[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
N S I * S S S A * S. 5*p -, S 8e 0S Property of csc Library 1989 PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Adopted October 19, 1988 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 CD PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 217 Pine Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98101 PN\ (206) 464-7320 or 1-800-54-SOUND 3o ~C`6 PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY Members Katherine Fletcher, Chair Seattle Les Eldridge, Vice Chair (Third Congressional District) Olympia Marjorie Redman (First Congressional District) Poulsbo Hugh Spitzer (Seventh Congressional District) Seattle Michael Thorp (Eighth Congressional District) Federal Way Sheri 'Tnn (Sixth Congressional District) Tacoma RTrry Williams (Second Congressional District) Marysville Ex-officio Members Brian Boyle, Commissioner of Public Lands Christine Gregoire, Director of the Department of Ecology Former Members Andrea Beatty-Riniker (July 1985 - March 1988) Judith Runstad (July 1985 - May 1988) John Sawyer (July 1985 - June 1987) KATHERINE FLETCHER Chair STATE OF WASHINGTON PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY 217 Pine Street, Suite 11X � Seattle, Washington 98101 � (206) 464-7320 November, 1988 To the Governor, the Legislature, and Citizens of Washington State: It gives us great pleasure to present to you the 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. This plan builds on and improves the first plan, transmitted to you in January 1987. Thanks to your actions and support, much progress has been achieved since that time. Implementing this new plan will take us even closer to the goal of a clean Puget Sound. We represent diverse perspectives on the difficult issues involved in protecting the Sound. Our unanimous support of this plan is an important indication of the hard work, compromises, and spirit of cooperation embodied in it. We are particularly appreciative of the outstanding work of local governments, state agencies, tribes, federal agencies and innumerable citizens, both in taking the actions called for in 1987 and in helping us to evaluate and improve the plan. Despite tremendous progress, much remains to be done. In adopting this plan, we went through a very difficult process to pare down and postpone important actions so that we could present a realistic budget request for the coming biennium. In doing so, we recognize that the protection of Puget Sound cannot be assured until the effort is augmented in the future. But we are proud of this plan, and we believe that the next two years will bring more successes on which to build. We ask your full support in achieving this plan so that Puget Sound will remain a resource of unparalleled richness and divit�. Katherine Fletcher esldridge Darjo~ie 4dm-an Chair Vice Chair Member Aug$ Spitz4r Mike Thorp I Sheri Tl'nn Member Member Member Terry Williams Brian BO-yiK/ Christine G'reg re Member Ex-officiodq-ember Ex-officio Member Contents SUMMARY xv CHAPTER . INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2. THE STATE OF THE SOUND 9 CHAPTER 3. ACTION PLAN 15 Introduction 15 Monitoring 17 Research 26 Education and Public Involvement 36 Nonpoint Source Pollution 60 Shellfish Protection 84 Municipal and Industrial Discharges 91 Contaminated Sediments and Dredging 114 Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows 126 Wetlands Protection 143 Spill Prevention and Response 155 Laboratory Support 161 Household Hazardous Waste 167 Legal and Personnel Support 171 Estimated Costs and Potential Financing 176 Summary of Local Government Tasks 184 Programs that Request Tribal Involvement 188 CHAPTER 4. PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 191 CHAPTER 5. THE UNFINISHED AGENDA 201 Aquaculture 203 Contamination of the Sea-surface Microlayer 205 Effects of Air Pollution on Water Quality 207 Federal Facilities 211 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 214. Freshwater Use and Availability 218 Groundwater Contamination 222 Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention and Response 229 V Human Health Risks 233 Nutrient Effects 236 Pesticides 239 Plastic Debris in Marine Waters 243 Transboundary Pollution 246 Treatment of Domestic Wastes 248 Other Issues 252 APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS 255 APPENDIX B. GLOSSARY 257 APPENDIX C. PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY ACT 269 APPENDIX D. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 400-12 WAC, Local Planning and Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution 273 SEPA NOTICE 275 Margin illustrations � 1976 by Margaret Chodos-Irvine vi PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY STAFF Administrative Staff Jim Abernathy, Executive Secretary Jan Brieske, Administrative Assistant Nancy McKay, Deputy Director Kirvil Skinnarland, Director of Planning and Compliance Planning Staff Sarah Barton Jerry Boese Bill Britt Cathy Carruthers Andrea Copping John Dohrmann Roberta Feins Michael Jacobson Marcia Lagerloef Dave Renstrom Joanne Richter Naki Stevens Richard Tucker Public Outreach Staff Amy Bell Claire Dyckman Annette Frahm Louise Forrest Susan Handley Nancy Hansen Karl Holifield Sheila Kelly Joyce Nichols Support Staff Susan Folk Nancy Kroening Katherine Mantz The contributions of the following people are also gratefully acknowledged: Leslie Brown, Kathy Callison, Carol Fielding, Sue Greene, Susan Gulick, Nanne Hassing, Lisa Molohon, Rachael Paschal, James Redel, Tim Strege, Anne Swensson, Beverly Wilson. vii MONITORING MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Katherine Fletcher, Chair, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority John Armstrong, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John Bernhardt, Washington Department of Ecology John Carleton, Washington Department of Wildlife Doris Cellarius, Sierra Club Daniel Cheney, Ph.D., Bioaquatics International Dick Cunningham, Washington Department of Ecology Larry Dettmann, Western Oil & Gas Association, Texaco U.S.A. Charles Dunn, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Frank Easter, Soil Conservation Service Charles Eaton, Adopt-a-Beach Will Ernst, The Boeing Company Norm Glenn, Washington Department of Ecology Jacques Faigenblum, Ph.D., Washington Department of Social and Health Services Willa Fisher, M.D., Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials, Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department Howard Harris, Ph.D., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Brian Hauger, Washington Department of Wildlife Jim Heil, Puget Sound Alliance James Henry, Washington State Association of Sewer Districts, Des Moines Sewer District David Jamison, Ph.D., Washington Department of Natural Resources Mike MacKay, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Lummi Tibe Commander R.M. McBride, U.S. Navy Ed McGavock, U. S. Geological Survey Bruce McKnight, Washington State Association of Water Districts Mary Lou Mills, Washington Department of Fisheries M.D. Nassichuk, Ph.D., Fisheries & Oceans Canada Robert Parker, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Gary Plews, Washington Department of Social and Health Services Martin Pomeroy, Ph.D., Environment Canada Kerrie Schurr, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency David Somers, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Tlhalip ribe Robert Swartz, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Ronald Thom, Ph.D., University of Washington Erick Tokar, Northwest Pulp & Paper Association, ITT Rayonier, Inc. viii COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH IN PUGET SOUND David W. Jamison, Ph.D., Chair, Washington Department of Natural Resources Hal Beecher, Ph.D., Washington Department of Wildlife Lee Ann Bonacker, Washington Aquaculture Council Philip J. Carpenter, U.S. Geological Survey Megan N. Dethier, Ph.D., Friends of the San Juans, Puget Sound Alliance, University of Washington Larry Dettman, Western Oil and Gas Association, Texaco, U.S.A. Alyn C. Duxbury, Ph.D., Washington Sea Grant Program Louis Echols, Ph.D., Washington Sea Grant Program Jacques Faigenblum,Ph.D., Washington Department of Social and Health Services William H. Funk, Ph.D., State of Washington Water Research Center Jack H. Gakstatter, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maryanne Guichard, Seattle-King County Health Department Ronald E. Hermanson, Ph.D., Washington State University Eric Johnson, Washington Public Ports Association Don Kane, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marsha L. Landolt, Ph.D., University of Washington Mike MacKay, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Lummi Tribe Mary Lou Mills, Washington Department of Fisheries Rodney Proctor, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Ibm Rainey, Ph.D., Evergreen State College David Schroeder, Ph.D., Seattle University Ron Stapley, Carnation Research Farm John A. Strand, Ph.D., Battelle Marine Research Laboratory Stephen D. Sulkin, Ph.D., Western Washington University Ron Thomas, Coalition for Clean Water, City of Everett Rudy N. Thut, Weyerhaeuser Company Sally Van Niel, Washington Environmental Council, Puget Sound Alliance, Everett Community College Usha Varanasi, Ph.D., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fred Weinmann, Ph.D., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers William E. Yake, Washington Department of Ecology ix EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ADVISORY GROUP Tony Angell, Washington State Office of Environmental Education, Superintendent of Public Instruction Wendy Bolender, Washington Association of Realtors Harriet Bullitt, KING Broadcasting Richard Conlin, Metrocenter YMCA Bob Hulbert, Hulbert Farms Bob Jacobson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Karen Johnson, Washington Department of Ecology James A. Kolb, Poulsbo Marine Science Center 'Ibny Meyer, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Doug Pierce, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Wendy Pugnetti, ITT Rayonier Inc. Mike Reed, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Bob Steelquist, writer PUGET SOUND ESTUARY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE William A. Bush, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Paul Cyr, Pierce County Council John DeMeyer, Washington Department of Natural Resources Frank Easter, U.S. Soil Conservation Service Jack H. Gakstatter, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peter Hahn, City of Edmonds Howard Harris, Ph.D., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dwain F. Hogan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kahler Martinson, Washington Department of Fisheries Dave Peeler, Washington Department of Ecology Rich Poelker, Washington Departinent of Wildlife John Pitts, DVM, Washington Department of Agriculture Kirvil Skinnarland, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Eric Slagle, Washington Department of Social and Health Services Ron Thom, Ph.D., University of Washington x PUGET SOUND ESTUARY PROGRAM TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Ron Thom, Ph.D., Chair Bob Barrick Richard Branchflower, Ph.D. Don Brown Mary Burg Edward Cokelet, Ph.D. Eric Crecelius, Ph.D. Curt Ebbesmeyer, Ph.D. Jacques Faigenblum, Ph.D. ITom Ginn, Ph.D. David Jamison, Ph.D. Ed Long Bruce Miller, Ph.D. Mary Lou Mills Keith Phillips Pat Romberg Rick Swartz, Ph.D. Jay Vasconcelos Jack Word xi STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS PLAN RCW 90.70.055 requires the Authority to "prepare and adopt a comprehensive Puget Sound water quality management plan, as defined in RCW 90.70.060." The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan was adopted in December 1986 pursuant to this requirement. RCW 90.70.055(3) requires that the plan be reviewed and revised every two years. The development of the draft 1989 plan was undertaken in compliance with this section. The Authority will prepare a 1991 plan following review of the implementation of the 1989 plan. In March 1988 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for- mally designated Puget Sound as an estuary of national significance under Sec- tion 320 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by PL. 100-4 (the Water Quality Act of 1987). In so doing, Puget Sound has become part of a nationwide program to develop management plans for the protection of the nation's es- tuaries. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, together with EPA Region 10 and the Washington Department of Ecology, co-manage the Puget Sound Estuary Program. Section 320 requires the development of a "comprehensive conservation and management plan" (CCMP) for each designated estuary. The designation of Puget Sound recognized the 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan as a partial CCMP. The adopted 1989 plan will con- stitute an additional increment to the CCMP. Likewise, the 1991 plan will also be an increment to the CCMP and must meet all the requirements of a CCMP required under the Clean Water Act. xii Preface The legislature finds that Puget Sound and related inland marine waterways of Washington state represent a unique and unparalleled resource. A rich and varied range of marine organisms, composing an interdependent, sensitive communal ecosystem reside in these sheltered waters. Residents of this region enjoy a way of life centered around the waters of Puget Sound, featuring accessible recreational opportunities, world-class port facilities and water transportation systems, harvest of marine food resources, shoreline-oriented life styles, water-dependent industries, tourism, irreplaceable aesthetics and other activities, all of which to some degree depend upon a clean and healthy marine resource. The legislature further finds that the consequences of careless husbanding of this resource have been dramatically illustrated in inland waterways associated with older and more extensively developed areas of the nation. Recent reports concern- ing degradation of water quality within this region's urban embayments raise alarming possibilities of similar despoliation of Puget Sound and other state waterways. These examples emphasize that the costs of restoration of aquatic resources, where such restoration is possible, greatly exceed the costs of respon- sible preservation. The legislature declares that the utilization of the Puget Sound resource carries a custodial obligation ofpreserving it. The people of the state have the unique op- portunity to preserve the gift of nature, an understanding of the results of inatten- tive stewardship, the technical knowledge needed for control of degradation, and the obligation to undertake such control. The legislature further finds that the large number of governmental entities that now affect the water quality of Puget Sound have diverse interests and limited jurisdictions which cannot adequately address the cumulative, wide-ranging im- pacts which contribute to the degradation of Puget Soundc It is therefore the policy of the state of Washington to create a single entity with adequate resources to develop a comprehensiveplan for water quality protection in Puget Sound to be implemented by existing state and local governments. --excerpt from the 1985 legislation creating the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (RCW 90.70.001) xiii Summary This document is the 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The 1989 plan builds on the progress made in carrying out the 1987 Puget Sound plan. This plan includes new initiatives in the areas of research, monitoring, and education, and continues and updates each of the programs in the 1987 plan. In addition, this plan includes a discussion of issues that could not be addressed in the 1987 plan. T1hese issues, called the "unfinished agen- da," represent a range of problems affecting Puget Sound's water quality, the most important of which should be addressed in the 1991 Puget Sound plan, the final plan required by both state and federal statutes. This plan is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the plan. Chapter 2 is a summary of findings about the Sound, its popula- tion and resources from The State of the Sound 1988 Report. The expanded and updated action plan is contained in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses the role of the Authority in preparing and overseeing the implementation of the plan, as well as a discussion of the implications of the Authority's scheduled "1sunset" in 1991. Chapter 5 discusses the unfinished agenda. A glossary, a list of acronyms, a summary of regulations for Local Planning and Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution (Chapter 400-12 WAC), and a copy of RCW 90.70, the statute establishing the Authority, are provided at the end of the document. The Authority based the 1987 plan on a number of key findings about Puget Sound's water quality. Programs were developed to address major concerns, such as pollution from point and nonpoint sources, loss of wetlands, and shellfish protection. While much progress has been made in implementing these programs, the Sound's problems are long term and the solutions will necessarily be long term as well. An updated list of key findings is included here as a reminder of the problems in Puget Sound that require continued at- tention. Key findings upon which the plan is based include: * Most pollution is not "flushed' from the Puget Sound system. Water and pollutants are recirculated within Puget Sound, and some inlets and bays experience only limited tidal exchange. * Between 1987 and the year 2000, population in the Puget Sound region is expected to grow by 20 percent, from almost 3 million to 3.6 million. The xv 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan four central Puget Sound counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap) are expected to add 1.5 million more people between 1987 and 2020. * Land use forecasts suggest an increase of 62 percent for urban use and 73 percent for rural non-farm use by the year 2000. Most of this intensively used land is projected to be in the central Puget Sound region. * Toxic contaminants bind to particles and settle out in the sediments. Con- centrations of toxicants in sediments in the Sound's urban bays are elevated 100 times or more over the levels in the cleanest rural bays. * High concentrations of toxic contaminants in sediments have been as- sociated with adverse biological effects in fish in urban bays, including fin erosion, liver tumors, and reproductive failures. While substantial progress has been made toward limiting conventional pollutants in discharges, the discharge of toxic pollutants has not been ef- fectively controlled. * Increased bacterial contamination from nonpoint sources has contributed to the closure of five additional commercial shellfish beds since December 1986. Sources include failed septic systems, animal wastes, and con- taminated stormwater. Nonpoint source pollution is likely to increase as the Sound's rural areas continue to develop. Over half of the Sound's original wetlands have been lost. An increasing regulatory emphasis on wetland protection is slowing the net loss of wet- land habitats and values. However, it has been conservatively estimated that 530 acres of unprotected freshwater wetlands are being degraded or destroyed statewide each year. Despite the problems cited, there are significant success stories where water quality has been improved around the Sound. Industrial and municipal pollu- tion controls have had dramatically positive results, and the banning of a few toxic chemicals and restrictions on some others have begun to be reflected in the lower rates at which they are accumulating in the bottom sediments of the Sound. Individual and local efforts have also begun to reduce sources of non- point pollution in some areas. There has been considerable progress since the first plan for the Sound was adopted. All of the programs called for in the 1987 plan have begun, and several milestones have been reached. This 1989 plan updates and refines ex- isting plan programs to reflect the experience to date in implementing them. The plan also proposes three initiatives called for in the 1987 plan: a com- prehensive, coordinated ambient monitoring program; a draft long-range strategy for education and public involvement related to Puget Sound; and a program to support research and coordinate the setting of research priorities. The plan includes a budget for its implementation. Because of concern about limited funding resources, the Authority significantly scaled down the plan's ac- tivities for the next biennium from the levels which would allow full implemen- tation. The budget for the next biennium is about two-thirds of what would be needed for the full plan. This scaled-down budget was achieved by reducing and delaying activities in nearly all plan programs. xvi Surnmary THE ACTION PLAIN ' M e purpose of this plan is to restore and protect biological health and diver- sity of Puget Sound. 'Me strategy for achieving this purpose is to protect and enhance three resources: the Sound's water and sediment quality; its fish and shellfish; and its wetlands. Each of the programs in the plan is prefaced by a problem definition and a goal for the program. Cost estimates and target dates are also given for each program element. Key features of the plan include: NEW INITIATIVES Monitoring The plan establishes the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). The PSAMP will assess conditions over time of the water, sedi- ments, fish, shellfish, birds, marine mamnmals, and habitat and will collect other information such as weather and population growth. 'Me PSAMP was developed by the Monitoring Management Committee (MMVC), established by the Authority in the 1987 Puget Sound plan. The MMC consists of water quality professionals representing federal, state and local agencies, tribes, Canadian agencies, industry, the scientific community, and the public. The monitoring program in this plan adopts the monitoring design developed by the Monitoring Management Committee, sets up a management structure for the PSAMP, develops a citizens' monitoring program, and arranges for data management, quality assurance, and monitoring reports. The PSALMP will be implemented by several state agencies with help from federal agencies, local governments, and tribes. The management structure consists of the Monitoring Management Committee and a steering committee, with staff housed at the Authority. The monitoring program staff will develop and maintain a central database of PSAMP data and prepare a comprehensive annual monitoring report based on reports prepared by the agencies im- plementing the monitoring program. An independent evaluation will be con- ducted every few years to ensure that PSAMP remains a necessary, useful, and cost-effective program. The Authority is also developing a citizens' monitoring program to collect data to supplement PSAMP and act as an educational and public involvement tool. Citizens will monitor nearshore habitat or collect water or clam samples. The Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund) is supporting an ini- tial citizens' monitoring program. Research The plan establishes a research program to coordinate the setting of research priorities, the sponsorship of research, and dissemination of research findings related to Puget Sound. 'Me 1987 plan established the Committee on Research in Puget Sound. The Committee was asked to make recommendations to the Authority on several key issues important to Puget Sound research, including: research priorities, institutional needs, data management, research reserves, and the publication and dissemination of research results. The Committee was composed of repre- xvii 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan sentatives of academic institutions, state and federal agencies, the business community, agriculture, tribes, environmental groups, and private research or- ganizations. The Committee's report provides the basis for this plan program. The Authority will coordinate a Puget Sound research program with several components: funding high-priority research projects, translating and dissemi- nating results to agency managers and the public, setting research priorities, and establishing a permanent research program. Research priorities will be set through a public process involving the research committee, scientists, agen- cy managers, and others. This list will be updated biennially. The plan in- cludes the first adopted priority list of research priorities. The Authority will coordinate with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program in managing information and identifying research needs. Legislation to establish a Puget Sound research foundation will bedrafted and considered by the Authority over the next one to two years in conjunction with other long- term institutional issues related to the Sound. Education and Public This program incorporates a long-range strategy to make Puget Sound educa- Involvement tion and public involvement more effective. The strategy was developed by the Education and Public Involvement Advisory Group. The Authority estab- lished the advisory group following the adoption of the 1987 plan. The 12- member group includes educators, media experts, and representatives of environmental and public interest groups, industry, business, agriculture, tribes, state and federal agencies, and local governments. The education program includes support for local education and public invol- vement efforts through field agents located around Puget Sound. Interagency resource teams will be developed to provide information to public or private sector groups on specific water quality issues and to provide technical assis- tance and training on resource issues related to protecting Puget Sound. State agencies will coordinate their programs to design comprehensive mes- sages for particular audiences on how to reduce water pollution resulting from their activities. The Authority will also initiate public awareness campaigns that focus on tangible results related to cleaning up the Sound, such as reopen- ing shellfish beds or reducing plastic debris. The Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund) is included as an on- going program. Training will be provided for teachers in environmental educa- tion and for state and local agency staff in public involvement skills. A steering committee will be established to develop long-range options for funding education and public involvement and to oversee the PIE-Fund. ONGOING The Authority proposes to continue the existing programs in the 1987 plan PROGRAMS with only minor modifications and improvements. Changes have been made to clarify program elements, to reflect the experience gained in implementa- tion, and to make the programs more effective. Nonpoint Source "Nonpoint" pollution sources are numerous and dispersed, including all the Pollution forms of contamination that enter the water in surface runoff and from boats. Individually, sources may be insignificant, but taken together, they can have a substantial effect on water quality. xviii Summary The 1987 plan called for the development of local watershed management programs in Puget Sound counties. Twelve "early action" priority watersheds were selected in 1987, and committees are in the process of preparing non- point pollution action plans for those watersheds. Local committees are also ranking all watersheds within each county to determine priorities for future ac- tion plans. Regulations adopted by the Authority following the 1987 plan provide guidelines for local watershed management. The nonpoint sources to be addressed in priority watersheds include on-site septic systems, farm practices, and stormwater, as well as other sources. The priority watershed approach will be complemented by prevention efforts, in- cluding education and an examination of how local ordinances and programs affect water quality. Local efforts are being augmented by several state government programs. A boaters task force is tackling pollution problems from boats through an educa- tion program and proposals for additional pumpout facilities. The nonpoint program also includes several initiatives that deal with on-site septic systems, including a legislative proposal addressing the need for owner education and on-site system inspection and maintenance. Shellfish Protection In addition to an emphasis on shellfish protection in the Nonpoint Source Pol- lution Program, the 1987 plan included an aggressive program that focuses on better protection of both recreational and commercial shellfishing. The strategy includes public education and involvement, periodic testing for both toxicants and bacteria in shellfish, and restoration projects. Municipal and Point sources of pollution include industries and municipal sewage treatment Industrial Discharges plants. The 1987 plan called for a substantial strengthening of the state Department of Ecology's regulation of point sources, including controlling toxicants and particulates through discharge permits, increasing the frequency of discharge inspections (including unannounced inspections), aggressively pursuing unpermitted discharges, requiring more complete discharge monitor- ing, using certified laboratories to analyze samples, and implementing pretreat- ment requirements. Ecology was also directed to develop and adopt standards for sediment contamination, and to use the standards in implementing various water quality and dredging programs. An expansion of the existing efforts to clean up urban bays complements the improvements in the point source regulatory program. Increased discharge permit fees, a 1987 plan proposal that was approved by the state legislature in October 1987, will fund a sig- nificant portion of the improvements in the program, although additional general fund is also needed to support this program. Twvo new elements are added: element P-27 creates a new function in Ecology to provide technical outreach to dischargers; element P-28 requires a report on how well waste discharge permits issued after the effective date of the plan have met the requirements of this program. Contaminated 'Ibxic contaminants accumulate in sediments in the Puget Sound basin, causing Sediments and harm to bottom-dwelling organisms and threatening the rest of the food web. Dredging Dredging to maintain navigation channels spreads and relocates these sedi- ments. 