in May of 1989. Muscle tissue samples
were analyzed for pesticides, polychlorinated biphenols, other
priority pollutants and hazardous substances (e.g. metals).
Samples were also taken to determine the presence of liver
lesions. Bellingham Bay may be sampled again in July of 1991,
and dioxin could be added to the list of constituents. Is there
one core station that is sampled once a year and another rotating
station that is sampled once in three years? Please send me the
results of the 1989 sampling.
A-13
-------
Mr. Brian Williams
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Permit Issuance and Review
The Department of Fisheries requires Hydraulic Project Approval
(HPA) permits for projects that use, divert, obstruct, or change
the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or freshwaters of the
state. In addition, Fisheries has adopted stormwater and
wetlands policies which are implemented through the HPA permit
process.
The Department of Fisheries also reviews 404 permits as well as
SEPA documents.
Wetlands
What is the Department of Fisheries wetlands policy? Are
developers required to meet or exceed the provisions of the
policy as part of the HPA permit?
Monitoring
In Bellingham Bay the Department of Fisheries monitors crabs,
clams and commercial fish stock sizes. Pink salmon runs have
been on the decline. Potential causes of this include:
siltation of spawning grounds in the upper watershed, habitat
loss, and low productivity in the bay which leads to quick out
migration. How are stocks monitored? Have you discovered any
other declining trends? If so, what could be the reasons for the
decline?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each member of
the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full work group
meeting will be held this summer to discuss and comment on the draft
plan. Prior to the finalization of the plan, public comments will
also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to sending
your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272 (SCAN 354).
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-14
-------
JOSEPH R BLUM
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
775 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206; 753-6600 • (SCAN) 234-6600
June 3, 1991
Department of Ecology
Attention: Lucille Pebles
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
3190 - 160th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98008
Subject: Response To Questions Regarding WDF Activities In
Bellingham Bay
Dear Lucille:
Hopefully the following information will clarify the Department
of Fisheries (WDF) activities in Bellingham Bay.
Fish Enhancement Projects:
I. Question: The Maritime Heritage Center hatchery has
frequently experienced high coho salmon mortality- Has the cause
of chis high mortality been determined?
Ansv.-er: The Maritime Heritage Center hatchery has
experienced an annual coho mortality event during the fall months
for a number of years. The mortalities appear to correspond with
the first significant rainfall and run off event of the fall.
The Maritime Heritage Center hatchery depends upon Whatcom Creek
for its' water source. It has been speculated that an upstream
pollution source enters the system during the run off event at a
level that is lethal to yearling size coho. To date, the
hatchery manager with the assistance of DOE have been unable to
isolate the source of the mortality. Water sampling efforts to
isolate the pollutant and source were frustrated in 1990 by the
absence of the anticipated coho mortality event. It is my
understanding that efforts to isolate the pollutant will
continue.
2. Question: What is the status of placing net pens in
Bellingham Bay?
Answer: The Taylor Dock and Squalicum Harbor net pen sites
will be on line in 1991 for extended rearing of juvenile coho and
Chinook salmon. Both sites were on line in during 1990. The
Squalicum Harbor site is a one pen operation cooperatively
managed by the Bellingham Heritage Center,the Bellingham Samish
Say Enhancement Advisory and WDF. The Taylor Dock site is a 4
pen operation cooperatively managed by the Bellingham Samish Bay
Enhancement Advisory and WDF.
Though a single net pen was operational in 1989 and 1990 at the
Alaska Ferry Terminal, operation at this site in 1991 is
uncertain at this time. The Alaska Ferry Terminal net pen is
A-15
-------
cooperatively managed by the Bellingham Samish Bay Enhancement
Advisory and WDF.
3. Question: What environmental processes will the net pens be
subject to?
Answer: (a) The Taylor Dock site was issued a Hydraulic
Project Approval by WDF, a Determination of Non Significance
issued by the City of Bellingham and a Shoreline Permit issued by
the City. WDF contracted a physical and biological survey of the
Taylor Dock site in August, 1990. In addition, an environmental
checklist was submitted to the City of Bellingham in compliance
with SEPA. The Hydraulic Project Approval was developed
according to the Recommended Interim Guidelines For The
Management Of Salmon Net-Pen Culture in Puget Sound published in
December, 1986.
Answer: (b) The Squalicum Harbor site was issued a Hydraulic
Permit Approval through WDF's Volunteer Fisheries Resource
Program and according to the Recommended Guidelines For Sizing
and Siting Delayed Release Net Pens developed by WDF in May,
1990.
Answer: (c) The Alaska Ferry Terminal site was issued a
Hydraulic Permit Approval by WDF in 1989 according to preliminary
Recommended Guidelines For Sizing and Siting Delayed Release Net
Pens developed by WDF and adopted in May, 1990.
Answer: (d) The physical and biological characteristics of
each site was surveyed prior to project implementation. The
Taylor Dock site will be surveyed again during the fifth year of
operation and prior to renewal of the Hydraulic Permit Approval
in 1996. The Squalicum Harbor site and Alaska Ferry Terminal
site will not be monitored. Continued operation of the Squalicum
Harbor and Alaska Ferry Terminal sites is contingent on the
findings of a WDF monitoring program targeting a representative
sample of net pen operations in the Puget Sound area similar in
size and function to these sites but not including the Alaska
Ferry Terminal and Squalicum Harbor sites.
4. Question: What is WDF's role and what other groups are
involved in the placing of net pen in Bellingham Bay?
Answer: (a) WDF is involved in the permitting process for
net pen operations through issuance of the Hydraulic Project
Approval. The City of Bellingham is also involved in the
permitting process through SEPA and Shoreline Management
jurisdiction. Through the SEPA process, any and all other
interested parties can raise concerns regarding the siting and
operation of proposed net pen facilities.
Answer: (b) WDF evaluates site specific physical and
biological data for compliance with the above referenced net pen
siting guidelines. WDF also works cooperatively with the
Bellingham Samish Bay Enhancement Advisory and the Bellingham
Heritage Center towards the successful operation of the net pen
ooerations.
A-16
-------
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP)
1. Question: Is there one core station that is sampled once a
year and another rotating station that is sampled once in three
years?
Answer: The PSAMP program originally proposed to
establish two sampling stations in Bellingham Bay. Initially,
one station would be sampled each year and the second station
sampled every other year. Due to funding constraints, the
frequency of sampling for the primary sampling station, located
south of Post Point, in approximately 12 fathoms of water, and
defined by latitude 48 degrees, 40.93 minutes and longitude 122
degrees, 32.92 minutes, has been reduced to every other year. To
date, samples were successfully taken in May of 1989 and 1991.
Sampling efforts in 1991 were unable catch enough flatfish to
establish a secondary sampling station in Bellingham Bay north or
north east of the Post Point station. WDF will not re-attempt to
establish a secondary sampling site in the immediate future.
2. Question: Please send me the results of the 1989 sampling.
Answer: Sandra O'Niel with our Marine Fish Division in
Seattle will send you the results of the 1989 sampling.
Permit Issuance and Review:
1. Question: What is WDF's wetland policy?
Answer: WDF has been directed by the Governor's Executive
Order On Wetlands, signed April 21, 1990, to condition or deny
Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPA) to the fullest extent of our
authority to protect fish life by assuring protection of the
value and function of wetlands. To do so, WDF must be able to
assert that the wetland has a positive impact on fish life.
To protect fish life, WDF implements a policy of no net loss of
habitat. Where applicable and as directed by Section 12 of the
Governor's Executive Order on Wetlands, WDF will implement the
following mitigation priorities:
1. Avoid wetland impacts
2. Minimize wetland impacts
3. Rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring
4. Reduce impacts by preservation and maintenance
5. Compensate impacts by replacing, enhancing or
substituting
6. Monitor Impacts and take corrective action.
2. Question: Are developers required to meet or exceed the
provisions of the policy as part of the HPA permit?
Answer: For all wetlands having a positive impact on fish
life, developers must fully mitigate all negative impacts to the
value and function of the wetlands utilizing the above reference
mitigation priorities as a condition of HPA issuance.
A-17
-------
Monitoring:
1. Question: How are stocks monitored in Bellingham Bay?
Answer: Bellingham Bay salmon stocks are monitored through
a comparison of annual run size estimates for each stock and
species. A run size estimate for a particular species and stock
includes an estimate of total adult fish contributed to coast
wide commercial fisheries, coast wide sport fisheries and
spawning escapement. Coded wire tag data and spawning ground
surveys currently provide the data foundation for run size
estimates though other methodologies are currently being explored
in an effort to refine these estimates.
Answer: Bellingham Bay dungeness crab are monitored through
an annual and monthly evaluation of the commercial harvest and a
limited volunteer recreational fishery sport catch log.
2. Question: Have you discovered any other declining trends?
Answer: Analysis of spawning escapement data for the years
1965 to 1989 does not support that the Nooksack River pink salmon
are experiencing a declining trend. Spawning escapement
estimates have fluctuated radically from year to year though in
general appear to be maintaining a status quo level.
Answer: Analysis of spawning escapement data for native
Nor-ch Fork Spring Chinook indicates that this stock is
experiencing a declining trend.
3. Question: If so, reasons?
Reasons for the decline are most likely a combination of
a. the difficulty of protecting the adults from harvest
through out their ocean migratory range and
b. the instability of the North Fork Nooksack River spawning
habitat.
Sincerely,
Brian Williams
Marine Habitat Manager
Habitat Management Division
A-18
-------
CHRISTINE O. CRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Mark Schuller
Washington Department
of Fisheries
333 E. Blackburn Road
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Hwk
Dear Mr-—Sehuller;
This letter is in follow-up to the November 6, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you and Art Stendal of the Department
of Wildlife, regarding actions that the Washington Department of
Fisheries is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I
have summarized below our understanding of the Department of
Fisheries actions and have asked additional questions. Please
confirm or modify the summary and address the new questions
through a written response. This letter, as well as your
response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action
Plan scheduled for release this July.
Permits/SEPA
The Department of Fisheries issues Hydraulic Project
Approval permits prior to construction or other activity
which uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow
or bed of any of the salt or freshwaters of the state.
Fisheries also reviews Forest Practices permits and SEPA
documents. What authority does Fisheries have in their
review of the Forest Practices permit (e.g. permit denial)?
stormwater Issues
As part of the Hydraulic Project Approval permit process,
the Department of Fisheries is requiring developments which
exceed 5,000 square feet of impervious surface to adhere to
Fisheries draft stormwater guidelines.
Under the guidelines, stormwater must be treated prior to
discharging to a surface water body and, depending on
proximity of downstream fish and shellfish resources,
retention and/or detention facilities must also be provided.
A-19
-------
Mr. Mark Schuller
May 17, 1991
Page 2
The guidelines also include requirements for erosion and
sediment control, and regular maintenance. Have the
guidelines been finalized? Were there any significant
revisions made to the draft prior to finalization? How have
these guidelines been received in the Whatcom County area?
Fish Kills
What is the status of the Department of Fisheries assuming
responsibility for addressing fish kills? Does this
responsibility only apply to the Whatcom County area? Is
authority delineated through a memorandum of agreement with
the Department of Ecology? How is authority delineated?
Livestock Wastes
Fisheries is continuing to work with the Washington
Conservation Corps installing cattle crossings and fences
along streams adjacent to agricultural areas. Although this
effort preserves the riparian corridor by limiting creek
access to the crossings, it also creates a -concentrated
point of waste input. Fisheries suggests that livestock be
prevented from accessing creeks and that the water be
brought to the livestock. Is the Department of Fisheries
pursuing the idea of restricting access to creeks? If so,
through what means?
The Department of Fisheries coordinates closely with the
Whatcom County Conservation District and refers farmers to
them for assistance in developing and implementing waste
management plans.
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354). Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:Ip
A-20
-------
=KHbiT LHB TEi_ NO: 206 428 InTl 8427 P02
June 14, 1991
Lucille Pebles
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Bellingham Bay Action Program
3190 160th Avenue S.E,
Bellevue, WA. 98008-5452
SUBJECT: Belllngham Bay Action Plan; Department of Fisheries
Involvement
Dear Ms. Pebles:
I have reviewed your letter dated May 17, 1991 and offer the
following comments:
1. Permlte/SEPA - We also deny some applications for Hydraulic
Project Approvals. Our authority in reviewing Forest Practice
Approvals is limited to only that instream work which would
require an Hydraulic Project Approval, such as logging across a
stream or installing a culvert. We cannot deny a logging plan,
even if we Know in our hearts that the clearcut is much too large
and will probably cause stream impacts. The cumulative effects
issue is still up in the air. We are able to go outside our
normal Hydraulic Code authority and address other concerns about
projects near creeks through the 9BPA process.
2. Stormwater Issues - We are still using the same guidelines.
whatcom county still does not wish to adopt our more stringent
requirements/ but when the county authorities suggest that the
applicant contact us we require our criteria to be used. The
City of Belllngham refuses to consider our guidelines. Perndale
is trying to follow them. Lynden is not. Bverson and Nooksack
are. Sumas and Blaine are coming closer.
3. Fish Kills - This responslbilty Is still D.O.B.'s because
we do not have the funding. This issue is still being discussed
in Olympia and has not been totally resolved.
4. Livestock wastes: When an applicant applies for an
Hydraulic Project Approval to dredge a stream that has very
visible evidence of livestock damage we do our best to get the
applicant to sign up for fencing, We have no direct means of
requiring * fence* Many of the Whatcom County streams are closed
by the D.O.E. for the issuance of new water rights for surface
withdrawal.
A-21
-------
"ul i-i-l-' 3>i rri io'^a ID:
Ms. Pebles
June 14, 1991
Page 2
It la Ironic that the D.O.B, is trying to clean up the water/ but
does not seem to want to bend and devise a method to divert water
to the cattle in these closed streams. The D.O.E. feels that a
livestock owner has "riparian stock watering rights'* with the
land. This issue is important and hopefully vill be discussed in
the future.
Sincerely
Mark schuller
Regional Habitat Manager
426-1520
A-22
-------
CHRISTINE O. CREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Don Melvin
Washington Department
of Health
Office of Environmental
Health Programs
LD-11
Olympia, WA 98504
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
&cr\
Dear My. Melvin;
This letter is in follow-up to the September 25, 1990 conference call
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you regarding actions that the Washington
Department of Health is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay.
I have summarized below our understanding of the Department of
Health's actions and have asked additional questions. Please confirm
or modify the summary and address the new questions through a written
response. This letter, as well as your response, will be included in
the draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP)
As part of the PSAMP, the Department of Health samples bivalves
quarterly off of Post Point. These samples are analyzed for
total and fecal coliforms. Priority pollutants are monitored
annually. What is the Department of Health's interpretation of
the data collected at Post Point? Please send me a copy of the
priority pollutant data collected to date.
Other Monitoring
The Department of Health has begun monitoring water quality at 19
stations between Post Point and Governors Point, and in the
Chuckanut Village Stream. Six samples will be collected from
each station per year to meet the requirement of 18 samples from
each station within a three year period.
Fecal coliforms monitored in August of 1989 and in May of 1990
are elevated in the Chuckanut Village Stream samples. What
actions will be taken to mitigate this problem, by whom and when?
Please describe your commercial ambient monitoring program. Is
this also called your regular ambient program?
A-23
-------
Mr. Don Melvin
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Based upon the water quality data, recreational shellfish beaches
may be classified as: Open, Closed or Conditionally Closed.
Complete seasonal water quality profiles will be obtained prior
to using the Conditional classification. Please cite an example
of the use of the Conditionally Closed classification.
The Department of Health has also begun monitoring for paralytic
shellfish poisoning. Shellfish samples were taken monthly during
the winter and will be increased to weekly during the summer.
What recreational beaches in the Bellingham Bay area will Jbe
sampled? What months are included under winter and under summer?
Will this be standard operating procedure from this point
forward? Will any volunteer efforts be used to assist in
collecting samples?
Memorandum of Agreement
The Whatcom County Health Department and the State Department of
Health are working on a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to
delineate responsibility for the posting of recreational
shellfish beaches. What is the status of the'MOA? How is the
responsibility defined? What other issues are addressed in the
MOA? Please send me a copy of the completed MOA. The Bellingham
Parks Department has expressed a willingness to post signs
provided by the state. Is the Parks Department involved in this
process?
Sewage Disposal
The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan calls for the
Department of Health to revise the model ordinance for
liveaboards to address sewage disposal needs for all boats using
public and private marinas. What is the status of these
revisions? When will the ordinance be implemented?
The Department of Health has revised their On-Site Sewage System
Regulations (Chapter 248-96 WAC). The rules for on-site sewage
disposal address operations and monitoring requirements, and
technical issues such as vertical separation from groundwater and
alternative treatment systems. The rules also intend to develop
a standardized approach to the issue. Were the rules adopted in
their "Revised November, 1989" form? Is Whatcom County adopting
local regulations to implement the rules?
A-24
-------
Mr. Don Melvin
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Dairy Wastes
The Whatcom County area contains a high concentration of dairies,
which could be adversely affecting water quality in surface
waters throughout the county. The Nooksack River, as a large
contributor of freshwater to Bellingham Bay, could be adding
significant amounts of fecal coliform contamination to the bay.
What plans does the Department of Health have to monitor the
river, or any other surface waters draining to the bay, for water
quality parameters such as fecal coliforms?
The City of Bellingham is currently monitoring all streams within
their city limits once a month. Standard water quality
parameters are being monitored, including fecal coliforms. The
data collected thus far indicates some exceedances of state water
quality standards. What role will the Department of Health play
in this issue?
What is the status of the Department of Health providing funding
to local health districts so that they can address these types of
watershed issues?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each member of
the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full work group
meeting will then be held to discuss and comment on the draft plan.
Prior to the finalization of the plan, public comments will also be
solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to sending
your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272 (SCAN 354).
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-25
-------
KRISTINE M. CEBBIE
Secretary
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .[|j|y ] A
Olympia, Washington 98504
°EPT. OF ECOLOGY
June 13, 1991
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452
Dear Lucille:
The enclosed material addresses the questions posed in your May 17,
1991 letter concerning DOH activities in the Bellingham
Bay/Chuckanut Bay areas:
Page one, paragraph two - Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program:
The PSAMP protocols call for Bivalve shellfish to be sampled
quarterly for fecal coliform bacteria and annually for metals,
organic chemicals and pesticides. Last year four beaches were
analyzed for chemicals: Lincoln Park, March Pt., Ross Point
and Walker Park.
In 1990 metals at these beaches were found at levels
comparable to those reported in the 1988 Faigenblum study
although the data for mercury had to be qualified since the
frozen clams had exceed holding time limits. March Point had
the only organic chemical found in levels above detection
limits which was fluoranthene (a by product of fossil fuel
combustion) at 44 ppb.
Post Point was not a chemistry site during 1990 but was added
to the 1991 schedule. This site was dug on May 19, 1991 and
will be analyzed by the end of June 1991. The person in
charge of our PSAMP program is Linda Klote (586-8736) . I will
ask Linda to send you a copy of the PSAMP results when they
are available.
A-26
-------
Lucille T. Pebles
Page Two
June 13, 1991
Page one, paragraphs three and four - Other Monitoring:
Paragraph three - The samples collected in Chuckanut Bay
between Post Point and Governors Point are part of our
Recreational Beach Program. Derry Suther (664-0143) is in
charge of the Recreational Program. There are no commercial
growing areas in the region. The Whatcom County Health
Department was notified about the Chuckanut Village Stream
samples. Any corrective action falls under county
jurisdiction.
Paragraph four - The commercial Ambient Program (Regular)
follows guidelines established by the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. Under this program, our office is
reguired to collect a minimum of 18 samples per sampling
station from each Approved growing area within a three year
period. Only areas which are certified as Approved by DOH
fall under this particular monitoring program. Currently 42
areas fall into this category.
Water quality data is reviewed as it is received from the
State Health Laboratory. Additional work may be scheduled in
areas producing bacteria levels indicative of water quality
problems.
Ambient water quality data is reviewed annually.
Determinations regarding the appropriate growing area
classification are made based on the most recent set of 18
samples per station.
I have included a copy of the NSSP Manual of Operations for
your information. Jerry Lukes (753-5991) is in charge of the
commercial Ambient Program.
Page two, paragraph one - Other Monitoring:
The current WAC 256-52 (previously 248-52) uses the
classification nomenclature of "open, closed, and
conditionally closed" for the purposes of regulating public
beaches. The recreational program has departed from the use
of these classifications and has developed a system to rank
the beaches using the classification of "low-threat,
threatened, correctable and long-term harvest restriction"
categories. A copy of the first draft definitions of each of
these categories is attached. This ranking system will be
established in the newly drafted recreational action plan
available soon for comments. Beaches will be placed in one of
these categories based on a completed site evaluation.
A-27
-------
Lucille T. Pebles
Page Three
June 13, 1991
Examples of beaches on the "long term harvest restriction"
list would be Alki Point, Budd Inlet, Carkeek Point and Post
Point.
Page two, paragraph two:
Recreational shellfish beaches at Post Point and Chuckanut Bay
will be sampled for PSP by Adopt-A-Beach volunteers once every
two weeks from April 1 through October 31 during 1991. Winter
monitoring of these beaches is unlikely. Funding for the
Adopt-A-Beach PSP monitoring program has been obtained through
1992.
The DOH staff does not collect samples from recreational
beaches in Bellingham Bay.
Additional monitoring of recreational shellfish beaches is at
the discretion of the Whatcom County Health Department.
Historically, the County Health Department has collected PSP
samples from Bellingham Bay on an infrequent basis. No PSP
sample collection had been conducted by the County Health
Department in 1991 in Bellingham Bay.
Page two, paragraphs three and four - Memorandum of Agreement &
Sewage Disposal:
Paragraph three - The recreational WAC was intended to
delineate responsibility between DOH and local health
jurisdictions. Even though that intent is still meaningful
and will still be attempted, to date a MOA with Whatcom County
Health has not been finalized. A draft MOA is being reviewed
by several health departments.
Paragraph four - The PSWQA plan establishes the formation of
a state agency task force which has just recently been
implemented with the formation of an advisory committee to
follow. There is heightened interest regarding any changes in
the model ordinance and any forthcoming drafts will be
reviewed and possibly written by this advisory committee which
will include members from the liveaboard and boating
communities. The plan mandates that local governments be
encouraged to implement the model ordinance within six months
after completion.
A-28
-------
Lucille T. Pebles
Page Four
June 13, 1991
Page two, paragraph five - Sewage Disposal:
The State Board of Health amended their on-site sewage system
regulations (WAC 246-272) in November of 1989 to address "the
repair and expansion of systems adjacent to marine waters."
The DOH has just completed a draft revision of WAC 246-272.
Public workshops will be held in the summer of 1991 to discuss
the proposed changes. The proposed revisions address a number
of issues including operation and maintenance, areas of
special concern, certification of designers, installers and
regulators, and also require that each system be built to
provide sewage treatment.
Local health departments may adopt local regulations,
providing that the local regulation is at least as stringent
as the state regulation.
Page three, paragraphs one and two - Dairy Wastes:
Since there are no certifiable commercial or recreational
shellfish beaches in Bellingham Bay, this department will not
be involved in any activities associated with water quality
problems in the bay or its freshwater systems. If water
quality should decline in areas adjacent to Bellingham Bay
which are certified shellfish areas, it is conceivable that
the Nooksack could be investigated by this office as a
potential source of contamination.
Page three, paragraph three:
The DOH requested funds for local health departments to
conduct a recreational shellfish program. It was our number
one priority but was not approved by the Governors Office and
O.F.M.
Health departments are not funded to trace dairy waste. That
is the responsibility of the local conservation districts and
the Department of Ecology. Local health departments will get
involved in tracking waste if the source is from humans.
A-29
-------
Lucille T. Pebles
Page Five
June 13, 1991
Local and State Health Departments serve on watershed
committees. State Health representatives provide technical
assistance to the twelve early action watershed committees.
Our focus is on-site sewage disposal and shellfish growing
area classification.
If you have any further questions regarding this, you may reach me
at (206) 586-4484.
Sincerely,
rf # *
'/
DON MELVIN
Environmentalist
Office of Shellfish Programs
DM:BJA
A-30
-------
VII : BEACH RANKING
Beach ranking is an administrative tool used to categorize public beaches in ac-
cordance with their water quality and their recreational value. Under Chapter
248-52 WAG, "recreational shellfish beaches" include those that are privately
owned but havenlimited public access, such as a community LH ni^ui beach.
However, there are officially 1 46 beaches owned and maintained by all levels of
government that are covered by the Recreational Shellfish Action Plan, . Private
beaches that have public access may be phased into the plan in time on a case-
by-case basis.' •
Beaches are separated into four general categories to prioritize agency re-
sources:
1 . Low Threat - minimal water quality problems
2. Threatened - water quality needs protection
3. Correctable - water quality pollution present though reversible
4. Long Term
Under this plan, beaches in the low threat or long terrrfldesad categories would
not be targeted for action;they are either relatively pristine ortoo polluted to justify
a recreational shellfish effort at this time. Beaches categorized as correctable or
threatened would be targeted for cleanup.
#1 LOW THREAT
• Beaches which meet Health standards for safe shellfish harvest/ o r
• Beaches distant from recognized upland or water-based sources of pollution.
Action : None
#2 THREATENED
• Public beaches vfeiefr Health has PlnTlflnfl nMpaa&tf water quality data indi-
catŁ$sheilfish harvest is threatened or potentially threatened by increasing pol-
lution.
• Adequate shellfish resource or the potential for enhancement exists.
• Public access is available and area is used by the public.
Action : Preventive
Preventive action includes identifying and mitigating specific pollutant sources which
are threatening the water quality of a given beach. Protection usually entails less source
1. Questions of liability surround these de facto public beaches, were there to be any illness resulting from con-
taminated shellfish harvested from them.
A-31
-------
identification and correction than a restoration area, but typically places emphasis on
public eduction and preventative land-use measures. An example of this would be in-
creasing boater education at outlying beaches with several moorages, such as in the
San Juan Islands, orconducting workshops on agricultural best management practices.
#3 CORRECTABLE
.1 j-'ffj
• Public beaches Health has aljaaiiiod a. nhi i ililm In f aila& to meet standards
for safe shellfish harvest.
Caused by by chronic, though reversible, nonpoint bacterial pollution/^r
• Abundant shellfish resource or potential for enhancement.
• Good public access is available.
Action : Restoration
Restoration means identifying and correcting pollutant sources. It involves character-
izing the site by upland uses, drainages, and pollutant sources, followed by remedial
action. Remedial action requires cooperation between state and local agencies and
citizens. It may include: repair of failing on-site septic systems; creating stream buffers
to control erosion and installing fences to prevent farm animal wastes from entering up-
land drainages; developing land use ordinances to moderate new development/ popu-
lation densities; or educating boaters, marinas and the general public. The public
needs to be involved in decisions concerning corrective actions.
#4 LONG TERM CLOSED
(0
Chronic or severe bacterial water quality degradation and/or
sewage treatment plants, contaminated sediments, or major sources of toxics-K
thn immflr4*'**0 "'™-jty require long term corrective action.
Action : Refer to Urban Bay Action Teams for cleanup
In <&& Ecology and Health ranked the 146 official beaches covered by the Recreational
Shellfish Action Plan.
5*/-^ beaches have no apparent problems and are ranked as Low Threat;
3 Ł"& beaches are Threatened;
J 0 "S beaches are Correctable; and,
Lon
-------
CHRISTINE O.CRECO1RE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 • 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Doug Strong
Washington Parks and Recreation
Commission
7150 Cleanwater Lane, KY-11
Olympia, Washington 98504-5711
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dou.9-
Dear Mr. SgEong;
This letter is in follow-up to the September 12th conference call
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques
Faigenblum (EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with Peggy
Britt regarding the Bellingham Bay Action Plan.- The purpose of
the conference call was to determine actions that the Washington
State Parks and Recreation Commission is taking to reduce
pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below our
understanding of these actions and have asked additional
questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and address the
new questions through a written response. This letter, as well
as your response, will be included in the Bellingham Bay Draft
Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Legislation
In 1989 the State Legislature passed a bill which allocated
a portion of the funds from the Watercraft Excise Tax, to a
boater waste disposal program and a boater environmental
education program. The law allocated a total of $1,000,000
for the first biennium (fiscal years 1990 & 1991) and
$1,000,000 annually for each of the following four years.
For fiscal years 1990-1991, $300,000 was available for
public and private marinas to install or repair sewage
pumpout/dumpout facilities. Boat launches and boater
destinations were also potentially eligible for these funds.
All marinas in the state were notified of their eligibility
in the Spring of 1990, however, no applications were
received from marinas in Bellingham Bay. When were notices
sent out this year? Have you received any applications from
Bellingham Bay facilities? Can these funds be used for
portable pumpout stations, even if a marina currently has a
stationary facility?
A-33
-------
Mr. Doug Strong
May 17, 1991
Page 2
In addition to sewage pumpout/dumpout grants, one of the
other funding provisions is for ports and local health
departments to develop environmmental education programs.
Education elements include information on toxic substances
used by boaters (e.g. oil,paints) and sewage disposal. What
is the process for receiving funds? Have the Port of
Bellingham and the Whatcom County Health Department applied
for funds?
Boater Education
The Parks and Recreation Commission is currently in the
process of hiring two new staff members for boater
education. One staff person will be involved in watershed
planning as well as conducting outreach activities (e.g.
presentations). With the addition of personnel to perform
outreach activities, the Boater Environmental Education
Program plans to become more pro-active. What specific
outreach activities have you planned?
A slide show about boat waste management and a video on the
environmental impacts of boating are available through the
Parks and Recreation Commission for group presentations. In
addition, a water quality interpretive sign and sewage
pumpout location and operating instruction signs are also
available. Parks and Ecology will discuss potential
locations in Bellingham Bay for these types of signs.
The Parks and Recreation Commission is revising the
educational brochure titled "Boater's Guide to Cean Water
and Good Times". The brochure currently addresses: safety,
trash, plastic, sewage pumpout stations, shellfish/oil,
maintenance and general information. What are the
revisions? When will they be completed? How is this
document made available to the public?
In 1988 the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted a
recreational boater survey to find out: how much money
boaters spend on a given day, what they spend it on, and
where they spend it; what are their most frequent
destinations; what types of waste disposal equipment and
practices are used onboard; and what facilities and programs
are needed to control boat wastes. What actions have been
or will be taken as a result of this survey?
Model Ordinance for Sewage Disposal at Marinas
The Departments of Health and Ecology, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, are currently revising a previous model ordinance
with the assistance of an advisory committee.
A-34
-------
Mr. Doug Strong
May 17, 1991
Page 3
The model ordinance will provide sewage disposal options
addressing the needs of various types of marina users.
Local agencies governing marinas will be encouraged to adopt
and enforce the ordinance.
Local governments will also be encouraged to work with the
Parks and Recreation Commission boater education program.
The ordinance will be accompanied by a report providing
information for local governments on designing and
installing slipside pumpouts at marinas and methods of
ensuring their use by liveaboard boaters. No sooner than
two years following distribution of the model ordinance,
Health shall evaluate progress under the nonmandatory
program and recommend additional action as necessary. What
is the status of the Model Ordinance?
Water Quality
Who owns and maintains storm drain systems on state park
property? Storm drains are a significant contributor to the
degradation of surface waters. Therefore, -it is important
to keep them clean to minimize their environmental impact.
How frequently are your systems cleaned? How are the
removed materials disposed of? Is there any testing of the
materials for toxic substances?
Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers contribute to the
degradation of water quality. What actions are being taken
on state park property, to reduce the impacts of these
chemicals (e.g. reduction in use or using environmentally
friendly products)?
Waste Reduction
What is being done to encourage park users to recycle?
What is done with organic materials obtained through park
maintenance? Can the materials be composted? Does the
presence of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers affect
compostlblllty?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354). Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
A-35
-------
Mr. Doug Strong
May 17, 1991
Page 4
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-36
-------
JAN TVETEN
Director
AVJ V 11. - |. WASH|NCTON
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
7750 Cleanwater Lane, KY-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-5711 • (206) 753-5755
August 6, 1991
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Plan Coordinator
Washington Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 - 160th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
This letter is in followup to the letter sent to me on May 17, 1991 requesting
information regarding action by State Parks that is intended for the Bellingham
Bay Action Plan.
