Water Quality Comment Letter

March 19, 2003

Susan Braley
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Dear Ms. Braley:

The Chehalis Basin Partnership (Partnership) submits the following as cursory comments regarding the water quality standards revisions (WAC 173-201A). The Partnership is the local planning unit established under Chapter 90.82 RCW. Membership includes local governments and special interests groups. The group comes together as a united entity for the purpose of managing water for both people and natural resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the water quality standards revisions. The Partnership delegated this task to one of its committees, the Water Quality Committee (Committee). Members of the Partnership reserve the eight to submit additional comments that may relate more directly to their specific lssue(s). This response summaries their initial concerns.

• The proposed text should have undergone more scrutiny before asking for public comment. The current version does not articulate clearly to the average reader, the intent or guidance envisioned by Department of Ecology (Ecology). During our local review, many Committee members stated frustration due to conflicting or unclear text. On one occasion, the Committee was able to ask Ecology staff for interpretations; however, the average reader does not generally have access to this resource.
• The Committee asked if the process included a cost benefit analysis. The Committee was told by Ecology that a cost benefit analysis would be forthcoming after the comment period closed. To better evaluate the impacts of the revisions to the standards, the cost benefit analysis should have accompanied the draft revisions and should have shared the same public comment period. Ecology should consider extending the public review period to coincide with the public review period for the cost benefit analysis.
• The process needs to clarify what the revisions are attempting to accomplish and the local implications. This could include examining conditions before the standards are revised, examining if the revisions will substantially improve water quality, and what are the costs associated. One possible way to pursue this issue is through evaluation of the work currently underway by local planning units through the watershed management planning efforts.
• If the revisions are substantially changed, then Ecology and/or EPA should fund an outreach program to assist with compliance. Failure to implement this program is asking the public to ignore the revisions.
• EPA assumed the stance that the new water contact bacteria criteria would better serve the public health. This decision did not include an analysis of the impacts to those entities (such as the shellfish industry and regulators) that would be subject to three bacteria criteria (E.coli, Enterococci, and fecal coliform). We strongly recommend pursuing consistency between the federal standards of EPA and the FDA and adopting a common standard.
• The temperature and dissolved oxygen standards are perceived to favor fish and more specifically salmonids. Does this not imply that salmonids are the most important species? It may be difficult for Ecology to gain general public acceptance with the public perception that the value of salmonid usage is higher than humans or other species. This issue might be better understood and accepted if the cost benefit analysis accompanied the proposed revisions to the standards.
• The Part III-Antidegradation is difficult to follow with respect to categorizing the Tier II surface waters. WAC 173-201A-320 does not fluently describe the Tier II classification. Several member of the Committee expressed confusion as to when each of the sections applied and to whom. The most confusion came when reviewing Section 3 describing when a Tier II analysis would be required. It did not articulate to whom it applied.
• It is the Committee's understanding that the Antidegradation Tier II criteria does not apply to nonpoint sources such as agriculture. Is this accurate? If yes, then the WAC should be more explicit. In general, this section needs to be more clear regarding nonpoint sources. It should include a more thorough evaluation and discussion of the regulatory requirements/ exemptions and the cumulative effects. Too often point sources are targeted as guilty for impairing a stream's water quality, the standards need to account for small changes from nonpoint source discharge. This inequity needs to be addressed to insure enforcement for both point and nonpoint sources.
• The Antidegradation Tier III classification also posed some confusion for the Committee [WAC 173-201A-330(l)]. The WAC needs revision to better describe which criteria must be met and the process for the classification under Section 1. One solution would be to change the language from "one or more of the following" to must apply to all of the following. The lack of serious scientific criteria required to establish a Tier III classified water body was disturbing. The only scientific criteria included in the designation criteria relates to thermal refuge, found in WAC 1732OIA-330(l)(d).

The Use Designation Criteria (WAC 173-201A-602) table seems to apply a blanket classification to areas not previously classified. This blanket approach may be an acceptable start, however, it would seem more appropriate to request another level of review before establishing concrete use classifications. One suggestion would be to delegate this task and allocate funding to the local planning units as part of their continued work in watershed management.

The revisions include language to recognize that in some reaches the natural conditions prevent compliance with the standards. What resources are available to insure that this policy can be enforced? In the Chehalis Basin, several point source entities worked through TMDL processes and developed implementation plans to insure compliance. There is concern that no matter what improvements are made, the blame for degraded water will always fall to them.

The Partnership fully understands that Ecology must develop water quality standards. We all share a common goal and purpose of insuring safe and clean water for all. To meet this common goal, we would like to work together to develop standards that benefit the majority. However, at this point, there are still too many issues (known and undetected) to affirm that the current standards meet a common goal. We request that Ecology continue to revise the standards. As part of that revision, it would behoove the process to involve more local stakeholders. Our Committee met with Ecology staff, which was quite helpful. This should continue more often, more directly with organized watershed planning units, and cover a broader audience throughout the state.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our initial comments. The Partnership considered this letter during the February 28 meeting. The group agreed through consensus that the letter should be submitted. With the caveat that the above comments represent the general opinions and perceptions of the group. Some members may represent interests or agencies that would offered differing opinions or perceptions, but generally speaking the comments contained in this letter do represent the Partnership and the issues it faces and attempts to address as a Planning Unit. The Partnership looks forward to your response.

Respectfully yours,

Mayor Bob Spahr

Chair, Chehalis Basin Partnership

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council