'lb reduce sediment contamination, several programs in the 1987 plan called for discharges of toxic contaminants to be reduced. xix 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan The 1987 plan included goals for sediment quality and for dredging and dis- posal programs. The plan also required development of standards for dredged material disposal, a feasibility study of multi-user disposal sites for contami- nated sediments, and an expansion of targeted efforts in urban bays to find and respond to high levels of sediment contamination. The plan laid out close coordination between the Authority and the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA), coordinated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, En- vironmental Protection Agency, and the state Departments of Natural Resour- ces and Ecology. Progress in this program has been hampered by severe underfunding in the cur- rent biennium, especially of element S-8, Investigations of Contaminated Sedi- ment Sites. A new element, S-9, calls for enhanced public education and involvement about contaminated sediments issues. Stormwater and Stormwater runoff is a pervasive pollution problem. As urbanization of the Combined Sewer Puget Sound basin continues, the problem is likely to increase. The 1987 plan Overflows required stormwater control programs in all the cities and other urbanized areas in the Puget Sound basin, phased in between now and the year 2000. Source controls and best management practices are emphasized rather than end-of-pipe treatment. In addition to the urban stormwater programs, the 1987 plan required all juris- dictions to control quantity and quality of stormwater from new development and to ensure that existing stormwater control systems are adequately main- tained and operated. Stormwater considerations are also integrated with the nonpoint program, where stormwater is one of the pollution sources ad- dressed in priority watersheds. The Department of Ecology will provide tech- nical assistance, including manuals and model ordinances. The plan incorporates Ecology's current program of guidelines and other efforts to ad- dress combined sewer overflows. Extensive revisions have been made in the organization and wording of ele- ments SW-1 through SW-5 to provide improved clarity and simplicity. These changes are not intended to change the basic thrust of the program. Wetlands Protection To help reduce the loss of wetlands in the Puget Sound basin, the 1987 plan called for protection of significant wetlands through preservation, enhanced regulations, and a program for wetlands on state-owned lands. The preserva- tion program uses a systematic approach to identify wetlands to be preserved through acquisition and other mechanisms and is designed to complement similar efforts of private organizations. Enhancement of local regulatory programs will be guided by regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology. The Department of Natural Resources is required to preserve and protect wet- lands on the aquatic lands and uplands it manages, and other state agencies have similar requirements. A wetlands restoration element is added to augment the preservation effort, and significantly increased funding is proposed for preservation. Another new element establishes a long-range wetlands education strategy to support suc- cessful implementation of wetland program elements. xx Summary Spill Prevention and The 1987 plan required a policy analysis and revision of spill contingency Response plans. The 1989 plan includes creation of a spill prevention and response com- mittee and an examination of techniques to prevent spills of oil and other haz- ardous substances. Laboratory Support The 1987 plan required the Department of Ecology to design a laboratory cer- tification program and to produce a plan to ensure adequate laboratory capacity for state environmental programs. New elements have been added that establish a process for developing, adopting, and updating the Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols, and that require Ecology to prepare a quality assurance/quality control plan for the department's programs and projects. Household Hazardous The 1987 plan called for phased implementation of recent legislation that re- Waste quires local household hazardous waste plans, including accelerated implementation of programs in a few counties. In addition, education is re- quired, focusing on local plans and on less-toxic alternatives for household products. Legal and Personnel The 1987 plan addressed the need for adequate staff and legal support at both Support the state and local levels in order to carry out the Puget Sound plan. At the local level, the plan calls for financial assistance to local governments for en- forcement of laws protecting wetlands and controlling nonpoint pollution sources. PLAN The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority was given responsibility by the legis- DEVELOPMENT lature to develop and oversee the implementation of the Puget Sound Water AND AND Quality Management Plan. This responsibility includes writing and updating ~IMPLEMENTATION ~ the plan, reviewing the actions of implementing agencies, coordinating inter- iMPLEMENTATION agency activities, preparing the biennial State of the Sound Report, and involv- ing the public in the planning process. The Authority also co-manages the Puget Sound Estuary Program with the Department of Ecology and the En- vironmental Protection Agency. The Authority is scheduled to go out of existence on June 30, 1991, and the Puget Sound Estuary Program is also to have completed its work by that time. Thus no entity will exist with responsibility for long-term planning and over- sight. To assure the long-term protection of Puget Sound, there is a need to consider whether the functions performed by the Authority should continue and in what form. The plan calls for the governor to appoint a committee to make recommenda- tions about the appropriate institutional mechanisms. Options could include assigning the Authority's tasks to existing state agencies, asking the federal government to continue the Puget Sound Estuary Program, creating a new en- tity or entities, or continuing the Authority in its current form or a different form for some period of time. THE UNFINISHED When the Authority was developing the first water quality plan, the public sug- AGENDA gested that a number of issues related to the Sound and its resources be ad- dressed. Due to budget and time constraints, the Authority could not deal rxi 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan with many of these issues in either the 1987 or the 1989 plan. In the 1989 draft plan the Authority included a list of these "unfinished agenda" issues that could potentially be addressed in the 1991 plan and asked for public comment. Public response was excellent. Over 200 people provided comments on the un- finished agenda, and over 300 people participated in ranking the issues. The issues included in the unfinished agenda are: * Aquaculture * Contamination of the sea-surface microlayer * Effects of air pollution on water quality * Federal facilities * Fish and wildlife habitat * Freshwater use and availability * Groundwater contamination * Hazardous materials spill prevention and response * Human health risks * Nutrient effects * Pesticides * Plastic debris in marine waters * Transboundary pollution * Treatment of domestic wastes In response to public comment, the Authoritly made the following decisions on how to address each of the unfinished agenda issues. The Authority will analyze the technical and regulatory issues related to fish and wildlife habitat and pesticides and may prepare issue papers on these two topics. Authority staff will also coordinate a technical study of the effects of air pollution on water quality. Ongoing work on federal facilities and human health risks will be continued, and a study is planned on means to prevent spills of hazardous materials. The Authority will request that the U.S. Geologic Survey carry out a special study on the effects of contaminated groundwater on Puget Sound and will request that the International Joint Commission pay special attention to transboundary water quality concerns. Other Authority actions include general review and comment on major ac- tivities related to aquaculture, freshwater use and availability, groundwater contamination, plastic debris in marine waters, and treatment of domestic was- tes. Contamination of the sea-surface microlayer and nutrient effects issues will be referred to the Committee on Research in Puget Sound. Authority action on other issues raised during the public review process will in- clude special consideration of island issues and inclusion of an island ecology section in the 1990 State of the Sound Report; review and comment on major is- xxii Summary sues related to public access to beaches and sole source aquifers; and referral of the issue of seal bacteria contamination to the Department of Wildlife. COSTS AND The plan includes cost estimates for each of the programs. It also discusses FINANCING potential revenue sources to fund the plan, including the Centennial Clean Water Fund (cigarette tax), discharge permit fees, the state general fund, the state toxics fund, local funding, and federal funding. The projected public sector cost to implement the first two years of the 1987 plan was $36.6 million. This initial biennial budget reflected phase-in schedules for each of the plan's programs to allow for orderly implementation. However, phasing the programs also meant that budgets for the succeeding biennium would have to be higher than the initial costs. Of the $36.6 million total for the first biennium, $15.1 million was requested from the state legisla- ture. The remainder reflected primarily local costs (to be assisted by the Cen- tennial Clean Water Fund). The legislature appropriated $11.9 million which was later augmented by about $1.8 million in expected discharge permit fee revenues. This left a shortfall of about $1.4 million in state funds, which resulted in the delay of several important plan programs. The worst effects were felt in the programs for municipal and industrial discharges and con- taminated sediments. The budget for the draft 1989 plan for the FY 1990-91 biennium was intended to restore full funding to the plan's existing programs. It also included funding for essential new programs which were called for in the 1987 plan and developed over the past two years-research, monitoring, and education. The budget in the draft plan called for expenditures in the next biennium (fiscal years 1990-1991) of $88.2 million. In an effort to propose a realistic budget for the FY 1990-91 biennium, the Authority cut back the draft plan to about two-thirds of the funding needed for full implementation. This was accomplished by delaying and scaling back ac- tivities in nearly every program. The projected public sector cost for the next biennium is now $54 million. The table on the next page shows the projected plan costs for fiscal years 1990-91 and lists the anticipated sources of funding for both the draft 1989 plan and the final, scaled-down plan. Recognizing that stable, long-term funding is crucial for success in protecting the Sound, the plan calls for a study of funding options to support the long- term implementation of the Puget Sound plan. The study will be conducted in consultation with cities, counties, tribes, the legislature and governor, citizens' and business associations, and state agencies. The study will identify new and existing potential sources of funding and may result in proposals for legislative or regulatory changes so that potential funding sources may be more easily used. The estimated costs shown do not include possible Environmental Protection Agency funding from the Puget Sound Estuary Program that may be available for plan implementation in the FY 1990-91 biennium. EPA Region 10 has received approximately $1.2 to 1.6 million per year for the Puget Sound Es- tuary Program for several years, and this funding is expected to continue at similar or decreased levels until 1991. This money has been used to fund tech- nical studies and some plan implementation activities. xxiii 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FY 90/91 BIENNIUM: DRAFT AND FINAL 1989 PLANS Draft Plan Final Plan FY 90/91 FY 90/91 1989 PLAN COSTS Continuation of 1987 Plan Programs . . ........ 66,200,813 41,231,889 Authority Activities ............ ..... 3,408,515 2,888,822 New Programs: Monitoring ................ 7,191,980 4,621,701 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,602,175 1,796,814 Education and Public Involvement ....... 6,713,405 3,359,056 Other (CF and PDI) . . . . . . . . . . .... 130,126 130,376 TOTAL $88,247,014 $54,028,658 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES State Capital Account .................. 5,180,000 3,710,000 Federal Funding .................... 406,156 449,980 Toxics Account . . . . . . . . . ........... 983,802 319,548 Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF) . . . . . . ... 14,531,990 10,568,664 State General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 40,735,135 27,108,564 State Fee Programs ................... 8,000,966 5,308,433 Local Sources ................... .. 18,408,965 6,563,469 TOTAL $88,247,014 $54,028,658 Funding Notes Federal Depends on appropriations to various federal agencies. Amounts shown do not include funding from the EPA National Estuary Program. Toxics State and local accounts under the Washington Superfund Act. CCWF Actual amount will depend on how funds are awarded by the Department of Ecology. General Fund Depends on appropriations from the state general fund by the legislature. Fees Fees for waste water discharge permits and laboratory certifications. Local Includes local matches to anticipated grants from the Centennial Clean Water Fund and revenue from stormwater utilities and septic maintenance districts. FUNDING SOURCES FOR 1990-1991 BIENNIUM Plan Costs by Funding Source 1989 Puget Sound Plan Millions of dollars 50 Draft 1989 Plan Em Capital ~ Centennlal Fund 3 General Fund Final 1 Plan $88,247,014 m Fees mES Local Sources EZ1 Other Final 1999 Plan $64.028 868 40 ...................................... ................................... IO'lel Fu-d LOOCI Srur... a,, , \ 30 - I..... go S 20 -- - -- ...................... .... . ..... 0eolnel Alno. . . 0% 0s 1 _ .... ._.. Dlameteor of pio 1 proportional to 0 total cost 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 xxiv Chapter 1. Introduction Puget Sound is recognized worldwide as an extraordinary natural resource. The region's three million residents enjoy boating, beachcombing, and other activities on the Sound's waters and beaches. Its deep waterways support inter- national commerce, abundant commercial and recreational fisheries, and varied wildlife habitats. The Environmental Protection Agency recently designated Puget Sound an "es- tuary of national significance" under the federal Water Quality Act of 1987. The federal government's action recognizes not only the value of Puget Sound, but also the need to protect and improve the Sound's water quality and resour- ces. In the pattern of other American waterways, the Sound is showing early symptoms of inadequate management. A steadily increasing population in the region has led to urbanization and industrialization of many nearshore areas. As a result, the Sound's urban bays show evidence of contamination from toxic chemicals: sediments forming toxic "hot spots," liver tumors in bottomfish, and contamination of the sea-surface microlayer. The rural areas of the Sound have also seen increased development. One of the effects has been bacterial pollution, which has forced closure of many important shellfish harvest areas. Shoreline development has also eliminated more than half of the Sound's natural wetlands. We hope that we are responding in time to protect and restore Puget Sound. We have faced and overcome similar problems before, when municipal waste was fouling Lake Washington and when pulp mill effluent was damaging some of our bays. Moreover, we do not face the same magnitude of difficulties con- fronting older, more developed regions in this country-such as the Chesapeake Bay, Boston Harbor, or Narragansett Bay-yet we can draw on these for valuable lessons. We can recognize that it is far easier and less expen- sive to prevent degradation than it is to correct it (when correction or restora- tion is even possible). We can also see the price to be paid when these problems are ignored. At the same time, Puget Sound's problems are sobering. The region is ex- pected to add 600,000 more people by the year 2000, increasing development pressures and waste disposal problems. This growth means that success in 1 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan protecting the Sound will depend on long-term, expensive, and dedicated ef- fort. In recognition of the need to protect the Sound, the 1985 Washington State Legislature passed ESSB 3828 (Chapter 90.70 RCW), restructuring the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and charging it with developing a comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound and its related waterways. In establishing the Authority, the legislature found: "that Puget Sound and related inland marine waterways of Washington state represent a unique and unparalleled resource... "that the consequences of careless husbanding of this resource have been dramatically illustrated in inland waterways associated with older and more ex- tensively developed areas of the nation... "that the costs of restoration of aquatic resources, where such restoration is possible, greatly exceed the costs of responsible preservation... "that utilization of the Puget Sound resource carries a custodial obligation for preserving it..." and "that the large number of governmental entities that now affect the water quality of Puget Sound have diverse interests and limited jurisdictions which cannot adequately address the cumulative, wide-ranging impacts which con- tribute to the degradation of Puget Sound." The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority consists of seven members ap- pointed by Governor Booth Gardner. In addition, the Director of the Depart- ment of Ecology and the Commissioner of Public Lands serve as ex-officio members. The Authority holds official monthly meetings, as well as many other informal and formal meetings, in different locations around the Sound, listening to citizens and local government and tribal officials. The principal responsibility of the Authority is to develop, adopt, and oversee the implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The Authority adopted the 1987 plan in December 1986. Recognizing the magnitude of the problems confronting the Sound, the legislature charged the Authority to engage in a continuing planning process through 1991. The Authority is to revise the plan every two years, evaluating progress toward pre- vious goals and addressing additional concerns. The 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is the first plan revision. The Authority is to develop one more revision before it goes out of existence in June 1991. The planning area defined by the legislature includes Puget Sound south of Ad- miralty Inlet (including Hood Canal and Saratoga Passage); the waters north to the Canadian border, including portions of the Strait of Georgia; the Strait of Juan de Fuca south of the Canadian border; and all the land draining into these waters. There are 12 counties in the planning area. The terms "Puget Sound," "Puget Sound basin," "Puget Sound region," and "the Sound" are used interchangeably in this document to refer to the planning area (see Figure 1- 1). The legislation requires state agencies and local governments to evaluate and incorporate applicable provisions of the plan into their policies and activities. 2 __________ ~ ~ ook ac R._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ illag~~~~~~~~~~awls~~ ~ ~ ~~ ORT ANGELES~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan The Authority is to propose funding mechanisms, propose new legislation as needed, and oversee the implementation of the plan. THlE PLANNING The Authority developed the first Puget Sound plan in 1985 and 1986. An ad- PROCESS FOR THE visory committee and a scientific review planiel assisted the authority in 1987 PLAN developing the plan. 'Me members of these advisory groups represented a range of expertise and a variety of interests. The Authority held public meet- ings and hearings throughout the planning process to hear from people around the Sound. Many informal meetings were also held with interested groups and individuals. In 1985 the Authority's initial planning task was to establish the scope of the first plan. This was accomplished through public meetings, review of previous studies, consultation with the advisory committee, and review of the mandates of the Authority's authorizing legislation. Major issue areas selected for the first plan were point and nonpoint sources of pollution, contaminated sedi- ments and dredging, and wetlands. During 1986 the Authority developed nine issue papers on major water quality issues. The papers examine the environmental and institutional problems and outline alternative approaches for problem solving in each area. These papers were released for public comment, and public forums were held in each of the Sound's 12 counties. The issue papers, and comments on the papers, formed the basis for the draft plan/draft environmental ipact statement which was issued in September 1986. Over 340 letters were received commenting on the draft plan, and about 275 people testified at the 13 public hearings held throughout the Puget Sound region. The Authority responded to comments by issuing a revised preferred plan and final environmental impact statement in early December 1986. The Authority adopted the final 1987 plan on December 17, 1986. UPDATE ON The 1987 plan assigned many tasks to state agencies, local governments, and IMPLEMENTATION others. The Authority has worked closely with those implementing the plan to OF THE 1987 PLAN provie guidance and assistance and to oversee implementation. Progress has been made in all of the 1987 plan's programs. Among the signs of progress: * Local committees are developing plans to reduce nonpoint source pollu- tion (pollution from surface runoff) in 12 'early action" watersheds around Puget Sound. All 12 Puget Sound counties have also formed committees to rank local watersheds for future nonpoint pollution planning. The Department of Ecology has funded these efforts through the Centennial Clean Water Fund (cigarette tax). * The Authority developed regulations (Chapter 400-12 WAC) to provide guidance to the Puget Sound counties for nonpoint source pollution plan- ning. The Departments of Ecology, Agriculture, and Social and Health Services, along with tribes, local governments, farmers, and others par- ticipated in developing the regulations. * In October 1987 the state legislature passed legislation requested by the Authority that increases fees paid for discharge permits. The Department of Ecology has developed interim regulations to collect permit fees under 4 Introduction this legislation. The fees will provide funds to improve Ecology's point source control program. The legislature also passed legislation requested by the Authority authoriz- ing Ecology to certify laboratories that provide the department with data. Ecology expects to adopt regulations and begin certifying labs in early 1989. The Authority provided $1 million in contracts from its Public Involve- ment and Education Fund (PIE-Fund) for 48 model projects that educate people about Puget Sound and/or involve them in water quality projects. The PIE-Fund received its money from the Centennial Clean Water Fund (cigarette tax). The Authority cosponsored, with other state and federal agencies, univer- sities, and consulting firms, the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Re- search in March 1988. Researchers presented 80 technical papers, and about 700 people attended the meeting. * The Department of Social and Health Services began monitoring 144 recreational shellfish beaches and in June 1988 published the first annual inventory of the status of shellfish beds in Puget Sound. * The Department of Natural Resources made a tentative commitment to purchase important wetlands in the Snohomish Delta. This is a first step in implementing the plan's wetlands program. The Department of Ecology has developed criteria for preservation of wet- lands and has called for nominations of wetlands for the preservation list. Ecology has also formed an advisory committee to help develop state rules for local wetland protection programs. The Boaters Task Force, working with the State Parks and Recreation Commission, has developed a boaters education program and a legislative proposal to provide for additional pumpout stations around the Sound. The 1987 plan called for the Authority to develop three major new programs crucial to the Puget Sound plan: (1) a comprehensive ambient monitoring program for Puget Sound; (2) a long-range strategy for education and public involvement related to Puget Sound; and (3) a system of priorities and funding for research. The plan called for each of these programs to be designed with an advisory committee composed of representatives from government agen- cies, the private sector, tribes, citizens' groups, and others. The committees have accomplished their tasks assigned in the plan, and the programs for monitoring, education and public involvement, and research form the new in- itiatives included in the 1989 Puget Sound plan. Funding for implementation of rovide guidance to the Puget Sound counties for nonpoint source pollution planning. The Departments of Ecology, Agriculture, and Social and Health Services, along with tribes, local govern- ments, farmers, and others participated in developing the regulations. The state general funds appropriated for 1987 plan implementation were less than the amount requested by the Authority. As a result, implementation of some portions of the plan was postponed. Ecology was able to disburse some initial funds from the Centennial Clean Water Fund to allow early startup of portions of the nonpoint and shellfish programs at the local level. Ecology 5 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan adopted the final guidelines for disbursement of grants from this account in July 1988. The permit fee bill was defeated in the 1987 legislative session, and was later adopted in special session in October 1987 as part of the state superfund legis- lation. An initiative which proposes an alternative to the superfund bill, in- cluding a permit fee provision, will be on the ballot in November 1988, along with the superfund bill itself. This causes some uncertainty concerning the amount of money that will be available from the increased permit fees. THE 1989 PLAN The draft 1989 plan was released for public comment in June 1988. The draft REVISION PROCESS plan built on the progress made in carrying out the first plan. The draft in- cluded new initiatives in the areas of research, monitoring, and education, and continued and updated each of the programs in the 1987 plan. In developing the first plan, the Authority became aware of a number of impor- tant issues related to Puget Sound that could not be addressed due to time and resource constraints. The 1987 plan included a list and description of these is- sues called the "unfinished agenda." The issues on the unfinished agenda range from transboundary pollution to the impacts of air pollution on the Sound. Unfortunately, lack of funding during the past two years prevented work necessary to address these problems. This 1989 plan expands the list and provides more information about what work would be necessary to address these important issues in the 1991 plan or through other means. The Authority plans to carry out or coordinate studies to obtain more information on some of these issues. Other issues will be ad- dressed by other agencies or through other means. See Chapter 5 for details. Public hearings on the draft plan were held in every Puget Sound county and in other parts of the state in July 1988. Nearly 300 people attended the public hearings, and over 100 written comments were received. The plan's three new programs in monitoring, research, and education and public involvement received the majority of comments. Many comments were also received on the Wetlands Protection Program, the Nonpoint Source Pollu- tion Program, the Sediments Standards (element P-2), and the unfinished agen- da. Some of the major themes of the commenters were: * Support for the education, monitoring, and research programs. * Support for local education field agents and the Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund). Concern about the plan's costs. Commenters suggested that the plan in- clude a more thorough accounting of all costs and/or cost-benefit informa- tion, that it address the need for long-term funding, and that priorities be set to keep costs down. * Support for a stronger Wetlands Protection Program, including restora- tion, education, and a better use of existing authorities to protect wetlands. * Concerns about schedules, especially from those involved in nonpoint watershed planning programs. 6 Introduction *High ranks for fish and wildlife habitat and groundwater contamination on the unfinished agenda as topics needing attention. Other unfinished agenda items that received widespread support included hazardous materials spills, pesticides, and the effects of air pollution on water quality. The Authority used the hearing testimony and written comments to develop the final 1989 plan. The Authority adopted this final plan on October 19, 1988. The plan is com- prehensive, addressing the Sound's problems through a range of programs. It anticipates future problems and builds on past achievements. It provides a framework for continuing efforts by all of us to protect Puget Sound over the long term. 7 Chapter 2. The State of the Sound This plan, which builds on the 1987 Puget Sound plan before it, focuses on reducing pollution entering the Sound and protecting the Sound's biological resources, including shellfish and wetlands. In developing both plans, the Authority researched current scientific knowledge of the Sound's processes and the status of its pollution and resources. Following is a brief summary of important findings from the State of the Sound 1988 Report. ESTUARINE Puget Sound shows a characteristic estuarine circulation pattern: fresh water CIRCULATION is lighter than saltwater and tends to flow seaward on top of the saltwater; the saltwater in the lower layers tends to flow landward. The Sound's shallow sills-along with inlets, channels, and other local conditions-disrupt this general pattern. Strong mixing caused by the Sound's strong tides occurs at the sills, recirculating some of the outflowing surface water. For instance, at the sill at Admiralty Inlet up to two-thirds of the outflowing water may be- come a part of the deeper layer where it will flow back into the Sound instead of exiting to the Pacific Ocean. This recirculation of water means that contaminants are not readily flushed out of Puget Sound as was once believed. This is particularly true of con- taminants that do not stay in solution or suspension but bind to sediment par- ticles. Perhaps one to five percent of sediment particles initially in the surface waters of the Sound are carried out through Admiralty Inlet; the rest are trapped in the Sound. POPULATION AND The population of Puget Sound is currently estimated at nearly 3 million, with LAND USE King County accounting for 46.4 percent of the 1987 estimated population. Most of Washington's population growth since 1980 has occurred in the state's largest counties, five of which border on Puget Sound. King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom Counties increased by about 276,000 people between 1980 and 1987, which accounts for 79 percent of the entire state's population growth in that time period. The rate of population growth, rather than sheer numbers of people, is often a good indicator of potential environmental and institutional stresses and 9 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan problems in an area. This is because land use planning activities, the provision of basic services, and local enforcement of laws and regulations may not be able to keep up with the demands of an increasing population in rapidly grow- ing areas. Puget Sound counties represented nine of the ten fastest growing counties in the state for the period between 1980 and 1987. Much of this growth took place in unincorporated areas. Island County had the highest rate of growth in the state (18 percent), while San Juan, Thurston, Snohomish, and Mason counties also had very high rates of the growth. Between 1987 and the year 2000 population in the Puget Sound region is ex- pected to grow by 20 percent, from almost 3 million to 3.6 million. The four central Puget Sound counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap) are ex- pected to add 1.5 million more people between 1987 and 2020. Land use forecasts for the year 2000 suggest that almost 1.3 million acres or 15 percent of the land in the Puget Sound area will be in intense urban or rural non-farm use by the year 2000--an increase of 62 percent for urban use and 73 percent for rural non-farm use. Most of this intensively used land is projected to be in the central Puget Sound4region. ECONOMY AND The harvest of fish and shellfish has been one of the most important human RESOURCES uses of the Puget Sound basin for as long as there have been people in the area. The total value of all commercial and recreational fish and shellfish in Puget Sound was estimated at $168 million in 1986. Salmon harvests repre- sent the bulk of the value of the Puget Sound catch. The commercial salmon catch in the Sound in 1986 was worth $44.45 million (based on price per pound paid at the boat). The retail value of this same catch was estimated at $131.84 million. The shellfish harvest (both traditional fisheries and aquacul- ture production) in 1987 was valued at over $76 million (retail). The popularity of recreational or sport fishing has increased over the last 15 years. The value of the 1986 sport salmon fishery was estimated at $74.56 mil- lion (based on an estimate that people will pay $74.16 per fishing day). The, Department of Fisheries estimates that over 3.3 million pounds of clams alone are harvested recreationally each year from Puget Sound beaches, for a retail value of over $11 million. The marine waters of the Puget Sound basin represent an invaluable aesthetic and recreational resource for residents and tourists alike. A recent study found that one-third of all outdoor recreational activities by Washington resi- dents involved fresh or salt water. The most popular in-state vacation destina- tion area was the western Puget Sound/Olympic Peninsula region which was visited by 27.9 percent of all 1986 vacationers. Recreational boating is clearly important to the region's economy. A study of the recreational marine boating industry in Washington estimated that in 1986 direct and indirect boating sales generated $895 million and $2.4 billion, respectively, and provided jobs for 17,300 people statewide. The recreational boating industry in the Puget Sound area contributed at least 80 percent of this total. Resident and non-resident travelers spent $3.51 billion and supported 74,620 jobs statewide in 1986. Seventy-eight percent of these expenditures ($2.75 bil- lion) were made in counties bordering Puget Sound. 'ravel-generated employ- ment accounted for 54,825 jobs in the Puget Sound region (73 percent of the statewide figure). 