The questions you posed under water quality and waste reduction in state parks
have been forwarded on to our Operations Department, and their response will be
sent on to you before the 28th of this month.
Under the paragraph entitled "Legislation" and your question about when notices
would be sent out this year regarding applications for pumpout grants, please
note that application packets will be sent in September or October of this year
for the funding cycle of 1991/92. At this point, we have not received
applications from any facilities in the state, and therefore we cannot respond
to your question regarding whether we received any from Bellingham Bay. In the
spring of this year, the pumpout WAC was rewritten to include language that would
make it possible to fund portable pumpout stations. This would not prevent a
marina currently with a stationary pumpout facility from applying for money to
include a portable unit.
Also under "Legislation," you ask a question about grant money available to ports
and local health departments to develop environmental education programs. The
status of this program currently is that the WAC has been written, it has not
been approved at this point, and it is on hold until it can go through all the
governmental processes to make it operational. We also have the difficulty of
no money being allocated for this program in the last legislative session, and
we are trying to determine where or if we can fund the program as originally
planned. The current target date for this program is during Fiscal 1992/93. The
intent will be to fund Boater Environmental Education and Boat Waste Management
grants.
A-36a
-------
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles
Page 2
August 6, 1991
Under "Boater Education," the following specific outreach activities are planned:
1) We will continue participating in boat shows, sportsmen's shows, county
fairs, etc. to distribute educational materials to recreational boaters.
2) We will make regular presentations to grassroots organizations, such as
Bay Watchers, Water Watchers, marina manager organizations, environmental
education groups, etc. to make them aware of recreational boater impacts
and solutions.
3) We have just completed a boater education video which will be distributed
to all middle schools in the state. The video includes environmental
sections targeting the recreational boater. Through this video, we'll
work with environmental science teachers across the state to include
elements of impacts by recreational boaters on the environment.
4) We will continue to provide interpretive signs, pumpout signs, brochures,
etc. to marinas and launch ramp areas for boater education purposes.
5) We will continue to take active part in interagency committees and
community action groups who are participating in water quality efforts.
Regarding your question about the boater environmental education guide, under the
"Boater Education" paragraph, the following revisions were made to the guide.
We have updated the information on pumpout locations and dump stations that are
provided throughout the state. In the first BEE Guide publication, only Puget
Sound pumpouts were listed. We've updated information under Economic Impacts and
Environmental Impacts related to recreational boating. We've added a new section
on the new MARPOL placard requirements that are now in place, and there is a
section explaining that. We have updated telephone numbers and addresses where
appropriate. We've refined and modified information relating to boat and engine
maintenance practices. Lastly, the section on shellfish has been updated to
include current information that's pertinent to recreational boaters.
Regarding distribution of the Boater Environmental Education Guide, as in the
past, we distributed this brochure to all marinas and public ports in the state
that we have on our mailing list. It's distributed widely at boat shows and
sportsmen's shows throughout the state. We make it available upon request,
either telephone or written. It's used as an educational document by Bay
Watchers groups, Water Watchers groups as a part of their educational process.
It will be distributed with the boater educational learning packet that will be
distributed to middle schools throughout the state. We will make it available
to environmental science teachers to include in their curricula as an information
resource. Lastly, it is distributed through marine retail trade locations
throughout the state. The BEE Guide has become one of our most requested
brochures from the recreational boater, and our intent is to continue
to update the pumpout location information on an annual or semiannual basis,
depending upon when new pumpouts are added throughout the state.
A-36b
-------
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles
Page 3
August 6, 1991
Our efforts to establish a model ordinance for sewage disposal at marinas with
the Department of Health are currently on hold. Both the Department of Health
and State Parks have requested funds to hire personnel to complete this
particular component of the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan. To date, that
position has not been funded.
Your questions regarding water quality and waste reduction have been forwarded
to our Operations Division at State Parks for their response. I've requested an
answer prior to your deadline of August 28, and will forward those responses to
you just as quickly as I receive them.
I apologize for the delay in getting you this information, and hope that it
arrives in time to be of some value for your meeting. Please understand that
State Parks is still very interested in participating in the Bellingham Bay
Action Plan. Please continue to keep me updated on progress with the plan and
any ways that I can help facilitate the process of bringing the plan to a final
draft.
I look forward to working with you in the months ahead. Please let me know if
there's any additional information that I can help you with prior to your next
meeting.
Sincerely,
Douglas K.OStrong
Boating Education Coordinator
DKS:sn
cc Jim French, Manager
Boating Programs
A-36c
-------
|AN TVETEN
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
7750 Oeanwater Lane, KY-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-5711 • (206) 753-5755
RECEIVED
August 20, 1991 ^ 26 1991
u , .-,, T n ui n r DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Plan Coordinator
Washington Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 - IGOth Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
I have enclosed additional comments to the letter I sent to you dated August 6,
1991, to complete information you requested that I was not able to answer at that
time. This information reflects the collective input from our staff in the
Operations and Resources sections.
State Parks does not have any facilities on Bellingham Bay as defined by the
boundary map in the plan. The nearest State Park is Larabee State Park on Samish
Bay, south of your study area. For the sake of information only, we have
responded to your questions on water quality and waste reduction using Larabee
State Park as an example. This will give you an idea of general State Parks
operating procedures as it relates to these two areas.
Please call me at (206) 586-2283 if you should have questions.
*
Sincerely,
DouglasHC. Strong
Boating Education Coordinator
cc: Cleve Pinnix, Deputy Director
Tom France, Assistant Director, Resources
Dennis Smith, Assistant Director, Operations
Jim French, Manager, Boating Programs
A-36d
-------
DRAFT
August 20, 1991
BELLINGHAM BAY ACTION PLAN
Additional Comments
WATER QUALITY:
In the Bellingham Bay area, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
manages Larabee State Park. Larabee does not have a comprehensive storm water
collection, disposal system. There are a few collection points in the main park
that flow into the sewer system through which the water is treated (lagoon and
chlorination) and effluent put into Launch Bay.
There is a minimal spraying program (once per year) in use at Larabee State Park.
No herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers are used except at road edges and trails
within the campground area. Minimizing the use of herbicides and pesticides is
the most significant action State Parks has taken.
State Park boat launches are sites where toxic substances, oils and fuels, can
collect and drain into the watershed. Boating Programs is in the process of
developing a poster for use at boat launch sites to remind boaters of their
impacts on water quality and the need to take actions to minimize or eliminate
the release of oils and fuels or other toxic substances onto the ramp or parking
area. The above information is also contained in our "Boater's Guide."
WASTE REDUCTION:
Presently, State Parks is in the development stages of a recycling program for
use at State parks. On a site by site basis, State Parks does provide for
A-36e
-------
recycling of aluminum cans. The recycling which exists at State Parks right now
is often augmented by local civic or youth organizations who are given the
opportunity through their participation to benefit from funds recouped.
At all marine parks, State Parks has implemented a "pack-it-out" program nearly
eliminating the need for the collection of trash. Park users are encouraged to
recycle their wastes in addition to packing it out at the marine parks.
At our state parks in the Bellingham Bay area, and throughout the State Park
system, there is minimal removal of organic materials. Lawn clippings and fallen
vegetation, as much as is practical, is left to decompose in a natural fashion.
Branches and limbs which must be removed for cleanliness and safety aspects are
gathered and allowed to decompose or, when this is not practical, are burned on
site.
R-BellBa:jfn
A-36f
-------
CHRISTINE O. GRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 • 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Art Stendal
Washington Department
of Wildlife
1405 Florence
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
R«t Bellingham Bay Action Plan
*faf~
Dear Mr Stendal;
This letter is in follow-up to the November 6, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you and Mark Schuller of the Washington
Department of Fisheries, regarding actions that the Washington
Department of Wildlife is taking to reduce pollution in
Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the
Department of Wildlife's actions and have asked additional
questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and address the
new questions through a written response. This letter, as well
as your response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay
Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Permits/Licenses/SEPA
The Department of Wildlife reviews Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) permits, Forest Practices Permits, and SEPA
documents. What authority does Wildlife have in permit
reviews?
The Department of Wildlife also is involved in the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process for licensing
the construction of hydroelectric dams. As a part of their
review of applications to construct dams, the Department of
Wildlife examines in-stream flows, erosion control, and
other impacts to fish and wildlife. Although there are no
laws in the state of Washington to protect wildlife, the
Department of Wildlife can examine impacts to wildlife under
the FERC process through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act. There are currently a number of proposed hydroelectric
projects on the Nooksack River as well as on almost all of
its tributaries. Are there any plans to create or amend
laws to protect wildlife?
A-37
-------
Mr. Art Stendal
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Stormwater Issues
The Department of Wildlife supports the Department of
Fisheries stormwater guidelines which require stormwater
detention/retention and treatment for HPAs. What is the
status of the Department of Wildlife adopting these
guidelines as policy?
Wetlands
When reviewing HPAs which have potential to impact wetlands,
the Department of Wildlife may either deny or condition the
permit to protect wetlands. No degradation of wetlands is
allowed. If there is an impact, it must be mitigated at the
rate of two acres of new wetlands per each acre lost. If
the Department of Wildlife's wetlands requirements are in
conflict with other state or local requirements, which
requirements will rule?
Land Use
What role does the Department of Wildlife play in the
development and review of comprehensive land use plans?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTPilp
A-38
-------
CHRISTINE O. GRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Ms. Betsy Striplin
Washington Department of
Natural Resources
Marine Research and Development
Center, EX-12
Olympia, Washington 98504
Res Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear
This letter is in follow-up to the September 12th, 1990
conference call that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental
Services), Jacques Faigenblum (EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and
I had with you regarding actions that the Washington Department
of Natural Resources is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham
Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the Department
of Natural Resources' actions and have asked additional
questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and address the
new questions through a written response. This letter, as well
as your response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay
Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Pucret Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis fPSDDAl
The Bellingham Bay PSDDA open-water dredged material
disposal site is open from June 16th through October 31st.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), is responsible
for authorizing the use of disposal sites and conducting
chemical and biological monitoring. DNR performed baseline
biological monitoring in the spring of 1990 at the
Bellingham site and will conduct a crab bioaccumulation
study after 100,000 cubic yards of material have been
disposed of. No applications for disposal were received for
the Bellingham site in 1990. What were the results of the
1990 baseline monitoring? Please send me a copy of these
results. What disposal applications have you received for
1991?
A-39
-------
Ms. Betsy Striplin
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Sediment Management
DNR has created a new section to handle dredging and
contaminated sediments issues. The new Sediment Management
section, with funding from EPA, is developing a screening
approach for identifying leased marine lands with potential
for sediment contamination. Areas will eventually be ranked
in terms of relative probability of contamination.
In addition, a users manual is being developed for
contaminated sediments which includes policies and
regulations. What is the status of these efforts? What
specific EPA funds were obtained?
Ecology and DNR are developing a memorandum of understanding
that will address:
1) DNR liability for dealing with contaminated sediment
sites
2) DNR responsibility for site investigation and cleanup
3) DNR's role in the aquatic lands leasing program,
including site identification, investigation and
remediation.
What is the status of the MOV? How are these three issues
addressed?
Port Management Agreement
DNR is negotiating a Port Management Agreement with the Port
of Bellingham. This agreement would assign all management
responsibilities for aquatic lands abutting Port of
Bellingham properties to the Port of Bellingham. Existing
individual leases then would be eliminated. Since these
properties would remain state owned, will the Management
Agreement address liability for cleanup of contamination?
Coastal Zone Management Act
I am aware that the Coastal Zone Sediment Act was reviewed
in December of 1990. Was the Port of Bellingham given
control of any DNR lands as a result of this review? Were
any of these properties contaminated?
A-40
-------
Ms. Betsy Striplin
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Aquatic Lands Leasing Program
Aquatic land leases are issued for periods ranging from 5 to
30 years and can be opened prior to their expiration if the
lessee desires to amend the lease or reassign property
rights. New leases or newly opened leases are being revised
by DNR to address liability for contaminated sediments.
What, in general, does the new language regarding
contaminated sediments say?
At this time, DNR does not plan to adjust lease rates around
wastewater treatment plant outfalls.
Forest Practices
The Department of Natural Resources issues Forest Practices
permits for the clearing of properties containing over five
thousand board-feet of timber. Please describe this permit.
Is the Forest Practices permit required even if the five
thousand board-feet of timber are not going to be sold?
Does DNR have requirements in this permit for the protection
of adjacent surface waters? What requirements does DNR have
for the protection of wildlife habitat?
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PS AMP)
What is DNR's, role in the PS AMP?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354) . Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
A-41
-------
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ,,,»,«« 1001
Natural Resources 'JUN19'"
OEPT. OF EpflfiVfioYLE
Commissioner of Public Lands
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
June 18, 1991
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles
Washington Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Subject: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear Ms. Pebles:
This letter responds to your letter of May 17, 1991 requesting additional
information on the Department of Natural Resource's ongoing or planned
activities in Bellingham Bay. For each section in your letter, I've provided
comments and answered your questions.
Puaet Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA)
In the first sentence, note that the disposal site is open from June 16 -
October 31 of each year, and that these dates are set by the Shoreline Permit.
In the second sentence, note that each of the four agencies with jurisdiction
in the PSDDA program (U.S. EPA, Corps of Engineers, and Washington Departments
of Ecology and Natural Resources) approve the material that will be disposed
at the PSDDA site. DNR issues the permit to use the site and monitors
compliance with terms of the permit. In the third sentence, the baseline work
was conducted during the summer of 1990 rather than the spring. Further, that
monitoring was for concentrations of certain problem chemicals in the tissues
of Dungeness crab, and for crab density. No additional biological studies
were conducted. This investigation was carried out in conjunction with
Ecology's Bellingham Bay bioaccumulation survey, and our results are to be
incorporated into Ecology's final report.
The PSDDA bioaccumulation survey investigated the concentrations of arsenic,
cadmium, lead, mercury, PCBs, and various pesticides in crab muscle and
hepatopancreas. Arsenic, cadmium, and mercury were detected in every sample.
Of the pesticides, DDE was found in 62 percent the samples and Chlordane was
found in 15 percent of the samples. Neither the other pesticides nor PCBs
were found in any samples. Concentrations of detected chemicals were
generally low.
A-42
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
-------
The Corps of Engineers and the Port of Bellingham are currently planning to
use the Bellingham Bay PSDDA site during the 1991 dredging season. Sediments
from Whatcom Creek, I&J, and Squalicum Creek Waterways were tested under the
PSDDA guidelines. None of the Whatcom Creek sediments were approved for
disposal at a PSDDA site. Selected sediments from the other areas were
approved by the PSDDA agencies.
Sediment Management
In the first paragraph, second sentence, note that a grant was received from
U.S. EPA to initiate an inventory of aquatic leases that may contain
contaminated sediments. That grant has been completed and all other funding
for the contaminated sediments program has been provided by the state.
In the second paragraph, first sentence, note that the user's manual will
briefly discuss regulations only to the extent that is required to educate the
users as to the regulatory authority of the state. This manual will not
contain an exhaustive discussion of environmental regulations. A working
draft of the manual is undergoing review by the Department of Ecology.
DNR and Ecology are continuing to negotiate the terms of a Memorandum of
Understanding concerning the respective roles of each agency when considering
sediment contamination on state-owned aquatic lands.
Port Management Agreement
DNR is presently continuing the negotiation process for the Port Management
Agreement (PMA) with the Port of Bellingham. The resulting PMA will address
liability for cleanup of contaminated aquatic lands. Final language on this
issue has not been agreed to.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Port of Bellingham was not given control of any state-owned lands as a
result of the recent review of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Port has
no control of state-owned aquatic lands that are outside of the areas that
they currently lease from DNR.
Aquatic Lands Leasing Program
Aquatic leases contain specific restrictions on the use of environmentally
harmful substances. Although these restrictions are summarized below,
interested parties should contact the Aquatic Lands Division (206-753-5324)
for specific lease terminology regarding harmful substances. The following is
a general overview of the issues addressed in leases.
A-43
-------
Hazardous. Toxic, or Harmful Substances. Lessees shall not keep, use,
dispose, transport, generate and/or sell hazardous materials in violation of
any appropriate law, regulation, statute, or ordinance. Lessees must promptly
notify the State of all spills or releases of any hazardous substance. Lessee
shall be fully li-able to the State for any damages, expenses, suits, claims,
costs, fees, penalties, and response, cleanup costs, or remediation costs as a
result of the Lessee's control of the property.
Marine Plastics Act. Lessees shall comply with the Marine Plastic Pollution
Research and Control Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-220). Under this act a
lessee may be required to provide waste reception facilities, provide for US
Coast Guard inspection of these facilities, and provide for waste handling and
disposition.
Lessee to Take Corrective Action. Lessees will take corrective action to
restore property, as nearly as possible, to its condition without the presence
of the harmful substances. In the event that a lessee fails to do so, the
State may take the corrective actions and will be entitled to full
reimbursement of the costs incurred.
Testing. Lessees agree to conduct, at their own expense, all investigations
required by the State to determine the existence, scope, or effects of
hazardous substances on the leased property or associated resources where the
State has reason to believe that hazardous substances may be present due to
ongoing or historic activities in the leased area. If the State conducts the
investigation, then the State will be entitled to full reimbursement of the
costs incurred.
Reporting. At the State's request, lessees may be required to submit annual
reports that summarize and describe all uses which have occurred upon the
leased property during the preceding year. Additionally, lessees may be
required to submit copies of all monitoring reports prepared in response to
state or federal requirements.
Forest Practices
Under the Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations (MAC 222), DNR
approves applications but does not issue permits for the clearing of
properties containing over five thousand board-feet of timber. (Harvesting of
less than five thousand board-feet does not require submission of a forest
practices application but is subject to the Forest Practices Rules and
Regulations). Approved applications are required for timber harvested for
sale (see WAC 222 for definitions). Conditions placed on the approved
application provide for the protection of soil integrity, reforestation,
streamside habitat protection, and fishery and wildlife concerns. Under the
Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) agreement, interdisciplinary teams may be
formed to deal with environmental concerns. They make recommendations to the
Forest Practices forester who may then condition the application.
A-44
-------
Puqet Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP)
DNR is conducting an inventory of nearshore habitats in support of PSAMP, and
is represented on the PSAMP steering committee. The steering committee
provides guidance on the performance of all tasks within PSAMP.
If you have any questions concerning these responses to your letter, please
contact me at 753-0263.
Sincerely,
Betsy Striplin
Division of Aquatic Lands
Reference Code: Bellingham Bay Action Program
SEDIMENTSNbellbay.let
A-45
-------
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190- 160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Ms. Vailana Piccolo
Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority
PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
1/&U4SM
Dear Mf8i PirrniQT
This letter is in follow-up to the October 25, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you regarding actions that the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority is taking to reduce pollution in
Bellingham Bay, via the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan. I have summarized below our understanding of the
Authority's actions and have asked additional questions. Please
confirm or modify the summary and address the new questions
through a written response. This letter, as well as your
response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action
Plan scheduled for release this July.
General
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) is working
to improve water quality across Puget Sound through the
development and implementation of the 1991 Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan. This comprehensive document
includes an action plan comprised of various programs:
1)Estuary Management and Plan Implementation, 2)Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Protection, 3)Spill Prevention and
Response, 4)Monitoring, 5)Research, 6)Education and Public
Involvement, 7)Puget Sound Foundation, 8)Household Hazardous
Waste, 9)Nonpoint Source Pollution, 10)Shellfish Protection,
11)Wetlands Protection, 12)Municipal and Industrial
Discharges, 13)Contaminated Sediments and Dredging,
14)Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows, 15)Laboratory
Support.
In the 1991 Plan, the PSWQA has established broad funding
priorities as well as funding priorities by program element.
This prioritization will help channel funds for plan
implementation to the most needy areas.
A-46
-------
Ms. Vailana Piccolo
May 17, 1991
Page 2
The PSWQA oversees implementation of all the programs,
including .those being carried out by other agencies.
Monitoring
The PSWQA coordinates the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program (PSAMP), which includes sampling of sediment, water,
shellfish and bottomfish in Bellingham Bay, as well as
monitoring of marine mammals and birds. Near shore habitats
are also inventoried.
Various agencies, such as the State Department of Ecology,
the State Department of Health, State Department of
Fisheries and the State Department of Natural Resources
perform the actual work.
Education and Public Involvement
Education and public involvement continue to be a high
priority for the PSWQA in each of the programs. They will
continue to have monies available for these- activities
through the highly successful Public Involvement and
Education Fund (PIE-Fund).
Washington Sea Grant was awarded a grant from this fund in
1988 to develop an educational brochure which addresses
marine debris at Squalicum Harbor. Funds were also awarded
to Whatcom Community College to develop a video and booklet
concerning watershed protection. What other projects in the
Bellingham Bay area have been funded through a PIE grant?
What is the process for obtaining a grant? How large is
this fund?
Puget Sound Foundation
The Puget Sound Foundation is a new program which responds
to a recognized need for an ongoing structure to coordinate
strategies and funding for research and education. During
the 1989-91 biennium, the Authority will establish this
nonprofit organization whose primary tasks will be:
1)funding and coordinating research and education programs
on Puget Sound; and 2) assuming responsibility for certain
elements of the research and education program as staff and
funding allow. What is the status of this Foundation? What
is the process for obtaining a grant?
A-47
-------
Ms. Vallana Piccolo
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Wetlands Protection
The 1989 wetlands protection program called for protection
of significant wetlands through (1) preservation (purchase
or other mechanisms); (2) local government regulatory
programs that meet minimum state standards; and (3) a
program for protecting wetlands on state-owned uplands and
aquatic lands. The 1991 Management Plan proposes minimum
guidelines or standards for local government wetland
protection programs. The Authority is seeking public
comment on whether to adopt mandatory standards or
guidelines and on the content of the standards. This
program also includes a larger role in wetlands protection
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service.
In addition, a wetlands restoration program is established.
What is the status of the standards?
Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows
The stormwater program in 1989 included: (1) phased
development of stormwater programs in urbanized areas of
Puget Sound, starting with the largest cities; (2)
requirements for all cities and counties to develop
operation and maintenance programs, adopt ordinances for new
development, and develop stormwater education programs; (3)
development of stormwater controls for state highways and
federal facilities; and (4) requirements for all cities with
combined sewer overflows in the Puget Sound basin to develop
and implement plans providing for the greatest reasonable
reduction of CSO events.
The 1991 stormwater program adds a work group to coordinate
policy issues among fisheries, stormwater, and wetlands
programs and a stormwater technical assistance service for
local governments which would be provided by the Department
of Ecology and coordinated with local governments. The
program proposes that the local stormwater programs be
incorporated into the comprehensive plans to be developed
under the new Growth Management Act.
Ecology will adopt a rule which sets minimum stormwater
standards for new development, and the Authority will adopt
a rule which requires that local governments adopt the
stormwater programs which include standards set in Ecology's
rule. Have there been changes to the last two statements?
A-48
-------
Ms. Vallana Piccolo
May 17, 1991
Page 4
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the plan
public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354). Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your support of the Bellingham Bay Action Program
and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:Ip
A-49
-------
NANCY McKAY
Executive Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY
Abbot Raphael Hall • Mail Stop PV-1 5 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0900 • (206)493-9300
RECEIVED
Ju/v ) 2
June 11, 1991
°ŁPr. OF ECOLOGV
Ms. Lucille T. Peebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Coordinator
Washington State Department of Ecology
3190-160 Ave. S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Peebles,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Bellingham Bay
Action Plan development. Even though we do not always have as many
resources to devote to them as we would like, the Authority views
the urban bay action team (UBAT) programs as a very important part
of protecting Puget Sound. We appreciate your hard work and that
of Ecology's other UBAT staff as well.
Your May 17, 1991 letter poses several clarifications and questions
regarding the Puget Sound Plan. I will address these issues section
by section.
General
This section accurately summarizes the Authority's role. Please
replace the final sentence with: " The PSWQA oversees
implementation of all the programs as implemented by federal, state
and local agencies, as well as tribal governments and federal
facilities. The Puget Sound Plan was adopted in May 1991 as the
first Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) in the
nation for an estuary, of national significance under Section 320
of the federal Clean Water Act."
Monitoring
To the first paragraph, please add " The PSAMP is coordinated
through a monitoring management committee that is made up of PSWQA,
EPA, Tribes, local governments and the state implementing agencies."
In the second paragraph, please add the Department of Wildlife to
the list of implementing agencies. Please note that the PSAMP
includes several stations in the Bellingham Bay area.
A-50
-------
Education and Public Involvement
Bellingham PIE contracts have been awarded to Whatcom Community
College (see page 83 of the attached PIE Book) , University of
Washington Sea Grant (page 15), Puget Sounders (Page 129) , Friends
of the San Juans (page 127) and the Nooksack Tribe (page 127).
PIE contracts (technically not grants) are awarded on a competitive
basis two times each biennium. Requests for proposals are
distributed through mass mailings to individuals and organizations
on PSWQA mailing lists. RFPs are also provided to anyone who
requests them.
The next round of PIE funding will begin with the release of an RFP
for Round 5 on June 15. Proposals will be due August 16. Selections
will be announced on October 25, 1991. Round 6 RFPs will be release
in January, 1992 with proposals due in March and awards made in
May.
Although funding for Rounds 5 and 6 depends on budget deliberations
underway in the 1991 legislature, $1.1 million is identified in
both the House and Senate versions of the budget. Approximately
two-thirds of the PIE Fund contract money will be awarded in Round
5, one-third in Round 6.
Puaet Sound Foundation
Currently, the foundation is in its formative stages of selecting
the first few board members. Once the board has been fully
established (summer 1991), they will begin their fund raising
activities. Future grant applications should be directed to the
foundation.
Wetlands
Please replace the third sentence with "The Authority deferred a
final decision on the wetlands minimum standards until summer 1991
so that additional time for public comment could be accommodated
for this program. At the time of this writing, the Authority was
considering a combination of regulatory and voluntary approaches
to wetlands protection."
Stormwater
This section is accurate. Please add a status section — " The
highway Runoff Rule was adopted by Ecology on May 21, 1991. The two
parallel state stormwater rules for local governments are in draft
form, and are being coordinated with the recent federal stormwater
NPDES regulation (promulgated November 1990). Adoption of the
stormwater rules is expected by January 1992. "
A-51
-------
Sediments. Municipal and Industrial Discharges. Nonpoint etc.
Although you did not mention them in your request letter, there are
several other Puget Sound Plan programs that I feel may have direct
bearing on the condition of Bellingham Bay. I invite you to include
some of the summary language out of the Plan for these programs
plus a brief status. An important Sediments Standards Rule was
adopted by Ecology in April 1991 to implement element P-2 of the
Puget Sound Plan. These are the first sediment protection standards
in the nation and will likely result in some sediment actions in
Bellingham Bay. Also note the Plan's dischargers program requires
the systematic upgrading of waste discharge permits to better
monitor and control toxics. Current, Ecology has begun to include
these requirements in permits. While there has been litigation
regarding these new requirements, a joint effort by Ecology, EPA,
PSWQA, and the Tulalip Tribes is resulting in improved monitoring
by dischargers for toxics that will eventually lead to improved
controls.
The Nonpoint, Shellfish, Spill Prevention, and Trans Boundary
Issues (see Unfinished Agenda) also may warrant summary in your
action plan. PSWQA is currently revising the Nonpoint Rule. The
1991 Legislature just passed an oil spill bill that mandates
implementation of most of our Spills Prevention Program. Also, the
recent publicity and governmental response to sewage and toxics
from Canada seem to justify some mention.
In closing, I hope that this information is helpful in developing
your draft action plan. If you need further information on specific
programs, I invite you to contact individual program leads on our
staff. I have included a phone list to assist you. Again, thank you
for your efforts on this important project. Please call me (Scan
585-9173) or Ecology's Puget Sound Coordination Section, Dave Smith
(Scan 585-7078), if you have other questions.
Sincerely,
Vailana M. Piccolo
Environmental Supervisor
cc:
Dave Peeler - Ecology
Jack Gakstatter - EPA
A-52
-------
Waste Management
Marine Debris Demonstration and Education Project
Was it a coinci-
dence that six
months after the
Squalicum Harbor
recycling project began,
the city of Bellingham
initiated its own
curbside recycling
program? It wasn't
entirely coincidental,
according to Jim
Humphreys. "We have a
strong recycling ethic
that is now institutional-
ized here," the coordi-
nator of the PIE-funded
Squalicum Harbor
project remarked.
For one recycling
program to inspire
another is not uncom-
mon. In fact, Sea
Grant's recycling
program was modeled
after one at the harbor
of Newport, Oregon.
However, the layout of
the Squalicum Harbor
project was adjusted to
the different types of
gear that Bellingham
fishermen use.
At Squalicum Harbor,
receptacles now stand at
the head of each marina
ramp, with additional
receptacles near the
commercial fishing
Sponsors
T University of Washing-
ton Sea Grant Program
T To reduce the amount of
plastic and other debris
that boaters dump into
Puget Sound
Mothodss
T Developing a pilot
project to collect and
recycle plastics and
other boat trash
T Educating boat opera-
tors on the problems of
marine debris, derelict
gear, and plastics
Materials produced:
V Three brochures
V A 4-color poster and
smaller bulkhead sticker
Rosultss
T A successful recycling
program at Squalicum
Harbor in Bellingham
T Dissemination of
information on reducing
marine debris to
marinas around the
country
Targot audionco:
V Commercial fishermen,
recreational boaters,
and marina operators in
Squalicum Harbor,
Bellingham
PII sllco:
T $30,000
fleet's work area. Bins
hold cardboard, alumi-
num, scrap metal, scrap
wood, and nets. The
most-recycled material
is cardboard, according
to Humphreys. Local
recyclers pick up those
items that have markets,
while those without
markets are sorted into
dumpsters for later
collection as trash.
Set-up cost for this low-
budget and low-mainte-
nance recycling site was
less than $200, a feat
made possible through
clever planning and
community support.
Local fish processing
plants contributed fish
totes—four-foot square,
three-foot deep wooden
boxes—for use as
recycling containers.
Project staff washed the
totes out, painted them
inside and out, and
added a hinged chicken
wire top to each one.
An initial lack of inter-
est from the Port of
Bellingham delayed
installation of the
modified fish totes for
nearly six months.
However, once these
new containers were in
place and boaters and
fishermen began to fill
them with trash, the
project steadily gained
momentum and wid-
ened support.
The project's second
part, the dissemination
of material about
recycling marine debris,
produced 3,000 copies
of a whimsical four-
color poster. On this
poster a familiar Puget
Sound resident, the
giant Pacific octopus,
declares, "Marine
Debris: Get a Grip on '
It."
The poster is part of an
information packet that
the project staff devel-
oped for other marinas.
Also included in the
packet are brochures:
"Getting a Grip on
Marine Debris at
Squalicum Harbol?
"Marine Debris: How
Commercial Fishermen
Can Help Solve a
Growing Problem;"
"Marine Debris: How
Recreational Boaters
Can Help Solve a
Growing Problem;" and
A-53
-------
Appendices
Rainy Days in Federal Way: The Problems
of Stormwater Runoff
Sponsor: Federal Way Water And Sewer Citizen Advisory
Committee
PIE Slice: $6,500
Contact: Lois Kutscha 939-4792, 924-5711
Under the direction of the citizen advisory commit-
tee, students from Sacajawea and Kilo Junior High
School science clubs will produce a videotape and
fact sheet to inform Federal Way residents about the
damaging effects of stormwater runoff on Puget
Sound and about remedies to correct runoff prob-
lems. The project will stress the connections be-
tween runoff and wetlands, streams, lakes, and
groundwater in Federal Way.
Public Involvement in the Evaluation of the
Proposed Northern Puget Sound National
Marine Sanctuary
Sponsor: Friends of the San Juans
PIE Slice: $20,000
Contact: Nancy DeVaux 378-2319
This project will inform the public about the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act review process to
evaluate the Northern Puget Sound National Ma-
rine Sanctuary proposal. Workshops will be held in
Friday Harbor, Mount Vernon, Bellingham. Sequim,
and Seatde. In addition to the workshops, a newslet-
ter will be used to improve communication among
user groups, conservation groups, agencies, and
officials involved. This project is based on the
Citizen Action Training School Model developed in
Round Two of the PIE-Fund by Pilchuck Audubon.
