The Chehalis River Council
417 North Pearl Street
Centralia, WA 98531
March 15, 2004
Dave Rountry
Water Quality Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Dear Dave:
On behalf of the Chehalis River Council Board of Trustees, I am submitting comments on the proposed Upper Chehalis River Fecal Coliform Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Recommendations, draft dated March 4, 2004. The CRC appreciates Ecology's willingness to extend the comment period on this draft TMDL and provide information at a public meeting sponsored by the CRC in Centralia on March 11th.
The Chehalis River Council is an all-volunteer environmental organization dedicated to the protection of natural resources in the Chehalis Basin. We have been actively involved in water quality issues since the early 1990's, when fish kills in the Black River and poor water quality in the Chehalis River drew attention to significant problems in the Basin.
Our main comments are as follows: 1) this report lacks the rigorous testing and analysis required for a true TMDL study; and 2) the implementation procedures briefly outlined in this report and elaborated in the Detailed Implementation Plan (drafted before the Upper Chehalis report was finished) provide no assurance that actual clean-up will occur. Discussion of these points follows.
1. Report lacks the rigorous testing and analysis required for a TMDL study
Rather than a systematic study of bacterial pollution in the Upper Basin, the report is a review of existing data, some from as early as 1974 or as late as 2002 (at Independence Road). Statistical methods are used to calculate percentage load allocations, giving the report a misleading appearance of precision. In fact, the variability of fecal coliform as a function of storm events, or whether or not a cow or beaver has recently visited the testing site, is well known. This variability is especially problematic when the monitoring is not done according to a systematic design and with comparable controls. What we have in this report is a grab-bag of monitoring results forced into a format based on EPA requirements.
An example of the weakness of the data is the discussion of the mainstem Chehalis at Porter (p. 17). It is frequently asserted that most of the fecal coliform load to the lower Chehalis and Grays Harbor comes from the Upper Chehalis (this report, p. 1). Pelletier and Seiders, 2000, estimated that a load reduction of 74% was necessary at Porter to meet water quality standards at Porter and downstream. However, with additional data, this report finds only a 64% reduction is required. The load allocation reduction is based on a 25% reduction in bacteria concentrations at Porter. It is suggested that somehow a 23% reduction in fecal coliform concentrations in Beaver Creek accounts for the reduction at Porter. It seems unlikely to this lay person that bacteria from Beaver Creek travel 18 miles down the Black River and 6 miles down the Chehalis to impact bacterial levels at Porter. What this suggests is that nobody knows where the bacteria at Porter are coming from and what causes their levels to rise or fall. There is no question that bacteria from time to time rise above water quality standards at Porter. A systematic TMDL study would have done independent testing and investigation that could have provided the basis for implementation of measures to improve water quality.
This study fails to look at the watershed as an organic whole. The absence of discussion of the mainstem Black River from this report seems to be based on the fact that it has an EPA approved TMDL already. The organization of the report reflects this. The order of discussion is Porter (RM 33.8), Independence Road (RM 54.7) Prather Road (RM 59.9) and Black River (RM 47). Then follows Scatter Creek (RM 55.2) and Lincoln Creek (RM 61.9). An order recognizing watershed characteristics would follow the River Miles upstream, with Black River second and Scatter Creek fourth. This order would make it easier to form hypotheses about impact of the tributaries to the mainstem stations.
The Black River load allocations are only discussed in those cases in which changes were indicated for Beaver Creek and Allen Creek and new allocations made for Dempsey Creek. Attention to these problem creeks is welcome, but some discussion of the mainstem Black River, even if changes to TMDL approved load allocations are not indicated, would shed more light on the mainstem Chehalis between RM 33.8 and 47.