10 State of the Sound TOXIC Toxic contaminants represent the most acute and greatest long-term threat to CONTAMINATION the habitats and biological resources of the Sound. Toxicants reach the marine waters of Puget Sound from many sources, but the principal known sources are municipal and industrial point source discharges, stormwater runoff, pes- ticides from nonpoint sources, and unpermitted discharges of wastewater. In addition, the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments can disturb and redistribute these materials. There are 52 toxic chemical compounds in Puget Sound that have been identified by EPA as "pollutants of concern." However, other chemicals may be concentrating in the environment that may also be of concern. Toxic contaminants bind to particles and are largely retained as sediments in the Puget Sound basin rather than being flushed'out to open ocean waters. Many toxic substances tend to persist in the environment; thus contamination is not easily reversed. Concentrations of PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons; primarily derived from burning of fossil fuels) in sediments in central Puget Sound are currently less than half of the peak concentrations from the 1950s, but are still about 15 times higher than the baseline levels from the 1880s. Concentrations of toxicants in surface sediment in the Sound's urban bays are elevated 100 times or more over the levels in the cleanest rural bays. 'High con- centrations of toxic contaminants in sediments have been associated with higb prevalences of fish diseases and other adverse biological effects. Groundfish in contaminated areas of Puget Sound have been found to have ab- normalities such as fin erosion and liver lesions, including liver tumors. Liver tumors in English sole have been found in as many as 18 percent of the fish population in certain urban bays, and pre-tumors have been found in as many as 36 percent of the fish population. In the Sound's non-urban areas these figures are about one and four percent, respectively. More than half of female English sole tested in Eagle Harbor, and almost 40 percent of those tested in the Duwamish Waterway, failed to mature sexually and could not reproduce. Both of these areas have high levels of aromatic hydrocarbons in the sediments. Toxic contamination of sediment and biota may become more severe as population and commercial and industrial activities increase, particularly in areas that are now relatively undeveloped. However, improvements to the Na- tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system (as called for by the Puget Sound plan's Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program) to better control discharge of toxicants may reduce loading of toxic contaminants. As cleaner sediments are deposited on the bottom, they will begin to bury older sediments with higher concentrations of contaminants. POINT SOURCE Sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities that discharge into rivers and POLLUTION the Sound are considered "point source" dischargers (because they discharge through pipes at a specific point). Point source discharges (and stormwater and combined sewer overflows that are discussed below) occur throughout the Sound, but tend to be concentrated in urbanized areas. Contaminated sedi- ments from these discharges tend to be localized in these urbanized bays and inlets. Consequently, improvements in the control of point source discharges (particularly toxic contaminant reduction) will slowly improve the quality of water and surface sediments in these areas. 11 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Since the 1960s substantial progress has been made toward limiting conven- tional pollutants including bacteria, sediments, and oxygen-demanding sub- stances. For example, pulp mills have reduced oxygen-demanding discharges from two million pounds per day in 1969 to about 30,000 pounds per day in 1986. In addition, most sewage treatment plants in the Puget Sound area either have converted, or are working toward converting, from primary to secondary treatment. Conversion to secondary treatment will significantly reduce the discharge of many conventional and toxic pollutants to Puget Sound. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) has estimated that upgrading to secondary treatment at its four primary treatment plants will reduce loading of most types of toxicants to the Sound by 100 tons per year. ~ ~. ' - C~ In the past the discharge permit system for point source dischargers has not ef- fectively controlled the discharge of toxic pollutants into Puget Sound. Major weaknesses of the regulatory program identified prior to the adoption of the 1987 Puget Sound plan have been that discharge permits typically include ef- ~~'Z~~~~~ ~fluent limits for only a few contaminants (usually conventional pollutants) with few limits placed on toxicants; there are few requirements for monitoring the environment that the pollutants are discharged to; and there is no sys- tematic program for detecting unpermitted discharges, particularly outside of the urban bays. Largely as a result of the Puget Sound plan, the Department of Ecology is sub- stantially strengthening its regulation of point source dischargers to deal with some of these problems. This effort is being aided by substantial funding in- creases from discharge permit fees and from state general funds. However, it is still too early to see direct environmental benefits from these new programs. One program that has been effective at identifying and eliminating point source toxic contamination in several urban bays around the Sound has been the Urban Bay Toxics Control Program. This program was developed in 1985 by EPA, Ecology, and other agencies and organizations. Since 1985 Elliott Bay action teams have inspected 124 sites and facilities, assessed 28 penalties amounting to $44,200, and issued 36 notices of permit violations and 22 ad- ministrative orders for cleanup actions. STORMWATER AND Stormwater, or surface water runoff, contains a complex mixture of suspended COMBINED SEWER solids, oil and grease, nutrients, bacteria, viruses, and toxic materials such as OVERFLOWS lead, cadmium, mercury, organic pesticides, ammonia, and petroleum products. Stormwater samples in the Seattle area typically exceed EPAwater quality criteria for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Some storm drains in Seattle were found to be the major sources of lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found in the sediments of Elliott Bay. In more rural areas of the Sound stormwater runoff tends to contain fewer toxic chemicals and more fecal coliform bacteria. For example, stormwater dis- charging into Henderson Inlet in southern Puget Sound periodically violates state fecal coliform standards for water, and has been found to be one factor in the closure of commercial shellfish beds at the head of the inlet. Ten cities around the Sound have combined sewers where sanitary sewage, in- dustrial wastewater, and stormwater are collected in a single sewer system. Discharges from these systems typically contain high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and suspended sediment (with associated high levels of metals and organic toxicants). During large storms some of this com- bined effluent is discharged directly to the Sound without treatment. For ex- 12 State of the Sound ample, in an average year Metro discharges about two billion gallons of raw sewage, untreated stormwater, and industrial effluents from about 20 com- bined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the Seattle area. NONPOINT Nonpoint source pollution is typically defined as pollution that is discharged SOURCE from diffuse, scattered sources rather than through pipes. Nonpoint pollution POLLUTION AND includes bacteria, sediments, nutrients, and toxicants that are picked up by SHELLFISH rainwater and carried into streams, rivers, and eventually the Sound, or that are discharged directly into the water from boats and other water-based sour- ces. Because sources of nonpoint pollution are so numerous, varied, and dif- ficult to detect, their cumulative effects on water quality and habitats of the Sound can be significant. The effects of nonpoint source pollution are experienced throughout Puget Sound. One of the more notable effects is the number of commercial shellfish growing areas that have been closed because of high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Some commercial shellfish beds were closed to harvest as early as the 1950s. More recent closures include five commercial shellfish beds that have been reclassified to a more restricted status since December 1986. Preliminary monitoring results show five recreational sites that consistently exceed fecal coliform standards. This bacterial contamination appears to originate from failed on-site sewage disposal (septic) systems, domestic and wild animal was- tes, and contaminated stormwater. In many areas bacterial contamination has increased with increasing rural development of residences and small (but numerous) noncommercial farms that use septic systems and maintain animals on their property. Since rural development is expected to continue at a high rate, nonpoint source con- tamination is likely to increase. Forest practices are another potential contributor to nonpoint source pollu- tion. Sediment loading from timber harvesting and road construction can damage stream fish habitat, and poor forest practices can introduce pesticides, nutrients, and organic debris to streams. The Timber/Fish/Wildlife (T/F/W) agreement is a precedent-setting effort that was negotiated in 1986-87 by state resource agencies, timber industry repre- sentatives, Indian tribes, and environmental groups. The agreement provides for a more holistic approach to forest practices and includes, among other things, provisions for interdisciplinary teams to inspect and approve on-site harvest plans; protection of riparian areas along larger streams; training and more emphasis on research and monitoring; and the provision for upland management areas for the use and protection of wildlife in harvested areas. Full implementation of this agreement will help protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in streams and rivers affected by forestry activities. Agricultural practices can introduce a variety of nonpoint pollutants including sediment, fecal bacteria, nutrients, salts, organic chemicals, and pesticides. Programs have been developed by Ecology and the Washington State Conser- vation Commission (e.g., the Dairy Waste Management Program), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and conservation districts to manage and control agricultural nonpoint pollution. These programs generally rely on voluntary implementation of best management practices (BMPs) although enforcement of water quality standards may also be 13 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan used. Examples of farm BMPs include manure storage lagoons, pasture management, stream fencing, streamside protection, and erosion control. The overall effectiveness of these programs has been limited in the past by in- adequate funding and too little attention to noncommercial farms. These small farms represent a significant, largely uncontrolled source of agricultural nonpoint pollution in the Sound. Voluntary implementation of BMPs is increasing throughout the Sound by both commercial and noncommercial farms, and improved water quality has been found in certain areas where the majority of land owners are implement- ing BMPs. Puget Sound conservation districts report that in 1986 481 land- owners were using some type of BMP to reduce nonpoint source pollution; 412 additional landowners used BMPs in 1987. Failing on-site sewage disposal (septic) systems can discharge bacteria and household chemicals to groundwater, streams, and eventually to Puget Sound. Approximately one-third of the residents in the Puget Sound area are served by on-site systems. About 405,000 septic systems were operating in Puget Sound in 1987, and the Depirtment of Social and Health Services estimates the overall failure rate at 3.5 to 5.0 percent. This means that as many as 14,000 to 20,250 septic systems may have failed in Puget Sound in 1987. A recent sur- vey of local health agencies found estimated failure rates of up to 12 percent in some areas of the Sound. Sewage discharge from boats is a potential problem during the boating season wherever large numbers of boats congregate. Boat fueling and maintenance activities can also be sources of pollution. It is difficult to quantify direct ef- fects of boat bacterial waste because of variations in temperature, turbidity, tides, season of the year, and the number of persons aboard each boat. Some studies have found that boating activities significantly increase water and shellfish bacterial levels; others have been less conclusive. However, state and local health agencies are increasingly recommending the closure of recreation- al shellfish beds near popular boating areas and marinas. LOSS OF WETLANDS One major environmental consequence of Puget Sound's growth has been the destruction of wetlands for agricultural, port, industrial, residential, and com- mercial development. Of the approximately 22,500 acres (9,000 hectares) of coastal wetlands present in 1800, nearly 14,000 acres (5,600 hectares) have been diked, filled, and converted to other uses. Virtually all of the saltwater and estuarine wetlands in the Lummi, Duwamish, and Puyallup deltas have been lost. In stream corridors where pastures continue to be created there has been a 50 to 60 percent loss of wetlands. In farming areas such as the Skagit Valley wetland losses are estimated to be as high as 90 to 95 percent. Commer- cial development in areas such as the Green/Duwamish river basin has eliminated over 95 percent of the original wetlands. A recent analysis of the State Environmental Policy Act conservatively estimated that 530 acres of un- protected freshwater wetlands are being degraded or destroyed statewide each year. 14 Chapter 3. Action Plan INTRODUCTION This chapter contains the 1989 action plan for cleaning up and preventing pol- lution of Puget Sound. The purpose of this plan is to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of Puget Sound. The strategy for achieving this purpose is to protect and enhance three resources: water and sediment quality; fish and shellfish; and wetlands. The following goal provides the basis for the plan: It shall be the long-term goal of the state to prevent increases in the introduc- tion of pollutants to the Sound and its watersheds, and to reduce and ultimate- ly eliminate harm from the entry of pollutants to the waters, sediments, and shorelines of Puget Sound. In seeking this goal, agencies shall take into con- sideration the net environmental effect of their decisions in order to minimize the transfer of pollutants from one environmental medium to another. The plan's emphasis on prevention recognizes the simple truth that it will cost far more to clean up pollution later than to prevent it now. T'he plan is based on a premise of shared responsibility among all of us in the Puget Sound region and recognizes that both water and pollutants cross jurisdictional lines. It establishes a framework based on a partnership among levels of govern- ment, each having a defined set of responsibilities in different program areas. The plan recognizes and includes actions by state and local governments, tribes, the private sector, citizens, and the federal government. is 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, which was adopted unanimously by the Authority in December 1986,1 provides the basis for this updated 1989 plan. This plan continues (with some modifications) each of the programs in the 1987 plan and includes new initiatives in the areas of research, monitoring, and education. The 1989 plan supersedes the 1987 plan. The programs for research, monitoring, and education are based on recom- mendations developed by three committees2 whose members contributed many hours to the development of this plan. The education strategy, which is included as elements ES-1 through ES-12 in the Education and Public Involve- ment Program, outlines the actions necessary to achieve a well-informed and active citizenry engaged in the protection of Puget Sound. The Research Program calls for the Authority to set research priorities, sponsor research, dis- seminate research findings, and develop a long-term institutional structure for these functions. The Monitoring Program will assess conditions over time of water, sediments, and biological resources in order to create a comprehensive information base for management of the Sound. The programs that follow this introduction are organized in a consistent for- mat. Each program is prefaced with a brief statement of the problem that led to the creation of the program and a summary of progress made in implement- ing the program since the adoption of the 1987 plan. This is followed by the program goal, the strategy for achieving this goal, and the elements comprising the program. Following each element is a brief status section which describes the progress in implementing that element. For each program, the major ac- tions flowing from the program which the Authority intends to review are listed and any legislation required by the program is specified. Finally, the program's estimated cost is summarized. Following the programs is a discussion of the costs and proposed financing for the plan as a whole. When this plan was released for public review in June 1988, the public sector cost of implementing the programs for fiscal years 1990- 91 was estimated to be $88.2 million. This compares to an estimated $26.6 mil- lion that is projected to be spent during the current (1988-89) biennium. Due to concern regarding the level of funding that might be available for the next two years, the Authority made reductions in all programs. The projected cost for the plan is now 61 percent of $88.2 million, or $54.0 million. This is sig- nificantly less than what the Authority believes is needed to achieve the plan's goals for the Sound. Reductions in plan programs were achieved by postpon- ing activities until the FY 1992-93 biennium. The Costs and Financing section at the end of this chapter includes a table showing the reductions made in each program to achieve a scaled-down plan. Summaries of local government responsibilities under the plan and programs that request tribal involvement conclude the chapter. 1 The Authority has amended the 1987 plan twice since its adoption. After action by the 1987 legislature on the plan's budget, the Authority amended the plan in September 1987 to reflect a funding shortfall for several of the plan's programs. Some of this funding shortfall was relieved by the passage of SB 6085 which increased fees for waste discharge permits (as called for by plan element P-4). The plan was amended in February 1988 to reflect this partially restored funding and to make minor changes in wording or target dates for some elements. The 1989 plan incorporates all amendments to date. 2 These committees are: the Committee on Research in Puget Sound, the Monitoring Management Committee, and the Education and Public Involvement Advisory Group. Lists of committee members are provided at the front of this plan. 16 AMTON PLAN MONITORING PROBLEM There is currently no long-term, comprehensive program to monitor Puget DEFINITION Sound and its resources. Some programs of federal, state, and local agencies measure the condition of water, sediment, and biological resources of the Sound, but these programs are generally not Soundwide. and there is little cooperation or coordination among the programs. Frequently, substantial amounts of data are gathered as part of specific, project-related intensive Sur- veys, short-term or localized monitoring, and compliance monitoring. These programs are designed and implemented independent of one another. Am- bient monitoring, discharge monitoring, intensive surveys, and other programs to assess the quality of Puget Sound water, sediments, habitat, and biological resources are not currently integrated or coordinated. Currently, over $1 mil- lion is spent annually by federal, state, and local agencies monitoring various aspects of Puget Sound. A comprehensive monitoring program will determine the effectiveness of regulatory programs, evaluate long-term trends in environmental quality, and assist in resource management decisions. Preventing overlap and duplication of programs is a concern in implementing a comprehensive program. PROGRAM STATUS ' M e Monitoring Program in the 1987 plan directed the Authority to form a Monitoring Management Committee (MMC) consisting of representatives of federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, Canadian agencies, industry, the scien- tific community, and the public. The MMC was charged with developing a monitoring recommendation for the Authority, including: (1) goals and objec- tives for an ambient Soundwide monitoring program; (2) a technical design for 'ii ~~ambient monitoring; (3) a data management system to handle all ambient 7 ~~~monitoring data; (4) a cost estimate and potential funding sources for the program; (5) opportunities for citizens' monitoring; and (6) a strategy for up- dating and integrating the Puget Sound Atlas with the monitoring program. This committee was established in October 1986. Prior to the formation of the MMC, a monitoring design had been developed by a private contractor (Tetra 'ich) under the direction of the Office of Puget / -. ti/ ~~~~Sound, Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This draft monitoring design was given to the MMC in November 1986 for review and further refinement. Throughout 1987 and early 1988 the MMC worked on changes and refine- ments to the monitoring program design. 'Me committee met monthly to dis- cuss the sampling design and to develop a data management system, an institutional framework for implementing the Puget Sound Ambient Monitor- ing Program (PSAMP), and a cost estimate for the program. The consensus process was used throughout for decision-making. Eleven technical subcom- mittees met during the course of PSAMP development. The membership of the subcommittees was drawn from the MMC and from outside experts. In support of the committee's work, EPA Region 10 surveyed most existing monitoring programs in Puget Sound. Federal, state, and local agencies, spe- cial purpose districts (water districts, sewer districts, etc.), tribes, selected professional organizations, and the shellfish industry were asked about their monitoring programs, legal mandates for monitoring, cooperation with other agencies, data needs, and capabilities. The results of this survey were used to 17 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan identify overlaps among existing monitoring programs and to aid in the assign- ment of field collection and analysis efforts for PSAMP. The draft PSAMP design was reviewed by a broad audience; workshops were held for the general public and for local government and tribal staff during September 1987. Members of the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) Tech- nical Advisory Committee (TAC) and other scientists in the Puget Sound area provided scientific review of the draft design in December 1987 and January 1988. The MMC presented their final report and recommendation to the Authority in April 1988. The committee's report provides the basis for this program.3 Implementation tasks of PSAMP accomplished during 1988-89 include: initia- tion of field sampling and laboratory analysis of sediments by Ecology funded by $500,000 state general fund money; redirection of current marine water column and freshwater efforts by Ecology; sampling for paralytic shellfish poisoning by DSHS; and citizens' monitoring pilot projects funded through the Authority's Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund). PROGRAM GOAL 'lTob implement the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP). This program was designed to: (1) assist decision-making of agencies by charac- terizing and interpreting spatial and temporal trends and identifying problem areas; (2) take measurements to support specific program elements and measure the success of the Puget Sound plan by providing a permanent record of significant natural and human-caused changes in key environmental in- dicators over time; and (3) provide an ongoing assessment of the health of the Sound. PROGRAM The strategies for achieving these goals are (1) to establish an institutional STRATEGY structure to manage the monitoring program; (2) to implement the monitor- ing program design, data management system, and quality assurance plan recommended by the Monitoring Management Committee in April 1988; (3) to collect, analyze, interpret and report data in a manner that is useful to water quality managers and to the public; and (4) to annually review the monitoring program to ensure that the most appropriate and cost-effective monitoring ele- ments are included. PROGRAM The previous program elements M-1 and M-2 have been replaced in total by ELEMENTS new elements. M-1. PSAMP The management structure for the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program Management Structure (PSAMP) will consist of the PSAMP Steering Committee, the MMC, and the 3 Certain of the environmental variables examined by the MMC were not included in the PSAMP recommendation due to high costs, lack of adequate protocols, or logistic constraints. For example, sampling and analysis of freshwater sediments for toxics could not technologically be accomplished for a reasonable price and were therefore not included in the program. Many of the variables rejected for this initial PSAMP design should be given serious consideration in future iterations of the program. Funding levels and/or technological advances may allow for their addition to the program. 18 ACTION PLAN Authority. Staff, housed at the Authority, will provide technical and ad- ministrative support to the program. The PSAMP Steering Committee will be chaired by the Authority and will be composed of one representative from each of the implementing agencies (see M-2), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), tribal government, and local government. Additional members will be added in the future if deemed necessary by the Authority. The PSAMP Steering Committee will be respon- sible for the overall coordination and management of PSAMP; coordination of agency activities; the review of technical and interpretive reports of PSAMP in- formation; and the sanction of protocols for use in PSAMP. The PSAMP Steering Committee shall meet every month or as needed, and shall reach decisions by consensus. The MMC shall be chaired by the Authority and shall consist of repre- sentatives from: the state Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Social and Health Services; Metro; local water and sewer districts and local public health officials; tribes; federal agencies includ- ing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Soil Conservation Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers; Canadian agencies; industry; shellfish growers; the scientific community; and citizen organizations. The MMC shall act as the advisory group to the PSAMP Steering Committee. Proposed major changes to PSAMP shall be referred to the MMC by the PSAMP Steering Committee. Major changes include but are not limited to: addition or deletion of a PSAMP task or major sub-task; change in assignment of an implementing agency; setting funding priorities among PSAMP tasks; changes in protocols, sampling design, or criteria for locating sampling sta- tions; and any other technical issue upon which the PSAMP Steering Commit- tee cannot reach agreement. The MMC shall meet twice a year or more frequently as needed. If the PSAMP Steering Committee cannot reach agreement on major changes to PSAMP or other technical issues after consultation with the MMC, or on any other issue, the PSAMP Steering Committee as a whole, or any member in- dividually, may refer the matter to the Authority for resolution. The PSAMP Steering Committee and the MMC shall review and reassess the design of PSAMP on an annual basis. The Authority shall facilitate agency cooperation among the state agencies im- plementing PSAMP; provide arbitration for interagency disagreements con- cerning PSAMP; provide and house the monitoring program staff; provide the central data management functions; and distribute integrated, interpretive reports of PSAMP results. The Authority shall: implement PSAMP Steering Committee and Authority decisions; coordinate the monitoring program; manage a central database sys- tem; provide technical review of field collection and laboratory analysis design; provide quality assurance review of PSAMP data; prepare technical assess- ments of PSAMP progress for the PSAMP Steering Committee; ensure that program revisions are coordinated among agencies; provide technical assis- tance to program participants in areas of data analysis and interpretation and field and laboratory activities; organize outside technical assistance, where needed, to help in review of monitoring data and program revisions; prepare 19 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan integrated reports from data reports; and coordinate with other monitoring and research efforts. Memoranda of agreement shall be negotiated between each implementing agency and the Authority in order to: ensure the implementation of PSAMP; allow for future modifications of the program, as needed; secure long-term stable funding for PSAMP; and develop a permanent record of data for Puget Sound. These agreements shall include commitments of work to be performed by one agency to support products of another agency, product reviews, consult- ation, and technical support. When the Authority sunsets, those Authority functions associated with the management of PSAMP will be assumed by another organization. The com- mittee on long-term Puget Sound institutional structure, described under ele- ment PDI-1, will include consideration of appropriate organizations to assume the Authority's functions. Thrget Dates: The management structure for PSAMP will be operational by July 1989. Memoranda of agreement will be negotiated and signed between the implementing agencies and the Authority during the fall of 1988. [Status: The Monitoring Management Committee was formed in October 1986. The PSAMP Steering Committee was formed in August 1988.] M-2. Puget Sound The design of PSAMP, completed by the MMC in April 1988, and subject to fu- Ambient Monitoring ture amendment, is adopted for use in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Am- Program (PSAMP) bient Monitoring Program shall collect and analyze samples and carry out surveys to determine the quality of the water, sediments, biological popula- tions, and habitats of the Puget Sound basin, using protocols, quality as- surance checks, data storage, and reporting procedures, as detailed in the PSAMP document. The implementing agencies shall carry out specific assignments for implement- ing PSAMP, as directed by the PSAMP Steering Committee. Initially, the state Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Social and Health Services have been chosen as the implement- ing agencies. Other federal, state, and local agencies, tribal governments and other organizations may become implementing agencies in the future. Program tasks outlined in the 1988 MMC report shall be assigned to the im- plementing agencies as follows: Sediment, Water Column, Freshwater, River Mouths - Ecology Fish - Fisheries Birds, Marine Mammals - Wildlife Nearshore Habitat - Natural Resources Shellfish - Social and Health Services Changes to the program shall require approval of the PSAMP Steering Com- mittee in consultation with the MMC. The program shall include, at the least, sampling for sediments, water quality variables, biological populations, and habitat, within the limits of available funding. Location, timing, and frequency of sampling stations in each program task shall follow the approach outlined in the MMC 1988 report and shall include a 20 ACTION PLAN network of fixed and rotating stations for each task as specified in the MMC report. Target Dates: The state Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Social and Health Services shall begin implementation of PSAMP by July 1, 1989. [Status: Sediment sampling will take place during the spring of 1989, with $500,000 of 1987 plan funds. Marine water column funding within Ecology has been redirected beginning in spring 1988; freshwater funding within Ecol- ogy will be redirected during fall 1988. Sampling and analysis for paralytic shellfish poisoning is ongoing by DSHS. Waterfowl surveys by Wildlife are on- going. DNR and EPA began a pilot project to inventory nearshore habitat by remote sensing during summer 1988. Other portions of PSAMP are scheduled to begin in July 1989. Partial funding for this element will be requested for FY 1990-91. Full implementation of all the program tasks will be delayed until FY 1992.] M-3. Citizens' The Authority shall develop a citizens' monitoring program to collect data Monitoring which will supplement PSAMP and act as an educational and public involve- ment tool (see element ES-3 for further details on citizens' monitoring). At a minimum, at least one citizens' monitoring project shall be carried out each year. Those portions of PSAMP which may be suitable for citizens' monitoring programs include: (1) field checking of nearshore habitat; (2) collection of water column chlorophyll and nutrient samples; (3) digging of clam samples for chemical and bacteriological analysis; or other tasks deemed appropriate by the monitoring program staff in consultation with the PSAMP Steering Committee. The monitoring program staff will provide technical support for citizens' monitoring projects funded under this element. Data collected under citizens' monitoring programs shall be subject to the same protocols and quality assurance checks as all other portions of PSAMP. Target Date: Citizens' monitoring projects associated with PSAMP will begin in July 1989. [Status: The Authority began implementation of a citizens' monitoring program in June 1988 through funding provided by the Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund). Only partial funding is being requested for this element for FY 1990-91, which allows a limited level of citizens' involve- ment in PSAMP.] M-4. Data Data management and quality assurance for PSAMP shall be carried out Management and through a centrally coordinated data management system. Responsibility for Quality Assurance data storage and analysis shall be distributed among the implementing agen- cies and the monitoring program staff. Each implementing agency shall develop data management systems, as specified in the PSAMP report, to manage all data generated under those tasks of PSAMP for which they are responsible. The monitoring program staff shall develop and maintain a central database of PSAMP data, as specified in the PSAMP report, including a computerized data inventory. 