Boy Watchers
Sponsor: Greater Hansville Chamber of Commerce
PIE Slice: $15,000
Contact: Bob Lewis 692-0956
Based on the successful Sequim Bay Watchers model
developed in Round Two of the PIE-Fund, this
project will recruit, train and certify 50 Master Bay
Watchers in north Kitsap County. Using the curricu-
lum developed by the original project, the volun-
teers will learn about water quality concerns related
to septic systems, stormwater runoff, misuse of
pesticides, application of fertilizers, and boating. At
the end of the training period, the Bay Watchers will
undertake community projects to protect water
quality.
Soundbook
Sponsor: Marine Science Society of the Pacific Northwest
PIE Slice: $30,000
Contact: Jim Kolb 779-5549
A homeowner's water quality handbook with
Soundwide application will be developed, patterned
after the Chesapeake "Baybook." The handbook will
promote individual responsibility in protecting
Puget Sound, and will suggest specific activities for
people to take. A technical advisory committee,
which includes people from government, business,
industry, education, and science will assist in devel-
oping the handbook.
Tribal and Community Watershed Education
Sponsor: Nooksack Tribe Fisheries Department
PIE Slice: $9,700
Contact: Douglas Dobyns 592-5176
The Nooksack Tribe will conduct an education
project for tribal members and the general public
on the role of the tribe in watershed protection.
/
Videos Puget Sesnd: Our Heritage at Risk
Sponsor: North Pacific Film and Tape
PIE Slice: $35,000
Contact: Tom Putnam 623-3151
A video will be produced based on the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority's recent publication, Puget
Sound: Our Heritage at Risk. The video will take a
comprehensive look at Puget Sound, describe its
problems, examine the potential effects that may
result from population growth and other pressures,
and explain how individuals can become more
involved in the fight to clean up and protect this
spectacular estuary.
A-54
-------
Appendices
EolgraM Ixhiblt
Sponsor: Port Townsend Marine Science Center
PIE Slice: $13,000
Contact: Anne Murphy 385-5582
The Port Townsend Marine Science Center will
construct an outdoor eelgrass exhibit composed of
an aquarium and interpretive panels. The exhibit
will be located on the dock at Fort Worden State
Park, overlooking a natural eelgrass habitat. The
panels will provide information about eelgrass, such
as its geographic distribution, its biological role as
habitat, and its link to commercially important
species offish and shellfish.
SoH-Ouidod Discovery Tours
Sponsor: Puget Sounders
PIE Slice: $9,900
Contact: Arnie Klaus 676-8094
A series of portable, weatherproof signboards will be
built to interpret various facets of the Puget Sound
ecosystem and describe human activities that harm
the system. The signboard series will include inter-
pretive information on watersheds, nonpoint pollu-
tion, habitat for migrating birds, waste stream
management, shorelines, etc.. The pilot program
will use the signboards for interpretive tours at three
sites: Vashon Island, Orcas Island, and Whatcom
County. The goal of the project is to offer a cost-
effective way to provide interpretation in places
where no permanent displays exists.
Bootor'c Prefect
Sponsor: Quartermaster Harbor Alliance
PIE Slice: $9,900
Contact: Barb Nightingale 463-3624
To reduce water column, surface, and sediment
contamination of Quartermaster Harbor on Vashon
Island, a five-part education program will be
launched. This program will include: 1) installation
of dock signage at the marina and yacht club de-
scribing the marine ecosystem and measures boaters
can take during boating and boat maintenance to
protect the ecosystem; 2) creation newsletter on
boater activities and maintenance stressing actions
to improve the harbor; 3) development of informa-
tion about improved hazardous waste containment;
4) involvement of youth in beach cleanup; and 5)
stormdrain stenciling with a "Dump No Waste.
Drains to Bay" message.
Rocroational Dlvor Education
Sponsor: Underwater Society of the Pacific Northwest
PIE Slice: $8,100
Contact: Laura Geselbracht 624-9190
The project will survey recreational scuba divers and
dive boat operators in the Puget Sound region on
favorite diving sites, types of activities pursued, and
cumulative impacts of diving activities. The informa-
tion will be used for two purposes: to educate
recreational divers about how their activities affect
subtidal habitat and what they can do to lessen
individual impacts; and to suggest possible sites for
underwater parks, preserves and artificial reefs.
Painting Contractor Education
Sponsor: Urban Wildlife Coalition
PIE Slice: $6,600
Contact: Charles Anderson 622-5260
The project will inform painting contractors about
proper disposal and waste reduction for paint and
paint related products (such as paint thinner). A
specially designed poster and brochure and a
telephone information line will be used to commu-
nicate the information. The information will be
disseminated through local paint suppliers includ-
ing Parker Paint, Rodda, and Fuller O'Brien.
WoHand Stewards Projoct
Sponsor: Washington State University Cooperative
Extension, King County
PIE Slice: $9,900
Contact: Curt Moulton 296-3900
As part of the Cooperative Extension Land/Water
Stewardship program, a comprehensive volunteer
training curriculum will be developed on protecting
and restoring wetlands. A core of 30 volunteers will
receive 20 hours of training on general water quality
A-5 5
-------
CHRISTINE O.CREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190- 160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Bill Geyer
City of Bellingham
Planning and Economic
Development Department
210 Lottie Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
#,'//
Dear H&» Qeyer;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 24, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you regarding actions-that the City of
Bellingham Planning and Economic Development Department is taking
to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below
our understanding of the Planning Departments actions and have
asked additional questions. Please confirm or modify the summary
and address the new questions through a written response. This
letter, as well as your response, will be included in the draft
Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Wetlands
The City's wetlands ordinance has been put on hold until
Class I and Class II wetlands can be reconfirmed through
further field investigation. The results of this
investigation will be used to develop a wetlands map that
will become part of the wetlands ordinance. What is the
status of the adoption of the ordinance? How does it
compare to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
recommendations?
Land Use
A land clearing ordinance is being formulated to provide
requirements for the clearing of trees, shrubs and other
vegetation. The ordinance will address:
1) The amount of clearing that can be performed.
2) Where the clearing can occur.
A-56
-------
Mr. Bill Geyer
May 17, 1991
Page 2
3) The types of vegetation that can be removed.
4) Erosion and sediment control.
This ordinance is aimed at addressing properties containing
under five thousand board-feet of timber, which are not
covered by the Department of Natural Resources forest
practices permit. What is the status of the land clearing
ordinance? How have the City's comments on forest practices
permits been received by DNR?
Under the Growth Management Act, the City can now review
Forest Practices Permits and mitigate them, provide
additional conditions, or recommend denial. The City will
not give positive approval of the Forest Practices Permit
unless there is a simultaneous development application. Has
the requirement for a development application in conjunction
with the Forest Practices Permit been successful? What is
the rationale behind this requirement?
In 1979 the City and Whatcom County created an Urban Growth
Boundary outside of the city limits. The area between the
boundary and the city limits has an interim urban density
zoning until a new comprehensive plan is developed. The
City will provide water and sewer service to these areas
under the assumption that they will ultimately build out to
urban densities and be annexed into the City. What is the
status of the comprehensive plan? Is there a written
agreement between the City and County on providing water and
sewer service, and future annexation?
State Environmental Policy Act fSEPAl
The City was considering revising the SEPA threshold levels
which determine when an environmental impact statement must
be prepared. However, due to staff shortages this task was
put on hold. What is the status of this effort? What
revisions are you proposing and why?
Squalicum Creek Watershed
The City of Bellingham Public Works Department is performing
an assessment of Squalicum Creek. The assessment includes
wetlands, flood control, open space, wildlife habitat, and
development opportunities. From this effort a drainage
improvement plan will be developed.
A-57
-------
Mr. Bill Geyer
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Squalicum Creek ranked number two to receive a watershed
management plan, and the work by the Public Works Department
addresses drainage issues only. Who will be developing a
management plan for the Squalicum Creek watershed and when?
The city Public Works Department has also been monitoring
Squalicum Creek since January of 1990. The fecal coliform
counts for June and October were well above state water
quality standards. A potential source of these elevated
counts could be livestock. Does the City have any plans to
create an ordinance to keep animals out of creeks and to
provide measures to prevent manure runoff from entering
streams? If the source of these high fecals are thought to
be outside of the city limits, what actions will be taken?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354) . Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-58
-------
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Jack Garner, P.E.
City of Bellingham
Department of
Public Works
210 Lottie Avenue
Bellingham, WA. 98225
Re: Bellinghaa Action Plan
Dear
This letter is in follow-up to the November 6, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you, Ken Thomas, and Bill McCourt,
regarding actions that the City of Bellingham Department of
Public Works is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I
have summarized below our understanding of the City's actions and
have asked additional questions. Please confirm or modify the
summary and address the new questions through a written response.
This letter, as well as your response, will be included in the
draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Lake Whatcom
The City is the lead agency in a study (funded in part by
Referendum 39 monies) of Lake Whatcom and its watershed.
Phase I of the study was completed in 1986 and resulted in a
management plan for the lake. The plan identified several
areas which required additional attention in order to ensure
protection of the lake's existing water quality. Phase II
of the study is designed to address the concerns of the
management plan and is currently underway. The City is
involved in lake restoration efforts. The Whatcom County
Health Department is under contract to the City for an on-
site sewage disposal survey, and the Whatcom County Public
Works Department is under contract to the City for the
formation of development standards, a fuel tank inventory,
and a storm drainage inventory. What is the status of these
various tasks? What is the next step?
A-59
-------
Mr. Jack Garner, P.E.
May 17, 1991
Page 2
A portion of the grant was earmarked for the development of
educational materials on the protection of the Lake Whatcom
watershed:
1) Written material was developed for third graders.
2) Sixth graders participated in a conservation site
within the watershed and in a poster contest. Written
material for this age group was developed and as well
as a slide show.
3) Coordination with schools and teachers has been
initiated to incorporate watershed education in their
curriculum. Also, workshops have been held for
teachers, at which kits for analyzing basic water
quality parameters were prepared for the workshop
attendees.
4) Pamphlets were developed for the general public as
well.
The City plans to continue educational efforts beyond the
grant funding and develop additional educational materials.
will this information be specific to Lake Whatcom? What
will be the nature of the material? The Lake Whatcom
watershed is especially important because it is the City's
drinking water source. However, all watersheds need to be
protected. Are there plans to increase the scope of the
educational materials to address watershed protection In
general?
Squalicum Creek
As an element of a Floodplain Management grant, the City has
performed a wetlands assessment of Squalicum Creek. Flood
control, open space, wildlife habitat, and development
opportunities are the other elements that will be assessed.
As a result of these assessments a plan will be developed to
protect the wetlands; this could potentially involve
rezoning. A draft plan will be completed in November of
1991; the final plan will be completed in April of 1992.
What is the status of the other assessments?
Squalicum Creek has a number two priority, behind Orayton
Harbor, for the development of a watershed management plan.
Who will be developing the watershed plan for Squalicum
Creek? When would this work begin and be completed?
A-60
-------
Mr. Jack Garner, P.E.
May 17, 1991
Page 3
The Whatcom county Council of Governments is performing the
Drayton Harbor work, would they be a potential candidate for
the Squalicum Creek work as well?
Stormwater
The City does not currently have a stormwater utility or
comprehensive development standards to directly address
stormwater issues. The creation of a utility will be
considered at the time Ecology issues rules and guidelines
for stormwater management programs. The City does have a
development fee that covers impacts of new development.
What requirements are currently in place to address erosion
and sediment control, detention, and the treatment of
stormwater? How frequently are the City's drainage systems
cleaned? How is the removed material disposed of? Does the
City require oil/water separators for all new developments?
Please describe the development fee (i.e. the amount of the
fee, how it is assessed, and how the collected fees are used
to offset impacts).
Will any City owned/operated facilities require a NPDES
permit under the new Federal storm water regulations (e.g.
bus washing facility)?
The Lake Whatcom Development Standards will be benefical in
the effort to improve water quality in Lake Whatcom. What
are your thoughts on applying these development standards
city- wide?
Water Quality
In January of 1990, the City began sampling all creeks
within the city limits once a month. Parameters tested are
temperature, pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and fecal
coliforms. What prompted the City to begin this sampling
program? Will actions be taken if Class A water quality
standards are exceeded? If water quality criteria
exceedances are suspected to result from activities outside
of the city limits, what coordination would occur with the
County?
Given that the City of Bellingham will be required to permit
their storm drain outfalls at some time in the future, what
plans do you currently have for monitoring storm water and
storm drain sediments for contaminants?
What role does Public Works play in addressing the
contribution of dairy wastes to water quality problems?
A-61
-------
Mr. Jack Garner, P.E.
May 17, 1991
Page 4
What actions are being taken to address the contribution of
herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers to the degradation of
surface waters (e.g. public education, reduced use of these
chemicals or use of alternative environmentally friendly
products by the City and their contractors) ?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354) . Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your cooperation in this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTPrlp
A-62
-------
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 210 Lottie St., Bellingham, Washington 98225
Telephone (206) 676-6961
June 7, 1991 RECEIVED
JUN 1 0 1991
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E. 0ŁPT OF ECOLOGY
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue WA 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
You requested a partial response with available information to your letter
of May 17th. This letter will answer some of your questions with the remaining
information to follow as soon as it is available. To aid in our response, I
have given the questions in your letter an identifying number, and our
responses are keyed to those numbers.
In Question #4 you inquire about the preparation of a watershed plan for
Squalicum Creek. As far as I know, there is no local agency willing to sponsor
any additional watersheds given the limited financial support offered by the
State.
In Question #6 you ask if any City facilities will require NPDES permits
under the new storm water regulations. This is the first time I have received
anything from the State Department of Ecology concerning this program. Since
the State of Washington administers the NPDES permit system for the Federal
Government, we have been expecting some information, direction, training,
guidance or contact of any kind from the State on this program but this has not
occurred. Since we have no information on the program, I cannot answer your
question.
Question #10 concerns the role of the City's Public Works Department in
addressing dairy wastes. Since there are no dairy operations in the City of
Bellingham and since the vast majority of the watershed is outside the City
limits, we have not identified any active role in dairy waste management.
Please see the attached memo for responses to Questions 1, 2, 8 and 11.
Responses to Questions 3, 5, 7 and 9 will be forwarded as soon as they are
available.
ncerely,
Jc
JMG:shh
060791
tin M. Garner, P.E.
Pi >lic Works Director
Attachment
A-63
-------
RECEIVED
DEPT< °F ECQLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 210 Lottie St., Bellingham, Washington 98225
Telephone (206) 676-6961
June 12, 1991
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Ave. S.E.
Bellevue WA 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
RE: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
This letter is intended to complete our response to your letter of May 17,
1991, concerning the Bellingham Bay Action Plan.
Under the Squalicum Creek section, we would suggest the following
modifications to the summary statement. Change "protect the wetlands" to
"manage the floodplain." Change "November of 1991" to "April of 1992," and
"April" to "June."
Assessments of the current status of flood control, open space, fish and
wildlife habitat, and development have been completed. Modeling of storm water
flows will occur next, the results of which will form the basis for determining
impacts and recommended improvements. All will be summarized in the draft plan
due out in April of 1992.
Under the Storm water section, we would substitute the following summary:
The City recently (July 1990) enacted a drainage utility in order to
address current and future drainage issues and problems. At this time, the
fees are collected on all developments at the time permits are taken out,
and are based on the amount of impervious surface created. Single-family
homes are charged $400, and everything else is charged $400 for each 3,000
square feet of impervious surface created. The collected fees are placed
in a fund which is used to upgrade deficiencies in the drainage system, to
build facilities of regional benefit, and to support increasing demands on
drainage division staff.
All land-disturbing activities in the Lake Whatcom watershed must be
accompanied by an approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control
plan, with permanent BMP facilities required of larger developments.
Elsewhere, subdivisions and projects with potential environmental impacts
are also generally required to provide an E/S plan as a condition in the
development contract or permit.
A-64
-------
Lucille Pebles, P.E.
June 12, 1991
Page 2
There is no automatic detention requirement in Bellingham. Downstream
impacts of development are assessed with each project, however, and the
developer is given the option of correcting any deficiencies or providing
detention to pre-development rates. Projects with parking lots must
provide outlet traps in the catch basins to trap oil and debris. Other
water quality controls may also be required of new developments by the City
Council.
It is anticipated that the Lake Whatcom Development Standards for water
quality control will be employed uniformly in the City eventually. Although
the ordinance specifies only the lake, the standards are often employed
elsewhere through the SEPA process.
In response to your question under the Water Quality section concerning
monitoring, the City is aware of upcoming NPDES requirements from information
provided by trade associations, but has not embarked on a discharge sampling
program at this time. We expect to comply with monitoring requirements once
they are developed by the Department of Ecology.
Sincerely,
Jolty M. Garner, P.E.
Pumic Works Director
JMGrshh
061291
A-65
-------
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ken Trnpntas, Operations Engineer
Ar
FROM: Bill McCourt, P.W. Superintendent - Operations
DATE: May 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Bellingham Bay Action Plan Questions
I will attempt to answer the questions that Lucille Pebles
posed in her letter of May 17.
Question #1 - The Whatcom County Health Department has
completed their task on the survey of septic systems within the
watershed. Corrective actions on failing systems have either
been completed or are in progress. The City has contracted with
the Health Department to provide a septic system maintenance
program for the entire county. The system will maintain an
inventory of all septic systems and provide reminders to
homeowners when maintenance is required. The Whatcom County
Public Works Department has prepared draft development standards
based upon Ecology's guidelines. The standards should be
submitted to the Council and adopted this summer. The
underground fuel storage tank inventory has been completed and a
draft ordinance regulating tanks has been proposed. I anticipate
that these standards would be completed this summer. The storm
drainage inventory has been completed for both the city and
county portions of the watershed. Both agencies are
incorporating the information in their capital improvement
programs and developing maintenance programs for these
facilities.
Since the Lake Whatcom Advisory Committee has been
disbanded, it is unclear if any additional steps will be taken.
Question #2 - The focus of our current education program is
on the Lake Whatcom Watershed. It is of highest priority since
it is the source of the city's drinking water. The materials on
the watershed are sent to all watershed residents and all City of
Bellingham utility customers. The information contained in them
is applicable to any watershed. The Raindrop, Rooftop, and
Riparian watershed walks at Shuksan, Whatcom, and Fairhaven
Middle Schools are specifically targeted at Squalicum Creek,
Whatcom Creek, and Padden Creek. The City has also put together
4 water quality test kits for use by schools and other interested
groups. The storm drain stenciling program was targeted at all
A-66
-------
js. Thomas
May 28, 1991
Page 2
watersheds. The City will continue to promote programs with Lake
Whatcom being the primary focus and watersheds in general will be
considered secondary.
Question #8 - The City began the Creek Monitoring Program as
an inexpensive yardstick on the health of our streams. The City
will perform a cursory look at why streams exceed the Class A
criteria. Fecal coliform testing will be pursued on the highest
sites, and in the future low dissolved oxygen levels will be
looked into further. The City is currently only sampling those
streams located within the city limits and does not know of any
comparable programs within the County with which to coordinate.
Question #11 - The City has addressed the issue of garden
and household hazardous wastes through the Lake Whatcom Education
Program. It has included brochures f a. sl^deshow. and a public /
seminar on Lake Friendly gardeTTTngTThecTCy^^Jrl-so^has a program <*
for recycling and disposal qf household hazardgus—'wastes. The V*
Cooperative Extension Service~~±g being—proSoEed as a resource
agency to suggest more watershed friendly solutions to
The City has discontinued the use of herbicides^and the County
has also discontinued their use in areas considered
environmentally sensitive including the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
I have attached a sample of some of the brochures that have gone
out so far. An additional one on Lake Friendly Gardening should
be coming out in June or July.
Please let me know if you have any other questions regarding
these matters.
WPM:sk
A-67
-------
CHRISTINE O. CREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190- 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Byron Elmendorf
Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department
3424 Meridian Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
&**or\
Dear Mr- Elmenelorf;
This letter is in follow-up to the September 26, 1990 meeting
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques
Faigenblum (EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with you and
Tim Wahl, regarding actions that the Bellingham- Parks and
Recreation Department is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham
Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the Parks
Departments actions and have asked additional questions. Please
confirm or modify the summary and address the new questions
through a written response. This letter, as well as your
response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action
Plan scheduled fqr release this July.
Posting of Warning Signs
The City Parks Department would be willing to post health
advisory signs provided by the State Department of Fisheries
or the State Department of Health. These signs would be
posted at Bellingham beaches found to contain shellfish
whose consumption would pose a human health risk.
Educational Activities
The Parks Department currently has one person working half-
time at the Maritime Heritage Center who provides
interpretive information about the fish hatchery. The Parks
Department would like this position to become full-time with
more emphasis being placed on overall water quality issues.
This position is currently funded by British Petroleum and
the Bellingham School District. However, no additional
funds are available to make the position full-time.
A-68
-------
Mr. Byron Elmendorf
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Also, if funds were available, the Parks Department would
like to provide interpretive signs along trails adjacent to
streams. Does the Parks Department plan to seek funding to
expand their educational activities?
Padden Creek Estuarv
A planning study, providing a long range plan for the Padden
Creek Estuary area, was completed in June of 1990. The
study assessed existing conditions and recommended policies
and actions for public access and wildlife and landscape
management. Initial recommendations are currently being
implemented.
With funds from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account,
primary improvements to public access as well as the
installation of interpretive elements, were scheduled to
begin in the fall of 1990, with final completion in the
spring of 1992.
What is the status of the initial work? Will all of the
recommendations of the study be implemented? If so, when
and what will be the funding source?
Little Soualicum Park
A draft site -management plan for Little Sgualicum Park was
prepared in April of 1990. The plan calls for, "maintaining
the majority of the site east of the Marine Drive bridge in
a natural state, while improving the west meadow portion of
the site west of the Marine Drive bridge for more intense
human uses involving more traditional park improvements.1'
What is the status of this plan?
Water Quality
Who owns and maintains storm drain systems on Parks
Department properties? Storm drains are a significant
contributor to the degradation of surface waters.
Therefore, it is important to keep them clean to minimize
their environmental impact. How frequently are your systems
cleaned? How are the removed materials disposed of? Is
there any testing of the materials for toxic substances?
Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers contribute to the
degradation of waters as well, what actions are being taken
to reduce the impacts of these chemicals (e.g. reduction in
use or using environmentally friendly products)?
A-69
-------
Mr. Byron Elmendorf
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Waste Reduction
What is being dona to encourage park users to recycle?
What is done with organic materials obtained through park
maintenance? Can the materials be composted? Does the
presence of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers affect
its compostibility?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354) . Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-70
-------
CHXIST1NE O. CRECOIRE 12»T«H5I RECEIVED
—™r MAY 2 8 1991
STATE OF WASHINGTON p^. ^ ffn^^
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
\orthwest Regional Officef 3190 - 160th Ave S.f. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Byron Elmendorf
Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department,
3424 Meridian Street
Bel.liligh.iui, WA—98255"
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
&4*ot^
Dear Mru. Elnendorf ;
This letter is in follow-up to the September 26, 1990 meeting
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services) , Jacques
Faigenblum (EPA) , Fran Solomon (Ecology) , and I had with you and
Tim Wahl, regarding actions that the Bellingham Parks and
Recreation Department is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham
Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the Parks
Departments actions and have asked additional questions. Please
confirm or modify the summary and address the new questions
through a written response. This letter, as well as your
response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action
Plan scheduled for release this July.
Posting of Warning Sins
The City Parks Department would be willing to post health
advisory signs provided by the State Department of Fisheries
or the State Department of Health. These signs would be
posted at Bellingham beaches found to contain shellfish
whose consumption would pose a human health risk.
„/ Educational Activities
The Parks Department currently has one person working half-
time at the Maritime Heritage Center who provides^ut^/^~irtkC
interpretive information about the fleh hatchery.^ The Parks
Department would like this position to jbej5jm^VvfuU.-time with
more emphasis being placed on overall water quality issues.
This position is currently funded by British Petroleum and
the Bellingham School District. However, no additional
funds are available to make theposition full-time.
^-
A-71
-------
Mr. Byron Elmendorf
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Also, if. funds were available, the Parks Department would
like to provide interpretive signs along trails adjacent to
streams. Does the Parks Department plan to seek funding to
expand their educational activities?
Padden Creek Estuary _
o f*-^
A planning study, providing a long range plan for the Padden
Creek Estuary area, was completed in June of 1990. The
study assessed existing conditions and recommended policies
and actions for public access and wildlife and landscape
management. Initial recommendations are currently being
implemented.
With funds from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account,
primary improvements to public access as well as the
installation of interpretive elements, were scheduled to
begin in the fall of 1990, with final completion in the
spring of 1992.
f.< ^"^ What is the status of the initial work? Will all of the
^T ^^^ recommendations of the study be implemented? If so, when
and what will be the funding source?
Little Squalicum Park
A draft site management plan for Little Squalicum Park was
prepared in April of 1990. The plan calls for, "maintaining
the majority of the site east of the Marine Drive bridge in
) .^ a natural state, while improving the west meadow portion of
*• the site west of the Marine Drive bridge for more intense
i^-eyT^- human uses involving more traditional park improvements."
/ , What is the status of this plan?
lao-oTL / ,^n*.7^ . __ / ,
Water Quality
Who owns and maintains storm drain systems on Parks
Department properties? Storm drains are a significant Ji
contributor to the degredation of surface waters. ,j
S/^i. Therefore, it is important to keep them clean to minimize V
~ ' their environmental impact. How frequently are your systems ^ ^
cleaned? How are the removed materials disposed of? -TS~ ^f1 .f"
there any testing of the materials for toxic substances? ^**
Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers contribute to the
degradation of waters as well, what actions are being taken
to reduce the impacts of these chemicals (e.g. reduction in
use or using environmentally friendly products)?
A-72
-------
Mr. Byron Elmendorf
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Waste Reduction
What is being done to encourage park users to recycle?
-------
CHRISTINE O. GRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Chuck Timblin
Whatcom County
Conservation District
6975 Hannegan Road
Lynden, WA 98264
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
CAutk
Dear Mi-. Timblin;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 31, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services) , Fran Solomon (Ecology) ,
and I had with you regarding actions that the Whatcom County
Conservation District is taking to reduce pollution* in Bellingham Bay.
I have summarized below our understanding of the Conservation
District's actions and have asked additional questions. Please
confirm or modify the summary and address the new questions through a
written response. This letter, as well as your response, will be
included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release
this July.
Watershed Management
Through watershed management plans, the Conservation District is
addressing nonpoint pollution issues in Kamm Creek and 10-Mile
Creek, which are tributary to the Nooksack River.
Implementation of the Kamm Creek Watershed Management Plan will
begin soon, and includes: Inventorying and Monitoring, Education,
Technical and Financial Assistance, and Regulation and
Enforcement programs. Centennial Clean Water Fund monies are
being pursued for the implementaion of the 10-Mile Creek
Watershed Management Plan. What is the status of receiving funds
for the implementation of the 10-Mile Creek Plan?
In February of 1989, the Conservation District and the Whatcom
County Health Department, began a one year joint water quality
monitoring project in Bertrand-Fishtrap Creek watershed. As a
result of this effort, many of the farms adjacent to waters
having the highest fecal coliform concentrations contacted the
Conservation District for waste management planning assistance.
What is the status of waste management in the Bertrand-Fishtrap
watershed? Will water quality be monitored in the future to
determine the effectiveness of the waste management efforts?
What other joint efforts are planned?
A-74
-------
Mr. Chuck Timblin
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Farm BMPs Program
Under the farm best management practices program, Ecology
receives and investigates complaints and then sends out a notice
of violation. The notice includes a recommendation that the
violator contact their local Conservation District within the
next ten days to begin work on a water quality management plan.
A copy of the notice is sent to the Conservation District.
The violator then has 6 months to develop a water quality
management plan, with or without the Conservation District's
assistance, and 18 months to implement it. If these time frames
are not adhered to or the violator is non-cooperative, the
Conservation District can refer the violator back to Ecology for
potential enforcement action.
The Conservation District would like to be able to preform more
follow-up inspections to ensure that management plans are being
complied with. However, they have limited staff. What is the
status of hiring new personnel to enable more follow-ups?
Cost-share funds are available from the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service for farmers to develop and
implement their management plans as long as they are not involved
in an enforcement action. Also, if the facilities installed with
cost-share funds are not maintained, farmers may have to return
the cost-share monies.
Wetlands
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) identifies and inspects
wetlands to insure farmers are in compliance with the federal
Farm Bill. A new staff person has been added to perform wetlands
determinations. What will be the boundaries within which
wetlands are designated? Are there Whatcom County personnel
performing wetlands determinations, and if so, how will the SCS
work overlap with the County's? What requirements will SCS
develop to protect wetlands?
Education
The Conservation District writes a waste management news article
that the Whatcom County Cooperative Extension publishes monthly
in the Whatcom County Dairyline. The District would like to have
their own quarterly or bimonthly newsletter at sometime in the
future. What is the status of a newsletter by the District?
A-75
-------
Mr. Chuck Timblin
May 17, 1991
Page 3
The District has a 3-day conservation camp, in association with
the Georgia Pacific tree farm at Lake Whatcom. The camp teaches
6th graders about the value of soil conservation.
In conjunction with the Whatcom County Cooperative Extension, the
Conservation District is developing two videos on farm animal
waste management. The first video will address waste pond
management and maintanence and the second waste use. What is the
status of these videos? How are they made available to the
public?
The Conservation District also has a brochure which addresses
conservation practices for farmers.
Dairy Waste Management Committee
The Conservation District will be serving on the industry-
sponsored Whatcom County Dairy Waste Management Committee. What
is the status of this committee? What is its function? What
authority does it have, or is it more of a cooperative and/or
advisory committee?
Permitting of Nonpoint Pollution
Permitting of wastes from concentrated animal feed lots, was
originally established in the Federal Clean Water Act, Section
208. This idea is being revisited by a committee on which the
Conservation District will serve. What is the status of this
committee? What will be their authority, cooperative and/or
advisory?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each member of
the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full work group
meeting will be held this summer to discuss and comment on the draft
plan. Prior to the finalization of the plan, public comments will
also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to sending
your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272 (SCAN 354).
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-76
-------
RECEIVED
Whatcom County Conservation District MAY 3 1 1991
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE CENTER - 6975 HANNEGAN ROAD - LYNDEN, WASHINGTON 98264 DŁfifc|\®:(Łfi|pb8Ł&>35 FAX (206) 354-0318
May 30, 1991
To: Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
From: Chuck Timblin/Resource Technician
RE: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Enclosed is a response to the summary and questions regarding the
Bellingham Bay Action Project.
Watershed Management
Implementation of the Kamm Creek Watershed Plan began nearly a
year ago. Funding to get this project under way was provided by a
Water Quality Special Project grant of $475,000 from the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).
Technical assistance was provided by the SCS. At least 50% of the
farm waste management plans have already been implemented. In
addition, newsletters have been published and a fair booth was
established last summer at the Northwest Washington Fair.
Tenmile Creek Plan implementation could begin this July. This
project ranks 30th out of 80 projects being considered for CCWF
grants.
Farmers in Bertrand-Fishtrap Creek Watershed continue to implement
waste management plans, either voluntarily, or in response to
notification of water quality violations (as provided by the
conditions of the Compliance MOA that the District and Ecology
agreed upon). There are no plans for water quality monitoring at
this time. Personally, I would like to do some followup
monitoring in portions of this watershed where implementation has
been fairly intense to determine whether this effort has been
worthwhile. Perhaps your agency would be interested in joining
in this effort?
Board of Supervisor* GERALD B. DIGERNESS BERNICE GRAVES GARY HOUGEN FRANK IMHOF BASTIAN SCHOLTEN
A-77
-------
Farm BMPs Program
The SCS recently placed one additional person in the Lynden field
office (Lee Ko started work here in September of last year). Much
of Lee's time is spent doing followup.
ASCS funds for cost-share assistance are not denied to farm
operators who have received notification of water quality
violation, only those that fail to heed the notification. This
policy is very important because it gives the District
considerable leverage in gaining voluntary cooperation from those
that are notified of violations.