Another example of the lack of depth of the analysis is the discussion of Berwick creek. Berwick creek, which flows into Dillenbaugh creek near Chehalis, is by all accounts a troubled creek. Sargeant (2002) found extremely high levels of fecal coliform at the mouth of Berwick creek in the wet season 1999 and considerably improved numbers (although still not meeting quality standards) in 1999-2000. In September 1999 it was found that animals had been accessing the creek through a fence. When the fence was fixed, the numbers improved. Because this information was available in the published results of Sargeant's Evaluation Study, the TMDL based its reduction percentage on 2000 data only. The point of this example is that we do not know how many other load allocations might have to be changed if there was more site-specific investigation.
We believe that this study should be considered to be the initial scoping for in-depth sub-basin TMDL studies. However, this would conflict with Ecology's need to move stream segments off the 303(d) list and onto the completed TMDL list as quickly as possible. This may be a bureaucratic necessity, given the lack of resources and the federal requirements. It does not provide a solid basis for real on-the-ground improvements in water quality.
2. Implementation procedures provide no assurance that real improvement will occur
This draft report presents the following "monitoring strategy" ( p. 46):
.* Use the highest reduction targets to prioritize where resources should be first invested.
* Begin implementation of the BMPs first at the most upstream segment, tributary, or sub-tributary. Monitoring should follow wherever BMPs are implemented.
* As the segment, tributary, or sub-tributary with the worst problem is brought in compliance with water quality standards, the monitoring station should be moved to a less severe area where the next set of BMPs would be implemented.
* In general, however, basic BMPs such as fencing and riparian buffer zones to keep cattle out of the stream should be required, as a rule, throughout the watershed. Also, failing on-site sewage treatment systems within the watershed need to be replaced to improve the long term health of the watershed
There is no question that this strategy, if implemented, would result in a great improvement in fecal coliform in the upper basin. What is missing is any indication of who is responsible for these steps and where the resources to accomplish them are going to come from.
We know how to do the first three bullets. For example, the "strategic initiative or non-dairy livestock sweep" sponsored by Ecology and done by Eric Schlorff for the South Fork Chehalis and Stearns Creek areas showed promise for accomplishing the goals of reduction of nonpoint source pollution in these areas. What it took was a combined attack by Schlorff, a temporary employee at Ecology, partnering with Robert Amrine of the Lewis County Conservation District to reach landowners in the area and persuade and cajole them to change some of their practices. Currently, Ecology has no funding for this program, and the conservation district is greatly restricted in its resources.
Regarding the last bullet, requiring fencing and riparian buffer zones and replacing failing on-site sewage treatment systems throughout the watershed demand a political vision and will on the part of county officials that seems to be in short supply. Unless this changes, there is no assurance that water quality impairments will be fixed.
The Detailed Implementation Plan for both the Upper and Lower Chehalis TMDLs is still in draft, but at this stage it consists of an extensive snapshot of the responsibilities of various agencies and jurisdictions of government to enforce existing regulations and achieve existing goals for eliminating non-point source pollution. Unfortunately the very agencies that are best suited to take a lead role, such as the conservation districts, are critically short of funding.
Under RCW 90.48, it is illegal to pollute the waters of the state, and Ecology is charged with enforcing that law. It is not enough for Ecology to simply point to polluted waters and suggest how, in some better world, the waters might get cleaned up. If resources are lacking, then Ecology needs make that plain to the Legislature and, if support is still lacking, it needs to ask to be relieved of its legal responsibility. It also needs to make clear to the counties that if they do not have ordinances prohibiting non-point pollution, or are unwilling to enforce them, then Ecology will step in and take enforcement actions.
Although this draft report compares unfavorably to TMDLs of the past, such as the Upper Chehalis Dissolved Oxygen TMDL or the two Black River TMDLs, the answer is not necessarily more detailed TMDLs. Instead, the CRC calls for practical action plans supporting real clean-up efforts, and monitoring focused on assessing the effectiveness of those efforts. We know what needs to be done, we know that it works (Sargeant, 2000), and we know that it has to be maintained. The goal must be real clean up for real streams and not simply fulfilling bureaucratic requirements.
Thanks you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Margaret Rader
Chair, Chehalis River Council Board of Trustees
3
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council