21 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan All data generated under PSAMP shall meet the quality assurance require- ments specified in the PSAMP report and those subsequently ratified by the PSAMP Steering Committee. The implementing agencies shall transfer data to the central database, follow- ing quality assurance checks. Standardized computer codes and formats shall be specified by the PSAMP Steering Committee and used uniformly for all data transfers between and among the implementing agencies and the Authority. The monitoring program staff shall prepare a recommendation for updating the Puget Sound Atlas. The recommendation shall be reviewed by the MMC and the PSAMP Steering Committee, modified as appropriate, and adopted by the Authority. The relationship of the Atlas to a Puget Soundwide geographic information system (GIS) shall be assessed as a part of that recommendation. Thrget Dates: 'Me state Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Social and Health Services shall have operational data manage- ment systems by December 31, 1989. The monitoring program staff shall have an operational central database by July 1, 1989. The Authority shall adopt the recommendation on the Puget Sound Atlas and GIS by June 1, 1989. [Status: As of October 1, 1988, progress in this program included the follow- ing: The implementing agencies are in the planning stages for developing data management systems. Systems for sediment, nearshore habitat, and paralytic shellfish poisoning will be operational by July 1989. The central database design document was completed in July 1988; implementation of the design will begin in October 1988. Partial funding is requested for FY 1990-91, com- mensurate with the amount of data that will be collected under M-2.] M-5. Monitoring The implementing agencies shall analyze and report data for those tasks of the Reports program for which they are responsible, as specified in the PSAMP report, in consultation with the monitoring program staff. The implementing agencies shall each prepare an annual report which shall in- clude a compilation of data, statistical analyses, interpretation, and recommen- dations for changes in the monitoring program design. 'Me monitoring program staff shall prepare an integrated technical report, as specified in the PSAMP report, using information supplied in reports from the implementing agencies and the monitoring databases. The PSAMP Steering Committee and the MMC shall review the integrated technical report prior to its release. T'he monitoring program staff shall translate the findings of the technical report into an annual Puget Sound Update, which will be written for a non- technical audience. TIhrget Dates: The first annual reports shall be completed by the state Depart- ments of Ecology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Natural Resources, and Social and Health Services by November 1, 1989. The first annual technical report and Puget Sound Update shall be prepared by the monitoring program staff by March 1, 1990. 22 ACTION PLAN [Status: As of October 1, 1988, there has been no activity under this element. Partial funding is requested for FY 1990-91, commensurate with the amount of data that will be collected under M-2.] M-6. Additional The goals of PSAMP would be enhanced by the addition of appropriate inten- Monitoring and Data sive survey data that are compatible. The PSAMP Steering Committee shall Management Needs consult with state and local agencies concerning the applicability of their inten- sive survey data to PSAMP. The state Departments of Ecology and Social and Health Services and other state agencies shahl collect and store information from intensive surveys, to the maximum degree feasible, according to sampling and analysis protocols specified by the PSAMP Steering Committee. Ecology and DSHS, and other agencies as appropriate, shall, to the maximum extent practicable, transfer appropriate intensive survey information to the central database at the request of the monitoring program staff. Transfer of the infor- mation shall be accomplished using data transfer formats developed under ele- ment M-4. Collection and storage of information in a manner compatible with PSAMP is addressed for compliance monitoring surveys in elements P-8 and P-17; for nonpoint monitoring in elements NP-7.1 and MB-6; for shellfish monitoring in elements SF-3 and SF-5; and for wetlands evaluation in elements W-2 and W-6. Target Date: Ecology and DSHS shall begin using PSAMP protocols by July 1, 1989. Intensive survey data shall be stored in compatible format by December 31, 1989. [Status: As of October 1, 1988, there has been no activity under this element.] M-7. Evaluation of In order to ensure that PSAMP remains a necessary and cost-effective PSAMP program that generates data useful to scientists and water quality managers, periodic evaluations of the program shall be conducted. Five years after the start of the program and every three years thereafter, the PSAMP Steering Committee shall identify an independent organization with appropriate techni- cal expertise to evaluate PSAMP. The independent organization shall prepare a report for the PSAMP Steering Committee which evaluates: (1) the effec- tiveness of PSAMP sampling, analyses, and data management in meeting program goals; (2) the degree to which quality assurance requirements are met and are effective in generating high quality data; (3) the degree to which PSAMP reports are effective and appropriate in meeting the program goals; (4) the continuing need for PSAMP sampling and analysis tasks, parameters, sampling frequencies, and station locations; (5) the degree to which PSAMP is being implemented according to the overall design strategy; and (6) the degree to which PSAMP results are used in water quality management decisions. The report shall also make recommendations for improvements to the program in- cluding the addition or deletion of monitoring tasks. Target Dates: First evaluation starts by July 1994 with report due to the PSAMP Steering Committee by December 1994. [Status: As of October 1, 1988, there has been no activity under this element. No funding is requested for this element for FY 1990-91.] 23 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan MAJOR PUBLIC None ACTIONS FOR REVIEW LEGISLATION None REQUIRED ESTIMATED COST Development of the monitoring program cost approximately $197,800 during fiscal years 1988 and 1989, including participation by members of the MMC and Authority staff time. Individual agencies and organizations contributed their staff time for participation on the MMC, while Authority staff time devoted to the monitoring program was largely funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. This does not include the costs of earlier reports prepared by EPA and NOAA that provided the basis for the MMC work. During 1987-1989 portions of the planning and startup costs for PSAMP were funded by EPA: development of the central Puget Sound database, coordina- tion of the program, protocol development, and characterization of nearshore habitat. $500,000 in state general fund money was directed toward startup and baseline monitoring of sediments during fiscal year 1989. Full funding for the monitoring program would cost $3.2 million a year to im- plement ($6.4 million over the biennium), with additional startup costs of $650,000 incurred over the first one to two years. However, only $4.6 million is being requested for the FY 1990-1991 biennium. Field sampling and laboratory analysis of sediment, water quality, and biological population samples constitute the most costly element of the program, with an annual cost of $2 million. Cost estimates are shown in the following table, which in- cludes costs for. field sampling, laboratory analysis of samples, coordination and management of the program, providing a central data management sys- tem, coordination of a citizens' monitoring program, development and main- tenance of individual agency data management systems, implementation of quality assurance procedures, and production of technical and public-release reports. The elimination of duplicative efforts and redirection of state agency monitor- ing programs has reduced the annual cost of the monitoring program by $480,000. Cost savings (as well as educational benefits) are also proposed through the involvement of the public in collecting samples at several loca- tionis around the Sound, although there are costs associated with running a citizens' monitoring program. No significant private sector costs have been identified for this program, with the exception of staff time provided by representatives of the private sector who serve on the Monitoring Management Committee. Increased monitoring costs for dischargers are addressed in the Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program. 24 ACTION PLAN ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: MONITORING COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY B9 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 M-1,2 Monitoring Committee and Recommendation .... 96,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 M-1 PSAMP Management Structure ........... 45,009 56,509 120,880 120,880 151,240 151,240 151,240 M-2,4,5 Monitoring, Data Management and Reports Freshwater task .......................... 0 0 130,300 53,300 339,282 339,282 339,282 Sediments task ......................0 496,382 504,993 520,750 589,014 589,014 589,014 RiverMouthstask ....................0 0 274,612 240,940 381,880 381,880 381,880 Water Column Task ......................... 0 0 268,732 95,366 561,710 561,710 561,710 Fish tosk ............................ 0 0 359,012 279,008 318,345 318,345 318,345 Birds and Mammals task ........................ 0 0 205,279 171,088 172,422 172,422 172,422 Shellfish task ........................... 0 0 175,932 150,027 192,034 192,034 192,034 Nearshore Habitat task ..................0 0 222,861 172,261 145,994 145,994 145,994 Central Data Management ................0 0 188,720 158,720 135,120 135,120 135,120 M-3 Citizens' Monitoring ................ ..0 0 103,521 104,521 104,581 104,581 104,581 TOTAL $145,926 $649,141 $2,554,841 $2,066,860 $3,091,622 $3,091,622 $3,091,622 Element Notes M- 1,2 Costs of 1987 plan elements that developed the ambient monitoring program. M-1 Includes cost of PSAMP Steering Committee, MMC, and monitoring program staff. M-2,4,5 Includes costs from detailed estimates for individual monitoring tasks. Start-up costs are included in the first year. M-3 Start-up costs of $15,000 in 1989 are shown in the Education program under the PIE-Fund. M-7 Independent program evaluation will occur every three years beginning in fiscal year 1995. COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 EPA ....... .....................0 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Other Federal ........................ 13,500 13,500 0 0 0 0 0 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,700 502,082 1,188,488 920,207 1,881,737 1,881,737 1,881,737 DSHS ......... . ................1,572 1,572 179,389 153,484 195,491 195,491 195,491 PSWQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,917 107,750 370,903 341,903 Fisheries ........................... ....... 1,215 1,215 362,822 282,818 322,155 322,155 322,155 Wildlife ..... ... .................... 1,442 1,442 211,684 177,493 178,828 178,828 178,828 Natural Resources ............... ........1,853 1,853 226,977 176,377 150,110 150,110 150,110 Local Government ...................... 19,729 19,729 7,577 7,577 7,577 7,577 7,577 Monitoring Organization ............... ......0 0 0 0 348,723 348,723 348,723 TOTAL $145,926 $649,141 $2,554,841 $2,066,860 $3,091,622 $3,091,622 $3,091,622 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Federal Funding ............. ......82,750 94,250 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 State General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,447 535,162 2,540,264 2,052,283 3,077,045 3,077,045 3,077,045 Local Sources ......................... 19,729 19,729 7,577 7,577 7,577 7,577 7,577 TOTAL $145,926 $649,141 $2,554,841 $2,066,860 $3,091,622 $3,091,622 $3,091,622 25 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan RESEARCH PROBLEM Research4 is essential for understanding Puget Sound and its associated water- DEFINITION sheds and for developing management options for the long-term protection of the Sound. Research and monitoring together form the technical underpin- ning of the plan. Monitoring can establish baseline conditions and determine trends in those conditions. Research can take the monitoring findings and es- tablish the underlying processes and relationships that result in particular monitoring observations. Research is also integral to developing more ac- curate, practical, and cost-effective methods and technologies for monitoring and sample analysis. I~ I ~~There is no comprehensive and coordinated program of research for the management of water quality in Puget Sound. Although much research on the physical and biological systems of Puget Sound has been completed, there are significant questions to be resolved. For example: We know less about the shallow nearshore zone, the southern and north- 7Zg 9 ~ ern portions of the Sound, and the embayments than about the central basin of the Sound; * We know very little about the natural variability in the living populations of the Sound; and * We know very little about the biological and geochemical processes that transform toxic chemicals in the estuary and therefore control their fate and toxicity. At present, the funds for most of the research conducted on Puget Sound are administered by federal agencies or state program offices that were set up as the regional managers for federal program funding. None of these agencies claim responsibility for Puget Sound as a whole or view their primary objective as the support of research. Rather, research and contract studies are funded specifically to provide information that supports the agency's ability to carry out its mission. As such, the scope of the research is necessarily limited to the perspective of the agency, and there is limited research that looks at the cumulative effects of decisions on the Puget Sound ecosystem as a whole. On some occasions the purposes of the separate agencies have been combined in the same research due to communication among the funders, regulators, and researchers through the Puget Sound Estuary Program and other formal and informal arrangements. However, there is no mechanism through which the producers, consumers, and funders of research can agree on the priorities for research on Puget Sound. As federal dollars available for research on water quality are being steadily reduced and other sources of research funds have not yet increased, making best use of the funds that are available (while seeking additional funds) is essential. The present system often falls short of delivering research results to decision- makers, other involved parties, and the general public in a form and time 4 Scientific investigation in which a hypothesis, idea, or assumption is developed and tested through systematic collection and objective analysis of data. 26 ACTION PLAN frame that allows the results to be used in decisions. A portion of agency-spon- sored research resides in "gray" literature--internal reports that may not receive formal peer review and for which the distribution is limited. Academic research is generally published in peer-reviewed journals, but agency managers have little opportunity or encouragement to devote time and effort to keep abreast of these multiple literature sources. Staff at the local planning level have a particularly strong need for research results that are translated into operating guidelines or model programs that they can readily adapt to their specific situations. Decision-makers and others concerned with Puget Sound have been confused by disputes among scientists about the appropriate interpretation of existing research. Scientists feel equally frustrated that their expertise and guidance is not requested or given appropriate weight in decision-making. Scientists who do speak publicly find they are all too easily tagged as advocates of a particular interest group or policy. This may hinder the acceptance of their technical ex- pertise in the future on issues of public concern. As population grows in the Puget Sound basin, the potential for pollution in- creases along with the demands on Puget Sound and its resources. The issues involved in balancing these demands are becoming increasingly complex. Decisions on these issues need to be supported by a knowledge of the natural system and the effects of human activities on that system. Separating the natural variability from the human-induced changes requires a sustained re- search effort. The present fragmented pattern of agency-sponsored, short- term contract studies needs to be augmented to: (1) provide a closer connection between the research agenda of the scientific community and the information needs of managers, regulators, and those involved in decisions to manage the Sound; and (2) support research that increases our general knowledge of the Puget Sound system but that is beyond the purview of a single agency. The problems encountered in the present research system distill down to two questions: (1) How can we ensure that the effort and resources that are devoted to research are commensurate with and appropriate for the problems we will confront in managing the Sound? and (2) How can we ensure that the results of existing research are understood and available for the decisions that we make on Puget Sound water quality? PROGRAM STATUS As called for in the 1987 Puget Sound plan, the Committee on Research in Puget Sound was established in February 1987 and asked to make recommen- dations to the Authority on eight issues important to Puget Sound research, in- cluding: research priorities, institutional needs, data management, research reserves, and the publication and dissemination of research results. The com- mittee was composed of 20 representatives of academic institutions, state and federal agencies, the business community, agriculture, environmental groups, and private research organizations. The committee organized itself into two subcommittees which met monthly to accomplish their tasks. The Subcommittee on Establishing Research Priorities developed a process for establishing priorities and then, beginning in July 1987, used the process to generate the first list of research priorities. The process had three steps: 27 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 1. Identification of research needs and questions: Agencies and other groups and individuals involved in Puget Sound decision-making were asked to identify the issues and concerns where they felt additional research was needed. 2. Expert analysis of research questions: Technical work groups of research scientists were convened to discuss the status of research in six general areas encompassing the questions from step 1. These areas were: the dis- tribution and physical/chemical factors related to toxic chemicals, the biological effects of toxic chemicals, habitat modification, conventional pollutants and nutrients, microbiological contamination, and environmen- tal and regulatory policy. Each group attempted to reach a consensus on the five to ten priority research questions in each of these areas. 3. Ranking of research topics: The research committee reviewed the priorities from the technical work groups and ranked the research priorities within each general area based on three criteria: the importance or significance of the problem; timeliness; and the benefit for resources committed. This ranked list of priorities is included in the committee's final report (see below). The Subcommittee on Institutional Issues identified the desired functions and characteristics of an institutional structure to address the current problems re- lated to coordination and funding of research, dissemination of research results, and use of research results in decision-making. The subcommittee then reviewed the structure, responsibilities, and operation of existing institu- tions in the Puget Sound region relative to these functions. They also looked at institutions elsewhere in the country to see what could be learned and adapted from those institutions to suit the specific needs in Puget Sound. Based on this analysis the research committee developed a recommendation for a new institutional structure, the Puget Sound Research Foundation. This proposed foundation is a unique combination of the successful features of the other institutions. The draft report of the committee was completed in January 1988 and was cir- culated to tribes, state and federal agencies, industrial, agricultural, and en- vironmental organizations, academic institutions, and the TRchnical Advisory Committee of the Puget Sound Estuary Program for their review and com- ment. The final report was printed and distributed in March 1988.5 The Authority also directed the research committee to convene a meeting on Puget Sound research. The First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research was convened in Seattle on March 18-19, 1988. More than 700 people at- tended the meeting. Scientists presented recent research results related to Puget Sound and explained the implications of their results to other re- searchers, water quality managers, and the public. Also, the committee 5 Copies of the final report of the Committee on Research in Puget Sound are available upon request from PSWQA. 28 ACTION PLAN presented its final report at the meeting and received comment from a diverse panel of responders and from other meeting participants.6 PROGRAM GOAL To establish a system of priorities and funding for research that (1) adds to our knowledge of the physical and biological systems of Puget Sound; (2) identifies causes and solutions of pollution problems; and (3) assists decision-making ac- tivities of regulatory and management agencies while stimulating creativity and excellence in research. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal includes: (1) establishing under the Authority a Puget Sound Research Program to promote the coordination and funding of Puget Sound research and to assist in making the results of research available for decision-making; (2) developing legislation to establish an inde- pendent foundation to accomplish these functions on a long-term basis; and (3) adopting a list of initial research priorities for sponsorship by the Puget Sound Research Program. PROGRAM ELEMENTS R-1. Puget Sound The Puget Sound Research Program shall be established under the auspices of Research Program the Authority to serve as the regional focal point to set research priorities, sponsor research, and disseminate research findings related to Puget Sound and its watersheds. The Puget Sound Research Program shall be organized and managed as fol- lows: (1) the Authority shall set policy and provide oversight of the program; (2) a senior scientist shall serve as director to oversee administration and serve as spokesperson for the program; (3) a 12-member scientific council ap- pointed by the Authority shall recommend research priorities and manage the review of proposals for research; and (4) a management council shall provide input on research priorities, assist in coordinating funding for research, and jointly with the scientific council sponsor forums on technical issues and other activities to foster translation and dissemination of research findings. The management council shall consist of representatives from federal and state agencies and local and tribal governments which either manage a program to fund Puget Sound research or have responsibility for managing Puget Sound water quality and natural resources. Representatives of industry, citizens' groups, and other associations or groups that use the results of research will be non-voting members of the management council. The Puget Sound Research Program shall carry out the following functions: 6 The two-volume proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, containing manuscripts of the papers presented, the executive summary of the committee's report, and transcripts of the panel discussions, is available at a cost of $20.00 from PSWQA. Copies are also available at most public libraries around the Sound. 29 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 1. Research Needs and Priorities: The program shall manage a process that takes a comprehensive regional approach to identifying and setting priorities for Puget Sound research needs (including problems or proces- ses occurring in watersheds draining into and affecting Puget Sound). Specifically, this process shall provide for: a. Interactions among scientists and agency managers in setting priorities; b. Involvement by agencies that support research in order to foster their use of the priority list in deciding which research to fund in Puget Sound; and c. Periodic updates of the priority list so that it is useful to federal, state, and local agencies, industry, tribes, and other groups involved with Puget Sound in meeting their management needs. T'he program shall encourage agencies, industry, and other organizations that fund research to consider the list of research priorities in their own process for allocating research funds. 2. Fund Raising. The program shall initiate a funding development program to establish a permanent and stable funding base from industry and other private sources as well as from federal and state entities for support of the research program and other functions of the program. 3. Research Grants Program: The program shall establish and manage a com- petitive research grants program to support research on the priority list that is not adequately funded by government agencies or other sources. The program shall solicit peer reviews of proposals submitted in each high- priority research area. Proposals shall be selected on the basis of estab- lished criteria, including, but not limited to: quality, significance of expected scientific contribution, importance to an affected Puget Sound resource, and cost. The program shall work cooperatively with agencies to allocate funds, including supporting basic or process-oriented research that may not be within a particular agency's mission but that is required to understand and use the results of applied research. 4. Translation and Dissemination of Research Results:7 The overall program shall support timely dissemination and translation of Puget Sound re- search results useful to the public and resource managers. Specifically, the program shall: a. Establish a policy that research supported by the program should undergo peer review and where appropriate be published in technical and scientific journals; b. Support preparation of synthesis or review papers on key Puget Sound issues; c. Publish an annual report summarizing progress on program-supported re- search and other activities; d. Sponsor conferences on Puget Sound research that include presentations on current research, discussion of the implications of the research, and an as- sessment of research priorities for the coming year; 7 Ibis function shall be coordinated or integrated as appropriate with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program and the Education and Public Involvement Program. 30 ACTION PLAN e. Sponsor forums for discussion of differences in scientific interpretation of re- search results; the forums should lead to consensus on points of agree- ment and identification of ways to resolve disparities; and f. Communicate and provide educational opportunities to increase public un- derstanding of how research contributes to the resolution of current and future issues related to water quality in Puget Sound. 5. Data/Information Management: The program shall facilitate access to data and other information dealing with Puget Sound that is not readily avail- able through the open literature, particularly unpublished research and data. The program will not become a repository for raw data and publica- tions but it shall act as a "broker" between those having information and those needing it, including the public, the scientific community, regulatory and resource management agencies, and environmental and community groups. This function shall be coordinated with the data management functions of PSAMP, which include the use of a central database of PSAMP data and the development of a computerized data inventory. The PSAMP data inventory will serve as a source of information on what com- puterized data are available and how they may be obtained. 6. Coordination With Other Programs: The program shall ensure that research and monitoring activities are coordinated. This includes reviewing the in- tegrated technical report of the PSAMP to identify research needs related to developing analytical and sampling methodologies or investigating questions raised by the monitoring results. In addition, the program shall coordinate to the greatest extent possible with research and monitoring programs including: the Puget Sound Estuary Program, NOAA, water- shed monitoring programs, and T/F/W. 7. Inventory and Recommendation of Research Reserves: The program shall coordinate with the Natural Heritage Program of the Department of Natural Resources and others to inventory geographic areas that are reserved for research, e.g., the University of Washington areas at Friday Harbor and Shaw Island, Western Washington University's Shannon Point Marine Center, federal and state wildlife refuges and parks, the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and other public and private preserves. The program shall recommend establishment of addi- tional reserves if specific ecosystems are missing or underrepresented, either for use as reference areas for monitoring or for research. rlbrget Dates: The research program will be established under the Authority in July 1989. [Status: The first research priority setting process was completed by the Re- search Committee and documented in their final report in March 1988. All other portions of this new element are proposed to begin in July 1989. Only partial funding is requested for this element in FY 1990-91.1 R-2. Puget Sound Concurrent with establishing the Puget Sound Research Program the Research Foundation Authority shall commence the necessary steps to ensure the long-term functioning of the program after the sunset of the Authority. The Authority shall draft legislation to establish the Puget Sound Research Foundation as an independent nonprofit corporation. This draft shall serve to foster discussion and shall be considered in 1989 by the Authority in conjunction with recoin- 31 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan mendations for long-term institutional solutions to protect Puget Sound (ele- ment PDI-1). The mission of the foundation would be as follows: 1. To promote the coordination and support of research most needed to under- stand the character and functioning of Puget Sound and the significance of human impacts on natural processes and resources of the Sound; and 2. To assist in making the results of that research available and useful to the decision-making process. If legislation is pursued, the Authority would seek a joint state-federal charter for the foundation by requesting that the Washington state Congressional delegation submit proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate and the U.S House of Representatives to establish the foundation and to provide for Congres- sional matching funds for the support of its research grants program. The Authority would submit proposed legislation to the Washington state legislature to charter the foundation and to provide funding for administration of the corporation and for operation of the research grants program. The foundation would be chartered to perform seven functions related to re- search: (1) identifying and setting research needs and priorities, (2) managing a research grants program, (3) conducting fund raising, (4) assisting in the translation and dissemination of research results, (5) assisting in data/informa- tion management, (6) coordinating with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitor- ing Program (PSAMP), and (7) performing an inventory of and recommending research reserves. The organizational structure of the foundation would be designed to: 1. Facilitate and enhance the potential for generating broad-based, permanent, and regionally-controlled funding; 2. Provide for active participation in the activities of the foundation (especially the setting of research priorities) by the scientific community, industry, tribes, citizens' groups, local governments, and state and federal regulatory and resource management agencies; 3. Ensure that scientific experts in a range of technical disciplines are available to provide independent advice and guidance to the processes of estab- lishing research priorities, recommending research grant awards, and translating and disseminating research results; 4. Foster interagency coordination and funding of research efforts pertinent to Puget Sound; 5. Enhance access to and communication of research data and results for all parties concerned with Puget Sound management. Target Dates: The decision on when to submit legislation to the state legisla- ture and to the Congress shall be dependent on the outcome of the study con- ducted under element PDI-1 (Long-Trm Puget Sound Institutional Structure). [Status: Draft legislation will be prepared during the winter of 1988-89. All other portions of this new element are proposed to begin in July 1989 under the auspices of the Authority.] 