Wetlands
No new staff person has been added by SCS to perform wetland
determinations (during our last meeting I may have had the
erroneous notion that Lee Ko would be providing this service).
The boundaries for SCS wetlands determinations are all of Whatcom
County. At this time no Whatcom County personnel perform wetland
determinations. The requirements SCS has developed to protect
wetlands are those mandated by the most recent Farm Bill. In
essence this bill requires no net loss of wetlands (something you
probably already knew).
Education
The District will begin publication of a quarterly newsletter
later this year. The funding source is a Conservation Commission
sponsored CCWF grant.
The videos are still in the production phase. The project is now
largely in the hands of Cooperative Extension. When completed
(hopefully by June 30, 1991), the videos will be available through
both the District and Extension.
Dairy Waste Management Committee
A coordinator has been hired for this committee. For more
information about this committee contact:
Henry Bierlink
Nutrient Management Program Assistant
Courthouse Annex
1000 N. Forest St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
(206) 738-2531
A-78
-------
Permitting of Nonpoint Pollution
This committee basically has an advisory role. The committee is
currently waiting for Ecology to prepare the first permit draft.
The draft should be available by August or September.
A-79
-------
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190- 160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Ms. Becky Peterson
Whatcom County Council
of Governments
1203 Cornwall, Suite 104
Bellingham, WA 98225
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
AeAc.
Dear Ma. Pi^Eei.jium;
This letter is in follow-up to the September 27, 1990 meeting
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques
Faigenblum (EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with you
regarding actions that the Whatcom County Council of Governments
is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have
summarized below our understanding of the Council of Governments
actions and have asked additional questions. Please confirm or
modify the summary and address the new questions through a
written response. This letter, as well as your response, will be
included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for
release this July.,
Silver Creek Watershed Management Plan
The Silver Creek Watershed Management Plan was approved by
the Department of Ecology in April of 1990. In addition,
Centennial Clean Water Funds have been obtained for
implementation the management plan.
Plan implementation was scheduled to begin in January 1991,
and includes the following source control programs for
Silver Creek: Education, Monitoring, Agriculture,
Pesticides, Solid Waste Disposal, Forestry, On-Site Septic
Systems, Stormwater/Erosion Control and Household Hazardous
Waste.
Under the education element, a "Watershed Educators" program
would be implemented. This program would be similar to the
Master Gardener program where volunteers would receive
formal water quality and nonpoint pollution training. In
exchange for the training, volunteers commit themselves to
spending a set number of hours educating the public on water
quality issues.
A-80
-------
Ms. Becky Peterson
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Monitoring will be performed by the Institute for Watershed
Studies at Western Washington University. Water samples
will be taken at eleven stations over a two year period, on
a monthly or rain event basis. A single sediment sample
will be taken at three locations sometime during the two
year period. Water samples will be analyzed for
conventional parameters and sediment samples for priority
pollutants. An invertebrate survey will also be performed.
As part of the agriculture program, the Whatcom County
Conservation District and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
will perform farm inventories to determine impacts to water
quality. The farmers will then be encouraged to implement
best management practices.
The on-site septic system program includes the addition of a
Whatcom County Health Department staff person to oversee
water quality issues.
What is the status of the various source control programs?
Watershed Management Plans
What is the possibility that the Council of Governments
develop the watershed management plan for Squalicum Creek?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354) . Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:Ip
A-81
-------
WHATCOM COUNTY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
WCCOG
01991
OF »/,,„„,,
May 29, 1991
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 - 160th Ave., S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan Correspondence
Dear Lucille:
This letter is in response to the questions posed in your May 17th
correspondence. I will answer them point by point as outlined in your
letter which I have attached a copy of for easy reference.
1. The status of the source control programs are as follows:
* Plan Implementation - Implementation was scheduled to begin
in January of 1991. Although some of the recommended
source control programs have seen slight delays, other work
related to implementing the action plan (ie; drafting and
negotiating contracts) did begin with the scheduled
implementation date.
Watershed Educators - The "Watershed Educators"
been renamed the "Master Watershed" program.
Watershed" program has begun. The first
volunteers for the program is estimated at
Training is scheduled to be completed on this
by Mid-June. Additional funding was sought by
to WSU-Extension Service - Whatcom County for
the program beyond the funding allocated through
Creek project.
program has
The "Master
round of
about 20.
first round
and granted
continuing
the Silver
* Monitoring - A contract has been drafted for services to be
performed through the Institute for Watershed Studies at
Western Washington University for monitoring in Silver
Creek. The scheduled date of first sampling has been
delayed from the original date stated in the Silver Creek
plan. It is expected that monitoring will begin the first
part of June 1991. The monitoring program still contains
the same elements as those identified in the Silver Creek
plan.
A-82
1203 CORNWALL #104 BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 676-6974 SCAN 644-6974
-------
* Farm Inventories - The SCS through the Whatcom County
Conservation District has not yet completed the farm
inventories. This recommended action has been delayed from
the scheduled date in the Silver Creek plan. The
inventories, however, are still considered to be part of
the implementation efforts and will be done during the time
line set for Silver Creek implementation efforts.
* Health Department Staff - A temporary position was created
at the Whatcom County Health Department to look at water
resource issues on a county-wide basis. The issues that
the staff person in this position is addressing are the
same issues identified in the Silver Creek plan.
* Educational Efforts - Education efforts are an on-going
part of the Silver Creek implementation. A contractor's
manual developed by the AGC of Washington, which identifies
best management practices, has been distributed to the
Whatcom County Building and Codes Department and the City
of Ferndale for distribution to contractor's when building
permits are issued.
Continued participation in the county fair is an
opportunity to disseminate educational materials to the
community on nonpoint pollution and water quality issues.
This dissemination of information is a recommended source
control program in the Silver Creek plan.
2. With regard to your question regarding the possibility
that the Council of Governments will develop the watershed
management plan for Squalicum Creek:
Projects undertaken by the Council of Governments are
decided upon by the Council of Governments' Executive
Board. The usual procedure for consideration of a project
is when a formal request is made to the Executive Board.
As far as I am aware, there has not been an interest
expressed by any of the jurisdictions within the Squalicum
Watershed to request the Council of Governments to develop
a watershed management plan.
If there are any further questions or comments regarding the above
responses, please give me a call.
S incer
Becky Peterson, Project Manager
attachment
A-83
-------
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190 • 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206) 649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Jerry Mixon
Whatcom County Public
Works Department
401 Grand Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear
This letter is in follow-up to the October 31, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services) , Fran Solomon
(Ecology) , and I had with you and John Tyler regarding actions
that the Whatcom County Public Works Department is taking to
reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below our
understanding of the Public Works Department's actions and have
asked additional questions. Please confirm or modify the summary
and address the new questions through a written response. This
letter, as well as your response, will be included in the draft
Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
i
Lake Whatcom
The Development Standards for the Lake Whatcom watershed
incorporate elements of the King County Surface Water Manual
and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual.
Specifically for the Lake Whatcom watershed, the Standards
are part of a comprehensive study of the watershed being
performed by the Bellingham Public Works Department. The
Development Standards will include requirements for on-site
detention, erosion and sediment control, and the treatment
of stormwater. What is the status of the standards? Is
there a separate set of standards that currently apply to
the rest of the County as veil as the City? Will the
current standards be revised according to the Lake Whatcom
standards, or will the Lake Whatcom standards eventually be
applied to the entire City and County? When will this
occur?
A-84
-------
Mr. Jerry Mixon
May 17, 1991
Page 2
As part of the City of Bellingham study, Whatcom County
Public Works is also inventorying storm drains and fuel
tanks within the Whatcom County Watershed. What is the
status of these inventories? What actions will be taken
based upon the inventories, when and by whom?
Stormwater Issues
Regarding the maintenance of stormwater detention ponds for
new developments, the developer is responsible for
maintaining the ponds for the first two years and then the
County assumes responsibility. The developer must
compensate the County for the maintenance of the pond. How
frequently does the County maintain ponds they are
responsible for? How are the removed sediments disposed of?
Private property owners typically do not maintain their
drainage systems very well. What are your thoughts on the
possibility of applying the pond maintenance scenario to
private drainage systems?
To generate funds for stormwater management activities, such
as those discussed above, a drainage district could be
formed. The creation of a drainage district would involve
public hearings and support by the County council via the
passing of an ordinance. What is the status of creating a
drainage district?
What requirements are currently in place to address erosion
and sediment control, detention, stormwater treatment and
system maintenance?
For 1991, the County has received a budget increase for the
maintenance of ditches. It is expected that 200,000 cubic
yards of material will be removed over the year. Will
funding be available on a continual basis? How frequently
will the ditches be cleaned? How will the removed materials
be disposed of? How often are the County's enclosed
drainage systems maintained? How are materials removed from
these systems disposed of? Is there any testing of the
materials for toxic substances?
The County would be willing to participate in a volunteer
storm drain stencilling project. This type of project would
involve the community in helping to reinforce the message
that storm drains do connect to the surface waters they all
enjoy.
A-85
-------
Mr. Jerry Mixon
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Wetlands
What is being done in the County to address wetlands issues,
for example: inventorying, mapping, and ordinances to
provide protection?
Landfills
What role does the Public Works Department play in
landfills? Who sites them? What is the status of siting
new landfills?
Water Quality
The City of Bellingham is monitoring streams within the city
limits on a monthly basis. Standard water quality
parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, and fecal coliforms are being analyzed. This
type of sampling will provide invaluable information on the
quality of water entering Bellingham Bay as-well as provide
a basis to potentially take corrective actions. Could a
monitoring program like this be implemented in the County?
Would the County consider participating in a monitoring
program like this if volunteer labor was available?
The County has requirements for erosion and sediment control
for all development activities and recently added
requirements for land clearing operations. The land
clearing ordinance includes seasonal restrictions and stiff
penalties for non-compliance. Does this apply to the Lake
Whatcom watershed only, or to the entire City and County?
What is being done in the County to address the contribution
of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers to the degradation
of surface waters(e.g.public education, reduced use of these
chemicals or use of alternative environmentally friendly
products by the City and the City's contractors)?
What role does the Public Works Department play in
addressing the contribution of dairy wastes to water quality
problems?
Squalicum Creek
Squalicum Creek has a number two priority, behind Drayton
Harbor, for the development of a watershed management plan.
The Whatcom County Council of Governments is developing the
plan for Drayton Harbor. Who will be undertaking the
Squalicum Creek watershed management plan and when?
A-8 6
-------
Mr. Jerry Mixon
May 17, 1991
Page 4
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354). Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
-/
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-87
-------
Ill
SCAN PREFIX 769
COUNTY NO. 398-1310
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ADMINISTRATION
PAUL F. RUSHING
DIRECTOR
(206) 676-4692
Brad A. Bennett. C.P.A.
Fiscal Manager
(206) 676-6863
Mary Chisholm
Admin. Serv. Mgr.
(206) 676-6886
316 Lottie Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
FAX (206) 738-2521
May 30, 1991
Lucille T. Pebles, Coordinator
Bellingham Bay Action Program Pfpj- Q,
Department of Ecology
NW Regional Office
3190-160th Ave. S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
RECEIVED
K tqqt
DIVISIONS
BUILDINGS & CODE
John R. Tyler
Deputy Director
401 Grand Avenue
Bellingham. WA 98225
(206) 676-6907
Inspections (206) 738-2520
FAX (206) 738-2525
BUILDING MAINT.
Jerry Gran
Supt. of Bldgs. A Safety
Bsmt. Public Safety Bldg.
Bellingham. WA 98225
(206) 676-6746
FAX (206) 738-2521
ENGINEERING
Edwin R. Menken. P.E.
County Engineer
Nasser Mansour. P.E.
Asst. County Engineer
Courthouse - 311 Grand Ave.
Bellingham. WA 98225
(206) 676*730
FAX (206) 676-6558
EQUIP. RENTAL & MAINT.
Warren E. Laing
Reel Control Manager
901 West Smith Road
Bellingham. WA 98226
(206) 676-6759/384-3221
FAX (206) 384-5279
FERRIES & DOCKS
William K. Hawley
Captain
316 Lottie Street
Bellingham. WA 98225
(206) 676-6692
FAX (206) 738-2521
MAINT. & OPERATIONS
Marlen Hansen
Superintendent
901 West Smith Road
Bellingham. WA 98226
(206) 676-6759/398-3221
FAX (206) 384-5279
SOLID WASTE
Robert Jurica. P.E.
Solid Waste Manager
Bellingham Medical Center
1800 C Street. E-15
Bellingham. WA 98225
(206) 676-7695
FAX (206) 738-2521
In response to your letter to Jerry Mixon, I will attempt to
answer the questions posed in your letter.
1. The progress of our Stormwater Standard has been delayed
somewhat as the disk with the text of the water quality
plan has been delayed in the Department of Ecology.
2. Currently there are separate standards regarding
stormwater treatment, drainage, and design for the City of
Bellingham and Whatcom County.
3. It is the County's intent to adopt the standards currently
being prepared for the entire county as well as areas of
the city as they apply to the Lake Whatcom Watershed. The
City of Bellingham has not yet indicated their intentions
for adopting a set of standards.
4. Depending upon the date of arrival of the information from
D.O.E., it is our intention to have the standards
completed and adopted by September 1991.
5. The inventory for the stormwater drains and the
underground fuel storage tanks in the Lake Whatcom
Watershed has been completed.
6. We intend to adopt an ordinance governing underground fuel
storage tanks in the watershed area which fall below the
exempt levels currently contained in state regulations.
We have followed state guidelines so as to have consistent
enforcement practices.
7. The standards will be available to interested parties by
late June. Actions, including enforcement of new
regulations, will be in effect July 1st.
8. Maintenance of stormwater detention ponds is on an
infrequent basis at present. Part of the current
standards makes provisions for scheduling of maintenance.
Currently any sediment which is removed from these ponds
is deposited in fill sites throughout the county.
A-88
-------
Bellingham Bay Action Plan / DOE May 30, 1991
9. We have not gotten far enough into maintenance to regulate
private drainage systems. Currently, the standards do not
make provisions for regulating private systems by agreement
they are maintained by the County two years after the
development is completed. The creation of a county-wide
drainage district is a matter of discussion in town meetings
throughout the county. Whatcom County Public Works supports
a county-wide drainage district and will continue to pursue
establishing the same.
10. Currently, sedimentation and erosion control, detention ponds,
stormwater treatment and systems maintenance are covered in
the existing County Development Standards and by Chapter 70 of
the Uniform Building Code as modified by County ordinance.
11. Funding for an increase in the maintenance of ditches will
continue on an annual basis provided that the County Council
approves the budget. It is anticipated that they will
continue to approve these allocations. Present plans provide
for maintenance of 2,000 miles of ditches on a 15 year
cleaning cycle.
12. Plans for siting landfills have been abandoned due to the
nature of the soils found in Whatcom County. Most proposed
landfill sites contain wetlands. Therefore, we have been
unsuccessful at addressing the problem of locating new
landfill sites. We feel that by conscientious practices of
recylcling, composting, and incineration together with
developing uses for the ash from incineration, our current
needs can be met for disposal of solid waste without having a
landfill site.
I am referring your questions regarding water quality to our
new Water Quality Manager, Sue Blake with a request that she
respond to your concerns.
13. A program is currenly under way in Whatcom County that has
been described as a model program. We feel we are a leader
nationwide in vegetation management. The County has a full-
time person who oversees vegetation management practices
including herbicide application, noxious weed control, mowing,
etc.
We also have enforcement ordinances limiting the application
of pesticides and herbicides by the County which addresses the
application of vegetation management in several sensitive
areas including the Lake Whatcom Watershed, Lummi Island, and
several other areas throughout the county where citizens
participate in "owner will maintain" agreements. We have
A-89
-------
Bellingham Bay Action Plan / DOE May 30, 1991
participated on State and Regional Boards in order to maintain
our status as leaders in these efforts.
14. Regarding the animal (dairy) waste problem, Whatcom County
Public Works is in an advisory position only. There are
indications that through Soil Conservation, Cooperative
Extension, and the dairy farmers themselves in cooperation
with DOE, that this problem is being adequately addressed.
The County supports these actions but we have no regulatory
position at this time.
I hope that I have adequately answered your questions. Please let
me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
JP~h^ K> /yUL^
John R. Tyler V
Deputy Director Public Works
JRT:dp
c:\w«fc\10mpeMa.dae
A-90
-------
CHRISTINE O. CREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Horthwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5432 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Ms. Diane Harper
Whatcom County Planning
Department
401 Grand Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
&/a*jt
Dear Ms. Harper;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 9, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you and Jerry Mixon regarding actions
that the Whatcom County Planning Department is taking to reduce
pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below pur
understanding of the Planning Department's actions and have asked
additional questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and
address the new questions through a written response. This
letter, as well as your response, will be included in the draft
Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Shoreline Master Plan
The Whatcom County Planning Department has completed
revisions to the Whatcom County Shoreline Master Plan. The
revisions addressed issues including sitting moorage and
community docks, increasing public access, increasing
drainage provisions, and determining approaches to modify
development setbacks. The Plan was scheduled to go before
the County Council in December of 1990. What is the status
of adoption and Implementation of the plan? Why vas the
plan revised?
Wetlands
The County has performed a wetlands inventory through an
aerial photo survey. An independent community group is
developing an ordinance to protect these sensitive areas.
This group will submit the proposed ordinance to the County
Council.
A-91
-------
Ms. Diane Harper
May 17, 1991
Page 2
If the council agrees to develop such an ordinance, the
Planning Department would set up a committee to examine the
proposed ordinance. The planning commission would then send
any approved ordinance to the County Council for final
approval. What is the status of the sensitive areas
ordinance?
Nooksack River
The Planning Department, in conjunction with the Lummi Tribe
as the lead agency, applied for Centennial Clean Water Funds
(CCWF) to perform a study of the Nooksack River. The study
would establish baseline data on the river and access
impacts from logging and agricultural practices. The
information gathered on the Nooksack would be placed on a
CIS computer system. This application was not accepted.
Will another attempt be made to obtain CCWF monies, or other
monies, to perform this study?
Water and Sewer Plan
The County is developing a water and sewer plan as part of
their comprehensive land use plan. The water and sewer plan
will address both groundwater and surface water protection.
Issues to be covered in the plan include jurisdictional
conflicts over regulatory authority; water rights for the
Nooksack River and county groundwater supplies; and water
quality impacts from logging, agriculture, development, and
waste disposal. As part of the plan, a Nooksack groundwater
study will evaluate the pattern of groundwater and surface
water interchange. What is the status of these efforts?
How are the Issues above addressed in the plan? Will the
Nooksack basin study also access water quality?
Development Standards
The Whatcom County Public Works Department has created
development standards for the Lake Whatcom watershed. What
ordinances might be developed to implement these standards?
will they eventually apply to the entire City and County?
If so, when? What requirements are currently in place
regarding erosion and sediment control, stormwater
treatment(e.g. oil/water separators and grassy swales),
detention, and system maintenance?
Water Resource Issues
The County has requested that Public Utility District #1
become the water resource lead agency and be the lead
coordinator for nonpoint pollution issues.
A-92
-------
Ms. Diane Harper
May 17, 1991
Page 3
The county commissioners are pursuing this approach. What
is the status of this effort? What specifically would be
their responsibility? If this does not occur, who will be
actively addressing water resource issues in the County?
Sewage Disposal
The State Department of Health has revised their On-Site
Sewage System Regulations (Chapter 248-96 WAC). Is Whatcom
County adopting ordinances to implement the State
regulations?
The County has loan funds available for improvements to
septic systems for qualifying home owners. Are these loan
funds frequently applied for?
It is difficult for the County to pursue enforcement on
septic tank violations because it must go through the
prosecuting attorney. There is a need to create a civil
penalty to avoid the court system. What actions are being
taken to move in this direction?
Squalicum Creek
Under the County's prioritization of watershed management
plans Squalicum Creek ranked number two, behind Drayton
Harbor, to receive a watershed management plan. Due to the
fact that the bulk of this watershed falls within the
jurisdiction of the City of Bellingham, the City would
probably be the lead agency in the development of a
watershed management plan. Are you aware of any interest by
the City or any other agency in developing a watershed
management plan for Squalicum Creek? The Whatcom County
Council of Governments developed the Silver Creek Watershed
Management Plan and is working on the Drayton Harbor Plan.
Could the Council of Governments be a potential candidate to
develop the Squalicum Creek plan?
Clearing Permit
A Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest
Practices Permit is not required if a clearing operation
results in less than 5000 board-feet of timber, or if the
timber quantity is greater than 5000 board-feet and is not
being sold. The county now requires developers to obtain a
clearing permit for both of these situations to prevent
large stands of trees from being totally cleared and
destroyed. The clearing permit is required under amendments
to the Whatcom County Development Standards.
A-93
-------
Ms. Diane Harper
May 17, 1991
Page 4
The amendments also address buffers for streams, lakes, and
wetlands, as well as perimeter buffers. Violation of the
ordinance is considered a civil offense and carries a
penalty of 1000 dollars per day. Has the ordinance been
generally adhered to by developers?
Landfills
What role does the Planning Department play in siting new
landfills? Are any new sites currently being considered?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354). Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-94
-------
whh rluM CO. MŁHL i n
!NG: Ł06-676-7646
aSS6
WMATCOM COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Community Health Center - 509 Girard Street
P.O. Box 995
Belllngham, Washington 88227
SCAN 738-2167 FAX 676-7846
FRANK E. JAMES M.O.
LuciDe*T. PeBles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Ave N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear Ms. Pebles:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to questions which you asked in your letter to Diane
Harper on May 17, 1991. Diane requested my assistance with two questions; the first
related to sewage disposal and the second related to Squalicum Creek.
I discussed the questions which you raised with Bert Brainard, director of
Environmental Health. Because you have sent a list of similar questions to him
which he is in the process of answering, I will defer to his responses in relation to
your questions in this area.
Squalicum Creek:
I have discussed your questions regarding Squalicum Creek with personnel in the City
of Bellingham and the Council of Government. There are a number of programs
related to the Creek being carried out by the City of Bellingham. There is not
however, any action underway to develop a watershed management plan for the
Creek. Becky Peterson at the Council of Government (COG) indicated the City of
BeUingbam or Whatcom County would have to formally request assistance from the
COG if they were to become involved in developing a management plan.
If I can be of additional assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to
reviewing the draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan which you indicated would be scheduled
for release in July.
Sincerely,
Sue Blake
Water Resource Protection Manager
AtfminMrMlve Environmental
Phon* 6784720
County 384-1628
Phono 6784724
County 384-1665
AIDS Education
4 Tooting Contw
Phono 676-4593
County 384-5848
Immunliabon CNnle
Phono 738-2508
County 384-1338
A-95
Phono 738-2503
Well Child Clinic
Phorw 738-2522
County 384-0674
WIC Clinic
Phon* 738-250$
County 364.1633
-------
CHRISTINE O. CRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Bert Brainard
Whatcom County Health
Department
509 Grand Street
Bellingham, WA 98227
Re: Bellingham Action Plan
&*ir
Dear Mr. Brainard!
This letter is in follow-up to the October 9, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you, Dave Bader and Paul Chudek,
regarding actions that the Whatcom County Health Department is
taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized
below our understanding of the Health Department's actions and
have asked additional questions. Please confirm or modify the
summary and address the new questions through a written response.
This letter, as well as your response, will be included in the
draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
«
On-site Sewage Disposal
In January of 1990, the Whatcom County Health Department
began the Lake Whatcom Watershed Sewage Disposal Survey.
The survey was conducted in response to the identification
of on-site sewage disposal as an area of concern by the Lake
Whatcom Management Plan. A final report of the survey was
completed in July 1990 and indicates an eight percent
overall failure rate of on-site sewage systems within the
Lake Whatcom watershed.
The Survey has a number of recommendations addressing areas
having the highest failure rates:
1) More intensive survey of older seasonal residences
during recreational season. Inadequate systems should
then be upgraded to conform as closely as possible to
current standards.
2) Consideration of extension of public sewer service into
the Academy Street, Haggin Street and Toad Lake Road
areas.
A-96
-------
Mr. Bert Brainard
May 17, 1991
Page 2
3) Public education program to encourage proper septic
system maintenance. Mail brochures describing septic
system functioning, care and proper maintenance to all
watershed residences having on-site sewage disposal
systems. Place all such residences onto a computer
database and send septic tank pumping reminder notices
to them every three to five years.
4) Perform an on-site sewage disposal survey within the
watershed, a minimum of once every five years.
Also within the Lake Whatcom watershed, the County has
strict requirements concerning vertical separation and
drainfield slope for new septic systems.
Regarding recommendation #3 of the survey, there was some
discussion in our meeting about a 1/2 cent per gallon
septage fee being levied for discharges to the Post Point
Wastewater Treatment Plant and that these funds
($18,000?)would be used for the education program. What is
the status of the septage fee plan and of the education
program itself? If you have not yet developed the brochure,
the Whatcom County Conservation District has a reprint of a
pamphlet titled "Know Your Septic System" which may be of
some use to you. Is the $18,000 figure a cap, that when
attained the fee will no longer be charged?
What is the schedule for implemention of recommendations 1,
2 and 4 of the Lake Whatcom Watershed On-site Sewage
Disposal Survey? Regarding recommendation #1, please define
recreational season.
What are the County's requirements concerning vertical
separation and drainfield slope for new septic systems
within the Lake Whatcom watershed and outside of it? Do
they equal or exceed the Washington Department of Health's
On-Site Sewage System Regulations?
County-wide, to ensure that all new septic tanks are
installed properly, the Health Department has a
comprehensive training program for all new inspectors.
Please describe the comprehensive training.
Are you aware of any failing septic system problems in the
portion of the County that is adjacent to Bellingham Bay or
in any other areas of the County that are within the
Bellingham Bay watershed? What actions are being taken to
address these problem areas?
A-97
-------
Mr. Bert Brainard
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Household Hazardous Waste and Recycling
The Whatcom County Health Department, in conjunction with
Whatcom County and City of Bellingham Public Works
Departments, operates a permanent household hazardous waste
drop-off site, as well as publishes a useful household
hazardous waste chart/pamphlet. How is this pamphlet made
available to the public? Regarding the suggestion for
disposal of antifreeze in the chart; isn't it accepted at
the City/County drop-off site for recycling? How frequently
is the chart updated?
The County also publishes an informative resource guide to
recycling called "Whatcom County Recycles".
How is this guide made available to the public?
Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham have completed
management plans for household hazardous wastes and moderate
risk wastes. Will the City be involved in-preparing
educational brochures on the program and the County involved
in the screening and collection of wastes? What is the
schedule for implementation of the activities outlined in
the plan?
Shellfish Issues
i
If it was determined that the harvesting of shellfish was a
threat to public health, the County would notify the public
through various media: radio, newspaper, posting of signs at
recreational shellfish areas, development of a poster for
placement at fishing stores, marinas, and other similar
businesses, and/or development of a brochure. Would the
County or the State Department of Health post signs at
recreational shellfish areas? This issue is part of the
memorandum of agreement (HOA) that is being drawn up between
the County and the State. What is the status of the MOA?
If it has been completed, how are the responsibilities
defined?
The State Department of Health's Recreational Water Quality
Study indicated high fecal coliform counts in their May 1990
sampling of a few stations near Chuckanut Village. Also,
data from the City of Bellingham's 1990 stream monitoring
program shows some stations with high fecal coliforms.
A-98
-------
Mr. Bert Brainard
May 17, 1991
Page 4
Who is responsible for investigating the cause of these high
counts and taking corrective actions? Does the County
Health Department do the actual lab work for the City's
stream monitoring program?
Landfills
There are over 20 closed landfills in Whatcom County- In
accordance with Department of Ecology regulations, landfills
that have been closed since 1985 are adhering to
implementation schedules and have groundwater monitoring
systems in place. Active landfills have groundwater
monitoring and are required to have approved closure and
post closure plans. All facilities are monitored quarterly.
Please state the facilities that are closed, but are being
monitored, and the active facilities. Has the data
collected from these sites indicated ground or surface water
contamination? If it has, what actions were or will be
taken? Do all of the active facilities have approved
closure and post closure plans, which meet the requirements
of Chapter 173-304 WAC? If not, what is the status of
developing plans that meet the regulatory requirements?
The following two landfills have been brought to my
attention, please tell me what you know about them (e.g.
what was disposed of, how large the site was, when materials
were disposed of and who the current property owner is) :
1178 Marine Drive and Georgia Pacific landfill on Y Road.
Are any new landfill sites are being considered?
Dairy Wastes
Whatcom County contains a high density of dairies, which can
potentially have a greater impact on water quality than
failing septic tanks. What plans does the Health Department
have to assess this impact and to take mitigative actions?
What is the Health Department's role in the dairy waste
issue?
Personnel
The Department of Health has hired a water resource manager.
Her duty will be to develop a water resource plan for
Whatcom County by the spring of 1992. The plan will focus
on potable water supplies.
A-99
-------
Mr. Bert Brainard
May 17, 1991
Page 5
The Silver Creek Watershed Management Plan recommended that
the Health Department add staff to allow an increase in time
spent on water quality related programs, "such as addressing
on-site sewage disposal problems and developing and
coordinating special field surveys." Will the new water
resource manager be undertaking these efforts as well? Will
she be undertaking any other water quality related projects?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272
(SCAN 354). Please have your response letter to me by Friday,
May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-100
-------
WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Community Health Center - 509 Girard Street
P.O. Box 935
Bellingham, Washington 98227
SCAN 738-2167 FAX 676-7646
FRANK E. JAMES M.D.
Health Officer
May 30, 1991
UJ
OEPT. OF
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
This is in response to questions in your letter dated May 17,1991, regarding the Bellingham
Action Plan.
On-site Sewage Disposal
The City of Bellingham is currently charging 1/2 cent per gallon of septage deposited at the
sewage treatment plant, this money is dedicated to a septic tank system maintenance
educational program. There is no cap on the total amount collected each year. The
estimated amount to be collected in 1991 is about $18,000.00.
All dwellings with failing on-site sewage systems found during the Lake Whatcom Survey
have been resurveyed and the necessary repairs made so that all are in compliance with the
sewage control regulations. No time table has been set for public sewer installation or
future on-site sewage system survey work. Recreational season means the period of the year
from June through August.
In the Lake Whatcom Watershed, septic tank drainfields are required to have a vertical
separation of at least four feet and be located where the slope is not greater than 15
percent. Outside the Lake Whatcom Watershed, a vertical separation of two feet is
required. These requirements equal or exceed the State requirements. The training
program for new inspectors is on-the-job and occasional attendance at workshops and
seminars.
There are some problem areas of failing septic tank systems within the Bellingham Bay
Watershed, however no action is being taken to survey these areas because of a lack of
funding.
Household Hazardous Waste and Recycling
The Household Hazardous Waste pamphlet is available upon request. The chart is updated
Administrative Environmental AIDS Education Immunization Clinic
& Nursing Health & Testing Canter
Phone 676-6720 Phone 676-6724 Phone 676-4593 Phone 738-2508
County 384-1528 County 384-1565 County 384-5848 County 384-1336
A-101
Communicable
Disease Hotline:
Phone 738-2503
Well Child Clinic
Phone 738-2522
County 384-0574
WIC Clinic
Phone 738-2505
County 384-1633
-------
Lucille Pebles, P.E.
Page Two
May 30, 1991
yearly. Currently in the moderate risk waste program, the Health Department does the
screening, Whatcom County Solid Waste Division does education and the City of
Bellingham operates the facility.
Shellfish
There is no MOA between the local health department and the state health department.
High fecal counts hi Bellingham Bay and adjacent streams would be the responsibility of the
health department, if the cause was thought to be failing septic tank systems. The City of
Bellingham does their own laboratory work.
Landfills
The only closed landfill that has a water monitoring program is Cedarville. This site has
shown some ground water contaminants, probably originating from a landfill closed prior
to 1985. Active landfills being monitored are Recomp, Olivine, Intalco and Georgia Pacific.
As to the two specific landfills brought to your attention located on Marine Drive and 'Ą'
Road, we do not have any information on them a they were closed before an operating
permit was required. All landfills under permit have closure plans.
Dairy Waste
We do not have a role in the dairy waste issue. We understand that the Department of
Ecology is planning on requiring all dairies to have waste discharge permits.
Personnel
The Water Resource Manager was hired by the Whatcom County Executive and is not a
staff member of the Environmental Health Section. We cannot comment on her activities.
Sincerely,
Bert Brainard, M.P.H.
Environmental Health Director
BB:dmi
A-102
-------
CHRISTINE O. CRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Don Ellis, P.E.
Port of Bellingham
P.O. Box 1737
Bellingham, WA 98227
Rax Bellinghaa Bay Action Plan
Dear **Ł. TF1 1 i °*
This letter is in follow-up to the October 24, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services) , Fran Solomon
(Ecology) , and I had with you and Bill Hagar regarding actions
that the Port of Bellingham is taking to reduce 'pollution in
Bellingham Bay. I have summarized below our understanding of the
Port's actions and have asked additional questions. Please
confirm or modify the summary and address the new questions
through a written response. This letter, as well as your
response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action
Plan scheduled for release this July.
Boater Education
The Port currently publishes a bi-monthly newspaper entitled
"Port Report". An upcoming issue will contain the results
of Washington's 1988 Recreational Boater Survey, which
includes information on the types of waste disposal
equipment and practices used aboard boats, and the
facilities and programs that are needed to control boat
wastes. A future issue of the "Port Report" will also
include information on boater: sewage, used oil and
maintenance wastes, litter and plastic debris, and safety
and education. The Port remains open to featuring
environmentally oriented educational information in future
issues as well. In which issues will the above information
appear? Please send me a copy of each of these issues.
Port of Bellingham Properties-General
The Port will be working with their lease holders to
minimize the potential contamination of their properties.
A-103
-------
Mr. Don Ellis, P.E.
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Beginning in 1991, the Port will use a combination of
education, questionnaires, and field investigations to
encourage tenants to employ business practices which will
keep pollutants out of surface and ground waters. As part
of the education element, applicable environmental
regulations will be distributed to the tenants. What is
your schedule for accomplishing this effort? Will you hold
discussions with tenants to help them understand how the
regulations apply to them? Do you plan on strengthening
future leases to place some liability for contamination on
to the tenant?
Please send me a listing and/or a map of Port properties and
lease holders.
I am aware that the Coastal Zone Management Act was reviewed
in December of 1990. Did you gain control of any Department
of Natural Resources lands as a result of the review? If
so, are any of the properties contaminated and what actions
will the Port take to clean them up?
Are the storm drain systems on Port properties owned and
maintained by the Port? Non-point pollution from storm
drains is a significant contributor to the degradation of
surface waters. Therefore, system maintenance is very
important. How frequently are the Port's systems cleaned?
How is the removed material disposed of? What are the
Port's thoughts on stencilling storm drains on Port
properties?
I am aware that the Bellingham Parks and Recreation
Department has prepared a draft site management plan for
Little Squalicum Park. The plan calls for, "maintaining the
majority of the site east of Marine Drive bridge in a
natural state, while improving the west meadow portion of
the site west of the Marine Drive bridge for more intense
human uses involving more traditional park improvements."
What are the Port's thoughts on this plan?
What are the Port's plans for future marinas in Bellingham
Bay? Where might they be located?
A-104
-------
Mr. Don Ellis, P.E.
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Whatcom Waterway
In September of 1990, the Port sampled sediments in Whatcom
Waterway, I & J Waterway, and Squalicum Harbor. The purpose
of the sampling was to determine if materials dredged from
these areas could be disposed of in deep water at a
designated Puget Sound Dredged Disposal and Analysis (PSDDA)
site. Whatcom Waterway samples contained concentrations of
chemical contaminants which could prohibit deep water
disposal if the associated biological analyses do not meet
PSDDA requirements. What is the status of the biological
analyses? Please send me a copy of these results. If deep
water disposal requirements are not met, will uplands
disposal be considered? When would dredging begin? What is
the status of dredging I & J and Squalicum Waterways?
Alaska Ferrv Terminal
What types of monitoring will occur at the Alaska Ferry
Terminal? When, where and how often? Please send me a copy
of the monitoring results.
Repair Grids
The Port of Bellingham has boat repair grids at Squalicum
Harbor which potentially have an adverse effect on water
quality. Does the Port have other repair grids? What
actions will the Port take to mitigate the environmental
problems associated with them? Will sampling occur at these
locations in conjunction with the Alaska Ferry Terminal
sampling?
4th and Harris Property
This site was used for storage of diesel fuel tanks and has
contaminated soils. The Port has contracted for its
cleanup, and work should begin soon. What is the status of
the cleanup?
Tollycraft
The Tollycraft site is listed as a suspected contaminated
site and is in non-compliance with the Washington State
Dangerous Waste Regulations and the Federal Land Disposal
Restrictions. What actions have been or will be taken to
address these issues?
A-105
-------
Mr. Don Ellis, P.E.
May 17, 1991
Page 4
Recycling
The Port operates collection facilities at Squalicum Marina
for cardboard, aluminum, scrap metal and wood, plastics and
boat garbage, nets and waste oil. Plastics and boat garbage
are not currently being recycled. Some plastics can now be
recycled; would the Port consider plastics collection and
recycling?
The Squalicum Harbor collection program was initially
developed in conjunction with Sea Grant. Another product of
this venture was an educational brochure which addresses the
marine waste problem, efforts to solve it, and what
individuals can do. The brochure also contains a map
showing the various waste disposal sites. How is this
brochure made available to the public? Could it be included
in the Port's billings or in the Port Report?
Development Standards
The Port would like to create Development Standards for
their properties. What requirements do you currently have
for erosion and sediment control, detention and stormwater
treatment? What is the status of the Port's proposed
Development Standards?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your cooperation in this process and look forward to
your reply.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E,
Bellingham Bay Action
Program Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-106
-------
B
PORT OF BELLINGHAM
May 28, 1991
Bellingham Bay Action Coordinator uifcM
Washington State Dept. of Ecology ™^
Lucille Pebles, P.E. **' *QQ\
^
Northwest Regional Office p-r Q? tt0
3190 160th Ave. S.E. °tV
Bellevue, Wa. 98008-5452
Re: Correspondence Dated 5/17/91
Dear Ms. Pebles,
The following responses are offered in the same order as
questions raised in your letter referenced above.
1. The issue of the Port Report which has the boater
information has been mailed to you under separate cover.
2. Although discussions have occurred with tenants on an ad hoc
basis, the overall environmental program has been delayed
until later this year. Our standard lease language reacted
to contamination liability is attached.
3. A directory of Port of Bellingham properties and tenants is
enclosed.
4. A new management agreement with DNR has not been finalized.
If any new properties are secured and any are contaminated
the Port would expect the previous responsible party to
clean it up.
5. Some storm drains are owned and maintained by the Port of
Bellingham; others are owned by the City of Bellingham
and/or other third parties. For Port owned facilities, catch
basins are cleaned annually or more often if needed. The
Port does not have any objection to some other agency
stenciling our storm drains.
6. Part of the Little Squalicum Park plans relate to Port owned
property. Any surplusing of the property would have to be
through the Port Commissioners. They have not been asked nor
have taken any such action in regard to that proposal. Port
staff has concerns relative to how existing and proposed
businesses would be impacted.
A- 107
COMMISSIONERS
EDWARD GRIEMSMANN KENNETH McAULAY PETER ZUANICH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
625 Cornwall Avenue/P.O. Box 1737/Bellingham, Washington 98227-1737
(206) 676-2500/County 398-2600/FAX 206-671-6411
-------
7. Because of the high demand for moorage, the Port is always
trying to assess future marina possibilities. There are
about 150 more slips possible but not yet constructed
within Squalicum Harbor. A small marina in Fairhaven is
a possibility- A committee of citizens is being formed to
review that location.
8. A sample by "Chrysler Pete's" failed. The results should
be available through the State's Site Hazard Assessment of
the waterway. All alternatives for disposal will be
considered. Dredging for the areas of the I & J and
Squalicum waterways which are suitable for deep water
disposal will begin about September with the bid call going
out in late May or June.
9. No sediment testing near the Alaska Ferry is contemplated
unless the quarterly soundings show substantial displacement
of sediment previously tested. The next sounding will take
place about July.
10. There is only the repair grid at Squalicum Harbor. We are
taking sediment samples at that location.
11. The diversion to the sewer treatment plant of the seepage
at the northwest corner of the site will occur shortly.
However, on-site excavation work has revealed the presence
of a pocket of bunker "c" oil. A new plan is being
formulated in response to the discovery.
12. Dane Armstrong is the lessee of the Tolley-Craft site and
the letters from the Dept. of Ecology were directed toward
him. It is my understanding that he has responded and the
Port has heard nothing further from either Mr. Armstrong or
Ecology on the matter.
I hope this adequately responds to your letter. If you have any
further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
W.
Director of Operations
A-108
-------
5.3 LIENS: Lessee agrees to keep the property described herein free and
clear of all liens and charges whatsoever.
5.4 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS: The Lessee agrees that
it will protect, save, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Lessor, its officers,
employees and agents from any and all demands, claims, judgments, or liability for
loss or damage arising as a result of accidents, injuries, or other occurrences,
occasioned by either the negligent or willful conduct of the Lessee, its agents or any
person or entity holding under the Lessee or any person or entity on the leasehold
as a result of Lessee's activity regardless of who the injured party may be.
5.4.1 Lessee shall indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any and all
claims, demands, judgments, orders, or damages resulting from hazardous
substances on the leasehold caused in whole or in part by the activity of the Lessee,
its agents, subtenants, or any other person or entity on the leasehold during any
period of time that Lessee has occupied all or a portion of the leasehold during the
term of the lease. It is the intent of the parties that Lessee shall be responsible and
shall hold Lessor harmless from any hazardous substances that have or may occur
on the leasehold since Lessee first occupied the leasehold through this lease or any
previous lease with Lessee. The term "hazardous substances", as used herein, shall
mean any substance heretofore or hereafter designated as hazardous under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec 6901 et seq.: the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 et sea.: the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2001 et sea.: the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq.: or the Hazardous Waste Cleanup-
Model Toxic Control Act, RCW 70.105D all as amended and subject to all regulations
promulgated thereunder.
5.5 LAWS AND REGULATIONS: Lessee agrees to conform to and abide
by all lawful rules, codes, laws and regulations in connection with his use of said
premises and the construction of improvements and operation of Lessee's business
thereon and not to permit said premises to be used in violation of any lawful rule,
code, law, regulation or other authority.
5.5.1 The Lessee's obligations herein shall include, but in no way be limited
to, the obligation to comply with all State and Federal environmental laws and
regulations. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will indemnify and hold
harmless the Lessor from any fine, penalty, or damage which may be imposed by
any lawful authority, which may arise as a result of the Lessee's failure to comply
with the obligations of this paragraph.
A-109
-------
CHRISTINE O.GRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Ed Melvin
Sea Grant
19 Harbor Mall
Bellingham, WA 98225
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear jtcu- Melvin;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 24, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques Faigenblum
(Environmental Protection Agency), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I
had with you regarding actions that Sea Grant is taking to reduce
pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized 'below our
understanding of the Sea Grant's actions and have asked
additional questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and
address the new questions through a written response. This
letter, as well as your response, will be included in the draft
Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
North Pucret Sound Marine Sanctuary
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
is considering designating north Puget Sound as a marine
sanctuary. The boundaries of the sanctuary could
potentially extend from Cape Flattery to the Canadian
border, including Bellingham Bay. Sea Grant will be
involved to educate the marine fisheries user group as to
how this designation would affect them and how to deal with
the process. What is the status of this designation? How
would it protect water quality and fish resources in
Bellingham Bay?
Education/Technical Assistance
Sea Grant is willing to participate in educational efforts
designed to improve water quality in Bellingham Bay, through
involvement in planning and perhaps leading one or two
activities.
In addition, Sea Grant is willing to provide technical
assistance through their various resources across the
country.
A-110
-------
Mr. Ed Melvin
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Sea Grant worked with the Port of Bellingham to develop
improved waste collection facilities at Squalicum Harbor.
Currently facilities exist for the collection of: plastics
and boat garbage, cardboard, aluminum, scrap wood and metal,
nets waste oil, sewage, and hazardous materials. Cardboard,
aluminum and scrap wood and metal are recycled.
This venture also resulted in the creation of an educational
brochure which addresses: the marine waste problem, efforts
to solve the problem and what individuals can do. The
brochure also contains a map showing the various waste
disposal sites at Squalicum Harbor.
How is the brochure distributed? Are there plans to reprint
this document?
Water Quality
Are there any other activities which Sea Grant is involved
in that pertain to improving water quality in Bellingham
Bay?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the dra,ft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP:lp
A-111
-------
Washington Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Program
19 Harbor Mall (206) 676-6429
Bellingham, WA 98225 SCAN 522-6429
June 5, 1991
Lucille T. Pebles
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160thAve.S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 17,1991 requesting my
comments of your summary of our meeting in October, 1990 on Sea Grant
activities that reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. It is my understanding
that this information will be incorporated into the Bellingham Bay Action
Plan. I will address the specific questions you pose in your letter as well as
the summary. As we discussed I will not address your questions regarding
the proposed National Marine Sanctuary in North Sound since that
information is available within the Department of Ecology as lead state
agency for the project.
Washington Sea Grant is committed to improving the water quality of
Puget Sound including Bellingham Bay. The North Sound office of
Washington Sea Grant has limited programmatic resources and works with a
wide variety of marine users and issues in Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San
Juan, and north Snohomish Counties. Sea Grant is interested in participating
in planning educational efforts to improve water quality hi Bellingham Bay
to the extent that our programmatic resources allow, and may participate in
actual education events depending on the priorities that emerge from the
Action Plan process, available resources, and existing programmatic
commitments. Access to the national network of Sea Grant institutions and
their resources may be of value to the Action Plan process.
Washington Sea Grant does not have programs hi place that address
specifically water quality in Bellingham Bay at this time. As you point out in
your letter, Sea Grant lead the establishment of collection and recycling
facilities in Squalicum Harbor and published three educational brochures on
problems with marine debris and how recreational boaters and commercial
fishermen can help address this serious problem. These brochures are
available for $ 0.50 each through this office and Washington Sea Grants main
RECEIVED
A cooperative project of Bellingham Vo-TecrJyHjU sfjti OJriversity of Washington
OEPT. OF ECOLOGY
A-112
-------
office in Seattle on the University of Washington campus. Sea Grant is
currently considering reprinting these publications, but no decision has been
made thus far. This project certainly addresses water quality in Bellingham
Bay, but the impacts of this program are likely to be broader and include
Puget Sound in general. I have enclosed copies of the three marine debris
brochures I have mentioned for your information.
I hope that my comments are useful to you in your preparation of the
Bellingham Bay Action Plan. If I can be of further assistance please contact
me.
Sincerely,
Edward F. Melvin
North Sound Field Agent
cc: M. Spranger
A-113
-------
CHRISTINE O. CRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 24, 1991
TO: citizen Work Group Member
FROM: Lucille T. Pebles, NWRC. .
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
This memo is in follow-up to the October 24, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jo Harrison (Senior
Environmental Corps volunteer), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had
with you regarding actions that the citizens of Bellingham are
taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized
below our understanding of your actions and have asked additional
questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and address the
new questions through a written response. This memo, as well as
your response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action
Plan scheduled for release this July.
Concerned Southside Citizens
Concerned Southside Citizens (CSC) have been actively involved
in shoreline development issues in the southern area of
Bellingham Bay. As a result of their efforts, the Port of
Bellingham will be taking quarterly soundings at the Alaska
Ferry Terminal to track scouring. In addition, they have
taken actions to ensure that the cleanup of a contaminated
site at 4th and Harris proceeds in a timely manner. CSC
continue to closely track shoreline development impacts to
Bellingham Bay. What other activities are the CSC currently
involved in?
CSC also has been involved in a Padden Lagoon enhancement
project. How does this work mesh with the Bellingham Parks
and Recreation Departments habitat enhancement and public
access project for Padden Creek?
North Cascades Audubon Society
The North Cascades Audubon Society (NCAS) is involved in
monitoring bird populations in Bellingham Bay to establish
baseline information. They also have formed a conservation
committee to respond to oil spills and rescue oiled birds.
A-114
-------
What types of birds are monitored, how frequently, and where?
The NCAS has applied for Public Involvement and Education
funds on two occasions, but was not awarded any monies. What
were these funds to be used for? Will you apply for these
funds again?
Puget Sounders
The Puget Sounders are involved in a number of activities:
1)Annual or semi-annual garbage pickups on beaches
2)Oiled bird rescues
3) Stream tours to educate the public about stream ecology
4)Low cost portable exhibits on various environmental
issues
5)Public forums on shoreline development issues (e.g.
Alaska Ferry Terminal and Fairhaven Masterplan)
6)Volunteer program to eradicate the invasive plant
purple loose strife from wetlands, as well as "how to"
brochure.
In addition, the Puget Sounders have also received funds from
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) to create
standardized/regionalized low cost portable educational
exhibits.
What subjects are addressed in the portable exhibits? Were
the monies obtained from PSWQA from their Public Involvement
and Education fund? Please elaborate on the standardization
and regionalization of the portable educational exhibits.
Other Community Groups
The Fairhaven Neighbors are very active in the Padden Creek
enhancement effort. Is this part of the City of Bellingham
Parks and Recreation Department habitat enhancement and public
access project?
The Friends of Lake Whatcom are actively educating the public
about the importance of protecting water quality. What
mechanisms are used to accomplish this?
Consumers United for Safe Paper are working to build demand
for recycled paper products and to discourage the use of the
chlorine bleaching process. How is this accomplished?
A-115
-------
The Bellingham Cooperative School is involved in the
enhancement effort at Padden Creek as well as storm drain
stencilling. Js the Padden Creek enhancement work part of the
City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department habitat
enhancement and public access project? What area of
Bellingham was stencilled by the school and when? What
coordination took place with the City of Bellingham Public
Works Department?
Bellingham/Samish Bay Salmon Enhancement Group- What
activities are they involved in?
Western Washington University
Are there any recent or planned studies related to pollution
in Bellingham Bay?
General
What actions are the citizens of Bellingham taking as
individuals (e.g. recycling, buying recycled products, using
environmentally friendly products; reducing or eliminating the
use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; composting,
using mass transit)?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each member
of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full work group
meeting will be held this summer to discuss and comment on the
draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the plan, public comments
will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to sending
your response, feel free to call me at 649-7272. Please have your
response letter to me by Friday, June 7th.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward to
your response.
A-116
-------
JON 0 7
. Of ECOLOGY
-------
? ,
S^^
? sts
-------
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. John Anderson
Environmental Control Director
Georgia Pacific Corp.
P.O. Box 1237
Bellingham, WA 98227
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear Mry Anderoon;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 8, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), Marc Crooks (Ecology), Don Kjosness (Ecology), and I
had with you and Ed Dahlgren regarding actions that Georgia
Pacific is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have
summarized below our understanding of Georgia Pacific's actions
and have asked additional questions. Please confirm or modify
the summary and address the new questions through a written
response. This letter, as well as your response, will be
included in the draft Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for
release this July.
Stormwater
Surface water runoff from the Georgia Pacific site is
collected and conveyed to a secondary treatment lagoon and
is therefore addressed under the NPDES permit for the
discharge from the lagoon. Georgia Pacific is also working
to reduce releases to the storm drain system. What specific
steps are being taken to reduce discharges to the drainage
system? Are these steps currently being implemented or is
there an implementation schedule?
NPDES Permit
Georgia Pacific's new NPDES permit has been issued. The
permit can be appealed within the next 30 days
(Approximately the middle of June, 1991)
A-119
-------
Mr. John Anderson
May 17, 1991
Page 2
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Georgia Pacific has reduced its water consumption from 50
mgd to 37 mgd through recycling and new process equipment.
Are you planning any other conservation efforts?
Can any of your waste products be reused by another industry
or composted for resale as a soil enhancer? The Industrial
Materials Exchange might be able to connect you with
companies that could use your wastes. Are you aware of
their services? If not J would be happy to send you some
information. If you have contacted them, have they found
any potentially interested parties?
Bleaching Process/Recycled Paper Products
Georgia Pacific has experimented with bleaching agents other
than chlorine, and has sold the pulp around the Pacific rim
to test its marketability. At this point however, there
are no plans to change to an alternative method. What are
the other bleaching agents you have experimented with? What
is the market for pulp bleached via a non-chlorine process?
What requirements would have to met in order for an
alternative to be permanently incorporated into your
process?
Paper products made from recycled paper have become quite
common and appear to be increasing in popularity. What role
will recycled paper products play in Georgia Pacific's
future?
Landfills
Georgia Pacific has the following historic and currently
active off-site woodwaste landfills:
1) Airport Woodwaste Landfill, 12 acres, active
2) Hilltop Farms Woodwaste Landfill, 30 acres, active
3) Y-Road Landfill, closed
4) 1178 Marine Drive, 10 acres, closed
Is this list complete and accurate? What types of materials
are (have been) disposed of at these sites? How long were
the closed sites in operation? How long have the active
landfills been in service?
A-120
-------
Mr. John Anderson
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Nonprocess Wastes
Georgia Pacific has had all PCB-containing capacitors and
transformers removed from the site.
The plant has two above ground petroleum storage tanks and
no underground tanks. Solvents and waste paints are removed
by a contractor. What procedures are in place to
contain/ cleanup a spill?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTPrlp
A-121
-------
Georgia-fecificCorporation P.O. BOX 1236
Bellingham, Washington 98227
Telephone (206) 733-4410
Teletype (910) 442-2370 GEOBLHM BLH
Telecopy (206) 676-7217
RECEIVED
MAY 3 0 1991
May 29, 1991
OEPT. OF ECOLOGY
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program Coordinator
Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office
3190 - 160th Ave. S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452
Dear Ms. Pebles:
This letter is written in response to your letter dated May 17,
1991. Outlined below are comments and responses to your
summary and questions.
Stormwater
Surface water run-off from the Georgia-Pacific site is
collected and conveyed to the secondary treatment lagoon
and is therefore addressed under the NPDES permit for
discharge to Bellingham Bay. Run-off is from precipi-
tation and constitutes a small fraction of secondary
treatment influent. There are no current plans to reduce
flow.
NPDES Permit
Georgia-Pacific's NPDES permit was reissued May 15, 1991.
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Georgia-Pacific has reduced its water consumption from 50
mgd to 35 mgd through recycling and new process equipment.
No further water use reduction is anticipated in the near
future.
Approximately ten percent of primary treatment solid waste
is currently re-used by another local industry. Other
potential outlets for re-use are under consideration.
Georgia-Pacific has participated in the Industrial
Materials Exchange.
A-122
-------
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles, P.E. May 29, 1991
A project to press and burn primary treatment solid waste
for fuel is underway with start-up anticipated early in
1992.
Bleaching Process/Recycled Paper Products
Georgia-Pacific has developed a non-chlorine pulp
bleaching process utilizing caustic soda, oxygen and
peroxide. The present market for this pulp is primarily
in Europe for tissue products. Additional production of
non-chlorine bleached pulp at Georgia-Pacific will depend
on market demand, cost of production and regulatory
developments.
Recycled fiber is not presently used in tissue products
manufactured at the Bellingham facility. A corporate wide
review is underway to consider use of recycled fiber in
Georgia-Pacific tissue products.
Landfills
Georgia-Pacific has the following historic and currently
active off-site woodwaste landfills:
1) Airport Woodwaste Landfill, 12 acres, - active
2) Hilltop Farms Woodwaste, 30 acres - active
3) Y-Road Landfill - closed
4) 1178 Marine Drive - closed
Primary treatment and secondary treatment solid wastes
have been deposited at the Airport Woodwaste Landfill
site. The Airport site has been active since 1984. The
Hilltop Farms Landfill site has been active since 1976.
Currently, only logyard waste is deposited at the Hilltop
Farms Landfill site. Primary treatment solid waste was
also deposited there for a period of time.
No facility records currently exist for the two closed
sites.
Non-process Wastes
All electrical capacitors and transformers at the
Georgia-Pacific facility contain less than 50 ppb
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).
A-123
-------
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles, P. E. May 29, 1991
The plant has 14 above ground petroleum storage tanks; no
underground storage tanks, as defined by EPA, are in use-
All solvents and waste paints are removed from the site by
contractors.
The facility has a spill prevention control and counter-
measure plan. On-site personnel and out-side contractors,
as needed, would be utilized to mitigate and clean-up a
spill .
If I can provide additional clarification or information,
please contact me at (206) 676-7208.
Sincerely,
John L. Andersen
Environmental Control Director
JLA/bbl
A-124
-------
CHRISTINE O. CRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Michael Rogers
Maritime Contractors, Inc.
201 Harris Avenue
Bellingham, WA 98225
Res Bellingham Bay Action Plan
S7/&J4US
Dear Mr—-Rogers1:
This letter is in follow-up to the September 27, 1990 meeting
that Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Fran Solomon
(Ecology), and I had with you regarding actions that Maritime
Contractors is taking to reduce pollution in Bellingham Bay. I
have summarized below our understanding of your'actions and have
asked additional questions. Please confirm or modify the summary
and address the new questions through a written response. This
letter, as well as your response, will be included in the draft
Bellingham Bay Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Best Management Practices
With assistance from the Coast Guard, Maritime Contractors,
Inc. (MCI) has developed a hazardous waste management and
contingency plan. The plan calls for containment booms to
be in place when pier side work is performed and small
sorbent booms, sorbent pads and kitty litter, to be
available for upland spill containment. All employees will
receive training on the plan.
MCI has two dry docks and one marine railway. Dry dock
sandblasting is performed with canvas curtains during windy
conditions to contain the airborne particulates. The dry
docks are cleaned, prior to being sunk, by hand sweeping and
shoveling the sandblast grit into piles. These piles are
then scooped up by a Bobcat, deposited into small bins which
are in turn dumped into a large storage bin. The large
storage bin is an old truck trailer which is water tight on
the bottom and sides but is open on top. Hour is the
sandblast grit ultimately disposed of?
A-125
-------
Mr. Michael Rogers
May 20, 1991
Page 2
National Point Discharge Elimination System Permit
MCI has applied for an NPDES permit, and it is currently
being written by Ecology's water quality program. The
permit will cover the entire site and will have monitoring
requirements.
Dangerous Waste Regulations
Sandblast grit, paint residues from cleaning, and still
bottoms from solvent recycling, are all covered under the
State's Dangerous Wastes program. Therefore, MCI must
follow strict State requirements for hazardous waste
generation, storage, handling, transport and disposal. Are
there any other wastes which are considered Dangerous wastes
or will be considered Dangerous wastes under the new
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure testing
requirement?
New Construction
MCI is considering the construction of an additional pier as
well as the extension of an existing stub pier located on
the other side of the Alaska Ferry Terminal. What is the
status of these projects? What steps will be taken to
ensure minimal environmental impact?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTPrlp
A-126
-------
MARITIME CONTRACTORS INC
2O 1 HARRIS AVENUE
BELLING HAM, WA 98225-7018
(2O6) 647-OO8O
MAY 23, 1991
LUCILLE T. PEBLES
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
3190 - 160TH AVENUE S.E.
BELLEVUE, WA 98008-5452
RE: BELLINGHAM BAY ACTION PLAN
YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 17, 1991
DEAR LUCY:
ACTIONS MARITIME CONTRACTORS HAVE TAKEN TO REDUCE POLLUTION IN
BELLINGHAM BAY ARE AS FOLLOWS:
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
PRESENTLY OUR CONTINGENCY PLAN CALLS FOR A CONTAINMENT BOOM TO BE
READILY AVAILABLE WHEN PIER SIDE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. WE ARE GOING
TO MODIFY IT SO THE CONTAINMENT BOOM WILL BE DEPLOYED DURING PIER
SIDE WORK.
ALL DRY-DOCK SANDBLASTING WILL BE DONE WITH FABRIC CURTAINS IN
PLACE. SANDBLAST GRIT WILL NOW BE STORED IN A CONCRETE BUNKER AND
COVERED WITH A TARP. THE GRIT IS REMOVED FROM OUR SITE AND
RECYCLED BY A COMMERCIAL CARRIER. (INDUSTRIAL SERVICES)
DANGEROUS WASTE REGULATIONS
WE WILL HAVE NO OTHER DANGEROUS WASTES THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.
NEW CONSTRUCTION
THE EXISTING STUB PIER BELONGS TO THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM. THE MCI
PIER EXTENSION HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE BELLINGHAM PLANNING
COMMITTEE AS YET. ALL ISSUES INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS WILL BE STEEL AND CONCRETE AND
CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAMES WILL BE AS DIRECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISHERIES.
IF WE CAN BE ANY FURTHER SERVICE, PLEASE GIVE US A CALL.
SINCERELY,
IICHAEL
-------
CHRISTINE O. GRECOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. Michael Clausen
Bellingham Cold Storage
P.O. Box 895
Bellingham, WA 98227
Res Bellingham Bay Action Plan
St&Łu/
Dear Mi*. ClaUoea;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 3, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques Faigenblum
(EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with you regarding
actions that Bellingham Cold Storage is taking to reduce
pollution in Bellingham Bay. I have summarized 'below our
understanding of your actions and have asked additional
questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and address the
new questions through a written response. This letter, as well
as your response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay
Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Permits
Bellingham Cold Storage (BCS) has reapplied for a NPDES
permit. The permit will cover non-contact cooling water as
well as process water. Ecology is currently writing the
draft.
Waste Reduction
The cost of discharging to the Post Point treatment plant
will increase when the plant goes to secondary treatment in
1993. Therefore, to minimize this expense BCS is looking at
several options for reducing water consumption:
1) Closed Glycol Cooling System- BCS currently has a
closed glycol cooling system in Engine Room 1 and is
considering this type of system for Engine Room 2.
A-128
-------
Mr. Michael Clausen
May 17, 1991
Page 2
2) Chilled Water/Chlorination System- Product transfer
water is hydro-chilled, screened, and chlorinated for
reuse.
In addition to the above conservation measures, BCS is also
discussing with Bellingham Frozen Foods (BFF), the
possibility of discharging non-contact cooling water to
BFF's new land application system. The implementation of
any of these activities is contingent upon their economic
feasibility. What is the status of these various
efforts?
Stormwater Runoff
The BCS drainage system discharges to the bay at
approximately ten locations. The system does have catch
basins to collect sediments but does not have oil/water
separators. The property is owned by the Port of Bellingham
and they are responsible for the drainage system. Regarding
the number of discharges to the bay, is this from the entire
site including Icicle, Bellingham Frozen Foods, Trident
Seafoods and San Juan Seafoods? Does the Port maintain the
drainage system? How frequently?
Best Management Practices
BCS does not intentionally dump materials into storm drains;
however, there is no written policy on this. Waste oils are
discharged into the two on-site waste oil containers which
are then picked up by a private contractor. All forklifts
on the site are electric and therefore the only oils being
used are hydraulic and refrigeration oils. Ammonia and
solvents are also used on the site. What procedures are in
place to contain/cleanup spills? Are employees familiar
with these proceedures? Are you planning to develop a
written policy to clearly delineate good housekeeping
practices? Would formal training of employees be used to
ensure implementation of such a policy?
New Facilities
BCS will be constructing a new dry storage facility next to
Bellingham Frozen Foods, as well as a new processing plant
at their Orchard Drive property.
BCS currently has a plant on Orchard Drive and is in the
process of obtaining permits to clear additional land. The
property does include wetlands and BCS is hoping to trade
other properties for these wetlands. What is the status of
the Orchard Drive project? How was the wetlands issue
resolved?
A-129
-------
Mr. Michael Clausen
May 17, 1991
Page 3
Will the new processing plant site provide tor treatment of
storimfater prior to discharging to the City of Belllngham's
drainage system? Some potential treatment methods include:
grass-lined swales, wet ponds, settling basins, and grass-
Crete parking areas.
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday, May 31st.
I appreciate your support of this process and look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTPrlp
A-130
-------
RECEIVED
MAY 2 8 1991
OF ECOLOGY
Belllngham Cold Storage Company
Squalicum Waterway
P.O. Box 895
Bellingham, Washington 98227-0895
(206) 733-1640
FAX 206-671-1259
May 22,1991
Ms. Lucille T. Pebles
Department Of Ecology
3190 160th Ave. S.E.