32 ACTION PLAN R-3. Research The Authority hereby adopts the following list of research priorities developed Priorities by the Committee on Research in Puget Sound. This list shall serve as a guide to agencies in their decisions to fund research pertinent to Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Research Program shall review and the Authority shall readopt the research priorities on a biennial basis. The long-term research goals and the research priorities for FY 1990-91 are listed below. Long-Term Research Goals: 1. Understand the effects of conventional pollutants on Puget Sound and ad- jacent habitats. 2. Understand the effects of toxics on Puget Sound and adjacent habitats. 3. Understand the effects of adjacent habitat alterations on Puget Sound aquatic resources. 4. Understand and improve the effectiveness of environmental decision-making on Puget Sound. Research Priorities for FY1990-1991: 1. Develop background data on the effects of agricultural runoff on offsite water quality. 2. Characterize the input, cycling, and effects of nutrients in embayments and nearshore waters, and the relationship of these processes to activities in the watershed. 3. Identify and investigate biological effects in the sea-surface microlayer and other zones of contaminant concentration. 4. Develop a better understanding of the chemical and physical processes that control the fate and effects of chemicals introduced by effluents into Puget Sound. 5. Investigate the impacts of changes in water quantity on wetlands and the ef- fects of wetlands on watershed hydrology. 6. Develop an understanding of regional wetlands functions and values, and develop objective criteria for their measurement and evaluation. The Puget Sound Research Program shall provide support under the research grants program for scientists to conduct research on these priorities. This sup- port shall include appropriate funding and encouragement to ensure that re- search findings are communicated and translated into a form that is usable by decision-makers. This should be accomplished through prompt publication of research results in technical journals and in publications that are accessible to local government planners, agency staff, and others. The Puget Sound Re- search Program shall sponsor and convene forums, workshops, and conferen- ces to discuss technical issues and the implications of the collected body of research information. Target Dates: This list shall be reviewed, revised as appropriate, and readopted by March 1990 and thereafter on a biennial basis. 33 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Staltus. This new element is proposed to begin in July 1989.] MAJOR PUBLIC None ACTIONS FOR REVIEW LEGISLATION 1. Potential federal legislation establishing a foundation and authorizing Con- REQUJIRED gressional appropriations as matching funds for state and private dollars that are contributed to support the foundation's research grants program (R-2). 2. Potential state legislation chartering the foundation and appropriating funds to administer the foundation and operate the research grants program (R-2). 3. Potential federal legislation to create additional national estuarine research reserve(s) in the Puget Sound basin or state legislation to set aside land for protection as a long-term, undisturbed site for monitoring, and re- search on Puget Sound (R-1). ESTIMATED COST The work of the Committee on Research in Puget Sound, including convening the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, cost $179,000 for the fis- cal year 1988-89 biennium. Individual agencies and organizations contributed their staff time for participation on the committee. The primary costs were for Authority staff for the committee, contractor support to organize the research meeting, and other costs associated with the research meeting and the publica- tion of the committee's report and the proceedings of the research meeting. Full funding for the research program would have cost $4.5 million, but only $1.8 million is being requested for the FY 1990-91 biennium. This figure in- cludes $600,000 in state general funds each year for research grants. Costs are estimated at $3.4 million in FY 1992, increasing to $4.0 million in FY 1994. The increases would provide additional staff to provide program support along with research grants of $3 million in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 and $3.5 mil- lion in fiscal year 1994. The annual research conference is estimated to cost $57,000 each year during the FY 1990-91. These amounts include an assumed contribution from agen- cies and the private sector that is based on the level of support that was provided for the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. 34 ACTION PLAN ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: RESEARCH COST BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 R-1 Committee on Puget Sound Research ....... 103,745 75,541 0 0 0 0 0 R-1,2,3 Puget Sound Research Program .......... . ... 0 0 898,407 898,407 3,352,027 3,410,164 3,969,206 TOTAL $103,745 $75,541 $898,407 $898,407 $3,352,027 $3,410,164 $3,969,206 Element Notes R-1 Activities called for by the 1987 plan and interim activities. R-1,2,3 Includes $600,000 per year for fiscal years 1990 and '91, $3,000,000 for fiscal years 1992 and '93, and $3,500,000 in 1994 to fund competitively selected research projects. Assumes that donations provide partial funding for the research conference. COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 PSWQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 103,745 75,541 898,407 898,407 Research Foundation .......................... 3,352,027 3,410,164 3,969,206 TOTAL $103,745 $75,541 $898,407 $898,407 $3,352,027 $3,410,164 $3,969,206 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Federal Funding ........................59,235 58,129 48,000 48,000 52,000 53,000 53,000 State General Fund ......................44,510 17,412 850,407 850,407 3,300,027 3,357,164 3,916,206 TOTAL $103,745 $75,541 $898,407 $898,407 $3,352,027 $3,410,164 $3,969,206 35 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROBLEM Pollution prevention requires an ongoing commitment from an informed, in- DEFINITION volved public. Both education and public involvement are necessary com- ponents of a long-term management strategy for the Sound and its resources. Education is necessary to foster public recognition of the Sound as a regional 'N ~~~~and national resource, and to stimulate public, governmental, and private sec- tor support for the changes in lifestyle and financial commitment necessary to preserve the Sound. Education is necessary both as a supplement and an alter- native to enforcement programs. While enforcement can act as an educational tool, it does not entirely correct many pollution problems which result from in- dividual actions such as improper disposal of wastes from households, automobiles, or boats. Enforcement is an impractical and often infeasible tool to address these problems. Individual responsibility and appropriate disposal actions are better achieved through education and public involvement. Over- all management and protection of Puget Sound wili require both regulatory and voluntary or educational programs. An educational survey conducted by the Authority (August 1986) and the in- formation gathered from the 200 individuals from the public and private sec- tors who participated in developing the strategy (1987-88) reveal that: 1. Most education programs related to water quality or Puget Sound have suf- fered because they were not tied to any sustained funding base. 2. Most programs are developed on an institution-by-institution basis; these programs are not coordinated with other potentially similar efforts in the region. 3. 'Mere has been no consistent access to information bases on Puget Sound for formal education programs in schools and colleges, for nonformal educational programs, (i.e., interpretive centers, business and industry bul- letins) or for citizen committees and resource managers involved in public policy decisions. 4. Agencies generally do not have the resources to provide coordinated techni- cal assistance or training to public and private sector groups which have, the potential to undertake significant education and public involvement programs. S. Educational programs in state agencies are sporadic, and very few positions are allocated for educational activities. 6. Messages about resource management are generally presented on a piecemeal program-by-program basis rather than delivered with a com- plete and concrete message about a resource and the actions needed to protect it. 7. Educational messages have been addressed to general rather than specific audiences. &. Many environmental curricula related to Puget Sound have been developed for K-12, but there have been limited funds to train teachers to use them. 36 ACTION PLAN Public involvement in actions to clean up and protect Puget Sound is impor- tant because the public can bring information, expertise, values, funding, and priorities to the decision-making process. Experience has also shown that resource management programs which have not adequately educated or in- volved the public are often met with resistance or animosity, and some ul- timately fail as a result. Successful agency and local government programs need to include participation both by highly organized citizen groups which might be designated as representative of certain sectors or perspectives and by individuals who, unaligned with any group, are representing themselves or the general public. The 1986 PSWQA issue paper on Public Involvement in Water Quality Policy- making noted that the level of public involvement in water quality programs and activities varies widely with the issue and the agency. Generally, staff time and training are not specifically dedicated to public involvement. Certain re- quirements for effective public involvement are generally not being met. These include: (1) timely, understandable, and complete notice of pending ac- tions; (2) access early in any decision-making process; (3) ease of access to the process; and (4) response to citizens on how comments or recommendations are used. While education and public involvement activities are sometimes very distinct activities aimed at different audiences for different purposes, the two fre- quently are inseparable and work toward the same end. For example, com- munity programs such as adopt-a-stream and adopt-a-beach can be equally effective as public involvement and education techniques. Furthermore, public policy decisions require participation by citizens who have been edu- cated about the issues. For example, agencies and governments have a respon- sibility to educate individuals who serve on advisory committees. Within this context, education and public involvement should be considered together in order to integrate and reinforce their complementary aspects. PROGRAM STATUS In its first two years, the Authority focused more formally on public involve- ment than on education. Based on the Authority's 1986 issue paper on Public Involvement in Water Quality Policy-making, a public involvement policy was defined and included in the 1987 plan. Public involvement is defined as an on- going dialogue between interested and affected parties and decision-makers in all steps in the decision-making process. The public involvement policy (EPI- 3) must be followed by all state and local agencies in activities related to im- plementing the plan and will be considered in evaluating local and state agencies' compliance with the plan. Since the adoption of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan in 1987, one of the major activities of the Authority has been the funding of a series of demonstration projects through the Public Involvement and Educa- tion Model Projects Fund (the PIE-Fund, EPI-2). State agencies and local governments have, to varying degrees, been following the public involvement policies for plan implementation, with the Authority providing limited techni- cal assistance for public involvement and education (EPI-3, EPI-5). The Authority is preparing a list of materials about the economic and ecological value of Puget Sound which are available from federal and state agencies and local governments; a water quality directory for Puget Sound issues is also being prepared (EPI-6). Ecology has designated a public involvement coor- dinator and is preparing a brochure explaining its mailing lists (EPI-7). The Authority has also funded support for teacher training in existing curricula on 37 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Puget Sound (EPI-8). The Authority has minimal staff support for its library, and as a result there is very limited public access to these materials (EPI-9). The major new development in the Education and Public Involvement Program is the long-range strategy. The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management plan called upon the Authority to 'coordinate the development of a long-range education and public involvement strategy in support of clean- ing up and protecting Puget Sound.' According to the plan, the development of the strategy was to include: a. An inventory of existing information and education programs related to Puget Sound. b. Examination of the effectiveness of existing education and public involve- ment strategies on Puget Sound. c. Analysis of the potential role of the media. d. Assessment of the potential roles of private sector and grass roots com- munity resources and programs. e. Coordination and integration of the education and public involvement ef- forts in other programs called for in the plan. Since public involvement was significantly addressed through the public invol- vement policy, the strategy focuses more on education. The strategy includes expanded training in public involvement for state agencies, local governments, citizens' groups, and individuals. Other elements of the strategy will also provide resources to support implementation of the public involvement policy, for example, the field agents, resource teams, and access to public information. 'lb advise the Authority in developing the strategy, the Education and Public Involvement Advisory Group (EPIG) was established. This 12-member group was composed of educators, media experts, and representatives of environmen- tal and public interest groups, industry, business, agriculture, tribes, state and federal agencies, and local governments. In turn, to assist the advisory group in examining the many diverse components which any comprehensive strategy must address, work teams were set up to assess the existing and potential roles of various institutions and types of activities. Each work team produced a report based on the consensus of its members who represented a wide range of skills and perspectives. The reports included: Formal Education-K- 12 and Post-Secondary; Media; User Groups (or private sector groups); Action Programs (e.g., adopt-a-stream, oil recycling, etc.); State Agencies and Interpretive Centers; Nonformal Education (the many agency, local government, and private sector activities happening outside the formal education system); and Public Involvement 38 ACTION PLAN 'Me education strategy proposes: 1. Local field agents or facilitators for education and public involvement. 2. Continued support of education and public involvement programs through the continuation of a modified PIE-Fund. 3. Coordination of state programs to design comprehensive messages for par- ticular audiences on how to keep waste out of water (these programs can then be used by local governments and the private sector). 4. An ongoing Puget Sound information base or clearinghouse. 5. Funding to improve school and interpretive center programs. 6. Integration of technical expertise, training, and educational programs of resource agencies which have responsibilities related to issues in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. 7. Training to improve public involvement programs and processes. 8. A steering committee to further examine the means to raise funds to support education and public involvement programs. The full strategy developed by the Authority as a result of the advisory process appears in the plan. However, due to concern over the limited availability of state general funds, only partial funding is sought for the next biennium. Specifically, the field agents, resource teams, the PIE-Fund, the K-12 programs, the steering committee, and the coordinated messages for target audiences are proposed at partial funding levels for the 1990-91 biennium. The information base and most support to interpretive programs are being delayed for two years. PROGRAM GOAL. 'lb support, improve, and sustain education and public involvement programs in the region over the long term in order to: (1) inform, educate, and involve individuals, groups, businesses, industry, and government in the cleanup and protection of Puget Sound; (2) increase understanding of the Sound's ecosys- temn; and (3) create the kind of commitment that will be necessary to sustain ef- forts to improve and protect water quality over the long term. STRATEGY The strategies for achieving this goal include: (1) a public involvement policy to be followed by agencies and local governments; (2) increased resources to state agencies for coordinated interagency education programs; (3) field agents to coordinate among local and regional education and public involve- ment programs; and (4) a Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund) to support public involvement and education efforts of both the private and public sectors. 39 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan PROGRAM ELEMENTS EPI-i. Long-Range Strategy (ES-i through ES-10) ES-i. Guidelines The following guidelines shall be used in developing programs as part of the long-range strategy for education and public involvement: * Support activities which develop an ethic which promotes protecting Puget Sound as a treasure. * Move beyond the 'us versus them' attitude and emphasize water quality as being in everyone's self-interest. * Develop mechanisms for cooperation among the public sector, private sec- tor, and educational institutions. * Focus on local issues and resources and how they relate to the larger pic- ture, promoting a sense of place. * Emphasize interesting, innovative activities which involve people, put them in charge of decisions, and lead to local action. * Provide people with solutions, with things they can do. * Include concrete goals toward which everyone can work and which will visibly demonstrate progress and success. * Include connection with an ongoing information base which provides ac- curate information on Puget Sound issues. * Build on existing programs. * Improve coordination of and cooperation among the education and public involvement resources and activities of state and local governments. * Design and organize activities, training, and information which are tailored to the target audience. * Include youth. * Concentrate resources at the local level but include a Soundwide entity or process which will provide common direction, standards, and coordination for local actions. * Include an ongoing public awareness "theme" campaign which will support and connect education and public involvement activities. * Conduct educational activities in a variety of settings, both regulatory and non-regulatory. 40 ACTION PLAN * Have clear goals and objectives and a built-in means of evaluating and modifying the strategy. ES-2. Local Audiences 2.1. Local Field Agents The Washington Sea Grant Program, the Washington State Cooperative Exten- sion Service, and the Authority shall together provide field agents to help coor- dinate and implement education and public involvement efforts related to water quality and the Puget Sound plan, with an emphasis on working with local governments. The locations and responsibilities of the agents shall be publicized through agency and local government publications and hotlines. Specific responsibilities of the field agents shall include: a. Assistance to Local Governments. Providing or arranging technical and staff support to help local governments develop and implement education and public involvement activities or programs which are directly related to im- plementation of the Puget Sound plan. In the counties where field agents are working, each county will work with the field agents to develop a list of the education and public involvement priorities for that county, based on consultation with other local governments and interested groups in the county. Field agents will use these priorities as a basis for design of their work plan. b. Public Involvement. Facilitating public involvement in local, state, and na- tional water quality issues: aiding and encouraging agencies to follow the public involvement policy of the Puget Sound plan (EPI-3); using local means to notify groups of impending decision-making processes and op- portunities; providing or arranging for public involvement training at the local level. c. Funding. Facilitating funding of local education and public involvement programs by identifying sources of funds, including informing groups about the PIE-Fund (ES-8). d. TechnicalAssistance. Providing or arranging for technical assistance and training for local education and public involvement programs, including the use of the resource teams (ES-5). e. Coordination. Coordinating local programs with regionwide or statewide programs and with programs in the Puget Sound plan; participating in the technical coordinating committee (ES-7.2). f. Watershed Committees. Publicizing the work of local watershed committees to local residents and providing information to those committees upon re- quest (NP-2). g. Evaluation. Assisting in evaluation of the success, effectiveness, and direc- tion of education and public involvement programs related to the Puget Sound plan and the education strategy (ES-7.2): working with a local ad- visory process; aiding local programs to develop evaluation techniques; working with the Authority and the steering committee to develop overall evaluation techniques for the long-range strategy (ES-9). 41 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan For the 1990-91 biennium Sea Grant and Cooperative Extension will desig- nate six field agents to begin a model program in which agents carry out the above responsibilities. An additional six field agents shall be added over the next two biennia. A management group consisting of representatives from Sea Grant, Coopera- tive Extension, and the Authority shall oversee the program. The management group will involve local governments in the process of hiring and evaluating the field agents and in determining where the agents will be lo- cated. The management group will decide the location of the field agents based upon the following criteria: (a) interest shown in participating in the program as indicated in writing by local governments, groups such as the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, or other interest groups; (b) the need to test the field agent model in different geographic areas and in both urban and rural set- tings; and (c) the need to test the field agent model as both a regional and a local approach to developing programs. Target Date: The management group shall request letters of interest from local governments and private sector groups which would like a field agent in a particular region by August 1, 1989. Sea Grant and Cooperative Extension shall hire field agents by September 1, 1989. Counties in regions designated for field agents shall provide a list of education priorities to the management group by November 1989. [Status: This is a new element. Funding is requested for the 1990-91 bien- nium to support six field agents. The long-term goal is to have 12 to 14 agents in the region.] 2.2. Target Audiences With Ecology as lead, Ecology, DSHS, and the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Wildlife shall organize their educational resources to provide different audiences in business and industry with comprehensive messages on the actions necessary to prevent pollution generated by the particular activities of each audience. This program would integrate information for each audience on issues such as municipal sewage treatment systems, pretreatment programs, discharge permits, stormwater systems, septic systems, solid waste landfills, hazardous waste disposal, and waste reduction. Ecology shall desig- nate the order in which target audiences are addressed by this program. With Cooperative Extension as lead, Cooperative Extension, conservation dis- tricts, the Departments of Agriculture, Ecology, Social and Health Services, Fisheries, and Wildlife shall organize their educational resources to provide target agricultural audiences and pesticide applicators with a comprehensive message on the actions necessary to prevent their wastes from entering water. With State Parks as lead, Parks, DSHS, Ecology, and Fisheries shall continue to work with the Boaters Task Force (see MB-3). With Sea Grant as lead, Sea Grant, Ecology, and Fisheries, requesting assis- tance from the Coast Guard, shall organize a similar program for commercial fishing and marine transport industry audiences. Counties, cities, and special purpose districts, with support materials from the state or local field agents (ES 2.1), shall provide education programs for local homeowners or residents. They shall utilize existing programs such as the early 42 ACTION PLAN action watershed programs, countywide nonpoint education programs, and the local hazardous waste management planning process. The lead agency in each case described above shall invite representatives of other appropriate agencies, including the Business Assistance Office of the Department of Trade and Economic Development, local field agents, and members of the target audience to develop the information and materials, and to define the best mechanisms to deliver the message (e.g., trade fairs, bul- letins, trade association seminars or conferences, in-house training, com- munity college classes, videos, agency programs, etc.) The lead agency, in consultation with members of the target audience, shall determine who should deliver the program (the state, the private sector, local field agents, local governments, or educators). As a rule, the state should develop the program, and other appropriate groups should deliver them. Target Dates: Ecology shall hire its education coordinator by July 1, 1989. By June 30, 1990, Ecology shall develop and begin implementation of programs for six audiences, Cooperative Extension and Agriculture shall develop and begin implementation of programs for agricultural audiences, and field agents shall begin coordinating the programs for local audiences. [Status: This program is partially funded. Cooperative Extension and Agricul- ture will develop programs for agricultural audiences. Sea Grant will not begin its program. Ecology will target six audiences in conjunction with its waste reduction program. The department will address more than six audien- ces if possible. The Business Assistance Office of Trade and Economic Development will not be funded to support this program in the 1990-91 bien- nium.] ES-3. Schools 3.1. Teacher Training The Office of Environmental Education of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall coordinate and fund a Soundwide program to train elementary, middle school, junior high, and high school teachers in environ- mental education. School districts shall be provided with funds for teacher- release time to attend workshops to learn to use existing curricula related to Puget Sound and water quality. Matching funds shall be made available to ex- isting programs for workshop facilitation and materials. Target Dates: SPI will begin to advertise and organize workshops and training programs by July 1, 1989. Approximately 400 teachers will be trained by June 30, 1990. [Status: Funding is requested to train approximately 600 teachers, instead of the 1,200 proposed in the full strategy. This is an increase in the funds current- ly available to train teachers in environmental education.] 3.2. School and The Office of Environmental Education shall provide water quality kits to Citizens' Monitoring schools to undertake pilot freshwater monitoring projects related to agency Programs and citizen programs. When these programs have been operating for a year, the Office of Environmental Education shall consult with the Authority, Ecol- ogy, the Monitoring Management Committee, community college faculty, elementary and high school teachers, and citizens to provide recommendations 43 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan to the Authority on: (1) the feasibility of expanded citizens' and school monitoring programs; (2) the parameters for which citizens and students can best provide information for PSAMP and freshwater programs; (3) ap- propriate laboratory support and training for such a program; (4) data access and feedback mechanisms for effective citizen and school participation in monitoring programs; and (5) the practicality of integrating monitoring into existing school curricula. (See element M-3 for more information on citizens' monitoring.) Target Date: Provide kits to schools by January 1, 1990. Make recommenda- tion to the Authority by April 1991. 3.3. The Office of The Office of Environmental Education of the Office of the Superintendent of Environmental Public Instruction shall hire certificated professional staff to support and im- Education prove K-12 environmental education in the Puget Sound region. Specifically, the office shall: (1) coordinate and implement the teacher training and monitoring assessment programs described above; (2) staff the interagency En- vironmental Education Task Force (ES-7); (3) facilitate access to Puget Sound information resources for schools and teachers (ES-6); (4) work with local field agents to facilitate school and student participation in other programs re- lated to the Puget Sound plan-watershed planning, adopt-a-beach programs, household hazardous waste collection days, interpretive center displays, etc. (ES-2, ES-8.1); and (5) publish annual educational schedules and activities of regionwide interpretive centers (ES-4.1). Target Date: SPI shall hire staff by September 30, 1989. [Status: Partial funding is proposed for this new element. SPI is allocated staff to carry out tasks one and two above. The other tasks will be carried out at status quo until the Office of Environmental Education receives increased funding.] ES-4. Interpretive Activities 4.1. Existing Centers The Authority shall provide funding to existing interpretive centers8 around the Sound to support staff development and training, workshops, displays, and interpretive activities on Puget Sound. The Authority shall publish criteria under which interpretive centers may apply for capital funds to develop facilities or displays. The Authority and the Office of Environmental Educa- tion will publicize the schedules and activities of interpretive centers on a regionwide basis. The Authority shall provide funding for one half-time staff for each of two interpretive centers a year. The Environmental Education Task Force will determine which centers should receive staff. 8 Snake Lake Nature Center (City of Tacoma); Bellingham Maritime Heritage Center (nonprofit); Padilla Bay (Department of Ecology); Nisqually Delta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Poulsbo Marine Science Center (nonprofit); Fort Worden Marine Science Center (nonprofit); Feiro Marine Lab (Port Angeles); Seattle Aquarium (City of Seattle); Point Defiance Aquarium (City of Tacoma); Whale Museum, Friday Harbor (nonprofit); Jetty Island (City of Everett); Blaine Marine Resource Center (being developed; Blaine). 