Bellevue, Wa. 98008-5452
Re: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear: Lucille
In response to your letter regarding of the summary that will
go into the Bellingham Bay Action plan draft.
(1) Permits, B.C.S. is still waiting for these permits.
(2) Waste Reduction, The cost of discharging to Post Point
has already increased and will go up even more when the
Project is completed. As to the feasibility of dumping into
B.F.F. Land application system, We have no further
information at this time. Everything else is still pending.
(3) Stormwater Runoff, the number of 10 is only an estimate
and it covers the entire complex. The port does not maintain
the drainage system and there is some question as to who is
responsible for them at this time. - B.C.S. cleans and
maintains them at this time as needed.
(4) Best Management Practices, At this time all Maintenance,
foremen, cleanup and most forklift personal are trained in
these cleanup procedures and a policy is being written by our
safety committee.
(5) New Facilities, B.C.S. has plans to build a new dry
storage plant at the main plant for B.F.F., But has not been
approved at this time. There are no plans to build a
processing plant at the orchard Drive Plant. The wetlands
issue has not been resolved and may not be resolved for some
time.
If you need more information please call me.
Sincerely,
Bel 1 ingham_Co l
-------
CHRISTINE O.CREGOIRE
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office, 3190-160th AveS.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (206)649-7000
May 17, 1991
Mr. David Green
Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc.
P.O. Box 1016
Bellingham, WA 98227
R«: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
&r*"&
Dear M±. Giumi;
This letter is in follow-up to the October 3, 1990 meeting that
Michael Jacobson (PTI Environmental Services), Jacques Faigenblum
(EPA), Fran Solomon (Ecology), and I had with you regarding
actions that Bellingham Frozen Foods is taking to reduce
pollution in Bellingham Bay, I have summarized below our
understanding of your actions and have asked additional
questions. Please confirm or modify the summary and address the
new questions through a written response. This letter, as well
as your response, will be included in the draft Bellingham Bay
Action Plan scheduled for release this July.
Land Treatment Facility
Construction of Bellingham Frozen Foods (BFF) land treatment
facility is scheduled to begin in May or June of 1991, and
to be completed by the end of the summer. The facility is
expected to be operational, with the City wastewater
treatment facility as a backup, through 1992. In 1993, BFF
plans to be fully operational with no City backup. How will
you dispose of wastewater when soils are saturated and
cannot absorb any more liquids? What is the current
schedule for the project?
The EIS for the project has been approved and finalized, and
the necessary permits are being obtained. A draft NPDES
permit is currently available for public review and comment.
The State Waste Discharge Permit is currently being written.
What is the status of the other required permits?
Waste Reduction
Three years ago BFF began recirculating the water used to
transport carrots, through a closed loop system. This
system hydro-chills and screens the water and then treats it
with chlorine dioxide. The implementation of this process
reduced BFF's water use by 400,000 gallons per day during
the carrot season, which runs about 60 days.
A-132
-------
Mr. David Green
May 17, 1991
Page 2
BFF is currently looking at this system for the bean line,
although the water savings will not be as great as for
carrots. What is the status of implementing the
recirculation system for other products?
BFF is also investigating the possibility of eliminating
water transport for some products; a conveyor belt system
would be used instead. What is the status of this
investigation? What products would be transported via the
conveyor system?
The draft Action Plan will be distributed for review to each
member of the Bellingham Bay Action Program Work Group. A full
work group meeting will be held this summer to discuss and
comment on the draft plan. Prior to the finalization of the
plan, public comments will also be solicited.
If you would like to discuss or clarify any issues prior to
sending your response letter, feel free to call me at 649-7272.
Please have your response letter to me by Friday; Hay 31st.
I appreciate your participation in this process and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
LTP : Ip
A-133
-------
Eff
BELLINGHAM o..
FROZEN FOODS ™3
fig*
L
May 29, 1991
Lucille T. Pebles, P.E.
Bellingham Bay Action Program
Coordinator
Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452
RE: Bellingham Bay Action Plan
Dear Ms. Pebles:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 17, 1991, in which you
summarized Bellingham Frozen Foods' (BFF) actions at reducing impacts on
Bellingham Bay. I would like to clarify several points as follows:
Land Treatment Facility
All the necessary permits have been obtained, and we have begun
construction of our land treatment system. This system includes a
20 million gallon storage lagoon. This lagoon will allow us to
store wastewater when soil conditions do not allow us to irrigate.
The current schedule should see construction continuing through
this summer with completion in late fall.
Waste Reduction
Your summary describes our hydro-chilling recirculation system.
This system is used for peas, not carrots. We have implemented a
system for the 1991 processing season which will reduce water
consumption for corn processing by approximately 200,000 gallons
per day. This same system will be used during carrot processing
and save approximately 120,000 gallons per day.
Future Projects
BFF is investigating other ways to reduce water consumption in its
processing, and may see other systems changed in the future.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerelyv
David B. Green
Plant Manager A-134
p.o. box 1016 bcllingham, Washington 98227 (206) 734-4040
-------
APPENDIX B
Available Funding Sources.
Urban Bay Action Plan
Implemen ta tion
-------
AVAILABLE FUNDING SOURCES:
URBAN BAY ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
September 1991
(Updated - Ecology, NWRO)
Prepared for the Department of Ecology
by Jo Anne Harrison
B-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
recognizes that some local governments with limited
financial resources face serious water pollution control
needs. While the trend in solving environmental problems is
toward equal responsibility between federal, state, and
local governments, creative options in meeting local match
requirements are available to help communities take
advantage of funding sources without straining local
revenues. Ecology stands ready to assist local governments
in exploring these options in order to solve environmental
problems in a manner that does not cause undue financial
hardship.
The local share may be funded by taxes, sales of bonds,
formation and assessment of construction permits and grants
or loans from other state or federal agencies. The
Washington State Revolving Fund (SRF) for Water Pollution
Control can provide low interest financing of local match
for state grants. Grants from the Centennial Clean Water
Fund (CCWF) and loans from SRF may be combined, so
applicants need only deal with Ecology staff for complete
financing of water pollution control projects.
The Washington State Legislature and the U.S. Congress have
passed major legislation to protect water resources. State
legislation includes the Centennial Clean Water Fund and
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account. Federal legislation
includes the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972. Amendments are added to the Clean Water Act as
the need arises.
Brief descriptions of possible funding sources for
implementation of urban bay action plans are presented here
for your information. A chart listing grant and loan
programs, requirements, time lines, and contact persons is
attached.
The Washington State Centennial Clean Water Fund
The Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF) is a major source of
financial assistance providing grants and loans for water
quality projects. The CCWF is a partnership between the
state and local governments. Created by the state
legislature in 1986, the continuation of the fund has been
authorized through the year 2021. The CCWF helps local
communities meet water quality, health and safety
requirements. It is dedicated to protecting the waters of
Washington State for current and future generations.
B-2
-------
Through the year 1995, 50 percent of the annual fund of $45
million is earmarked for marine water facilities, which
include secondary sewage treatment plants, reduction of
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), stormwater discharges or
other facilities which empty directly into marine waters.
Facilities receive a base 50% of the total eligible cost; an
additional grant and/or loan is possible if the local match
would cause the community financial hardship. Most
activities receive a grant covering 75 percent of the total
eligible project costs. Other funding categories include
nonpoint pollution control, groundwater and freshwater
projects. Activities include planning, research, monitoring
and education. The CCWF does not fund cleanup projects. In
special cases, the discretionary category can provide up to
100 percent of the eligible project cost. Strong local
support and the seriousness of the problem are rating
criteria for grant and loan awards.
Centennial grants in the Groundwater Category are providing
$5.5 million in funds for fiscal year (FY) 91. Funding is
available for the designation of local Groundwater
Management Areas (GWMAs) and for protection of groundwater
quality and quantity.
THE WASHINGTON STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF)
FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
The Washington State Revolving Fund (SRF) for Water
Pollution Control provides low interest loans for high
priority water quality needs. Congress established the SRF
as part of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 as a way
to phase out federal grants and phase in state loans. The
U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) will "seed" the SRF with
yearly capitalization grants, subject to Congressional
appropriation, until 1994. The state must contribute 20
percent matching funds during this period. After 1994,
federal and state capitalization will end. Loan repayments,
with interest, will sustain the SRF from then on in
perpetuity.
Eighty percent of the money is earmarked for the planning,
design or construction of water pollution control
facilities. Ten percent can go for nonpoint sources control
projects, and 10 percent of the SRF can go to conservation
and management projects for federally designated estuaries
like Puget Sound. Projects in this category may include
purchases of wetlands, the construction of boat pumpout
facilities and other projects. The SRF can provide
financing for the local match for state grants under certain
conditions such as financial hardship.
B-3
-------
The sooner the borrower repays the SRF loan, the lower the
interest rate. For now, for a 0-5 year term, no interest
will be charged; for a 6-14 year term, the interest rate
will be 4 percent; and, for a 15-20 year term, the interest
rate will be 5 percent. After 1992, SRF interest rates will
be 60 - 75 percent of the current market rate. If all
federal requirements are satisfied, SRF can provide
refinancing of local funds already spent on planning and
design not covered by grants as well as financing to make up
some ineligible portions of state or federal grants.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 306 GRANTS
Ecology's Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program
administers $400,000 in 306 grant funds annually (provided
to Ecology through the federal Coastal Zone Management Act)
for local shoreline master program (SMP) improvements and
special shoreline projects.
Preparation of SMP amendments, including public involvement,
legislative review and process necessary for local adoption,
can address such issues as: public access policies and
regulations; environment mapping and redesignations;
waterfront revitalization policies and standards; beach and
dunes management provisions; use activity provisions such as
aquaculture, marinas, etc.; site planning and design for
public access improvements, waterfront restoration and
interpretive centers; and, public information and education
programs. The grant project must enhance the local
shoreline master program, improve management of shoreline
resources and go beyond routine shoreline management
activities.
205J GRANTS
Each year approximately $334,000 in grant funds is provided
to the state from the Federal Clean Water Act, subject to
Congressional appropriations. Fifty percent of the funds go
to state agencies and 50 percent is available for pass-
through to local governments. The grants cover water
quality planning activities only. One of the current
priorities is the restoration and maintenance of a healthy
and productive Puget Sound. Ecology can provide information
on what is currently available.
B-4
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAMS
Many grant programs are available to address waste
management problems. Hazardous waste planning grants
provide financial assistance for updating local
comprehensive hazardous waste management plans. Local
health departments can apply for solid waste enforcement
grants. Financial assistance is available for planning and
carrying out household hazardous waste collection events.
Local governments may apply for financial assistance for
installation of groundwater monitoring wells at municipal
landfills, for the purpose of identifying potential
contamination of groundwater. Waste reduction and recycling
grants provide funds for the design of programs that promote
Washington's solid waste management priorities.
In 1989 the Legislature authorized several new waste
reduction and recycling grants. Projects include: tire
recycling, removal, and enforcement programs; developing
public informational materials; establishing the feasibility
of composting food and yard waste; Phases 2 and 3 - waste
reduction and recycling grants; and, hazardous waste
planning implementation grants.
Public participation grants are available to citizen groups
of three or more persons and not-for-profit public interest
groups organized for the purpose of working on environmental
issues or providing involvement services. Citizen/Proponent
negotiations grants can be awarded to local governments
affected by the development of a dangerous waste management
facility, to establish a citizen negotiating committee that
will discuss mitigation of potential impacts on the
community with the facility proponent.
AQUATIC LANDS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT
In 1984 the Legislature created the Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account (ALEA). The ALEA was established to
provide funding for state and local projects designed to
enhance state-owned aquatic lands by providing public
access, recreation and environmental protection. The
account is funded by lease revenue received from various
uses of state aquatic lands under the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
Projects may involve acquisition of marine tidelands and/or
adjacent uplands. Examples of eligible public
access/recreation projects are: planting shellfish for
recreational use; creating water-oriented interpretive
B-5
-------
displays; establishing open-water swimming areas; providing
nonmotorized boat launches and temporary moorage facilities;
and building fishing piers and reefs. The ALEA program is
not available for source control projects.
ALEA projects in Whatcom County include the acquisition of
approximately 300 linear feet of tidelands abutting Birch
Bay State Park and expanding and improving an existing trail
system along Whatcom Creek in downtown Bellingham. The
Whatcom Creek project includes a viewpoint and deck at the
historic location of an old mill.
AGRICULTURAL WATER SUPPLY LOANS/GRANTS
Referendum 38, (approved by the voters in 1980), authorizes
the State Finance Committee to issue State General
Obligation Bonds in the amount of $125 million for water
supply facilities. Fifty million dollars of the
authorization is to be used for agricultural water supply
facilities alone or in combination with fishery,
recreational, or other beneficial uses of water. The $50
million is to be administered by the Department of Ecology.
Ecology may use or permit the use of the bond proceeds,
subject to legislative appropriation, by direct expenditure,
and by grants or loans to public bodies. This includes
grants to public bodies as matching funds in any case where
federal, local, or other funds are made available on a
matching basis.
REMEDIAL ACTION
Remedial action funds are available for investigation of
suspected hazardous waste sites and for the cleanup of
confirmed sites. For fiscal year (FY) 89-91, $15,902,000
was made available to applicants. Fifty thousand dollars is
the ceiling amount for routine cleanup and also for site
hazard assessment. Fifty percent funding is available for
investigation and cleanup; 100 percent for routine cleanups
and site hazard assessments; and, for economically
disadvantaged communities an additional 25 percent
supplement may be awarded.
B-6
-------
FUNPINC PROGRAMS
PROGRAM
Centennial
Clean Water
Fund ICCMTI
DESCRIPTION
Financial I
technical assistance
for water pollution
control activities
and facilities
REQUIREMENTS
Only water
quality projectn
I/I of local chare
•ust cone fro* local
source* or loam
NEXT APPLICATION PERIOD
Jan. - F»b.
CONTACT*
Helen Breiler
(2061459-6096
State
Revolving Fund
for Mater Pollution
Control ISRPI
Low interest
loans for
water pollution
control projects
Meet state
Nonpoint Plan
or Puqet Sound
Plan if relevant
June - July 6. 1991
Dan PI Up
I206I4S9-6061
Coastal Son*
Management
10* Grants
Planning grants
and special projects
to implement shoreline
•aster
Mrite or call
Jan. - Feb. 1991
Jsn. - Fab. 1991
Steve Craig
12061 4S9-4J80
Jim Scott
I206MS9-67S1
20VJ Grants
Planning for water
quality projects
Planning
activities only
Jan. - Feb. 1991
Helen Brealer
(206)459-6096
DO
Ground Hater
Management
Area Program-
For designation of
GMMAs and protection
of groundwater
quality i quantity
Hust be on
Ecology's
General Schedule
Ongoing
Doug Rushton
I20«|4i*-*l20
Household
Haiardous Mast*
Col lectio* Events
Planning and
carrying out
collection days
(or households
Call for info.
Call for deadline info.
Nike Drunright
(206)4i*-629?
Public
Participation
Investigating and
remedying haiardous
substance release
Chptr. 171-J21
MAC or grant
Feb. - March 1991
Laurie Davies
(20t|41l-7St2
Citizen/
Proponent
Negotiations
Negotlationg
committee to neet
with proponents of
dangerous waste
a«nage*«nt facilities
MAC 171-103-902
and grant
guideline*
Ongoing
Laurie Davies
|20»|4Jd-7S«]
Aquatic Land*
Enhancrn*«t
Account
Land acquisition.
public access/
recreation projects
Call for info.
June 30. l»9l
Deadline
Robert Brando*
I20t|Sls-tOJ)
Agricultural
Mater Supply
Loan/Grant
Agricultural
water supply
facilities
Call (or info.
Call for deadline info.
Pay Newklrk
MrnedlaI
Action
Investigation and
cleanup of haiardous
west* site*
• Note: To call Ecology stsff on the SCAN system,
us* •isS" instead of *4»»' or -43d."
MAC Chptr.
171-322 and
grant guideline*
Early su*»er 19*1
Julia Moods
l20«|4jCJ-72«)
-------
APPENDIX C
Public Involvement Processes
-------
Public Involvement Processes
The information contained in this appendix has been excerpted from
various regulations and guidelines and are intended for general use
only. More detailed information can be obtained from the following
Washington Department of Ecology staff members:
Shoreline Management Act
Peter Skowlund
State Environmental Policy Act Vernice Santee
Model Toxics Control Act
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis
Dawn Hooper
Mary Kautz
Tom Gries
438-7430
459-6020
438-3013
649-7036
438-7706
For information on the Section 10/404 permit process, contact
David Fox of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at 764-3768.
C-1
-------
Shoreline Management Act
Note: The Shoreline Master Program is addressed on pages C-4 through
C-6. Shoreline permits are addressed on pages C-7 through C-9.
The public notice requirements on page C-7 apply to the shore-
line permit process.
-------
SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT
IN
WASHINGTON
Managing the Shorelines of
Washington State
The State's Shoreline Management Act of
1971 grew out of a public initiative, involving
concerned citizens and all levels of government.
It represents the goals of the people of Washing-
ton State to protect this limited and fragile re-
source while providing for appropriate uses.
This legislation makes the Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology responsible for developing a
program to manage the state's shorelines. The
act provides for local governments, and the
Department of Ecology, to prepare Shoreline
Master Programs for all shorelines of the state
within their jurisdiction, and implement these
programs through a local permit process with
state overview.
Local Shoreline Master
Programs
Uses and activities along the state shore-
lines are managed through city and county
shoreline master programs. Each Master Pro-
gram is both a plan and a set of regulations
created specifically for the shorelines of that
community. While Master Programs are tai-
lored to local issues and physical constraints,
theymust conform tostatewideguidelines,goals,
and policies. Local governments and the De-
partment of Ecology are jointly responsible for
developmentoflocalShoreline Master Programs
and administration of the shoreline permit pro-
gram. While issues in the Master Programs are
established primarily by local governments,
Ecology acts in a supportive and review capac-
ity with primary emphasis on insuring compli-
ance with the policies and provisions of the
Shoreline Management Act.
''Haw do I know if I need a permit?"
ASK. Some projects are specifically ex-
empt from certain permit processes. However,
they still must be consistent with the Master
Program requirements. Check with your local
planning or building department for applica-
tion or exemption forms, environmental check-
lists and other information.
"What do I need to know to
design a project?"
The local Master Program gives each
stretch of shoreline a specific environmental des-
ignation which sets out the allowable uses and
regulations that must be met. The first step is to
check the master program for the location and
designation pertaining to your project.
The Shoreline Management Act gives
preference to uses which are wateroriented. Most
waters and submerged lands are held in Public
Trust by the state. Your project may require
some form of public access, preservation of
certain views, habitat management or shore-
line rehabilitation.
"What is involved in obtaining
shoreline permits?"
Local planning or building departments
supply the applications and most of the neces-
sary information. It is also at the local level that
the permits are processed. It is important to
remember that a project must also comply with
local zoning ordinances, State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, and other
applicable laws. For most projects the shoreline
permit will not be the only permit required.
C-2
-------
Ordinary High
Wim Mark
(OHWM)
Coastal Shorelines
MINIMUM
SHORELINE
JURISDICTION
200' From OHWM or floodny and _
all marsbe*. bogi, and iwamps in
100 yr. floodpUin
MAXIMUM
SHORELINE
JURISDICTION
200' from OHWM and 100 yr. foodplaBi .
River Shorelines
Shoreline Jurisdiction
• Lakes 20 acres or larger.
• Streams with a mean annual flow greater
than 20 cubic feet per second.
• All marine waters.
• Associated marshes, bogs, swamps and
river deltas.
• An area 200 feet landward from the
water's edge.
• Areas within 200 feet of designated flood
ways.
• Some or all of the 100 year floodplain
including all associated wetlands within
the entire floodplain.
C-3
-------
SMP Handbook - First Edition
A
\
Chapter 3
Process to Amend
Shoreline Master
Programs
Introduction
Generally speaking, amending (updating) a local Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) involves a two step process (see figure 3-1):
o Step 1 - Preparation of amendments for review and
adoption at the local level (WAC 173-19-060 & 061).
Note: A "draft" of proposed amendments must be sent to
WDOE for review and comment before local action is
taken.
o Step 2 - Transmittal of the proposed amendments to
WDOE who must then review and process the proposals
(WAC 173-19-062(4)). Note: All master program
amendments must be reviewed and adopted by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) before
they become effective.
C-4
-------
SMP Handbook - First Edition
Figure 3-1 Process to Update Master Programs
PROCESS TO AMEND MASTER PROGRAMS
Form Citizens Advisory Committee
Perform technical and public
participation tasks necessary
to develop SMP Amendments
a
4)
•<_>
C/3
Advertise public hearing
(3 consecutive weeks)
Hold Public Hearing
Local Government Decision
Apply to WDOE
(See application requirements)
GO
WDOE Review
Requires 3 to 5 months
WDOE Approval
SMP Amendments become effective
C-5
-------
Public Participation
Any comprehensive master program update must incorporate public
input and coordinate with public agencies. The Shoreline Management
Act states that all people should have an opportunity for involvement in
the development and implementation of SMPs and that WDOE and the
local governments shall actively encourage participation by the public
and federal, state, and local agencies (RCW 90.58.130).
WAC 173-16-040 suggests a process to comply with the SMA's public
participation requirement consisting of the following actions:
a. Appoint a citizen advisory committee to guide the master
program formulation;
b. Hold at least 3 public meetings during SMP development
and environment designation process. Public notice
should be given 7 days before each meeting and a record
should be kept of the proceedings. The final meeting
should be at least 7 days prior to the required public
rin-
c. Notice of the public hearing must appear in a newspaper
of general circulation in the area in each of the three
weeks preceding the hearing date (WAC 173-19-061(2));
d. Publish a newsletter to publicize the process schedule,
meeting times and location, and purpose; and
e. Publicize the master program update effort through radio
and local news media.
The procedures detailed in the WAC have been generally found to be
effective in building a consensus on shoreline management issues if
representatives from a broad spectrum of civic groups and interests are
included. The number of meetings and public notification steps may
vary upon the size of community and complexity of issues.
C-6
-------
SHORELINE PERMITS
Public Notice Requirements
The SMA gives local government discretion in structuring its permit
process. Local administrators should follow the procedures for permit
processing described in the local master program. Once an application
has been submitted, local government must solicit public comment on
the proposal. At a minimum, the applicant must publish notices of the
application in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks. An
affidavit that notice has been properly published and/or posted must be
affixed to the application. In addition, local government must provide
additional public notice such as mailing information to adjacent
property owners and community groups, posting of conspicuous notices
on the property, or other methods. See WAC 173-14-070. Interested
members of the public are allowed 30 days to submit comments to the
local jurisdiction.
Depending on the requirements outlined in the local master program, a
public hearing may be held. Hearings are typically required of large or
controversial projects, and for projects requiring a variance or
conditional use permit. Hearings can be used to assure that interested
citizens are appraised of the development proposal and will have
opportunity to comment on it. Options for hearings may be specified in
the shoreline master program, but could include a hearing before the city
or county council, planning commission, planning department or before
a hearings examiner.
C-7
-------
Admin. Manual - 1st Edition
Figure 4-1
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Variance Review Process
I
o
en
Q 5
s!
I
o
CUP or Variance Permit
Application Submitted
to Local Government (*1)
Notice Mailed/Posted and
Legal Notice Published
2 Consecutive Weeks
Public Notice
for Hearing
in
1
Technical Review
by Staff (Incl. SEPA)
Public Hearing
(Recommended)
Local Government
Permit Decision (*2)
Receipt of Permit by WDOE
WDOE Review and Decision
to Approve, Condition
or Deny
30 Day Period for Public
Local Gov't or Applicant
to Appeal WDOE Decisions
•••••••••••••••••••••••••a
Authorization to Commence
Activity if not Denied
or Appealed
Appeals to
Shorelines Hearings
Board
Notes*
*1 SEPA checklist must be submitted with application
*2 SEPA requirements must be completed prior to local permit decisions
C-8
-------
Admin. Manual - 1st Edition
Figure 4-2
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Review Process
Shoreline Permit
Submitted to Local
Government (*1)
trt
a
O
r-
•%
r^
Between
1 Notices
Notice Mailed/Posted and Legal
Notice Published 2 Consecutive Weeks
0 D
Technical Review by Staff
If there are Substantial
Questions or Public Issues
Public Hearing
(recommended)
c
Z
.c
3
Local Government (*2)
Permit Decision
Receipt of Permit by Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE) -
Appeal Penod
j.......
Public, Local Gov't. or
Applicant May Appeal
Decision to Shorelines
Hearings Board with in
a 30 Day Appeal Penod
w
w
CO
WDOE Permit Authorization
or Appeal
Appeals to
Shorelines Hearings
Board
Authorization to
Commence Activity
Notes*
*1 SEPA checklist must be submitted with application
*2 SEPA requirements must be completed prior to local permit decisions
*3 WDOE may approve or appeal substantial development permit to SHE. WDOE
may approve, condition, or deny a CUP or Variance application.
C-9
-------
State Environmental Policy Act
-------
PURPOSE OF SEPA
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Chapter 43.21C RCW, is intended
to ensure that environmental values are considered (in addition to
technical and economic considerations) by state and local government
officials when making decisions. SEPA contains specific policies and
goals which apply to actions at all levels of government within the state,
except the judiciary and state legislature. The SEPA Rules (Chapter
197-11 WAC) were adopted to implement SEPA and to establish uniform
requirements and guidance for compliance with SEPA.
SEPA has four primary purposes as listed in Chapter 43.21C RCW:
1. To declare a state policy which will encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between people and
their environment,
2. To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and biosphere,
3. To stimulate the health and welfare of people, and
4. To enrich the understanding of ecological systems and
natural resources important to the state and the
nation.
The SEPA process starts when someone submits a permit application to an
agency or when an agency proposes to take some official action. Prior to
taking any action (issuing permits, approvals, etc.) on a nonexempt
project, agencies must follow specific procedures to assure that
appropriate consideration has been given to the environment. The severity
of potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed project will
determine whether an environmental impact statement is required. If an
environmental impact statement is not issued, a determination of
nonsignificance must, be issued.
After completion of the environmental impact statement or determination of
nonsignificance, agencies may act upon the permit application or other
approval required for the project. Administrative or legal appeals and
challenges concerning SEPA compliance must be linked to a specific
governmental action (e.g., permit) and be brought in a timely manner.
Early Coordination
One of the primary purposes of SEPA is to evaluate the environmental
impacts of a proposed project and identify methods to reduce the impacts.
If there appear to be major problems with a proposal, the lead agency
C-10
-------
should discuss the project with the applicant as early as possible and
explain the areas of difficulty. If the lead agency is aware that major
changes will be required to allow a project to proceed, the applicant
should be given the opportunity to withdraw the project prior to complying
with SEPA.
A handy tool which has worked for us is the early interagency meeting with
the applicant. This can be done either before SEPA begins, during
checklist review, or during scoping. Applicants with whom we have worked
have responded quite positively to an early thorough discussion of issues,
options, and time frames. Feasibility and critical issues can be
identified, discussed and, in many cases, worked out before the process
begins. The applicant can then make informed and reasoned choices about
how to proceed.
Public Involvement
The goal of SEPA is much more than simply procedural. Projects are
modified, mitigation is accommodated and the public is made to feel more
comfortable in a successful SEPA process. The latter function cannot be
achieved by performing the process in a "black box". Indeed, public
involvement has been found to be the key to preventing public suspicion of
the process. Repeated efforts should be made to involve the public.
Whereas scoping and DEIS review have mandated public interfaces, we have
found additional efforts very useful. Agency/citizen committees which
meet several times with the applicant and the lead agency can give
everyone a feeling for the complexities of the issues and an opportunity
to participate in the environmental analysis. Informal public meetings
have also proved useful.
Whatever the form, an open and fluid public involvement process is a key
to avoiding polarized positions which can lead to needless and unpleasant
conflict.
Even when there are strong conflicting differences regarding a decision,
SEPA through its public involvement process can provide (at a minimum) a
reasonably equal level of understanding of the issues and facts
surrounding a proposal.
C-11
-------
SEPA Rules
WAC 197-11-510 Public notice. (1) When these
rules require notice to be given under this section, the
lead agency must use reasonable methods to inform the
public and other agencies that an environmental docu-
ment is being prepared or is available and that public
hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its
existing notice procedures.
Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public
are:
(a) Posting the property, for site-specific proposals;
(b) Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circu-
lation in the county, city, or general ana where the pro-
posal is located;
(c) Notifying public or private groups with known in-
terest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal
being considered;
(d) Notifying the news media;
(e) Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighbor-
hood, ethnic, or trade journals; and/or
(0 Publishing notice in agency newsletters and/or
sending notice to agency mailing lists (either general
lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas).
(2) Each agency shall specify its method of public no-
tice in its SEPA procedures. 197-11-904 and 197-11-
906. If an agency does not specify its method of public
notice or does not adopt SEPA procedures, the agency
shall use methods (a) and (b) in subsection (I).
(3) Documents which are required to be sent to the
department of ecology under these rules will be pub-
lished in the SEPA REGISTER, which will also consti-
tute a form of public notice. However, publication in the
SEPA REGISTER shall not, in itself, meet compliance
with this section.
WAC 197-11-535 Public hearings and meetings. (1)
If a public hearing on the proposal is held under some
other requirement of law, such hearing shall be open to
consideration of the environmental impact of the pro-
posal, together with any environmental document that is
available. This does not require extension of the com-
ment periods for environmental documents.
(2) In all other cases a public hearing on the environ-
mental impact of a proposal shall be held whenever one
or more of the following situations occur:
(a) The lead agency determines, in its sole discretion,
that a public hearing would assist it in meeting its re-
sponsibility to implement the purposes and policies of
SEPA and these rules; or
(b) When fifty or more persons residing within the
jurisdiction of the lead agency, or who would be ad-
versely affected by the environmental impact of the pro-
posal, make written request to the lead agency within
thirty days of issuance of the draft EIS; or
(c) When two or more agencies with jurisdiction over
a proposal make written request to the lead agency
within thirty days of the issuance of the draft EIS.
(3) Whenever a public hearing is held under subsec-
tion (2) of this section, it shall occur no earlier than fif-
teen days from the date the draft EIS is issued, nor later
than fifty days from its issuance. Notice shall be given
under 197-11-502(6) and 197-11-510 and may be
combined with other agency notice.
(4) If a public hearing is required under this chapter,
it shall be open to discussion of all environmental docu-
ments and any written comments that have been re-
ceived by the lead agency prior to the hearing. A copy of
the environmental document shall be available at the
public hearing.
Part Five—197-11-560
(5) Comments at public hearings should be as specific
as possible (see 197-11-550).
(6) Agencies and their designees may hold informal
public meetings or workshops. Such gatherings may be
more flexible than public hearings and are not subject to
the above notice and similar requirements for public
hearings.
WAC 197-11-545 Effect of no comment. (1) Con-
sulted agencies. If a consulted agency does not respond
with written comments within the time periods for com-
menting on environmental documents, the lead agency
may assume that the consulted agency has no informa-
tion relating to the potential impact of the proposal as it
relates to the consulted agency's jurisdiction or soecial
expertise. Any consulted agency that Tails to submit
substantive information to the lead agency in response to
a draft EIS is thereafter barred from alleging any de-
fects in the lead agency's compliance with Part Four of
these rules.
(2) Other agencies and the public. Lack of comment
by other agencies or members of the public on environ-
mental documents, within the time periods specified by
these rules, shall be construed as lack of objection to the
environmental analysis, if the requirements of 197-11-
510 are met.
WAC 197-11-550 Specificity of comments. (I)
Comments on an EIS, DNS, scoping notice or proposal
shall be as specific as possible and may address either
the adequacy of the environmental document or the
merits of the alternatives discussed or both.
(2) Commenters shall briefly describe the nature of
any documents referenced in their comments, indicating
the material's relevance, and should indicate where the
material can be reviewed or obtained.
(3) Methodology. When an agency criticizes a lead
agency's predictive methodology, the commenting
agency should describe, when possible, the alternative
methodology which it prefers and why.
(4) Additional information. A consulted agency shall
specify in its comments whether it needs additional in-
formation to fulfill other applicable environmental re-
views or consultation requirements and what information
it needs, to the extent permitted by the details available
on the proposal.
(5) Mitigation measures. When an agency with juris-
diction objects to or expresses concerns about a proposal,
it shall specify the mitigation measures, if any are possi-
ble, it considers necessary to allow an agency to grant or
approve applicable licenses.
(6) Comments by other agencies. Commenting agen-
cies that are not consulted agencies shall specify any ad-
ditional information or mitigation measures the
commenting agency believes are necessary or desirable
to satisfy its concerns.
(7) Citizen comments. Recognizing their generally
more limited resources, members of the public shall
make their comments as specific as possible and are en-
couraged to comment on methodology needed, additional
information, and mitigation measures in the manner in-
dicated in this section.
(8) An agency shall consider and may respond to
comments as the agency deems appropriate; the require-
ments for responding in a FEIS shall be met (197-11-
560).
C-12
-------
SEPA PROCESS
FROM SEPA RULES, CHAPTER 197-11; NUMBERS LISTED REFER TO WAC SECTIONS
INFORMATION INCOMPLETE; RETURN
TO APPLICANT FOR COMPLETION
NOT LEAD AGENCY; SEND COPY OF
APPLICATION TO LEAD AGENCY
WITH COVER LETTER
PERMIT APPLICATION RECEIVED;
PLAN OR REGULATION DEVELOPED
REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS
AND EXEMPTION TO SEPA
060 305 800
DETERMINE LEAD AGENCY
735D 050 924
PROJECT EXEMPT; SEPA SATISFIED
LEAD AGENCY; APPLICANT COMPLETES ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST WITH/WITHOUT AGENCY ASSISTANCE
IF RESPONSE TO "REQUEST FOR EARLY
NOTICE" INDICATES SIGNIFICANT
DETERMINATION POSSIBLE, APPLICANT
MAY ALTER PROPOSAL TO ADD
MITIGATING MEASURES
350
EVALUATE CHECKLIST
060
TJ50
100 330 335
IF REQUESTED, RESPOND TO
TO REQUEST FOR EARLY NOTICE
350
MAKE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
"7J5D BSD 3TO 330
IF THERE ARE PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACTS
ISSUE DETERMINATION OF
SIGNIFICANCE/SCOPING NOTICE
PREPARE DRAFT EIS
CIRCULATE DS/SCOPINC NOTICE;
I GIVE "PUBLIC NOTICE" (ALLOW
I 21 DAYS FOR WRITTEN
. COMMENT; FOR EXPANDED
' SCOPING ALLOW UP TO 30 DAYS)
080 400 40Z 420-44
35tJ4084TU
I DISTRIBUTE DEIS FOR 30 DAY COMMENT
PERIOD; "PUBLIC NOTICE" REQUIRED
455
REVIEW, EVALUATE, RESPOND TO
DEIS COMMENTS; PREPARE FINAL EIS
IF THERE ARE NO PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACTS, ISSUE DETERMINATION
OF NONSICNIFICANCE
PROPOSAL DOES NOT INVOLVE
ANOTHER AGENCY WITH
JURISDICTION, "MITIGATED"
DNS OR A DNS ISSUED AFTER
DS WITHDRAWN
340
AGENCY DECISION
560
DISTRIBUTE FEIS
46O
WAIT 7 DAYS
460
[ AGENCY DECISION |
0703"9TP 660
RECEIVE, EVALUATE COMMENTS
070 39O
660
070 390
660
(JBO
PROPOSAL DOES INVOLVE
ANOTHER AGENCY WITH
JURISDICTION, 'NITIGATED"
DNS, OR A DNS ISSUED
AFTER DS WITHDRAWN
(1) CIRCULATE DNS FOR 15 DAY
COMMENT PERIOD
(2) SEND COPY OF DNS TO
ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
(3) GIVE "PUBLIC NOTICE" AS
SPECIFIED IN PROCEDURES
340
C-13
-------
Model Toxics Control Act
-------
PART I—OVERALL CLEANUP PROCESS
VAC 173-340-100 PURPOSE.
This chapter is promulgated under the Model Toxics Control Act. It establishes
administrative processes and standards to identify, investigate, and cleanup facilities
where hazardous substances have come to be located. It defines the role of the
department and encourages public involvement in decision making at these facilities.
The goal of this chapter is to implement the policy declared by chapter 70.1050 RCW.
This chapter provides a workable process to accomplish effective and expeditious
cleanups in a manner that protects human health and the environment. This chapter is
primarily intended to address releases of hazardous substances caused by past
activities although its provisions may be applied to potential and ongoing releases
of hazardous substances from current activities.
WAG 173-340-110 APPLICABILITY.
(1) This chapter shall apply to all facilities where there has been a release or
threatened release of a hazardous substances that may pose a threat to human health
or the environment. Under this chapter, the department may require or take those
actions necessary to investigate and remedy these releases.
(2) Nothing herein shall be construed to diminish the department's authority to
address a release or threatened release under other applicable laws or regulations.
The cleanup process and procedures under this chapter and under other laws may be
combined. The department may initiate a remedial action under this chapter and may
upon further analysis determine that another lav is more appropriate, or vice versa.
(3) If a hazardous substance remains at a facility after actions have been completed
under other applicable lavs or regulations, the department may apply this chapter to
protect human health or the environment.
AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending VSR 90-08-086, filed 4/3/90, effective 5/4/90)
WAG 173-340-120 OVERVIEW.
(1) Purpose. This section provides an overview of the cleanup process that typically
will occur at a site where a release of a hazardous substance has been discovered.
If there are any inconsistencies between this section and any specifically referenced
sections, the referenced section shall govern.
(2) Site discovery. Sit* discovery includes:
(a) Release reporting. A reporting program is established to help identify
potential hazardous vast* sites. Owners and operators who know of or discover a
release of a hazardous substance due to past activities must report the release to the
department within ninety days of discovery, under WAG 173-340-300. Most current
releases of hazardous substances must be reported to the department under the state's
hazardous waste underground storage tank, or water quality laws. The term "hazardous
substance" includes a broad rang* of substances as defined by chapter 70.105D RCW.
(b) Initial investigation. Within ninety days of learning of a hazardous
substance release, the department will conduct an initial investigation of the site
under VAC 173-340-310. For sites that may need further remedial action, an early
notice letter will be sent to the owner and operator informing them of the department's
decision.
C-14
-------
(3) Site priorities. Priorities for further remedial action are set by the following
process:
(a) Site hazard assessment. Based on the results of the initial investigation,
a site hazard assessment will be performed if necessary, under WAC 173-340-320. The
purpose of the site hazard assessment is to gather information to confirm whether a
release has occurred and to enable the department to evaluate the relative potential
hazard posed by the release. If the department decides that no further action is
required, it will notify the public of that decision through the site register.
(b) Hazardous sites list. The department will maintain a list of sites that
require further remedial action. Sites will be after the completion of a site hazard
assessment. Sites placed on the list will be ranked using the department's hazard
ranking method. The department may remove a site from the hazardous sites list if the
cleanup action at the site has achieved the cleanup standards and all remedial actions
except confirmational monitoring have been completed. See WAG 173-340-330.
(c) Biennial program report. Every even-numbered year, the department will
prepare a biennial program report for the legislature. The hazard ranking, along with
other factors, will be used in this report to identify the projects and expenditures
recommended for appropriation. See VAC 173-340-340.
(4) Detailed site investigations and cleanup decisions. The following steps will be
taken to ensure that the proper method of cleanup is chosen for the site.
(a) Remedial investigation and feasibility study. A state remedial
investigation/feasibility study will be performed at ranked sites under VAC
173-340-350. The state remedial investigation/ feasibility study defines the extent
of the problems at the site and evaluates alternative cleanup actions.
(b) Selection of cleanup action. The department will evaluate the remedial
investigation/feasibility study, establish cleanup levels and the point or points at
which they must be complied with in accordance with the procedures provided for in UAC
173-340-700 through 173-340-760 and select a cleanup action that will protect human
health and the environment and meet the other requirements of VAC 173-340-360. At some
sites, restrictions on the use of the land and resources (institutional controls) will
be required to insure continued protection of human health and the environment. See
VAC 173-340-440. The cleanup action will be set forth in a draft cleanup action plan
that addresses cleanup requirements for hazardous substances at the site. After public
comment on the draft plan, a final cleanup action plan will be issued by the
department. (See VAC 173-340-700 for additional overview discussion of these
requirements.)
(5) Site cleanup. Once the appropriate cleanup action has been selected for the
site, the actual cleanup will be performed.
(a) Cleanup actions. VAC 173-340-400 describes the design and construction
requirements for implementing the cleanup action plan.
(b) Compliance monitoring and review. The cleanup action must include compliance
monitoring under VAC 173-340-410 and in some cases periodic review under VAC
173-340-420 to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the cleanup action.
(6) Interim actions. Under certain conditions it may be appropriate to take early
actions at a site prior to completing the process described in subsections (2) through
(5) of this section. VAC 173-340-430 describes when it is appropriate to take these
early or interim actions and the requirements for such actions.
C-15
-------
(7) Leaking underground storage tanks. Underground storage tank (UST) owners and
underground storage tank operators regulated under chapter 90,76 ROW are required to
perform specific actions in addition to what other site owners and operators would do
under this chapter. Such additional actions include reporting of a confirmed release
within twenty-four hours, follow-up investigation, free product removal and immediate
assessment of the threat to human health and the environment at the site, A written
report describing the site and the actions taken must be submitted within ninety days
of release confirmation. Depending on the results of these actions, additional
remedial actions may be required. VAC 173-340-450 describes these and other
requirements for leaking underground storage tanks.
(8) Procedures for conducting remedial actions.
(a) Remedial action agreements. The department has authority to take remedial
actions or to order persons to conduct remedial actions under WAG 173-340-510 and
173-340-540. However, the department encourages agreements for investigations and
cleanups in appropriate cases. These agreements can be agreed orders or consent
degrees reached under the procedures of VAC 173-340-520 and 173-340-530.
(b) Independent remedial actions. Persons may decide to perform investigations
and cleanups without department approval under this chapter. The department will use
the appropriate requirements contained herein in its evaluation of the adequacy of any
independent remedial actions performed. Nothing in this chapter prohibits persons from
performing such actions before the department is ready to act at the site; however,
all interim and cleanup actions must be reported to the department under VAC
173-340-300. Furthermore, independent remedial actions are done at the potentially
liable person's own risk and the department may take or require additional remedial
actions at these sites at any time. (See VAC 173-340-510.)
(c) Public participation. The public will receive notice and an opportunity to
comment on most of the steps in the cleanup process. At many sites, a public
participation plan will be prepared to provide opportunities for more extensive public
involvement in the cleanup process.
These requirements are described in VAC 173-340-600.
PART VI—PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WAG 173-340-COO PUBLIC NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION.
(1) Purpose. Public participation is an integral part of the department's
responsibilities under the Model Toxics Control Act. The department's goal is to
provide the public with timely information and meaningful opportunities for
participation which are commensurate with each site. The department will meet this
goal through a public participation program that includes: The early planning and
development of a site-specific public participation plan; the provision of public
notices; a site register; public meetings or hearings; and the participation of
regional citizens' advisory committees.
C-16
-------
(2) Criteria. In order to promote effective and meaningful public participation, the
department may determine that public participation opportunities in addition to those
specifically required by chapter 70.105D RCW or this chapter, are appropriate and
should be provided. In making this determination, the department may consider: (a)
Known or potential risks to human health and the environment that could be avoided or
reduced by providing information to the public;
(b) Public concerns about the facility.
(c) The need to contact the public in order to gather information about the
facility;
(d) The extent to which the public's opportunity to affect subsequent departmental
decisions at the facility may be limited or foreclosed in the future;
(e) The need to prevent disclosure of confidential, unverified, or enforcement-
sensitive information;
(f) The routine nature of the contemplated remedial action; and
(g) Any other factors as determined by the department.
(3) Public notice. Whenever public notice is required by Chapter 70.105D RCW, the
department shall at a minimum provide or require notice as described in this section
except as specified for the biennial report in WAG 173-340-340.
(a) Request. Notice shall -be mailed to persons who have made a timely request.
A request for notice is timely if received prior to or during the public comment period
for the current phase of remedial action at the facility. However, the receipt of a
request for notice shall not require the department to extend the comment period
associated with the notice.
(b) Mail. Notice shall be mailed to persons who reside within the potentially
affected vicinity of the proposed action. The potentially affected vicinity shall
include all property adjoining the site and any other area that the department
determines to be directly affected by the proposed action.
(c) Newspaper publication. Notice of the proposed action shall be published in
the newspaper of largest circulation in the city or county of the proposed action, by
one or more of the following methods: Display ad; legal notice; or any other
appropriate format, as determined by the department.
(d) Other news media. Notice of the proposed action shall be mailed to any other
news media which the department determines to be appropriate. The department may
consider how a medium compares with the newspaper of largest circulation in terms of:
Audience reached; timeliness; adequacy in conveying the particular information in the
notice; cost; or other relevant factors.
(e) Comment periods. All public notices shall indicate the public comment period
on the proposed action. Unless stated otherwise, comment periods shall be for thirty
days at a minimum.
(f) Combining public comment requirements. Whenever reasonable, the department
shall consolidate public notice and opportunities for public comment under this chapter
with public notice and comment requirements under other laws and regulations.
(4) Public meetings. During any comment period announced by a public notice issued
under this chapter, if ten or more persons request a public meeting on the subject of
C-17
-------
the public notice, the department shall hold a public meeting for the purpose of
receiving comments.
(5) Additional methods. In addition to "public notice" required by chapter 70.105D
RCW, or this chapter, the department may use any of the following methods to provide
information to the public:
(a) Press releases;
(b) Fact sheets;
(c) Public meetings
(d) Publications;
(e) Personal contact by department employees;
(f) Posting signs at the facility;
(g) Notice in the site register;
(h) Any other methods as determined by the department.
(6) Site register. The department shall regularly publish and maintain a site
register, giving notice of the following:
(a) Determinations of no further action under VAC 173-340-320;
(b) Results of site hazard rankings;
(c) Availability of annual and biennial reports; (d) Issuance of enforcement
orders, agreed orders, or proposed consent decrees;
(e) Public meetings or hearings;
(f) Scoping notice of department-conducted state remedial investigation/
feasibility study;
(g) Availability of state remedial investigation/feasibility study reports and
draft and final cleanup plans;
(h) Change in site status or placing sites on or removing sites from the hazardous
sites list under VAC 173-340-330;
(i) Availability of engineering design reports under VAC 173-340-400;
(J) Schedules developed under VAC 173-340-140;
(k) Reports of independent cleanup actions received under VAC 173-340-300;
(1) Commencement of negotiations or discussions under VAC 173-340-520 and 173-340-
530;
(m) Deadline extensions or missed deadlines under VAC 173-340-140; and
(n) Any other notice that the department deems appropriate for inclusion.
,C-18
-------
(7) Evaluation. As part of requiring or conducting a remedial action at any
facility, the department shall evaluate public participation needs at the facility,
including an identification of the potentially affected vicinity for the remedial
action.
(8) Public participation plans.
(a) Scope. The public participation plans required by -this section are intended
to encourage a coordinated and effective public involvement tailored to the public's
needs at a particular facility. The scope of a plan shall be commensurate with the
nature of the proposed remedial actions; the level of public concern; and the risks
posed by the facility.
(b) Early planning encouraged. In order to develop an appropriate plan, the
department or potentially liable person (if submitting a plan to the department) should
engage in an early planning process to assess the public participation needs at the
facility. This process may include identifying and conferring with individuals,
community groups, local governments, tribes, public agencies, or any other
organizations that may have an interest in or knowledge of the facility.
(c) Plan development. The department shall develop the plan, or work with the
potentially liable person to develop the plan. If a plan already exists for a
facility, the department shall consider whether the existing plan is still appropriate,
or whether the plan should be amended. For example, a plan originally developed to
address a state remedial investigation/ feasibility study may need to be amended to
address implementation phases.
(d) Plans required. As part of requiring or conducting a remedial action, except
emergency action, at any site that has been assigned a hazard ranking score, the
department shall ensure that a public participation plan is developed and implemented.
The department may also require the development of a public participation plan for
facilities which have not been assigned a hazard ranking score as part of an agreed
order or consent decree with a potentially liable person, (e) Plan as part of order
or decree. A potentially liable person will ordinarily be required to submit a
proposed public participation plan as part of its request for an agreed order or a
consent decree. If a plan already exists for the facility, the potentially liable
person may either submit the existing plan with any proposed amendments or submit an
entirely new proposed plan. The proposed plan may be revised during the course of
discussions or negotiations on the agreed order or consent decree. The final public
participation plan may become part of the agreed order or consent decree.
(f) Contents. The public participation plan shall include the following:
(i) Applicable public notice requirements and how these will be met, including:
When public notice will occur; the length of the comment periods accompanying each
notice; the potentially affected vicinity and any other areas to be provided notice,
to the extent known.
(ii) Information repositories. The plan should identify at least one location
where the public can review information about the remedial action. Multiple locations
may be appropriate.
(iii) Methods of identifying the public's concerns. Such methods may include:
Interviews; questionnaires; meetings; contacts with community groups or other
organizations which have an interest in the site; establishing citizen advisory groups
for sites; or obtaining advice from the appropriate regional citizens' advisory
committee.
(iv) Methods of addressing the public's concerns and conveying information to
the public. These may include any of the methods listed in subsection (5) of this
section.
C-19
-------
(v) Coordination of public participation requirements. The plan should identify
any public participation requirements of other applicable federal, state or local lavs,
and address how such requirements can be coordinated. For example, if Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) applies to the proposed
action, the plan should explain how CERCLA and this chapter's public comment periods
will be coordinated.
(vi) Amendments to the plan. The plan should outline the process for amending
the plan. Any amendments must be approved by the department.
(vii) Any other elements that the department determines to be appropriate for
inclusion in the final public participation plan.
(g) Implementation. The department shall retain approval authority over the
actions taken by a potentially liable person to implement the plan.
(9) Consent decrees. In addition to any other applicable public participation
requirements, the following shall be required for consent decrees.
(a) A public participation plan which meets the requirements of subsection (8) of
this section shall be developed when required by subsection (8)(d) of this section.
(b) Notice of negotiations. When the department decides to proceed with
negotiations it shall place a notice in the site register advising the public that
negotiations have commenced. This notice shall include the name of the facility, a
general description of the subject of the order and the deadlines for negotiations.
(c) Notice of proposed decree. The department shall provide or require public
notice of proposed consent decree. The notice may be combined with notice of other
documents under this chapter, such as a cleanup action plan, or under other laws. The
notice shall briefly:
(i) Identify and generally describe the facility;
(ii) Identify the person(s) who are parties to the consent decree;
(iii) Generally describe the remedial action proposed in the proposed consent
decree;
(iv) Indicate the date, place, and time of the public hearing on the proposed
consent decree; and
(v) Invite the public to comment at the public hearing or in writing. The
public comment period shall run for at least thirty days from the date of the issuance
of the notice.
(d) Public hearing. The department shall hold a public hearing on the proposed
consent decree for the purpose of providing the public with an opportunity to comment.
(e) Revisions. If the state and the potentially liable person agree to
substantial changes to the proposed consent decree, the department shall provide
additional public notice and opportunity to comment.
(f) Extensions. The department shall publish in the next site register the
extension of deadlines for designated high priority sites.
(10) Agreed orders. In addition to any other applicable public participation
requirements, the following shall be required for agreed orders under VAC 173-340-530.
(a) Public participation plan. A plan meeting the requirements of subsection (8)
of this section shall be developed when required by subsection (8)(d) of this section.
(b) Notice of discussions. When the department decides to proceed with
discussions it shall place a notice in the site register advising the public that
C-20
-------
discussions have commenced. This notice shall include the name of the facility, a
general description of the subject of the order and the deadlines for discussions.
(c) Notice of agreed orders. Public notice shall be provided by the department
for any agreed order. For all agreed orders, notice shall be mailed no later than
three days after the issuance of the agreed order. For agreed orders covering a state
remedial investigation/feasibility study, the comment period shall be at least thirty
days and shall be completed before the agreed order becomes effective. For other
agreed orders, the agreed order may be effective before the comment period is over,
unless the department determines it is in the public interest to complete the public
comment period prior to the effective date of the agreed order. The department may
determine that it is in the public interest to provide public notice prior to the
effective date of any agreed order or to hold a public meeting or hearing on the agreed
order. This notice shall briefly:
(i) Identify and generality describe the facility;
(ii) Identify the person(s) who are parties to the order;
(iii) Generally describe the remedial action proposed in the proposed order;
and
(iv) Invite the public to comment on the proposed order.
(d) Revisions. If the department and the potentially liable person agree to
substantial changes to the proposed order, the department shall provide additional
public notice and opportunity to comment, (e) Extensions. The department shall
publish in the next site register the extension of deadlines for designated high
priority sites.
(11) Enforcement orders. In addition to any other applicable public participation
requirements, the department shall provide public notice of all enforcement orders.
Except in the case of emergencies, notice shall be mailed no later than three days
after the date of the issuance of the order. In emergencies, notice shall be mailed
no later than ten days after the issuance of the order.
(a) Contents of notice. All notices shall briefly:
(i) Identify and generally describe the facility;
(ii) Identify the person(s) who are parties to the order;
(iii) Generally describe the terms of the proposed order; and
(b) The department may amend the order on the basis of public comments. The
department shall provide additional public notice and opportunity to comment if the
order is substantially changed.
(12) State remedial investigation/feasibility study. In addition to any other
applicable public participation requirements, the following shall be required during
a state remedial investigation/feasibility study.
(a) Scoping. When the department elects to perform a state remedial
investigation/feasibility study, public notice and an opportunity to comment on the
scope of the state remedial investigation/ feasibility study will be provided.
(b) Extensions. The department shall publish in the next site register the
extension of deadlines for designated high priority sites.
(c) Report. The department shall provide or require public notice of state
remedial investigation/feasibility study reports prepared under WAG 173-340-350. This
C-21
-------
public notice may be combined with public notice of the draft cleanup action plan. At
a minimum, public notice shall briefly:
(i) Describe the site and state remedial investigation/feasibility study
results;
(ii) If available, identify the department's selected cleanup action and provide
an explanation for its selection;
(iii) Invite public comment on the report. The public comment period shall
extend for at least thirty days from the date of mailing of the notice.
(13) Selection of cleanup actions. In addition to any other applicable public
participation requirements, the department shall:
(a) Provide a notice of availability of draft or final cleanup action plans and
a brief description of the proposed or selected alternative in the site register;
(b) Provide public notice of the draft cleanup action plan. A notice of a draft
cleanup plan may be combined with notice on the state remedial
investigation/feasibility study. Notice of a draft cleanup action plan may be
combined with notice on a draft consent decree or on an order. At a minimum, public
notice shall briefly:
(i) Describe the site;
(ii) Identify the department's proposed cleanup action and provide an
explanation for its selection;
(iii) Invite public comment on the draft cleanup action plan. The public
comment period shall run for at least thirty days from the date of issuance of the
public notice.
(14) Cleanup action implementation. In addition to any other applicable public
participation requirements, the following shall be required during cleanup action
implementation.
(aX Public notice and opportunity to comment on any plans prepared under VAC 173-
340-400 that represent a substantial change from the cleanup action plan.
(b) When the department conducts a cleanup action, public notice and an
opportunity to comment shall be provided on the engineering design report and notice
shall be given in the site register.
(IS) Routine cleanup and interim actions. In addition to any other applicable public
participation requirements, the following will be required for routine cleanup actions
and interim actions.
(a) Public notice shall be provided for any proposed routine cleanup or interim
actions under VAC 173-340-130 or 173-340-430. This public notice shall be combined
with public notice of an order or settlement whenever practicable.
(b) At a minimum, public notice shall briefly:
(i) Describe the site;
(ii) Identify the proposed action;
(iii) Identify the likely or planned schedule for the action;
(iv) Reference any planning documents prepared for the action;
(v) Identify department staff who may be contacted for further information; and
(vi) Invite public comment on the routine cleanup or interim action.
C-22
-------
The public comment period shall extend for at least thirty days from the date of the
mailing of notice.
WAG 173-340-610 REOIOMAL CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
(1) The department shall establish regional citizens' advisory committees as part of
a public participation program. The regional citizens' advisory committees are
intended to promote meaningful and effective public involvement in the department's
remedial action program under chapter 70.105D RCW. The committees will advise the
department as to the concerns of citizens locally and regionally regarding the remedial
actions within each committee's region, with emphasis on issues that affect the region
as a whole, rather than site-specific concerns.
(2) Location. There shall be a regional citizens' advisory committee representing
each geographic region of the state served by a regional office of the department.
(3) Membership. At any time, each committee shall have no fewer than five and no
more than twelve members. The director shall, no later than July 1, 1990, appoint five
members to each committee to represent citizens' interests in the region. These
members shall serve three-year terms that may be renewed at the director's discretion.
These members should represent citizen interests in the region.
(a) The director may appoint up to seven additional members to represent
communities that may be affected by the remedial actions within each region. These
members shall serve two-year terms that may be renewed at the director's discretion.
(b) At no time shall more than twenty-five percent of the membership of any
committee consist of persons who are elected or appointed public officials or their
representatives.
(c) The department shall advise the public as to whether any vacancies exist on
the committees, and shall accept applications from interested citizens.
(d) The following persons shall not be eligible to serve on any committee:
(i) Persons whom the department has found are potentially liable persons under
WAC 173-340-500 with regard to any facility that is currently the subject of department
investigative, remedial, or enforcement actions, not including compliance monitoring;
(ii) Agents or employees of such potentially liable persons as described in
(d)(i) of this subsection; and
(iii) Agents or employees of the department.
(e) A member shall refrain from participating in a committee matter if that member
for any reason cannot act fairly and in the public interest with regard to that matter.
(f) The director may dismiss a member for cause in accordance with the terms of
the regional citizens' advisory committee charter.
(4) Meetings. The committees shall meet at least twice a year at the regional
offices or elsewhere as agreed upon by a committee and the department. Appropriate
department staff may attend these meetings. The department shall brief the committees
on the program's major planned and ongoing activities for the year.
(a) The department and the committees may agree to additional meetings.
C-23
-------
(b) Each committee will designate one of its members to serve as chair. The
committee chairs shall meet every year with the program manager or his/her designee.
(c) All committee meetings shall be open to the public. The department shall
inform the public of committee meetings.
(5) Resources to be allocated to the committees.
(a) The department shall determine, after consulting with the committees, the
amount of staff time and other department resources that shall be available to the
committees for each biennium.
(b) The department shall designate staff to work with the committees.
(c) Members shall be reimbursed for travel expenses (as provided for in
chapter 43.03 RCW) for any meetings approved by the department.
(6) Responsibilities. The committees are directed to:
(a) Meet at least twice annually;
(b) Inform citizens within each region as to the existence of the committees and
their availability as a resource;
(c) Review the department's biennial program priorities, and advise the department
of citizen concerns regarding the program priorities;
(d) Advise the department on a timely basis of citizen concerns regarding
investigative or remedial activities within each region, and where possible, suggest
ways in which the department can address those concerns;
(e) Annually prepare a brief report to the department describing:
(i) Major citizen concerns that have been brought to the committee's attention
during the past year;
(ii) Any committee proposals or recommendations to address these concerns;
(iii) The committee's plans for the coming year; and
(iv) Any other information or issues which the committee believes appropriate
for inclusion.
(7) The committees are encouraged to work with the department and the public to
develop additional committee goals or responsibilities.
C-24
-------
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
-------
Chapter 173-220 WAC
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM
WAC 173-220-010 Purpose. The purpose of this
chapter is to establish a state permit program, applicable
to the discharge of pollutants and other wastes and ma-
terials to the surface waters of the state, operating under
state law as a part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) created by section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
Permits issued under this chapter are designed to satisfy
the requirements for discharge permits under both sec-
tion 402(b) of the FWPCA and chapter 90.48 RCW.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.54.020 and chapter 90-
.48 RCW. 88-22-059 (Order 88-9), § 173-220-010,
filed 11/1/88; Order DE 74-1, § 173-220-010, filed
2/15/74.]
WAC 173-220-020 Permit required. No pollutants
shall be discharged to any surface water of the state
from a point source, except as authorized by an Individ- '
ual or general permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.54.020 and chapter 90-
.48 RCW. 88-22-059 (Order 88-9). f 173-220-020.
filed 11/1/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.48.035 and
90.48.260. 82-24-078 (Order DE 82-39). § 173-220-
020, filed 12/1/82; Order DE 74-1, § 173-220-020.
filed 2/15/74.]
WAC 173-220-050 Public •otke. (1) Public notice
of every draft permit determination regarding an indi-
vidual permit or general permit, and request for cover-
age by a general permit, shall be circulated in a manner
designed to inform interested and potentially affected
persons of the proposed discharge and of the proposed
determination to issue or deny a permit for the proposed
discharge, as follows:
(a) For individual permits, notice shall be circulated
within the geographical area of the proposed discharge;
such circulation may include any or all of the following,
as directed by the department:
(i) Posting by the applicant for a period of thirty days
in the post office, public library, and public places of the
municipality nearest the premises of the applicant in
which the effluent source is located;
(ii) Posting by the applicant for a period of thirty
days near the entrance of the applicant's premises and
nearby places;
(iii) Publishing by the applicant, at his own cost
within such time as the director shall prescribe, through
a notice form provided by the department, in major local
newspapers of general circulation serving the area in
which the discharge occurs: Provided, That if an appli-
cant fails to publish notice within thirty days of the time
prescribed by the director, the department may publish
the notice and bill the applicant for the cost of
publication;
(iv) Publishing by the applicant of paid
advertisements;
(v) Publishing by the department of news releases or
newsletter articles.
(b) For general permits, such circulation shall include
the following:
(i) Publishing by the department of a notice of intent
to issue a general permit in a major local newspaper of
general circulation in each affected area; and
(ii) Potting or publishing by the applicant of a request
for coverage by a general permit in accordance with any
or all methods listed in (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of
this subsection, as directed by the department.
(c) Notice shall be mailed to any person upon request;
and
(d) The department shall add the name of any person
upon request to a mailing list to receive copies of notices
within the state or within a certain geographical area.
(2) The department shall provide a period of not less
than thirty days following the date of the public notice
during which time interested persons may submit their
written views on a draft permit determination or a re-
quest for coverage by a general permit. All written com-
ments submitted during the thirty-day comment period
shall be retained by the department and considered in
the formulation of its final determination with respect to
the application. The period for comment may be ex-
tended at the discretion of the department.
(3) The department shall prepare the contents of the
public notice, which shall, at a minimum, summarize the
following:
(a) Name, address, phone number of agency issuing
the public notice;
(b) Except when unknown in the case of general per-
mit issuance, name and address of each applicant, and if
different, of the facility or activity to be regulated;
(c) Each applicant's activities or operations which re-
sult in a discharge (e.g., municipal waste treatment, steel
manufacturing, drainage from mining activities);
C-25
-------
(d) Except in the case of general permit issuance,
name of waterway to which each discharge is made and
the location of each discharge on the waterway, indicat-
ing whether such discharge is a new or an existing
discharge;
(e) The tentative determination to issue or deny a
permit for the discharge;
(0 Where coverage by a general permit is replacing a
current individual permit, notice of termination of the
individual permit;
(g) The procedures for the formulation of final deter-
minations, including the thirty-day comment period re-
quired by subsection (2) of this section and any other
means by which interested persons may comment upon
those determinations; and
(h) Address and phone number of state premises at
which interested persons may obtain further
information.
(4) The department shall provide copies of permit ap-
plications, draft permit determinations, requests for cov-
erage, and general permits upon request.
(5) The department shall notify the applicant and
persons who have submitted written comments or re-
quested notice of the final permit decision. This notifi-
cation shall include response to comments received and
reference to the procedures for contesting the decision.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.54.020 and chapter 90-
.48 RCW. 88-22-059 (Order 88-9), § 173-220-050,
filed 11/1/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.48.035 and
90.48.260. 82-24-078 (Order DE 82-39). § 173-220-
050, filed 12/1/82; Order DE 76-20, § 173-220-050.
filed 5/19/76; Order 74-7, § 173-220-050, filed
5/1/74; Order DE 74-1, § 173-220-050, filed
2/15/74.]