44 AMITON PLAN Thrget Dates: The Authority shall publish criteria by November 30, 1989. In- terpretive center staff will conduct one staff training session for the centers by June 30, 1990. [Status: Most of this new element is being delayed until the 1992-93 bien- nium. A small amount of capital funds will be available to fund facilities and displays. A small staff cross-training fund will be available.] 4.2. New Centers In 1991 the Authority shall convene a committee of existing representatives of interpretive centers, public and private nonprofit organizations, state agencies, local governments, tribes, and business and industry to provide recommenda- tions for the development of new interpretive centers which would fill both geographical and topical gaps in interpretative activities related to the Sound. The committee shall specifically examine the need for centers which interpret (a) river systems in the Sound, and (b) the Sound as a whole. Thrget Date: Delayed. [Status: This new element is being delayed until the 1992-93 biennium.] 4.3. Washington State The Department of Riansportation shall initiate a program on the Washington Ferries State Ferry system which will train volunteers to make presentations on topics directly related to Puget Sound such as the history of the ferry system, the his- tory of ports, marine resources of the Sound, protection of Puget Sound, etc. The display system implemented by the Washington State Ferries for the Cen- tennial Celebration shall be continued and expanded after the conclusion of the Centennial. Target Date: The Department of Riansportation shall hire staff by July 30, 1989. 'Me volunteer program will begin for the ferry 'off-season' by October 15, 1989. [Status: This is a new program.] 4.4. Interpretive Policy: For each topic or issue which would benefit from interpretive Programs programs or projects (as opposed to major centers), the interagency Environ- mental Education Tabsk Force (ES-7) shall designate a lead agency to develop a pilot interpretive project. The lead agency shall convene a committee includ- ing private and public sector representatives to develop a cooperative interpre- tive project which identifies the issues, perspectives, controversies, expertise, and educational approaches related to a comprehensive interpretive program for that topic or issue. Lead agencies are already designated for those topics listed below: Watersheds and Fish Habitat: The Department of Fisheries shall convene a committee including representatives of Wildlife, tribes, sports fishermen, com- mercial fishermen, nonprofit organizations, DNR, local governments, and the private sector to develop a model watershed interpretive program at one or more hatcheries located at sites easily accessible to visitors. This planning process and model shall provide the basis for coordinated interpretive programs on watersheds, fish habitat, and nonpoint pollution at many Fisheries, Wildlife, and tribal hatcheries, following the policy above. 45 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Fisheries shall create a major display at one hatchery a year for the next five years, to be staffed by Conservation Corps members or by interns who would ideally be provided by business, industry, or sports groups. Fisheries shall fund smaller displays, workshop activities, and tours at three hatcheries a year for the next five years, staffed by Conservation Corps members, interns, or volun- teers, as necessary. Wildlife shall create a major display at one hatchery every two years. Fisheries, working with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commis- sion, shall grant funds to one tribe a year for development of an interpretive display at its hatchery. Pilot activities will focus on those hatcheries which can draw the largest recreational audiences and also on those which would best support countywide education and local watershed action programs under the Puget Sound plan. Target Dates: Fisheries will convene a meeting to discuss the program by Sep- tember 30, 1989. Two hatcheries will be provided a minimum amount in capi- tal funds to enhance or create interpretive displays by November 30, 1989. [Status: This program is being delayed until the 1992-93 biennium. However, a small amount of capital funds will fund projects at two hatcheries.] Shellfish: The Department of Fisheries shall convene a work group that in- cludes agencies, boaters, shellfish growers, and tribes to develop an interpre- tive program at an appropriate location in Puget Sound (see Shellfish element SF-7). Target Date: The program shall begin by May 1, 1990. Wetlands: The Department of Ecology shall develop and implement a long- range wetlands education strategy that augments Ecology's existing wetlands education program (see Wetlands element W-7). Ecology shall work with groups and agencies specified in W-7 to implement the components of the strategy. Target Date: Ecology shall submit the strategy to the Authority by May 1, 1990. Agencies shall complete the interpretive program by September 1, 1990. [Status: This is a new program.] Contaminated Sediments: Ecology, in cooperation with DNR, shall develop educational materials dealing with sediment contamination issues. This effort shall be integrated with the public information/public involvement activities under elements S-4 and S-7. The resulting materials shall be maintained and made available, independent of those elements, to educators, the media, and the public. The materials shall address how particles collect in estuaries, how contaminants bind to particles and the relative concentrations in water and sediment of various types of contaminants, how sediment-bound contaminants come into contact with organisms, sources of contamination, known distribu- tion of sediment contamination in Puget Sound, sediment criteria, the dredged material management system including confined disposal, and contaminated sediment investigations including remedial actions. In addition, the ecology of bottom-dwelling organisms, their importance to the overall ecosystem, and their dependence on sediment quality shall be explained. Individual actions that may contribute to sediment contamination shall be identified. Target Date: An initial package of materials shall be developed and made available by January 1, 1990. 46 AMTON PLAN [Status: This is a new program that will begin in July 1989.1 ES-S. Agency Thaining and Resource Teams 5.1. Public The Department of Personnel shall sponsor or conduct workshops on public Involvement involvement skills for state agency staff responsible for carrying out the Workshops programs of the Puget Sound plan. These workshops shall be held in Olympia and in the agencies' regional offices and shall be open to local governments and citizens interested in the Puget Sound plan. Target Date: The Department of Personnel shall conduct three workshops by December 30, 1989. [Status: This is a new program.] 5.2. Short Course on The Department of Community Development shall develop and conduct an ex- Local Planning panded Short Course on Local Planning which includes a component on Puget Sound water quality protection and shall widely advertise the availability of the course. Ti'rget Date: The Department of Community Development shall develop the class and be ready to advertise and respond to requests by December 30, 1989. [Status: This is a new program.) 5.3. Resource Teams Policy: The interagency Environmental Education Task Force shall designate lead agencies for interagency resource teams on resource issues related to Puget Sound such as wetlands, nonpoint pollution, shellfish, fisheries, or wildlife habitat, as needed. The teams shall be available to: * Identify all regulatory, scientific, policy, and technical issues related to the management and protection of a particular water quality topic or Puget Sound resource; * Identify the controversies concerning management of that resource; * Identify what is and is not known about both problems and solutions re- lated to managing or protecting the resource. The teams should identify local government, tribal, and private sector exper- tise and perspectives. These teams should be available at the request of the local field agents to provide an introduction, outline, or course on resource issues in order to provide complete and current information for use in programs which a public or private sector group might undertake (e~g., a conference, an adopt-a-beach or protect-a-wetland project, or a citizens' committee on local wetland issues). The teams will also provide support for education and public involvement ele- ments of plan programs. Resource teams shall be formed to support work in coordination with the nonpoint technical assistance team (NP-6). 47 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Salmonid Enhancement and Habitat: The Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife shall each hire an additional field biologist. With Fisheries as the lead, these staff shall establish an interagency resource team, including tribes and inviting volunteer sports fishermen or other citizens, to respond to re- quests for training by community and school groups wishing to undertake sal- mon enhancement, stream restoration and related nonpoint pollution issues. The biologists shall be available to provide information on local fish runs, sal- monid habitat, and local watersheds to local government, community, school, and private sector education and public involvement programs. The biologists will also be part of the monitoring and stormwater resource teams (below) and will contribute to the wetlands resource team as necessary (W-7). Target Dates: Fisheries and Wildlife staff will be hired by September 30, 1989. The resource team will be convened, trained, and ready to respond to requests by January 1, 1990. [Status: Only partial funding is being requested for this element for the FY 90-91 biennium. Fisheries and Wildlife are scheduled to hire only 0.5 FTE biologist each for this element.] Monitoring: Ecology shall establish an interagency technical assistance team to respond to requests for technical assistance and training by community, school, and local government water quality monitoring programs, unless the committee designing the freshwater monitoring program decides another train- ing system is preferable (see ES-3). Target Date: The resource team will be convened and trained by November 1, 1989. Stormwater: Ecology shall establish an interagency resource team to respond to requests for technical assistance and training on stormwater by local govern- ment or private sector groups. Target Date: The resource team will be convened and trained by December 1, 1989. Nonpoint: Target Dates: Nonpoint resource team is delayed. Funding is provided for the nonpoint technical assistance team to provide resources only for the watershed ranking and planning programs (NP-2). [Status: While the nonpoint resource team will be delayed, many of the resources it would provide will be covered by other teams.] Wetlands: See element W-7. Shellfish: Fisheries shall establish an interagency resource team to respond to requests for technical assistance and training on shellfish and adopt-a-beach is- sues from local government or private sector groups. Target Date: The resource team will be convened and trained by December 1, 1989. [Status: This is a new element.] 48 ACTION PLAN ES-6. Information In order to ensure an ongoing reliable information base the following ac- Base tivities shall be supported. Puget Sound Access: The University of Washington shall continue and update the Puget Sound Access, a computerized bibliography of documents on Puget Sound. The University of Washington shall hire a person to expand the database to include a bibliography of non-technical resources: brochures, videos, slide shows, interpretive centers, and community projects which ad- dress Puget Sound and regional water quality issues. State of the Sound Report: The State of the Sound Report should continue to be published biennially after the scheduled sunset of the Authority. The Pu get Sound Ambient Monitoring Program and the Puget Sound Research Program: The Authority shall make available summary reports of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program and Puget Sound Research Program for use by the public. This function should continue after the scheduled sunset of the Authority. Geographic Information Systems: Major geographic information systems on the Sound, its watersheds, and freshwater and saltwater monitoring, shall be made accessible to the public. Case Studies: The Authority shall make available one scholarship each quarter for a graduate student to prepare a comprehensive case study on a major issue related to Puget Sound. Copies of the case study shall be printed by the Authority for use by college and high school faculty and shall be made avail- able to the public. Visual Representation ofPu get Sound: The Authority shall provide for the development of visual and graphic educational materials for use in education and public involvement programs related to Puget Sound. As part of this program, Shoreline Community College shall complete its series of topographic representation of major features of Puget Sound and shall print the drawings for use by the public. Technical Library: The Authority shall convene a committee of business, in- dustry, and agency representatives, including Ecology and the Business Assis- tance Office of the Department of Trade and Economic Development, to create a joint private sector/public sector technical library easily accessible to and usable by business and industry which shall provide information on laws,, regulations, standards, and compliance technologies. Speakers' Bureau: The Authority shall convene a committee of private and public sector representatives to establish a speakers' bureau. Speakers will be screened both for comprehensive and accurate knowledge of a topic and for ef- fective presentation. The Authority shall make funds available for travel and a smali honorarium for speakers and shall publicize the bureau. 'Target Date: The policy on geographic information systems goes into effect with adoption of the plan. With the exception of the State of the Sound Report and the monitoring report, no funding for these activities is being re- quested for the FY 1990-91 biennium. 49 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ES-7. Coordination 7.1. Environmental SPI shall provide part-time staff to the interagency Environmental Education Education Task Force U Ask Force to better enable it to: * Provide a forum for communication and coordination among general education and information programs of agencies. * Provide the link between the general education and public involvement programs of agencies and the overall management and direction of the long-range strategy by working with the local field agents and by participat- ing on the technical advisory committee described in ES-7 below. * Provide a forum in which to decide which agency should be the lead on cooperative interpretive efforts (see ES-4.4 above), interagency training teams (see ES-5.3 above), or other cooperative educational programs; and, where appropriate, act as the planning committee for cooperative or coordinated projects. * Publish the educational planning schedules of agencies. * Annually publish a list of the individuals (and phone numbers) in each resource agency who have formal responsibilities for education and public involvement. * Continue to coordinate agency support to K-12 teacher training and program implementation by working with SPI (ES-3.1) and the local field agents. The Environmental Education Task Force should include representatives of the Conservation Commission or Conservation Districts, Washington Sea Grant, Washington State Cooperative Extension, local governments, and tribes. Target Date: SPI shall hire staff by September 30, 1989. [Status: The Environmental Education Task Force is an ongoing interagency group. This is a new program.] 7.2. Puget Sound Plan The Authority shall establish a technical advisory committee to meet a mini- Education Strategy mum of three times a year to advise the Authority on coordination needed for education and public involvement programs related to the Puget Sound plan. The agenda for these meetings will provide an opportunity for education and public involvement program staff to discuss: (1) discrete program needs which might be met with resources or ideas from other programs, (2) timing and coordination issues, and (3) techniques for evaluating programs. The committee shall include agency staff from programs such as the local field agents (2.1) and appropriate staff from the Authority and Ecology. Ecology representatives shall include: the public involvement coordinator (EPI-7), the education coordinator (ES-7.3), hazardous waste information office staff (HHW-2), a member of the nonpoint technical assistance team (NP-6), wet- land education staff (W-7), point source outreach staff (P-26), and stormwater education staff (SW-2). The committee shall also include SPI staff to the En- 50 ACTION PLAN vironmental Education Task Force (ES-3); staff for the Boaters Task Force (MB-3); and staff from appropriate educational programs of Fisheries (ES-5), DSHS, Wildlife (ES-5), and DNR. In addition, representatives of staff from local watershed programs which include education (NP-3 and NP-4), conserva- tion districts, and education staff for tribes shall serve on the committee. The committee shall encourage the participation of education and public involve-, ment staff from private sector programs. Target Date: The Authority shall convene the first meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee by November 1989.) [Status: This is a new program.] 7.3. Ecology The Department of Ecology shall hire a public education coordinator who will Education Coordinator coordinate Ecology's education programs related to Puget Sound. The coor- dinator will ensure that agency education programs related to Puget Sound are consistent with the direction of Ecology's education programs statewide. Specific responsibilities of the coordinator include coordinating Ecology's education resources with those of other agencies to develop the target audience program (ES-2.2) and overseeing Ecology's participation in the En- vironmental Education Task Force (ES-7.1) and the technical advisory commit- tee (ES-7.2). Target Date: Ecology shall hire the coordinator by July 31, 1989. [Status: This is a new program.] 7.4. Fisheries The Department of Fisheries shall hire a part-time public education coor- Education Coordinator dinator who will coordinate the Department's education programs related to Puget Sound. The coordinator will ensure that agency education programs re- lated to Puget Sound are consistent with the direction of the department's education programs statewide. Specific responsibilities of the coordinator in- clude coordinating Fisheries' education resources with those of other agencies to develop the resource team program (ES-5.3); overseeing the shellfish inter- pretation program (SF-7); enhancing Fisheries' support to volunteer stream enhancement efforts in the Puget Sound region; and overseeing Fisheries' par- ticipation in the technical advisory committee (ES-7.2). Target Date: The Department of Fisheries shall hire a coordinator by Septem- ber 1, 1989. [Status: This is a new program.] 7.5. Wildlife The Department of Wildlife shall hire a part-time public education coor- Education Coordinator dinator who will coordinate the department's education programs related to Puget Sound. The coordinator will ensure that agency education programs re- lated to Puget sound are consistent with the direction of Wildlife's education programs statewide. Specific responsibilities of the coordinator include coor- dinating Wildlife's education resources with those of other agencies to develop the resource team program (ES-5.3), and overseeing Wildlife's participation in the technical advisory committee (ES-7.2). Target Date: The Department of Wildlife shall hire a coordinator by Septem- ber 1, 1989. 51 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: This is a new program.] ES-8. PIE-Fund The Authority shall support the funding of local programs through a Public In- volvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund). The Authority shall publish re- quests for proposals for local programs which: a. Raise awareness of water quality issues by engaging people in actions to protect Puget Sound. These action projects could include such activities or projects as adopt-a-beach, adopt-a-stream, protect-a-wetland, household hazardous waste collection days, water quality monitoring, and biological surveys. To be effective, these programs often require funds for signs, equipment, and brochures and may require technical expertise and training. b. Raise awareness of water quality issues through general and diverse educa- tion activities. These communications programs could include such ac- tivities as workshops, conferences, plays, poster projects, tours, festivals, and brochures. To be effective, these programs often require funds for printed and audiovisual materials or staff and may require technical exper- tise and training. Groups will apply for these funds through a request-for-proposals process which would include the criteria in ES-1. A portion of the PIE-Fund would be directed toward programs that specifical- ly support the educational needs of local governments which are directly re- lated to the Puget Sound plan, particularly those governments that are not receiving direct support from the field agent program [ES-2.1]. Thrget Date: The first round of contracts shall be awarded by December 31, 1989. [Status: This element will continue and modify the PIE-Fund program which was included in the 1987 plan. Under that program the Authority issued guidelines by September 1, 1987, and began to award contracts by December 31, 1987. Eligible groups included citizen and environmental organizations, tribes, local governments, and educational institutions. Forty-seven contracts were awarded for public involvement and education model projects--S584,000 for the first round of contracts (December 1987) and $400,000 for the second round (June 1988).] ES-9. Steering The Authority shall appoint a steering committee which will: (1) develop op- Committee tions for securing long-term funding for educating and involving the public in the cleanup and protection of Puget Sound; (2) refine guidelines and criteria and review proposals for the Public Involvement and Education Fund (ES-8); (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the Education and Public Involvement Program; and (4) assess the need for establishing a foundation to carry out these functions. The committee shall include educators and representatives of nonprofit organizations involved in the protection of Puget Sound, local governments, and business and industry. Target Date: The Authority shall appoint the committee by July 30, 1989. [Status: The Authority established the Education and Public Involvement Ad- visory Group (EPIG) to oversee the development of the long-range education 52 ACTION PLAN strategy and the PIE-Fund. This steering committee would be similar to EPIG, but the emphasis would be on developing long-range options for fund- ing and overseeing the PIE-Fund.] ES-lit Campaigns for The Authority shall initiate public awareness campaigns or activities which: Puget Sound * Focus on tangible results toward which individuals in both the private and public sectors can easily direct initiative and resources; and * Provide an opportunity to show measurable results which present clear and visible feedback on success in meeting a water quality goal or objec- tive for Puget Sound. Campaigns could address tangible results in meeting such goals as: * Reopen commercial and recreational shellfish beds. * Reduce plastic debris in Puget Sound. * Protect wetlands around the Sound. * Reduce the amount of oil in Puget Sound. * Reduce septage in Puget Sound. * Reduce contaminants in stormwater. 'Ihrget Dates: The Authority shall initiate the first campaign by March 1990. [Status: This is a new program.] ES-il. Year of the The Authority shall request that the governor declare 1991 the Year of the Sound Sound and appoint a Year of the Sound Committee which includes repre- sentatives of both the public and private sectors. The committee shall seek funding and support for schools, colleges, agencies, and industry to work together to promote and create events which highlight the Sound and what people are doing to protect it, and which provide in-depth educational oppor- tunities on the Sound and its management issues. rlbrget Date: The Authority shall make its request to the governor by July 1989. [Status: This is a new program.] ES-it. Sound Waters The Authority shall develop an annual 'Sound Waters Award" program which Award Program recognizes small or large businesses, trade associations, local governments or local government officials, service clubs, youth groups, individuals, and others for positive action taken to protect water quality. 'Thrget Date: Delayed. 53 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: No funding for this element will be requested for the FY 1990-91 biennium.] Elements ES-1 to ES-12 above compose the new long-range education strategy. The following elements are ongoing programs of the 1987 Puget Sound plan. EPI-2. Funding for PSWQA shall provide funding for a short-term program (1987-89) until the Model Education and long-range strategy is developed. The program will focus on projects that Public Involvement could serve as models for public involvement and education, community Projects cleanup, or citizen monitoring of water quality or biological resources. Groups eligible for funding will include citizen and environmental organiza- tions, tribes, local governments, and educational institutions. Projects eligible will include existing and new programs as well as proposed activities related to any topic addressed in the plan and any area of Puget Sound. PSWQA shall issue guidelines, call for proposals, and select participants. [Status: Completed. Transferred to ES-8.] EPI-3. Public The following public involvement policies shall be followed by all state and Involvement Policy local government agencies in implementing the Puget Sound plan: a. A broad representation of the public, both those being directly affected and members of the general public, shall be consulted in developing and adopt- ing rules, establishing criteria, setting guidelines, selecting sites or target areas, developing action plans, and carrying out other activities related to the Puget Sound plan. b. A variety of public involvement techniques shall be used. Where advisory or review committees are deemed helpful to provide public involvement in the implementation of the plan, existing standing committees or com- missions and established processes such as SEPA, the Shoreline Manage- ment Act, and local comprehensive plan procedures should be evaluated and improved where possible rather than creating new committees. However, new or additional committees or processes should be created if needed to achieve full public involvement. Agencies shall consider reim- bursing travel expenses of members of advisory bodies. c. Agencies shall allocate adequate staff resources to their public involvement programs. Agency staff responsible for public involvement shall receive training in public involvement techniques and skills. d. State and local government agencies shall use public information techniques that exceed requirements for legal notice or publication in the State Register to ensure that: (1) public information on decisions to be made or actions to be taken for the Puget Sound plan is complete and under- standable; (2) the effects--especially effects on special groups or geographic areas--of the proposed decision or action are fully described; (3) the ways in which the public might be affected by the decision or action are fully presented; and (4) the ways in which the public may influence the decision-maker and appeal the decision are explained. 54 ACTION PLAN e. To facilitate access to decision-making processes, state and local government agencies shall send notification for public hearings or meetings as early as possible, shall seek to provide both day and evening meetings and hear- ings, and shall explain how public comment was incorporated into decisions and actions. For decisions affecting a large geographic area, meetings and hearings shall be held at locations throughout the area. Trget Dates: Policy in effect upon plan adoption, but agencies and local governments may phase implementation. [Status: As programs from the 1987 plan are being implemented, the public involvement policy is being followed, to varying degrees, by state agencies and local governments.] EPI-4. PSWQA PSWQA shall continue to use its planning and oversight process as a means to Activities provide education and public involvement on water quality issues through seminars, field trips, conferences, public meetings, publications, media, and distribution of PSWQA information to local libraries. The Authority shall use its newsletter, slide shows, and media contacts to publicize opportunities for the public to become involved in policy-making, monitoring, cleanup, or educational activities related to the Sound. PSWQA shall also use its newslet- ter and slide shows to give recognition to new and existing efforts and programs which are supportive of the goals of the plan. PSWQA shall coordinate the integration of education and public involvement elements of all programs in the plan in order to avoid duplication of resources. PSWQA shall work with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and with the Environmental Education Task Force created by the 1986 legislature to coordinate educational programs on water quality. [Status: Through its newsletter, Soundwaves, PSWQA has publicized oppor- tunities for the public to become involved in policy-making and has given recognition to new and existing efforts and programs which are supportive of the goals for the plan. PSWQA held a major research conference and con- ducted various seminars, field trips, and public meetings on issues in the plan. The Authority's numerous publications were widely distributed to regional libraries and interested parties. The Authority did not receive adequate fund- ing to carry out this element at the level originally intended. Funding for this element has been further reduced for the 1990-91 biennium. Coordination and integration of education elements from all programs will be expanded and improved under ES-7; the work with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and with the Environmental Education Thsk Force was focused on the development of the long-range strategy and on teacher training and will continue.] EPI-5. PSWQA PSWQA shall establish a program of technical assistance on public involve- Technical Assistance ment for state agencies and local governments to assist them in implementing on Public Involvement the Puget Sound plan. Technical assistance shall include developing materials, providing training, evaluating agency public involvement programs upon re- quest, and making recommendations. PSWQA shall monitor public involve- ment activities of agencies implementing the plan. 55 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: Completed. Transferred to ES-5.1 and 5.2. Due to a lack of funding for additional staff, PSWQA has provided minimal technical assistance on public involvement to state agencies and local government. Training in public involvement skills will now be provided under ES-5. PSWQA has been monitoring public involvement activities of agencies implementing the plan.] EPI-6. Information List ofAgency Materials: PSWQA shall ask federal and state agencies and on Water Quality local governments to make available to educators and the public reports, Issues brochures, pamphlets, and other up-to-date information related to water quality and the economic and ecological values of Puget Sound. PSWQA shall identify relevant agencies and types of information and shall prepare a prelimi- nary list of materials available and their locations. This list shall be updated regularly and distributed widely. [Status: Scheduled for completion by October 31, 1989. PSWQA identified relevant agencies and types of information related to water quality and the economic and ecological values of Puget Sound and has prepared a prelimi- nary list of materials. There are no funds to update and distribute this list. This function would be carried out under the information base (ES-6) in the long-range strategy which has been delayed until the 1990-91 biennium.] Water Quality Directory: PSWQA shall prepare a directory, for public use, describing the appropriate contacts for obtaining information on specific is- sues related to the Puget Sound plan. This directory shall be updated as neces- sary and shall be widely distributed. PSWQA shall also coordinate with other agencies to make use of existing hot lines to handle inquiries on a wide range of environmental issues related to Puget Sound. [Status: Scheduled for completion by October 31, 1989. PSWQA prepared a directory for public use, listing appropriate contacts for information on specific issues related to the Puget Sound plan. There are no funds to update the directory for wide distribution. PSWQA has coordinated with other agen- cies to make use of existing hot lines to handle inquiries on environmental is- sues related to Puget Sound.] EPI-7. Ecology Ecology shall designate a public involvement coordinator who shall be respon- Coordinator and sible for coordinating public involvement activities related to Ecology's Mailing List Brochure responsibilities under the Puget Sound plan. In addition, Ecology shall prepare a brochure describing the various mailing lists maintained within the department, defining the purpose of each, and giving instructions on how to get on each list. This list will be updated periodically. Target Dates: Ecology designates coordinator by January 1, 1988. Ecology prepares brochure by April 1, 1988. [Status: The Ecology coordinator was designated October 7, 1987. The initial mailing list brochure was completed in April 1988. The initial brochure material will be expanded for broader distribution when Ecology's centralized mailing list system is in place by December 1988.] EPI-8. K-12 Funding PSWQA shall support teacher training programs related to the Sound by for Teacher Training providing funds for release time for teacher workshops through the model education program. 56 ACTION PLAN [Status: $55,000 from the Public Involvement and Education Fund (see EPI- 2) was allocated to teacher training: $27,500 each year for fiscal years 1987 and 1988.] MAJOR PUBLIC The Authority will consider the adequacy of public involvement when review- ACTIONS FOR ing major public actions identified in other programs. As part of its review of REVIEW biennial reports of state and local agencies (see Chapter 4), the Authority will consider implementation of the public involvement policy. LEGISLATION None REQUIRED ESTIMATED COST The full program would cost approximately $6 million for the 1990-91 bien- nium. However, in recognition of budget constraints, only $3.4 million is now proposed for funding during that biennium. This would increase to ap- proximately $6 million per biennium in future biennia as activities and staff are added to carry out the strategy. Funding for the long-range educational strategy only (ES elements) would be increased; existing programs (EPI ele- ments) would be funded at the 1990-91 levels in future biennia. To effect this reduction in state general funds, many elements in the strategy have been postponed or reduced for the 1990-91 biennium, resulting in a general fund re- quest of $1.9 million. In addition, the program budget would include $1.1 from the Centennial Clean Water Fund and $360,000 in capital funds. The elements of the long-range strategy with the largest costs include the local field agents or coordinators at an biennial cost of $636,000, resource teams at an biennial cost of $348,000, integrated water quality programs for business and industry at a biennial cost of $417,000 and a conitinued Public Involvement and Education Fund to support local programs at an annual cost of $500,000. Some educational activities related to the long-range strategy are funded as components of other plan programs (MB-3, W-7, S-7, and P-27). 57 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COST BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 EPI-1 Long-Range Strategy ................ 48,247 21,500 0 0 0 0 0 ES-2 Local Audiences ................... ..0 0 526,492 526,492 1,141,351 1,141,351 1,141,351 ES-3 Schools .........................0 0 237,800 57,800 212,028 379,528 210,791 ES-4 Interpretive Activities ................... 0 0 123,500 123,500 399,068 739,068 412,099 ES-5 Agency Training and Resource Teams ........... 0 0 106,943 97,943 178,386 178,386 178,386 ES-6 Information Base ..................... 0 0 0 0 238,768 233,568 224,318 ES-7 Coordination ...................... 0 0 72,865 72,865 118,561 118,561 118,561 ES-8 PIE-Fund ......................... 0 0 500,000 500,000 393,750 393,750 393,750 ES-10 Campaigns for Puget Sound ............... 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 ES-12 Sound Waters Award Program .............. 0 0 0 0 16,395 16,195 16,595 EPI-2 Model Education and Public Inv. Projects ...... 699,436 721,332 0 0 0 0 0 EPI-4 PSWQA Activities ......... ......... 68,500 81,500 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 EPI-5 PSWQA Tech Assistance on Public Inv. ........9,600 7,600 0 0 0 0 - 0 EPI-6 Information on Water Quality Issues ........ 67,491 57,143 0 0 0 0 0 EPI-7 Ecology Coordinator and Brochure ......... 73,539 82,805 55,993 55,993 55,993 54,993 54,993 EPI-8 K-12 Funding for Teacher Training ......... 25,500 25,500 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $992,313 $997,380 $1,774,028 $1,585,028 $2,854,734 $3,355,834 $2,851,280 Element Notes ES PSWQA staff to coordinate the education strategy are provided through the PSWQA public outreach/education program (see Costs and Financing Sec- tion). ES-4 Funding for sediment materials is included in Sediment element S-9. ES-5 Local and tribal support for wetlands resource teams is funded under Wetlands element W-7. ES-8 Includes $550,000 for local government PIE-Fund projects. 58 ACTION PLAN EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 fY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Sea Grant & Coop Extension .....................0 0 355,500 355,500 711,000 711,000 711,000 Ecology Pass Through to Local ................... .... ... .0 0 0 0 166,064 166,064 249,096 Ecology .................... .....73,539 82,805 205,450 205,450 427,933 426,733 427,133 DSHS .................... ......5,499 5,499 20,166 20,166 25,928 25,928 25,928 PSWQA Pass Through to Local ................ 533,500 533,500 550,000 550,000 PSWQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,219 168,515 333,500 153,500 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,749 3,999 111,004 111,004 165,106 165,106 165,106 Wildlife .. .. . . . . . ... .. . . .........8,249 5,499 55,544 55,544 151,076 151,076 151,076 Parks and Recreation ...................... .8,249 5,499 4,781 4,781 10,757 10,757 10,757 Natural Resources .......................8,24 9 5,499 0 0 6,860 6,860 6,860 Superintendent of Public Instruction .................0 0 21,136 21,136 70,456 70,456 55,456 Agriculture ........................... . . 3,499 3,499 38,448 38,448 12,816 12,816 12,816 Personnel .............................0 0 10,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Community Colleges ......... . . . . . .................0 0 0 0 33,819 33,819 33,819 Local Government ..................... 210,561 183,065 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Other State Agencies ............ ............0 0 33,000 31,000 146,881 86,881 86,881 Education Organization ....................... 887,537 1,449,837 876,851 TOTAL $992,313 $997,380 $1,774,028 $1,585,028 $2,854,734 $3,355,834 $2,851,280 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Capital Account ........ .... . ......................0 0 270,000 90,000 56,000 636,000 56,000 Centennial Clean Water Fund ................. 550,019 550,019 550,000 550,000 518,750 518,750 518,750 State General Fund ..................... 231,732 264,296 954,028 945,028 2,279,984 2,201,084 2,276,530 Local Sources ........................ 210,561 183,065 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $992,313 $997,380 $1,774,028 $1,585,028 $2,854,734 $3,355,834 $2,851,280 59 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM Nonpoint source pollution originates from surface water runoff, discharges DEFINITION from boats, or atmospheric deposition. It is a general category for pollution that is not collected in and discharged through pipes. Nonpoint source pol- lutants include pathogens (as indicated by fecal coliform bacteria), sediments, nutrients, and toxicants. Most pollutants originate on the land, where they are picked up by rainwater and carried into streams and rivers that empty into the Sound. Because a bay can receive the drainage from a large land area (water- shed) as well as discharges from boats and other water-based sources, sources are numerous and often can be difficult to identify individually. .,, i� 7 Bacterial contamination from nonpoint source pollution has required DSHS to condition, restrict, or prohibit the harvest of shellfish at 15 Puget Sound A, Qi '__' Hi , '~~'L~....,'-'~7~ growing areas since 1981.9 The major sources appear to be: increasing development of noncommercial farms, failing on-site sewage disposal (septic) systems, large commercial farms, and boats and marinas. In some cases, stormwater from newly urbanizing areas adds additional bacterial and possibly toxic contamination to shellfish beds. (Existing urban areas typically have high levels of fecal contamination and were prohibited for shellfish harvest many years ago.) Since the 1970s each nonpoint source (on-site septic systems, agricultural prac- tices, boats, marinas, and forest practices) has been addressed by its own con- trol program, each one usually by a different government agency. These programs produced some important local successes. However, prior to the watershed management program adopted in the 1987 Puget Sound plan, over- all control of nonpoint pollution of the Sound was generally inadequate. This was true partly because there was a lack of coordination among the agency programs and also because there was no integrated process to manage all non- point sources in a bay or watershed. Failure to prevent nonpoint pollution (and impacts on beneficial uses like shellfish) also has resulted from a continual underfunding of programs at federal, state, and local levels. The state legislature established the Centennial Clean Water Fund (cigarette tax) in 1986 to provide dedicated funds for statewide water quality control facilities and activities. Long-term competi- tion for the fund is expected to be intense, especially as programs and activities accelerate. In addition, the fund was not designed to support state agency operations. On-Site Septic Systems Failing on-site septic systems can discharge pathogens and household and other chemicals to streams, groundwater, and eventually Puget Sound. Failures occur because many soils in the Puget Sound region are poorly suited for conventional systems, because water tables are high, or because the systems are improperly designed, installed, or maintained. Many older systems have failed because they were designed to serve as temporary units for summer cot- tages or until an area was sewered. Tobday, approximately one-third of the resi- 9 DSHS classifies all actual and potential shellfish growing waters in Washington as Approved, Conditionally Approved, Restricted, or Prohibited. 60 ACTION PLAN dents in the Puget Sound basin are served by on-site systems. This fraction is increasing as more population growth occurs in semi-rural areas. New on-site septic systems must comply with local health codes, which meet the minimum standards in regulations promulgated by the state Board of Health (Chapter 248-96 WAC). Most systems that are failing today (three to five percent in Puget Sound) were installed prior to the adoption of these state regulations in 1974 and are therefore generally exempt from their provisions. Moreover, implementation of current standards is subject to substantial discre- tion exercised by local permitting officials. State and local health agencies lack adequate funds for education and enforce- ment. When enforcement actions are taken, they are rarely pursued to the point of achieving results. Existing regulations do not require system main- tenance or inspections for proper functioning when property is transferred. Agricultural Practices Pollutants that can come from agricultural practices are sediments, nutrients, organic materials, pesticides, and pathogens. Pathogens arise from poor animal-keeping and pasture-management practices. Sediments, which carry pathogens and toxic contaminants and can damage salmonid habitat, can be generated by livestock trampling and eroding stream banks and by poor row crop practices. State programs for control of nonpoint pollution from agricultural practices rely on voluntary implementation of best management practices (BMPs), with enforcement of water quality standards as a last resort. (Agricultural BMPs in- clude, for example, manure lagoons, streamside fences, better management of fields, and crop rotation.) Conservation districts, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the federal Soil Conservation Service all provide technical assis- tance to farmers and promote farm planning and the use of BMPs. The Washington Conservation Commission and conservation districts are currently updating BMPs to ensure they are effective in protecting water quality. The Department of Ecology provides grant funding for cooperative agricultural construction projects, such as manure lagoons. Partial funding of BMPs by federal cost-share programs has been important in controlling sources at com- mercial farms. Federal cost-share funds, however, have been significantly reduced in the 1980s. The effectiveness of these programs is generally limited by inadequate funding and lack of technical and other assistance for noncom- mercial farms. Forest Practices Most of the rivers and streams that flow into Puget Sound have their origin in forest lands. Sediment from timber harvesting and road construction can damage fish habitat in these streams, which in turn can damage migratory species that are harvested in Puget Sound. Logging roads built prior to the current Forest Practices Act and since abandoned are one example of areas where there is a particular concern. Forest practices are regulated by Washington's Forest Practices Act, RCW 76.09. Timber operators are required to submit applications to and comply with regulations administered by the state Department of Natural Resources. Other state agencies perform limited monitoring, review, and advisory func- tions. A serious deficiency in the forest practices program has been inade- quate funding for enforcement and monitoring. With the adoption of the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement in late 1986, improved agency coordination and increases in budgets have begun to address these concerns. 61 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Marinas and Contaminants from marinas and recreational boating can include pathogens, Recreational Boating petroleum products, and toxicants in antifouling paint.10 Sewage discharge from boats is a potential problem during the boating season wherever boats congregate, but especially in smaller bays with poor water circulation, near shellfish beds and public swimming areas, and at marinas occupied by "liveaboard" boats. Many boaters, however, do not believe that boats are a sig- nificant source of water pollution. In Puget Sound the Coast Guard is not actively enforcing federal regulations requiring marine sanitation devices (MSDs) to hold and/or treat boat sewage. Even with a vigorous enforcement program, widespread violations of dis- charge standards could still occur because enforcement cannot ensure the use of an MSD. In addition, major boating areas such as the San Juan Islands and Hood Canal lack sufficient pumpout facilities for holding tanks. Most local shoreline master programs lack specific design standards for marinas that address protection of shellfish beds, pumpout and sewage treat- ment facilities, education, and runoff from boat repair and fueling facilities. PROGRAM STATUS The nonpoint program integrates control of nonpoint sources at three levels of involvement-watershed, local jurisdiction (counties, cities, and tribes), and state. A cooperative watershed management program has been initiated that establishes committees to rank watersheds in each of the 12 Puget Sound coun- ties. Watershed management committees prepare action plans for watersheds in the order in which they were ranked. Ilb supplement the watershed action plans and address nonpoint source pollu- tion outside of priority watershed boundaries, counties, cities, and tribes are evaluating the effectiveness of their existing water quality-related programs, policies, and ordinances. Counties will also be carrying out nonpoint educa- tion activities in conjunction with the long-range education strategy (element ES-2.1). The nonpoint program also includes state programs for addressing nonpoint pollution from marinas and boats and forest practices and for providing assis- tance to local governments in addressing pollution from on-site septic systems and agricultural practices. Implementation of the nonpoint program began in early 1987 and is summarized in the following paragraphs. T-Welve "early action" watersheds have been selected and funded by Ecology, six under the Round One process (NP-1) and six from Ecology's pre-existing Shellfish Protection Program. Watershed management committees (NP-3) were set up by early 1988 in each of the 12 watersheds. In addition, each Puget Sound county has established a watershed ranking committee to carry out the long-term watershed selection process (NP-1, Round 2). Ecology also made a grant to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission to support tribal involve- ment in the nonpoint program. Guidelines for the watershed management program (NP-2) were adopted as regulations (Chapter 400-12 WAC) by the Authority in early 1988, and two months later the Authority and Ecology issued the first chapters of the non- 10 State legislation passed in 1987 prohibits most uses of paints containing tributyl tin, the antifoulant component most toxic to marine life. 62 ACTION PLAN point source handbook for local governments and ranking and management committees. Ecology adopted a regulation in mid-1988 establishing funding criteria and procedures for the Centennial Clean Water Fund. This fund is the primary funding source for watershed management committees, action plans, and other water quality projects and activities (NP-5.1). There is concern on the part of many state agencies and local governments, however, that available funds will fall short of needs. Conservation districts are also being partially funded through this account via grants administered by the Washington Con- servation Commission (NP-5.2). Like local governments, however, the Conser- vation Commission and conservation districts feel funding will prove to be inadequate. In addition, the Washington Conservation Corps continues to lack adequate funding to assist in implementation of watershed action plans (NP-5.3). In late 1987 Ecology formed and is now managing a technical assistance team that has aided watershed ranking and management committees (NP-6). Ecol- ogy will conduct audits (NP-7.1) and monitoring (NP-7.2) after implementa- tion of watershed action plans begins. Guidance for county and city water quality evaluations (NP-9) was distributed by the Authority in July 1988, and evaluations will be returned to the Authority by July 1, 1989. DSHS has begun local on-site program audits and has formed an advisory committee to assist the department in revising the on-site regulations (NP-10). Proposed legislation to require information on septic systems to be provided when property is transferred (NP-11) passed the House and failed in the Senate in both 1987 and 1988. DSHS, Ecology, and the Washington Conserva- tion Commission are beginning work on, respectively, Certification of On-Site Professionals (NP-12, DSHS), Dairy Waste Management Plan (NP-13, Ecol- ogy), and Cost-Sharing Program (NP-14, Washington Conservation Commis- sion). In mid-1989 Ecology will begin revising the Shoreline Management Act regula- tions (Chapter 173-16 WAC) to include specific standards for design and siting of marinas (MB-1). DSHS is currently drafting a model ordinance for sewer hookups for liveaboards, to be completed by 1989 (MB-2). The Boaters Task Force did not submit legislation on pumpout facilities to the 1988 session but plans to do so for the 1989 session (MB-2). The task force has developed the boater education program and has begun implementation of several educational activities, including providing information to boaters during the summer of 1988 (MB-3). The State Parks and Recreation Commis- sion selected Mystery Bay State Park to be the site of the first pumpout facility, and the Boaters Task Force has identified other sites at state parks in need of pumpout facilities (MB-4). DSHS has initiated intensive surveys at several boating areas and marinas (MB-6). With target dates in the 1990s for Enforce- ment of MSD Regulations (MB-5), Study of "No Discharge" Areas (MB-7), and "No Anchorage" Areas (MB-8), implementation of these elements has not yet begun. Implementation of the Timber/Fish/Wildlife agreement began in 1987 with ad- ministrative changes at DNR; increased numbers of field agents at the Depart- ments of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Ecology; participation of tribal and environmental representatives in T/F/W field and educational activities; and the development of a research and monitoring program. 63 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan The Department of Ecology completed a nonpoint source pollution assess- ment and management program in 1988 to comply with Section 319 of the federal Water Quality Act of 1987. The nonpoint program in the Puget Sound plan is incorporated into Ecology's statewide nonpoint management program, with enhancements for lakes and groundwater. Ecology's management program calls for accelerated implementation of watershed action plans in Puget Sound. PROGRAM GOAL 'lb reduce and ultimately eliminate harm from nonpoint sources of pollution to Puget Sound, including pathogens, toxic contaminants, and sediment. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is (1) to target state and local resources on priority watersheds through a cooperative local watershed planning process, (2) to supplement the watershed plans with education and preventive programs, and (3) to develop or enhance state programs or regulations for those nonpoint sources that are most effectively controlled at the state level. PROGRAM ELEMENTS NP-1. Selection of Selection of priority watersheds shall be in two steps: Round 1 or early action Priority Watersheds watersheds to be selected by Ecology from nominations, and Round 2 consist- ing of a ranking of all watersheds in each county to be compiled by countywide committees. Round 1. Early Action Watersheds: Funding shall be continued and in some cases increased for the six existing Ecology shellfish protection strategy water- sheds. Additional early action watersheds shall be selected as follows: Ecology shall request nominations for priority watersheds from local govern- ments, tribes, special purpose districts, environmental and public interest groups, agricultural groups, state agencies, and organizations such as the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Ecology shall rank the nominations in order of priority and shall hold public hearings on the proposed ranking. The conservation districts, working through the Soil Conservation Service, will provide local governments with assistance in the nomination process by provid- ing information and coordination through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study TRam. The conser- vation district process of preparing nominations will be taken into account in making the final selections. The total number of early action watersheds to be selected by Ecology shall depend on funds available. Target Date: Final selection by June 30, 1987. Round 2 Long-Term Watershed Selection Process: Using guidelines developed by PSWQA (NP-2), each county shall convene a committee of representatives from cities, special purpose districts, tribes, and other appropriate entities in the county for the purpose of identifying and ranking all watersheds for future nonpoint watershed action plans. The county is assumed to be the committee lead, but the committee may select a lead other than the county where cir- cumstances warrant. The watershed selection process shall include public par- ticipation. Both the general public and affected individuals shall be involved 64 ACTION PLAN either through a separate citizen advisory committee and/or inclusion of citizen groups, farming organizations, and others on the selection committee. Each county committee shall submit to Ecology its identification and ranking of all watersheds within the county. The submittal shall include maps showing watershed boundaries, identification of probable nonpoint sources, identifica- tion of all local jurisdictions and special purpose districts with territory within the boundary of each watershed, and identification of all affected tribes. Thrget Date: Submittal to Ecology by January 1, 1989. Criteria Ecology and county committees shall use the following criteria for selection of priority watersheds in Round 1 and Round 2: a. The watershed has a beneficial use such as recreational or commercial shellfish beds, fish habitat, or drinking water, that is impaired or threatened by pollution from nonpoint sources. b. The watershed has a likelihood of intensified land or water use, including a likelihood of being logged, in the next 10 years. c. Environmental factors, such as soil, slope, and precipitation on land and/or limited flushing in the Sound increase the probability of future water quality degradation. d. The watershed produces more contaminants or causes greater harm to a beneficial use than other watersheds. e. Nonpoint source control programs in the watershed are likely to succeed in protecting water quality in Puget Sound as evidenced by programs already underway, existing institutional arrangements for interjurisdictional cooperation such as the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, or other fac- tors. Hood Canal The Hood Canal Coordinating Council is an example of a watershed managed by interlocal agreements between three counties and two tribes. It was created after several years of discussion by an advisory committee formed in response to a directive by former Governor Spellman. An action plan, published in the summer of 1986, outlines procedures for dealing with nonpoint pollution problems in Hood Canal. The Council is currently implementing the septic system and farm animal provisions of the plan, as well as education activities and monitoring of shellfish beds; forest practices and boating activities will be part of the ongoing agenda. The Authority has provided administrative assis- tance to the Council and will continue such support. The Council should report to PSWQA and Ecology by December 31 each year on the progress of its work on nonpoint pollution control. Ecology will consider continued fund- ing of this program under its grants programs. [Status: Ecology funded 12 early action watersheds as well as watershed rank- ing committees in each of the 12 Puget Sound counties in the FY 1988-89 bien- nium. The Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study TRam prepared guidance for use in watershed ranking and provided technical assistance to many ranking committees. Each county ranking committee will submit its ranking to Ecology by January 1, 1989. The Hood Canal Coordinating Coun- 65 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan cil has reported annually to the Authority and quarterly to the Department of Ecology.] NP-2. Guidelines for PSWQA shall prepare and adopt guidelines for use by watershed management Watershed Action committees in developing watershed action plans and by county committees in Plans identifying and ranking watersheds (NP-1). Ecology, DSHS, and the state Department of Agriculture shall each assign to PSWQA one staff member who is an expert on nonpoint source pollution control to form a team to develop the guidelines. PSWQA shall also consult with the U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency, the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Washington Conservation Commission, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, conservation districts, tribes, counties and cities, farming organizations, educators, and other affected parties during the preparation of the guidelines. The goal of watershed action plans shall be to meet water quality and shellfish standards in priority watersheds. The objectives of watershed action plans shall include reopening closed/correctable shellfish beds, preventing further closures, protecting fish habitat, and achieving other objectives appropriate to each watershed. Watershed action plans shall address nonpoint pollution from animal keeping/pasture management, on-site septic systems, stormwater, and any other significant nonpoint source but need not include programs for all of the sources if the watershed is found not to have problems from one or more of these sources. The early action watershed plans already underway by fiscal year 1988 shall not be required to meet every detail of the guidelines but must be consistent with the intent of the PSWQA plan and as consistent as possible with Chapter 400-12 WAC. The guidelines shall permit watershed management committees to select regulatory and/or educational approaches for each source and shall make recommendations on the development of effective programs using either or both approaches. The guidelines shall specify that if regulatory programs are chosen, adequate enforcement must be provided; and if educational programs are chosen, agencies and/or individuals with expertise in education must be in- volved in program development and implementation. The Authority and Ecology shall jointly review the effectiveness of the guidelines, and the Authority shall revise them as needed, including considera- tion of the need for more prescriptive standards, prior to July 1, 1991. The Authority shall provide assistance as necessary in interpreting the guidelines. Agricultural Practices: The guidelines shall specify how local action plans ad- dress agricultural practices. The guidelines shall recommend but not require the use of conservation district/SCS farm management plans as the preferred approach to controlling pollution from both commercial and noncommercial farms, and shall adopt the conservation districts' farm conservation planning and practices documents as the recommended standard. The guidelines shall permit watershed management committees to address animal keeping/pasture management through other regulatory or educational approaches, but the guidelines shall specify that any farm which has implemented an approved farm management plan through either the Dairy Waste Management Plan or the conservation district/SCS program shall be exempt from further agricul- tural practices regulations unless water quality violations occur. (See also NP- 13, Dairy Waste Management Plan.) The selection of an educational approach to controlling pollution sources shall not be construed to overrule or prevent the enforcement of existing regulations and laws by local, state, or federal agen- 66 ACTION PLAN cies nor shall it be construed to exempt local governments from other require- ments of this plan. On-site Septic Systems: The guidelines shall provide approaches to controlling nonpoint pollution from on-site systems, including regulation, education, and on-site system maintenance programs. Stormwater: The guidelines shall recommend a basic approach but leave latitude to the watershed management committees. The guidelines shall sug- gest different approaches for different land use patterns and shall be consis- tent with stormwater elements described in the Stormwater and CSOs program. The inclusion of stormwater in a priority watershed does not exempt local governments from carrying out the additional stormwater requirements of SW-1 and SW-2. ForestPractices: In endorsing the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Project in FP-1 and recognizing that state law preempts local action on forest practices, the Authority intends that watershed action plans which include forest practices be closely coordinated with the T/F/W Project, especially in the areas of pre- planning and basin planning, enforcement, data management, orphaned roads, and extended review. Thrget Date: Preliminary guidelines to be published by June 30, 1987. Final guidelines to be published by December 31, 1987. Nonpoint handbook to be published by March 31, 1988. Additional sections of handbook prepared and distributed by the Authority and Ecology as neces- sary. [Status: The Authority adopted regulations for Local Planning and Manage- ment of Nonpoint Source Pollution (Chapter 400-12 WAC) in February 1988 and distributed the first installment of the nonpoint handbook on March 30, 1988. A synopsis of the nonpoint rule is contained in Appendix D.] NP-3. Watershed When funding becomes available for each priority watershed, Ecology shall Management notify the county with jurisdiction within the watershed and the county shall Committees be responsible for convening a watershed management committee. If two or more counties share a watershed, the counties may agree on a temporary lead to convene the committee or may jointly convene the committee. The commit- tee shall consist of all affected local governments, special purpose districts, tribes, interested state agencies, and others. If nonpoint pollution from boats and/or forest practices has been identified as a problem source in the water- shed, staff of the State Parks and Recreation Commission and/or Department 67 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan of Natural Resources forest practices personnel shall participate in the com- mittee: The county is presumed to be the lead for each watershed management com- mittee. However, the committee may designate a city, a local health agency, a conservation district, or other agency if circumstances warrant. Planning and implementing agencies11 for each source to be controlled in the watershed shall be selected by the watershed management committee. Criteria for selection shall include territory governed, legal authority, and expertise. It is not the intent of the designation process to impose new jurisdictional arran- gements on watershed committees, but to allow use of existing institutional structures while giving maximum flexibility to watershed management commit- tees to achieve effective development and implementation of the action plan. If a watershed management committee cannot agree on implementing agen- cies, Ecology shall designate them and may require interlocal agreements. The lead agency selected by the watershed committee shall be responsible for convening meetings, coordinating among local jurisdictions and other agen- cies, working with planning and implementing agencies in preparation of the plan, compiling and publishing the plan, and submitting the plan to Ecology for approval. The watershed action planning process shall include public participation. Both the general public and affected individuals shall be involved either through a separate citizen advisory committee and/or inclusion of citizen groups, farming organizations, and others on the management committee. lb ensure full participation of tribes in watershed planning, tribes shall evaluate their desired level of participation in watershed management commit- tees following each round of the watershed selection process and shall submit coordinated grant applications to Ecology. [Status: This element is proceeding on schedule.] NP-4. Plan Adoption Each watershed action plan submitted to Ecology for approval shall include and Implementation goals and objectives; identification of types of nonpoint sources; a description of the general planning approach for the watershed and for each type of source; identification of planning and implementing agencies and their author- ities; program plans and/or ordinances including enforcement and/or educa- tion programs; and an implementation schedule. Ecology shall have 60 days to approve/disapprove the plan. If a plan is disapproved, the watershed manage- ment committee shall revise the plan as necessary and the lead shall negotiate with Ecology for final approval. Ecology may approve portions of a plan 11 For the purpose of this program, a planning agency is the agency that prepares reports and makes recommendations, and an implementing agency is the agency that carries out the day-to-day activities of the plan once it is adopted by a county and/or city council. An agency could be both a planning agency and an implementing agency, for example, a health department could both propose regulations for on-site systems and enforce them after they have been adopted by the county council or commission. In watersheds with two or more counties or cities there could be several implementing agencies for the same source, for example, two different health departments carrying out on-site programs prepared by a single planning agency and adopted by the two different county councils or commissions. 