WAC 173-220-060 Fact sheets. (1) The depart-
ment shall prepare a fact sheet for every draft permit
determination regarding major dischargers, minor dis-
chargers, and general permits. Such fact sheets shall, at
a minimum, summarize the following:
(a) The type of facility or activity which is the subject
of the application;
(b) The location of the discharge in the form of a
sketch or detailed description;
(c) The type and quantity of the discharge, including
at least the following:
(i) The rate or frequency of the proposed discharge;
(ii) For thermal discharges, the average summer and
winter temperatures; and
(iii) The average discharge in pounds per day, or
other appropriate units, of any pollutants which are
present in significant quantities or which are subject to
limitations or prohibition under RCW 90.48.010, 90.52-
.040, 90.54.020 and sections 301, 302, 306, or 307 of the
FWPCA and regulations published thereunder;
(d) The conditions in the proposed permit;
(e) The legal and technical grounds for the draft per-
mit determination, including an explanation of how con-
ditions meet both the technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the FWPCA and chapters
90.48. 90.52, and 90.54 RCW;
(0 The effluent standards and limitations applied to
the proposed discharge;
(g) The applicable water quality standards, including
identification of the uses for which receiving waters have
been classified;
(h) How the draft permit addresses use or disposal of
residual solids generated by wastewater treatment; and _
Ozb
(i) The procedures for the formulation of final deter-
minations (in more detailed form than that given in the
public notice) including:
(i) The thirty-day comment period required by WAC
173-220-050(2);
(ii) Procedures for requesting a public hearing and the
nature thereof; and
(iii) Any other procedures by which the public may
participate in the formulation of the final
determinations.
(2) The department shall send a fact sheet to the ap-
plicant and, upon request, to any other person.
(3) The department shall add the name of any person
upon request to a mailing list to receive copies of fact
sheets. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.54.020 and chap-
ter 90.48 RCW. 88-22-059 (Order 88-9), § 173-220-
060, filed 11/1/88. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43-
.21A RCW. 86-06-040 (Order 86-03), § 173-220-060,
filed 3/4/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.48.035 and
90.48.260. 82-24-078 (Order DE 82-39), § 173-220-
060, filed 12/1/82; Order DE 74-1. § 173-220-060,
filed 2/15/74.]
WAC 173-220-070 Notice to other government
agencies. The department shall notify other appropriate
government agencies of each draft permit determination
or request for coverage and shall provide such agencies
an opportunity to submit their written views and recom-
mendations. Such notification shall include the
following:
(1) Unless the regional administrator has agreed to
waive review, transmission of an application, fact sheet,
and draft permit to the regional administrator for com-
ment or objection within thirty days (ninety days for
general permits), or a longer period if requested up to a
maximum of ninety days.
(2) At the time of issuance of public notice pursuant
to WAC 173-220-050, transmission of the public notice
to any other states whose waters may be affected by the
issuance of a permit. Each affected state shall be af-
forded an opportunity to submit written recommenda-
tions to the department and to the regional
administrator which the department may incorporate
into the permit if issued. Should the department fail to
incorporate any written recommendations thus received,
it shall provide to the affected state or states (and to the
regional administrator) a written explanation of its rea-
sons for failing to accept any of the written
recommendations.
(3) Unless waived by the respective agency, the public
notice shall be sent to the appropriate district engineer
of the Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the state departments of fisheries, natural re-
sources, wildlife, and social and health services, the ar-
chaeology and historic preservation office, the agency
responsible for the preparation of an approved plan pur-
suant to section 208(b) of the FWPCA, applicable In-
dian tribes and any other applicable government
agencies.
(4) A copy of any written agreement between the de-
partment and an agency identified in subsection (3) of
this section which waives the receipt of public notices
shall be forwarded to the regional administrator and
shall be made available to the public for inspection and
copying.
-------
(5) Copies of public notices shall be mailed to any
other federal, state, or local agency, Indian tribe or any
affected country, upon request. Such agencies shall have
an opportunity to respond, comment, or request a public
hearing pursuant to WAC 173-220-090. [Statutory
Authority: ROW 90.54.020 and chapter 90.48 RCW.
88-22-059 (Order 88-9), § 173-220-070. filed
11/1/88. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.48.035 and 90-
.48.260. 82-24-078 (Order DE 82-39). § 173-220-070,
filed 12/1/82; Order DE 74-1, § 173-220-070. filed
2/15/74.]
WAC 173-220-080 Public access to information.
(1) In accordance with chapter 42.17 RCW. the depart-
ment shall make records relating to NPDES permits
available to the public for inspection and copying.
(2) The department shall protect any information
(other than information on the effluent) contained in its
NPDES permit records as confidential upon a showing
by any person that such information, if made public,
would divulge methods or processes entitled to protection
as trade secrets of such person.
(3) Any information accorded confidential status.
whether or not contained in an application form, shall be
disclosed, upon request, to the regional administrator.
(4) The department shall provide facilities for the in-
spection of information relating to NPDES permits and
shall insure that employees honor requests for such in-
spection promptly without undue requirements or re-
strictions. The department shall either (a) insure that a
machine or device for the copying of papers and docu-
ments is available for a reasonable fee, or (b) otherwise
provide for or coordinate with copying facilities or ser-
vices such that requests for copies of nonconfidential
documents may be honored promptly. [Statutory Au-
thority: RCW 90.54.020 and chapter 90.48 RCW. 88-
22-059 (Order 88-9), § 173-220-080, filed 11/1/88.
Statutory Authority: RCW 90.48.035 and 90.48.260.
82-24-078 (Order DE 82-39), § 173-220-080, filed
12/1/82; Order DE 74-1, $ 173-220-080, filed
2/15/74.]
WAC 173-220-090 Pvblk hewtafs. The applicant.
any affected state, any affected interstate agency, any
affected country, the regional administrator, or any in-
terested agency or person may request a public hearing
with respect to a draft permit determination or request
for coverage by a general permit. Any such request for a
public hearing shall be Tiled within the thirty-day period
prescribed in WAC 173-220-050(2) and shall indicate
the interest of the party Tiling such request and the rea-
sons why a hearing is warranted. The department shall
hold a hearing if it determines there is a significant
public interest. Instances of doubt will be resolved in fa-
vor of holding the hearing. Any hearing brought pursu-
ant to this subsection shall be held at a time and place
deemed appropriate by the department. [Statutory Au-
thority: RCW 90.54.020 and chapter 90.48 RCW. 88-
22-059 (Order 88-9), § 173-220-090, filed 11/1/88.
Statutory Authority: RCW 90.48.010, 90.48.035, and
90.58.260. 83-10-063 (Order DE 83-14), § 173-220-
WAC 173-220-100 Public notice of public bearings.
(1) The department shall circulate public notice of any
hearing held pursuant to WAC 173-220-090 at least as
widely as was the notice pursuant to WAC 173-220-
050. Procedures for the circulation of public notice for
hearings held under WAC 173-220-090 shall include at
least the following:
(a) Notice shall be published in at least one major lo-
cal newspaper of general circulation within the geo-
graphical area of the discharge;
(b) Notice shall be sent to all persons and government
agencies who received a copy of the notice pursuant to
WAC 173-220-050 or the fact sheet;
(c) Notice shall be mailed to any person upon request;
and
(d) Notice shall be effected pursuant to (a) and (c) of
this subsection at least thirty days in advance of the
hearing.
(2) The contents of public notice of any hearing held
in pursuant to WAC 173-220-090 shall include at least
the following:
(a) Name, address, and phone number of agency
holding the public hearing;
(b) A reference to the public notice issued pursuant to
WAC 173-220-050, including identification number
and date of issuance;
(c) The time and location for the hearing;
(d) The purpose of the hearing;
(e) Address and phone number of premises at which
interested persons may obtain information;
(0 The nature of the hearing;
(g) The issues raised by the persons requesting the
hearing, and any other appropriate issues which may be
of interest to the public;
(i) Except when unknown in the case of general per-
mit determinations, the name and address of each appli-
cant whose proposed discharge will be considered at the
hearing;
(ii) Except when unknown in the case of general per-
mit determinations, the name of waterway to which each
discharge is made and the location of each discharge on
the waterway. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.54.020
and chapter 90.48 RCW. 88-22-059 (Order 88-9), §
173-220-100, filed 11/1/88. Statutory Authority: RCW
90.48.035 and 90.48.260. 82-24-078 (Order DE 82-39).
§ 173-220-100, filed 12/1/82; Order DE 74-1, § 173-
220-100, Tiled 2/15/74.]
C-27
-------
Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
PSDDA is an interagency program for the management of unconfined, open-water disposal of
dredged material into Puget Sound, Washington. The PSDDA program was developed jointly
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Seattle District, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 10, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Management Plans for the PSDDA
program identify disposal sites, describe dredged material evaluation procedures, and establish
site monitoring and management practices. The plans also commit the agencies to a cooperative
annual review process which evaluates disposal site use and conditions, dredged material testing
results, and new scientific information, in order to determine if changes to the evaluation
procedures and/or disposal site management practices are needed.
1.2 PSDDA Annual Review Process
The PSDDA annual review process currently involves preparation of various annual reports by
the PSDDA agencies (Corps, DNR, EPA, Ecology), an annual review meeting (ARM), and a
public notice of program changes resulting from the annual review.
The process calls for the following annual reports to be prepared:
• a report by DNR summarizing the dredging activity and site use
• a report by the Corps summarizing dredged material sampling, testing, and application
of disposal guidelines
• a report by the Corps describing the results of disposal site physical monitoring
• a report by DNR describing the results of disposal site chemical and biological
monitoring
• a report prepared by Ecology summarizing the results of disposal site environmental
monitoring; and
• a report by Ecology summarizing potential issues and changes to the PSDDA
Management Plan
The Corps announces the ARM by letter, accompanied by Ecology's annual Management Plan
Assessment Report and any key program issue papers. Comments on the report, issue papers
and any changes to the PSDDA Management Plan which the public deem appropriate are
specifically requested. The latter must be submitted in writing and may be briefly presented at
the ARM.
After the ARM, PSDDA agencies consider all of the agency and public comments, summarize
the ARM and report on any changes to the PSDDA Management Plan. This summary is usually
prepared and mailed to interested parties in May or June.
Note: In addition to involvement in the PSDDA annual review process, the public can
also participate in the permitting process for dredging and dredge disposal activities
through the Corps of Engineers Section 10/404 Permit. The following figure
illustrates public involvement opportunities in this permitting process.
C-28
-------
PROJECT
APPLICANT
Section 1
Shontnt
PurmHAnttcmtor
tot* |
Dredging S*»
CORPS
CITY/COUNTY
Pubic No**
Shautna Pmnril to
Ecology la Pnvtfm
I ShfPtmtH
\AppHcatona, U$»
I Auttorinton'
O
I
M
CO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
FISH AND
VM.OUFE
SERVICE
NATIONAL
MARME
F (SHE RES
SERVICE
OTHErt FEDERAL.
STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCCS; MOWN
TRIBES: PUBLIC
GAME/
FISHERCS
OTHER STATE
AGENCES
ECOLOGY
NATURAL
RESOURCES
AffVOMl
C2U4
CORPS
ECOLOGY COOROMATEO STATE RESPONSE
Pit** Altaian
I tt
PtmtHAcOan
Note: This figure is currently being revised for clarification.
Figure 3-1. Dredging and unconfined, open-water disposal permitting process for non-Corps projects
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 219 / Thursday. November 13. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41241
Public Notice
""[a] Central. The public notice it the
primary method of advising all
interested parties of the proposed
activity for which a permit is sought and
of soliciting comments and information
necessary to evaluate the probable
impact on the public interest The notice
must, therefore, include sufficient
information to give a clear
understanding of the nature and
magnitude of the activity to generate
meaningful comment The notice should
include the following item* of
information:
(1) Applicable statutory authority or
authorities;
(2) The name and address of the
applicant;
(3) The name or title, address and
telephone number of the Corps
employee from whom additional
information concerning the application
may be obtained:
(4) The location of the proposed
activity;
(S) A brief description of the proposed
activity, its purpose and intended use.
so as to provide sufficient information
concerning the nature of the activity to
generate meaningful comments,
including a description of the type of
structures, if any, to be erected on fills
or pile or float-supported platforms, and
a description of the type, composition.
and quantity of materials to be
discharged or disposed of in the ocean:
(0) A plan and elevation drawing
showing the general and specific site
location and character of all proposed
activities, including the size relationship
of the proposed structures to the size of
the impacted waterway and depth of
water in the area;
(7) If the proposed activity would
occur in the territorial seas or ocean
waters, a description of the activity's
relationship to the baseline from which
the territorial sea is measured;
(8) A list of other government
authorizations obtained or requested by
the applicant including required
certifications relative to water quality.
coastal zone management or marine
sanctuaries;
(9) If appropriate, a statement that the
activity is a categorical exclusion for
purposes of NEPA (see paragraph 7 of
Appendix B to 33 CFR Part 230);
(10) A statement of the district
engineer's current knowledge on historic
properties;
(11) A statement of the district
engineer's current knowledge on
endangered species (see } 325.2{b)(5)):
(12) A statement(s) on evaluation
factors (see | 325.3(c));
(13) Any other available information
which may assist interested parties in
evaluating the likely Impact of the
proposed activity, if any, on factors
affecting the public Interest;
(14) The comment period based on
I 325.2(d)(2);
(IS) A statement that any person may
request in writing, within the comment
period specified in the notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the
application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the
reasons for holding a public hearing:
(16) For non-federal applications in
states with an approved CZM Plan, a
statement on compliance with the
approved Plan; and
(17) In addition, for section 103 (ocean
dumping) activities:
(i) The specific location of the
proposed disposal site and its physical
boundaries;
(ii) A statement as to whether the
proposed disposal site has been
designated for use by the Administrator,
EPA. pursuant to section 102{c) of the
Act
(ill) If the proposed disposal site has
not been designated by the
Administrator, EPA. a description of the
characteristics of the proposed disposal
site and an explanation as to why no
previously designated disposal site is
feasible:
(iv) A brief description of known
dredged material discharges at the
proposed disposal site;
(v) Existence and documented effects
of other authorized disposals that have
been nude In the disposal area (e.g..
heavy metal background reading and
organic carbon content);
(vi) An estimate of the length of time
during which disposal would continue at
the proposed site; and
(vii) Information on the characteristics
and composition of the dredged
material.
(b) Public notice for general permits.
District engineers will publish a public.
notice for all proposed regional general
permits and for significant modifications
to, or reissuance of. existing regional
permits within their area of jurisdiction.
Public notices for statewide regional
permits may be issued jointly by the
affected Corps districts. The notice will
include all applicable information
necessary'to provide a cleai
understanding of the proposal. In
addition, the notice will state the
availability of information at the district
office which reveals the Corps'
provisional determination that the
proposed activities comply with the
requirements for issuance of general
permits. District engineers will publish a
public notice for nationwide permits in
accordance with 33 CFR 330.4.
(c) Evaluation factors. A paragraph
describing the various evaluation factors
on which decisions are based shall be
included in every public notice.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, the following will
be included:
"Die decision whether to Israe • permit
will be bated on aa evaluation of the
probable Impact Including emDnlative
impacts of me proposed activity on the public
Interest That decision will reflect the
national concern for both protection and
utilisation of important resources. The h""^flt
which reasonably may be expected to accrue
from the proposal must be balanced against
Its reasonably foreseeable detriment*. All
factors which may be relevant to the
proposal will be considered including the
cumulative effects thereof; among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic
properties, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodpiain values, land use.
navigation, ihoreune erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation.
water quality, energy needs, safety, food and.
fiber production, mineral needs.
considerations of property ownership and, in
general, the needs and welfare qf the people."
(2) If the activity would involve the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
the waten of the United States or the
transportation of dredged material for
the purpose of disposing of it in ocean
waten. the public notice ihall also
indicate that the evaluation of the inpact
of the activity on the public interest will
include application of the guidelines
promulgated by the Administrator, EPA.
(40 CFR Part 230) or of the criteria
C-30
-------
41242 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
established under authority of section
102(a) of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended (40 CFR Parts 220 to 229), as
appropriate. (See 33 CFR Parts 323 and
324).
(3) In cases involving construction of
artificial islands, installations and other
devices on outer continental shelf lands
which are under mineral lease from the
Department of the Interior, the notice
will contain the following statement:
"The decision as to whether a permit
will be issued will be based on an
evaluation of the impact of the proposed
work on navigation and national
security."
(d) Distribution of public notices. (1)
Public notices will be distributed for
posting in post offices or other
appropriate public places in the vicinity
of the site of the proposed work and will
be sent to the applicant to appropriate
dry and county officials, to adjoining
property owners, to appropriate state
agencies, to appropriate Indian Tribes or
tribal representatives, to concerned
Federal agencies, to local, regional and
national snipping and other concerned
business and conservation
organizations, to appropriate River
Basin Commissions, to appropriate state
and areawide clearing houses as
prescribed by OMB Circular A-05. to
local news media and to any other
interested party. Copies of public
notices will be sent to all parties who
have specifically requested copies of
public notices, to thc-U.8. Senators and
Representatives for the area where the
work Is to be performed, the field
representative of the Secretary of the
Interior, the Regional Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Regional
Director of the National Park Service,
the Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
the Regional Director of the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the head of the
state agency responsible for fish and
wildlife resources, the State Hisiork
Preservation Officer, and the District
Commander. U.S. Coast Guard.
(2) In addition to the general
distribution of public notices cited
above, notices will be sent to other
addressees in appropriate cases as
follows:
(i) If the activity would involve
structures or dredging along the shores
of the seas or Great Lakes, to the
Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Washington. DC 20016.
(ii) If the activity would involve
construction of fixed structures or
artificial islands on the outer continental
shelf or in the territorial seas, to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Manpower, Installations, and Logistics
(ASDfMiaL)). Washington. DC 20310:
the Director, Defense Mapping Agencv
(Hydrographic Center) Washington. DC
20390, Attention, Code NS12; and the
Charting and Geodetic Services, N/
CG222, National Ocean Service NOAA
Rockville. Maryland 20852, and to
affected military installations and
activities.
(iii) If the activity involves the
construction of structures to enhance
fish propagation (e.g., fishing reefs)
along the coasts of the United States, to
the Director. Office of Marine
Recreational Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Washington. DC
20235.
(iv) If the activity involves the
construction of structures which may
affect aircraft operations or for purposes
associated with seaplane operations, to
the Regional Director of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
(v) If the activity would be in
connection with a foreign-trade zone, to
the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade
Zones Board, Department of Commerce,
Washingtoa DC 20230 and to the
appropriate District Director of Customs
as Resident Representative, Foreign-
Trade Zones Board.
(3) It is presumed that all interested
parties and agencies will wish to
respond to public notices; therefore, a
lack of response will be interpreted as
meaning that there is no objection to the
proposed project A copy of the public
notice with the list of the addresses to
whom the notice was sent will be
included in the record. If a question
develops with respect to an activity for
which another agency has responsibility
and that other agency has not responded
to the public notice, the district engineer
may request its comments. Whenever a
response to a public notice has been
received from a member of Congress,
either in behalf of a constitutent or
himself, the district engineer will inform
the member of Congress of the final
decision.
(4) District engineers will update
public notice mailing lists at least once
every two years.
C-31
-------
APPENDIX D
EPA Technical Studies in Support
of Urban Bay Action Programs
-------
EPA Technical Studies
Armstrong, J., and A. Copping (Eds.) 1990. Proceedings of the
Forum on Status and Trends of Puget Sound's Biological Resources.
EPA 910/9-90-001; NTIS PB90-198839. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Burke, D. 1989. Sound access search manual. Prepared by Puget
Sound Institute, University of Washington, as User's Guide for
Sound Access Computer Bibliography.
City of Seattle. 1986. Lake Union and Ship Canal water quality
management plan: data summary report. City of Seattle, Office
for Long Range Planning, WA.
City of Seattle. 1987. Lake Union and Ship Canal water quality
management plan: data summary report addendum. City of Seat-
tle, Office for Long Range Planning, WA.
City of Seattle. 1987. Lake Union and Ship Canal water quality
management plan: data summary report. EPA 910/9-89-037;
NTIS PB90-197906. City of Seattle, Office for Long Range
Planning, WA.
City of Seattle. 1988. Lake Union and Ship Canal water quality
management plan: interim action plan. City of Seattle, Office for
Long Range Planning, WA.
Copping, A.C., J. Dohrman, A. Grahm, et al. 1989. Handbook
on Puget Sound sediments. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Seattle, WA.
Crecelius, E.A., T.J. Fortman, S.L. Kiesser, et al. 1989. Survey
of contaminants in two Puget Sound marinas. EPA 910/9-89-014.
NTIS PB90-130709. Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA.
Curl, H., E. Baker, and T. Bates, et al. 1987. Contaminant
transport from Elliott Bay and Commencement Bay. EPA 910/9-
88-177; NTIS PB89-143267. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle,
WA.
D-1
-------
DeWitt, T., G. Ditsworth, and R. Swartz. 1988. Effects of natural
sediment features on the phoxocephalid amphipod Rhepoxynius
abronius. Mark 0. Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, OR.
E.V.S. and Tetra Tech. 1985. Elliott Bay toxics action program.
Cruise Summary Report: Benthic Infauna and Sediment Quality
Survey, September 25 - October 16, 1985. E.V.S. Consultants,
Seattle, WA, and Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
E.V.S. and Tetra Tech. 1985. Elliott Bay toxics action program.
Cruise Summary Report: Fish Pathology and Bioaccumulation
Survey. September 16 - October 17, 1985. E.V.S. Consultants,
Seattle, WA, and Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Envirosphere and Cooper. 1985. Summary of historical Puget
Sound contaminant mass loading analysis. EPA 910/9-88-235.
Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA, and Cooper Consultants,
Bellevue, WA.
Envirosphere and Cooper. 1985. NPDES monitoring
recommendations to improve contaminant loading data availability.
EPA 910/9-88-237. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA, and
Cooper Consultants, Bellevue, WA.
Evans-Hamilton and D.R. Systems. 1987. Puget Sound environ-
mental atlas. EPA 910/9-87-171. Evans-Hamilton, Inc., Seattle,
WA, and D. R. Systems, Inc., Nanaimo, BC, Canada.
Faigenblum, J. 1988. Chemicals and bacteriological organisms in
recreational shellfish. EPA 910/9-88-245; NTIS PB90-131129.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Olym-
pia, WA.
Malins, D., and A. Jensen (Eds.). 1988. Aquatic toxicology.
Toxic Chemicals and Aquatic Life: Research and Management.
Volume 11. In: Proceedings of symposium on Elsevier Science
Publishers, B.V.-Amsterdam.
PTL 1988. Briefing report to the EPA Science Advisory Board:
The apparent effects threshold approach. EPA 910/9-89-013; NTIS
PB90-217913. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1988. Sediment quality values refinement: Vol. H: Evalu-
ation of PSDDA sediment quality values. EPA 910/9-88-247 a &
b; NTIS PB89-229827 & PB89-229835. PTI Environmental Ser-
vices, Bellevue, WA.
D-2
-------
PIT. 1988. SEDQUAL contaminated sediments database users
manual. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1988. Elliott Bay action program: 1988 action plan. EPA
910/9-88-240. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1988. Sediment quality values refinement: Volume I: 1988
update and evaluation of Puget Sound AET. EPA 910/9-88-246 a
& b; NTIS PB89-200398 & PB89-200406. PTI Environmental
Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1989. Everett Harbor action program: 1989 action plan.
EPA 910/9-89-004; NTIS PB89-229819. PTI Environmental Ser-
vices, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1989. Comparison of bioassays for assessing sediment tox-
icity in Puget Sound. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1989. Bellingham Bay action program: initial data summary
and problem identification. EPA 910/9-89-042; NTIS PB90-
219049. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1990. Protocol for juvenile Neanthes sediment bioassay.
EPA 910/9-90-011; NTIS PB90-232828. PTI Environmental Ser-
vices, Bellevue, WA.
i
PTI. 1990. The "Urban Bay action program" approach: A
focused toxics control strategy. EPA 910/9-90-002; NTIS PB90-
198847. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1990. Overview and summary recommendations; November
15-16, 1989 Seasurface Microlayer Workshop. EPA 910/9-90-
008; NTISPB90-227331. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue,
WA.
PTI. 1990. Sinclair and Dyes inlets action program: 1990 action
plan. EPA 910/9-90-013. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue,
WA.
PTI. 1990. Development of a Neanthes sediment bioassay for use
in Puget Sound. EPA 910/9-90-005; NTIS PB90-202904. PTI
Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Bellingham Bay action plan. PTI Environmental
Services, Bellevue, WA.
D-3
-------
PTI. 1991. Budd Inlet action plan. PTI Environmental Services,
Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Pollutants of concern in Puget Sound. PTI Environ-
mental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Characterization of toxic chemicals in wildlife associ-
ated with Puget Sound. Report and Monitoring Recommendations.
PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Contaminant levels in Puget Sound harbor seals. PTI
Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Dioxin levels in Puget Sound Dungeness crab. PTI
Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Nutrients and phytoplankton in Puget Sound. PTI
Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. A project manager's guide to requesting and evaluating
chemical analyses. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI. 1991. Reconnaissance survey of chemical contamination and
biological effects in southern Puget Sound. PTI Environmental
Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTIandDOH. 1991. Chemical contaminant levels in Puget Sound
sea cucumbers. PTI Envkonmental Services, Bellevue, WA, and
State of Washington Department of Health, Olympia, WA.
PTI and Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay action program: analysis
of toxic problem areas. EPA 910/9-88-213; NTIS PB90-219064.
PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA, and Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
PTI and Tetra Tech. 1988. Everett Harbor action program:
analysis of toxic problem areas. EPA 910/9-88-241 & -24 la; NTIS
PB90-227117. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA, and
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
PSWQA. 1988. Proceedings, first annual meeting on Puget Sound
research. Volumes land 2. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1988. Puget Sound ambient monitoring program. Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
D-4
-------
PSWQA. 1988. Design of Puget Sound ambient monitoring
program central database. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1989. Evaluation of the atmospheric deposition of toxic
contaminants to Puget Sound. Final Scoping Report. Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1989. Managing nonpoint pollution: an action plan
handbook for Puget Sound watersheds. Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1990. Puget Sound update: first annual report of the
Puget Sound ambient monitoring program. Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1991. Evaluation of the atmospheric deposition of toxic
contaminants to Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Author-
ity, Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1991. Puget Sound update: 1991 second annual report
of the Puget Sound ambient monitoring program. Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1991. Update of the Puget Sound environmental atlas.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
PSWQA. 1991. Puget Sound access 1991: A computerized
bibliography for Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Author-
ity, Seattle, WA.
Ryan, C. 1987. The urban bay toxics control program: action
team accomplishments. Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.
Siddens, L., R. Hoffman, W. Seim, et al. 1986. Surf smelt and
other marine fishes appropriate for use in chronic toxicity testing
in the Puget Sound area and on the Pacific Coast. Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Simenstad, C., and C. Tanner. 1991. An estuarine habitat resto-
ration monitoring protocol for Puget Sound. University of Wash-
ington, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA.
D-5
-------
Tetra Tech. 1985. Sampling and analysis design for development
of Elliott Bay toxics action plan. EPA 910/9-88-197. Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985. Elliott Bay toxics action program: Review of
existing plans and activities. EPA 910/9-88-199. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985. Field report: Elliott Bay source sampling
program. September 23 - October 17, 1985. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985. Elliott Bay toxics action program: interim work
plan. EPA 910/9-88-198. Tetra Tech, Lie., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985. Everett Harbor action plan: initial data sum-
maries and problem identification. Draft Report (never finalized).
EPA 910/9-88-195. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Sampling and analysis design for development
of Everett Harbor action program. EPA 910/9-87-197. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Development of sediment quality values for
Puget Sound. EPA 910/9-88-246; NTIS AD-A148647. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. User's manual for the pollutants of concern
matrix. EPA 910/9-87-176. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Elliott Bay toxics action program: initial data
summaries and problem identification. EPA 910/9-88-191;
NTIS PB90-197898. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA
Tetra Tech. 1986. Everett Harbor toxics action program: review
of existing plans and activities. EPA 910/9-88-192. Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Guidance manual for health risk assessment of
chemically contaminated seafood. EPA 910/9-88-182; NTIS PB90-
197880. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986. Everett Harbor toxics action program: field
summary report, source sampling, October 15, 16, and 29, 1986.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
D-6
-------
Tetra Tech. 1988. Budd Inlet action program: initial data summa-
ries and problem identification. EPA 910/9-88-230; NTISPB90-
195264. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Assessment of potential toxic problems in
non-urban areas of Puget Sound. EPA 503/3-88-002; NTISPB89-
134332. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay revised action program: data quality
assurance assessment. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay revised action program: data set.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Health risk assessment of chemical contami-
nants in Puget Sound seafood. EPA 910/9-88-249; NTIS PB89-
200240. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Pesticides of concern in the Puget Sound basin:
A review of contemporary pesticide usage. EPA 910/9-88-231;
NTIS PB89-143275. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Everett Harbor action program: evaluation of
potential contaminant sources. EPA 910/9-88-229; NTIS PB90-
219072. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay action program: evaluation of
potential contaminant sources. EPA 910/9-88-239 a through c;
NTIS PB90-198862. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Characterization of spatial and temporal trends
in water quality in Puget Sound. EPA 503/3-88-003; NTIS
PB89-134290. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay action program: The relationship
between source control and recovery of contaminated sediments in
two problem areas. EPA 910/9-88-208; NTIS PB90-198888.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay action program: storm drain
monitoring approach. EPA 910/9-88-207; NTIS PB90-198896.
Tetra Tech., Inc., Bellevue, WA.
D-7
-------
Tetra Tech. 1988. Elliott Bay action program: guidance for
development of monitoring programs to evaluate the success of
source control within drainage basins. EPA 910/9-88-243; NTIS
PB90-198870. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988. Sinclair and Dyes Inlets action program: initial
data summaries and problem identification. EPA 910/9-88-244;
NTIS PB90-206533. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech and E.V.S. 1986. Everett Harbor toxics action pro-
gram: cruise summary report, fish pathology and bioaccumulation
survey, August 25 to September 2, 1986. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA, and E.V.S. Consultants, Seattle, WA.
Tetra Tech and E.V.S. 1986. Everett Harbor toxics action pro-
gram: cruise summary report, benthos, bioassay, and sediment
chemistry survey, September 30 to October 15, 1986. Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, WA, and E.V.S. Consultants, Seattle, WA.
Weston, D.P. 1989. Pollutant bioaccumulations and community
response in the macrobenthos: 1987-1988 studies. Puget Sound
Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
D-8
-------
Guidelines for Measuring Environmental
Variables in Puget Sound
U.S. EPA. 1990. Recommended guidelines for measuring selected
environmental Variables in Puget Sound. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. 13 chapters:
General QA/QC Considerations for Collecting Environmental
Samples in Puget Sound (3/86).
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Sedi-
ment Variables in Puget Sound (3/86).
Recommended Protocols for Conducting Laboratory Bioas-
says on Puget Sound Sediments (5/86; in revision).
Recommended Protocols for Station Positioning in Puget
Sound (8/86).
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Metals in Puget Sound
Water, Sediment and Tissue Samples (8/86; revised 12/89).
Recommended Protocols for Microbiological Studies in Puget
Sound (11/86).
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Organic Compounds
in Puget Sound Sediments and Tissue Samples (12/86; revised
12/89).
Recommended Protocols for Sampling and Analyzing Subtidal
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Puget Sound
(1/87).
Recommended Protocols for Fish Pathology Studies in Puget
Sound (7/87).
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Water
Quality Variables and Metals in Fresh Waters of the Puget
Sound Region (12/89).
Recommended Protocols for Sampling Soft-Bottom Demersal
Fishes by Beach Seine and Trawl in Puget Sound (12/89).
D-9
-------
Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Marine
Water Column Variables in Puget Sound (In preparation).
Recommended Protocols for Marine Mammal Tissue Sam-
pling and Analysis (In preparation).
D-10
------- |