68 ACTION PLAN before approving the entire plan and require those portions to be imple- mented during the revision process for the remainder of the plan. Each implementing agency identified in the plan approved by Ecology shall be responsible for carrying out its portion of the watershed action plan using the approaches described in the plan. The lead implementing agency shall be responsible for coordinating among implementing agencies and for preparing reports to Ecology. Each local and state implementing entity identified in an approved action plan shall be responsible for carrying out its portion of the ac- tion plan within the prescribed schedule. Watershed action plans may be revised by watershed management committees following submission of revisions to and approval by Ecology. [Status: This element is on schedule.] NP-S. Program In addition to the following elements, new funding sources for nonpoint pollu- Funding and tion management may be identified or proposed as the result of a study of Incentives potential funding sources to support the long-term implementation of the Puget Sound plan (element C-i, Study of Long-'Irm Funding Options). 5.1. Nonpoint ' M e Department of Ecology shali administer a program for disbursing grant Watershed Planning funds to watershed management committees for preparing and implementing Grants watershed action plans. Disbursal of grant funds to agencies may be funneled through the lead administrative agency or paid directly to implementing agen- cies according to procedures established in the Centennial Clean Water Fund. 5.2. Funding for Ongoing funding shall be provided by the Washington Conservation Commis- Conservation Districts sion to enable Puget Sound conservation districts to participate in planning and implementing priority watershed action plans. The Authority recognizes the need for ongoing funding to maintain districts' basic administrative func- tions and expects that such funding will be made available, within the limita- tions of statewide responsibilities and a competitive grant process, from the 2.5 percent appropriation to the Commission from the Centennial Clean Water Fund. 5.3. Continued ' M e Department of Ecology shall request funds through its biennial budget Funding for process for the Washington Conservation Corps to allow it to continue to Washington provide assistance in implementation of activities under the Puget Sound plan. Conservation Corps 5.4. Tax Assessment of in instances where property owners have fenced along streams as part of a Stream Corridors with watershed action plan, the Dairy Waste Management Plan, or an approved Restricted Use farm management plan through the SCS/conservation district program, coun- ties should consider granting open space tax status pursuant to the Open Space Act (Chapter 84.34 RCW) to lands with restricted use resulting from fencing. 69 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: Watershed grants have been made, conservation districts have received water quality grants from the Conservation Commission, and the Con- servation Corps has received some funding for plan-related activities.] NP-6. Technical Ecology, with assistance from PSWQA on education and public involvement, Assistance for shall form an interagency team consisting of staff from Ecology, the Depart- Watershed Plans ment of Social and Health Services, the Department of Wildlife, the Depart- ment of Fisheries, the Department of Natural Resources, the Washington Department of Agriculture, the Washington Conservation Commission, the State Parks and Recreation Commission, the Cooperative Extension Service, and other appropriate state agencies and tribes to provide technical assistance to each watershed management committee throughout the planning and im- plementation phases of watershed action plans. Ecology shall coordinate among team members to keep them active and informed and shall provide watershed committees with clear direction as to which individuals/agencies to call directly for specific types of assistance. Ecology shall ensure that technical information and assistance provided under this program is coordinated with the federal assistance provided by the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study Team and with the long-range education strategy (elements ES-1 through ES-10), other Ecology nonpoint-related grants programs (such as 2050) grants), the boater education program (element MB-3), and the Ecol- ogy and DSHS shellfish protection programs. [Status: Ecology established a technical assistance team in late 1987. This team, in conjunction with the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study RTham, has been assisting both watershed ranking and watershed management committees.] NP-7. Program Management 7.1. Audits Ecology, in cooperation with PSWQA, shall audit each watershed action plan every two years to ensure consistent and adequate implementation. 7.2. Monitoring Ecology (or Ecology and DSHS for watersheds in which shellfish or drinking water is an issue) shall monitor water quality in each priority watershed after substantial progress has been made in implementation of the action plan. The purpose of the monitoring shall be to provide information for measuring the success of action plans in achieving water quality goals. Watershed monitoring shall be coordinated with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (ele- ment M-2), including use of the Puget Sound protocols. Ecology shall make data available, upon request, for transfer to the PSAMP central database using data transfer formats developed under element M-4. 7.3. Default If local governments fail to prepare and implement nonpoint watershed action Watersheds plans, Ecology shall either prepare and implement watershed action plans it- self or use its regulatory authority under Chapter 90.48 RCW, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, or other authority to direct local govern- ments to prepare and implement nonpoint watershed plans. In the event of nonperformance or unsatisfactory completion of watershed action plans, Ecol- ogy shall require repayment of grant funds disbursed to grantees. 70 ACTION PLAN 7.4. Program Ecology shall be responsible for overall nonpoint program management and Management and shall provide ongoing oversight of watershed action plans. Management shall Evaluation include program planning, intra- and inter-agency coordination, financial monitoring, public outreach, information management, enforcement, and evaluation activities for all nonpoint program elements except NP-9 through NP-12 and MB-2 through MB-6 and MB-8. The effectiveness of the nonpoint program, including the effectiveness of the watershed plans, shall be evaluated by PSWQA as part of the 1991 revisions to the Puget Sound plan. Procedures and guidelines shall be revised as necessary. Target Date: Ecology shall report progress on this element in its biennial reports to the Authority. [Status: While it is too early for the Authority to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed action plans, implementation of the nonpoint program is discussed in general terms in the Program Status section and in more detail at the end of each element. Local watershed monitoring is taking place under the guidelines for watershed action plans (NP-2). Ecology audit and monitoring tasks will begin in the next biennium. There have been no default watersheds to date.] Countywide Programs NP-8. Education [Status: Countywide education on nonpoint pollution will be conducted as Programs part of the long-range education strategy. Counties will identify priorities and programs for nonpoint education as part of their work with local field agents (element ES-2.1). Because full funding for field agents will not be available during the next biennium, some counties will have to postpone working with field agents on nonpoint education until the FY 1992-93 biennium.] NP-9. Prevention Using guidance prepared by PSWQA, each city and county in the Puget Sound planning area shall evaluate the items below for that portion of its jurisdiction within the Puget Sound planning area. PSWQA shall consult with the Depart- ments of Ecology and Social and Health Services in preparing the guidance. Each city and county shall involve the public in the evaluation, including the holding of a public hearing, and shall submit a written report to PSWQA. While the hearing may be informal, the involvement of the public is important in this evaluation. The purpose of the evaluations is to provide cities and counties with information on (a) the effectiveness of their programs relating to water quality, and (b) the effects on water quality of other programs not specifically focused on water quality. The Authority will consider the evalua- tions in the 1991 plan revision. a. How water quality considerations are incorporated into land use decisions. b. The effectiveness of its regulations for new on-site systems, including the soil types and other conditions under which they are permitted. Effectiveness in this case refers to protection of public health and water quality. c. The need for on-site system maintenance programs to protect both public health and water quality. 71 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan d. The effectiveness of local enforcement programs for zoning, shoreline, and health regulations affecting nonpoint pollution. (To be coordinated with Legal and Personnel Support element LP-4.) The report shall be made available to citizens and to Watershed Management Committees within the jurisdiction. Recognizing tribal sovereignty, the Authority requests that tribes conduct similar evaluations. PSWQA shall work with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and individual tribes to design an evaluation of tribal programs that can be used by tribal governments. Target Date: PSWQA guidance on preparing the evaluation shall be com- pleted by June 30, 1988. PSWQA/NWIFC guidance for use by tribes shall be prepared by November 15, 1988. Cities and counties complete reports and submit them to PSWQA by July 1, 1989. Cities and counties hold public hear- ings prior to submitting reports to the Authority. [Status: This element is on schedule.] State Elements to Supplement Local Planning NP-10. On-Site DSHS shall study the effectiveness of current statewide standards for on-site Regulations and systems, with special attention paid to sensitive areas. Effectiveness in this Programs case refers to protection of public health and water quality in the Puget Sound basin. The study shall also include recommended strategies for maintenance and remedial programs for on-site sewage disposal systems, audits of the local on-site programs in all 12 Puget Sound counties, and an evaluation of the fol- lowing specific issues: a. Minimum vertical separation (distance between bottom of drainfield and im- permeable layer). b. Required soils evaluation during the high water-table season. c. Definition of and proximity to surface water. d. Required inspection ports on new on-site systems. e. Required inspection during construction. f. Required use of alternative technologies (proven enhanced treatment sys- tems) under appropriate soil and other conditions. g. Procedures for identifying and enforcing correction of failures, especially where conventional or alternative technology will not result in proper sub- surface soil disposal and including resolution with Ecology of the issue of surface discharging systems. h. Land area requirements. i. Comprehensive inspection, operation, and maintenance requirements, includ- ing local health agency and private sector roles. 72 ACTION PLAN j. Applicability of rules to systems installed prior to promulgation of the 1974 state Board of Health on-site sewage disposal regulations. k. Design criteria for increased treatment efficiencies of conventional systems. 1. Expanded monitoring of local on-site programs and of alternative systems. m. Identification of sensitive areas where more stringent regulations, especially relating to the above issues, should apply. n. Other issues deemed appropriate by DSHS. If the study concludes that revised regulations are needed, either Soundwide or in sensitive areas, DSHS shall present proposed regulations to the state Board of Health for consideration. Thrget Date: Develop interim proposals by July 1, 1988, and final report by April 1, 1989. Adopt regulations by July 1, 1989. Develop recommended maintenance and remedial strategies and begin implementation by July 1, 1990, [Status: DSHS has begun the audits of local on-site programs and has formed an advisory committee to assist the department in revising the Board of Health on-site regulations.] NP-11. On-Site PSWQA, in consultation with DSHS, shall propose legislation addressing the Inspections and need for owner education and on-site system inspection and maintenance. Education This may include requiring sellers to submit the following information to buyers at the time of sale of residential or commercial property: (a) whether the building has an on-site system or a sewer hook-up; (b) location of the sep- tic tank and, if available, information on location of the drainfield; (c) verifica- tion that the septic tank and drainfield have been inspected within the last three years; (d) the date the tank was last pumped and if pumping is now re- quired; and (e) a maintenance manual for on-site systems. The Authority will also continue to work with interested groups and possibly consider additional legislative initiatives to address on-site system issues. Target Date: Submit to 1989 legislature. [Status: Legislation requiring inspection and education at the time of pro- perty transfer failed in 1987 and 1988.] NP-12. Certification DSHS shall develop a program, including any required legislation or amend- of On-Site ments to WAC 249-96 and RCW 18.43.070, for state certification of designers Professionals (including professional engineers), installers, environmental health specialists, and others involved in the design, installation, and maintenance of on-site sep- tic systems. DSHS shall require all on-site systems to be installed, designed, given permit approval, and inspected by certified professionals. As part of this program, DSHS shall conduct a continuing education program for certified professionals. Target Date: Begin program implementation by June 30, 1989. 73 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: DSHS began implementation of this element in February 1988 by developing a work plan, surveying other states' certification programs, contact- ing potentially affected parties, and studying the need for legislation.] NP-13. Dairy Waste The existing Dairy Waste Management Plan shall be funded to focus on Management Plan priority watersheds, and Ecology shall be encouraged to continue its use for commercial dairies regardless of size. Any farm which has fully implemented a farm management plan through either the Dairy Waste Management Plan or the conservation district/SCS system shall be exempt from further regulations on animal keeping/pasture management under a priority watershed action plan unless water quality violations occur. [Status: Ecology is carrying out this element. Conservation districts are apply- ing to the Conservation Commission for funds provided from the Centennial Clean Water Fund, since a major source of funding for this program (Referen- dum 39) ran out in 1988.] NP-14. Cost-Sharing The Washington Conservation Commission, with assistance from Ecology, Program shall conduct a study and design a program, legislation, or constitutional amendment to establish a cost-sharing program for animal keeping, pasture management, on-site systems, or other situations where BMPs are required by priority watershed action plans. Target Date: Complete study by June 1989. Program in place by June 1990. [Status: Background material has been compiled, and the element is on schedule.] NP-15. Larger and DSHS, with assistance from Ecology, shall expand its program for larger on- Alternative On-Site site systems and alternative systems. The program shall provide: (a) an inven- Systems and Septage tory of systems, (b) a performance analysis and an assessment of the need for new performance, siting, or other requirements, and (c) maintenance of a data base. This program shall also include an investigation of existing requirements and procedures for disposal of on-site sewage from recreational vehicles. DSHS shall provide technical assistance and training on such systems for local health agency staff and shall prepare design, performance, and other manuals and materials as needed. DSHS shall conduct a literature review, develop a handbook, and provide training and technical assistance for local governments on the environmentally sound disposal of septage. Target Date: Complete inventory and recreational vehicle investigation by June 30, 1992. Prepare manuals by January 1, 1993. Conduct septage litera- ture review and prepare handbook by July 1, 1992. [Status: Implementation of this element is delayed until the 1992-93 bien- nium.] Marinas and [NOTE: The marinas and recreational boating program shall focus on recrea- Recreational Boating tional boating because of its widespread occurrence throughout Puget Sound. However, small (less than 65 feet in length) uninspected commercial vessels 74 ACTION PLAN using areas where nonpoint pollution from boats has been identified as a problem shall be subject to education and enforcement programs.] MB-1. Shoreline Ecology shall revise WAC 173-16 guidelines to include specific standards for Master Program siting, design, renovation, or expansion of new marinas, existing marinas, and Amendments for associated fuel docks and boat repair facilities. Ecology shall coordinate with Marinas DSHS to develop standards for siting marinas to prevent any restriction in the use of commercial and recreational shellfish beds and specific regulations re- quiring best management practices to control pollutants from boat repair facilities associated with marinas and recreational boating. The revised guidelines shall also specify that local governments must condition shoreline permits for marinas to require boater education and to provide for proper boat sewage disposal facilities. Target Date: Revised guidelines by January 1991. Local jurisdictions shall amend their shoreline master programs to be consis- tent with the revised WAC 173-16. Target Date: Programs amended by January 1992. [Status: Since the target date is 1992, implementation of this element has not yet begun.] MB-2. Model DSHS shall draft a model ordinance requiring slipside pumpouts ("sewer Ordinances for Sewer hookups") or other means of sewage disposal for liveaboards at public and Hookups for private marinas. Local governments shall be encouraged but not required to Liveaboards adopt and enforce ordinances requiring slipside pumpouts or other sewage dis- posal methods. The ordinance shall be accompanied by a report providing in- formation for local governments on designing and installing slipside pumpouts at marinas and methods of ensuring their use by liveaboard boaters.lz Follow- ing publication of the model ordinance and report, DSHS shall evaluate progress under the nonmandatory program and recommend additional action as necessary. Target Date: January 1, 1989. [Status: DSHS is currently working on preparation of the ordinance, and ex- pects to complete it by January 1989.] MB-3. Boaters Task The State Parks and Recreation Commission shall form a task force consisting Force of representatives from the boating community, PSWQA, DSHS, WDF, DNR, Ecology, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, tribes, shellfish 12 The discharge of untreated sewage from liveaboard boats at a marina is currently illegal under the general provisions of the Clean Water Act. The provision of a model ordinance is intended to assist local governments in dealing with illegal discharges from liveaboard boats. The discretionary nature of the ordinances does not mean discharge of sewage is legal where such ordinances have not been adopted. 75 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan growers, marina owners, the Washington Public Ports Association, the marine sanitation industry, owners of small commercial vessels, and other appropriate entities to accomplish the following tasks: a. Design an accelerated education program to be implemented by State Parks and Recreation with the following purposes: i. Encourage the use of marine sanitation devices (MSDs) in shallow water bays and other sensitive areas.13 ii. Discourage anchoring near shellfish beds. iii. Encourage environmentally safe habits in the use of antifouling paint, clean- ing agents, and petroleum products. In designing the education program the task force shall include an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the program, including its effectiveness with regard to boats anchoring near commercial shellfish beds. This evaluation shall be used by DSHS in its determination of the need for anchorage prohibi- tions (MB-8). Target Date: Task force convened by July 1, 1987. Education program under- way by January 1988 (for 1988 boat shows). b. Prepare legislation requiring sufficient pumpout facilities at existing and new moorage facilities (marinas, yacht clubs [including outstations], and parks with moorage). The legislation shall not require pumpouts at all moorage facilities but shall specify circumstances where pumpouts shall be required and shall establish an enforcement program. Legislation shall also specify (or require a rulemaking process to specify) operating charac- teristics of pumpouts including water depth, pumping pressure, maneuver- ing room, fees, and operating hours. 'alrget Date: Legislation submitted to 1989 legislature. [Status: The Boaters Task Force has assisted State Parks in developing the Boater Education Program and the pumpout legislation. State Parks will sub- mit the legislation during the 1989 session.] 3.1. Boater Education The State Parks and Recreation Commission shall implement the following Program three-phase boater education program developed by the Boaters Task Force: Phase 1, Boater Survey. State Parks, in cooperation with DSHS (MB-6), the Washington Public Ports Association, and other appropriate organizations, shall conduct a survey of boaters' waste disposal practices and shall provide educational materials, developed in consultation with the Boaters Task Force, to those surveyed. Target Date: Survey conducted and educational materials distributed summer of 1988. 13 Sensitive areas are defined as restricted water bodies where discharge of untreated sewage from boats is especially detrimental because of limited flushing, shallow water, commercial and recreational shellfish, swimming areas, or other characteristics. 76 ACTION PLAN Phase 2, Program Design. State Parks shall design, based in part on the results of the phase 1 boater survey, a long-term boater education program for target audiences, conduct an annual training program for park rangers and other ap- propriate groups, and identify mechanisms to distribute educational and inter- f/ - i pretive materials, The program shall (a) provide information to boaters on how to properly select, install, and operate a marine sanitation device (MSD); (b) encourage the use of MSDs, pumpout facilities, and dump stations; (c) dis- courage the anchoring of boats and the discharge of 'Types I and II MSDs within areas where commercial and recreational shellfish beds are located; and (d) include information for boaters and marina operators about environmen- tally sound use of antifouling paints, cleaning agents, and petroleum products. Appropriate information developed from the boater education program shall be coordinated with the nonpoint technical assistance team (NP-6). Target Date: Report on survey results submitted to the Authority by January 1, 1989. Preparation of educational materials for specific audiences completed by February 1, 1989. First annual training of park rangers completed by May 1989 at park ranger regional meetings. Phase 3, Program Implementation and Evaluation. State Parks shall work with local governments and boating groups and encourage the use of state public educational materials to develop local boater environmental education programs. State Parks shall complete the construction of interpretive signs at marine state parks where pumpout and dumpout facilities are installed (MB- 4) and shall consider installing such signs at marinas where DSHS conducts its water quality studies under MB-6. State Parks, in coordination with the Boaters Task Force, shall evaluate the effectiveness of the boater education program in coordination with DSHS water quality studies under MB-6. This evaluation shall be used by DSHS in its consideration of no discharge (MB-7) and no anchoring (MB-8) areas and by State Parks in its enforcement of MSD regulations (MB-5). State Parks representatives shall assist the Nonpoint Technical Assistance Team in providing information on boats and water quality to watershed management committees. Target Date: State Parks to contact local governments by July 1989. Installa- tion of interpretive signs at existing pumpout stations at state parks by June 1990. Complete first annual program evaluation by December 1990. [Status: State Parks conducted the boater survey during the summer of 1988. Design and implementation of the education program is underway.] MB-4. Construction The State Parks and Recreation Commission shall install pumpout stations at of Pumpouts at selected state parks with priority given to parks located in poorly flushed bays Priority State Parks with shellfish resources and without other nearby pumpout facilities. State Parks shall consult with PSWQA, DSHS, Ecology, WDF, DNR, and the Boaters Task Force of MB-3 for assistance in identifying those parks with the highest need for pumpouts. Target Date: Installation of at least one pumpout by the summer of 1988, addi- tional pumpout services at up to four state parks by the summer of 1991, and at two more parks per year thereafter until the need for pumpout services is met. [Status: State Parks installed a pumpout at Mystery Bay State Park in the sum- mer of 1988, and the Boaters Task Force has developed a list of recommended additional sites for pumpouts.] 77 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan MB-5. Enforcement State Parks and Recreation shall develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure of MSD Regulations compliance with federal marine sanitation device (MSD) installation and use. The strategy shall include methods to protect environmentally sensitive areas. In developing the strategy, State Parks shall consult with the U.S. Coast Guard, DNR, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of So- cial and Health Services, Ecology, Natural Resources, Fisheries, and Wildlife, sheriff's departments, local governments, and the boating community. Public meetings shall be held in several locations in Puget Sound to take comment on the strategy prior to its adoption. If State Parks and the consulted agencies and groups determine a memorandum of understanding with the Coast Guard is a preferred strategy, State Parks shall take early action to obtain an MOU with the U.S. Coast Guard and prepare any necessary legislation to permit state inspection of recreational vessels and other uninspected vessels under 65 feet in length for marine sanitation devices (MSDs). In developing the strategy, State Parks and the consulted agencies and groups shall consider including an inspection program coordinated with the ac- celerated education program (MB-3) and focused on shallow water bays and other sensitive areas. State Parks shall also consider including enforcement of "no anchorage" areas and "no discharge" areas if instituted under MB-7 and MB-8 below. Parks and Recreation shall consult with the Boaters Task Force (MB-3) for assistance in designing an effective enforcement program to com- plement the education program. Target Date: State Parks takes early action, if necessary, to negotiate an MOU with the Coast Guard and prepare any necessary legislation by July 1, 1990. Implementation of strategy begins by July 1, 1991. [Status: Since the target date is 1990, implementation of this element has not yet begun.] MBB-6. Monitoring DSHS shall conduct an ongoing water quality monitoring program of boating Program for Boating areas to determine the extent of contamination by boats, to provide informa- Areas tion for use in the boater education programs and watershed action plans (NP- 2 through NP-4), and to evaluate the effectiveness of various control methods. The surveys shall include water and shellfish samples and boat counts. The monitoring program shall be consistent with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Target Date: Ongoing. [Status: DSHS has selected five sites and begun monitoring.] MB-7. Study of "No Two years after the implementation of MSD enforcement (MB-5), Ecology Discharge" Areas and DSHS shall evaluate the need for "no discharge"14 areas; if a need is found, Ecology shall apply to EPA for their designation. Need shall be based 14 "No discharge" areas are areas where the use of Type I and Type II MSDs (treatment devices as opposed to Type III holding tanks) is prohibited. Vessels with Type I and Type II devices are permitted in "no discharge" areas but may not discharge. The process of designation requires application by the governor or the Department of Ecology to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a showing that sufficient pumpout facilities for all vessels exist. 78 ACTION PLAN upon the inability to achieve water and shellfish quality standards in boating areas if lype I and II MSDs are permitted. In making a determination as to whether a boating area needs a "no discharge" designation, Ecology and DSHS shall consider the water circulation and other natural characteristics of the area, the presence of commercial and recreational shellfish and swimming areas, the results of the monitoring of boating areas (MB-6), the number of boats using an area, and, if applicable, the percent of boats with 'Type I and II devices found by the inspection program (MB-5). Target Date: Study complete and any applications to EPA made by December 1992. [Status: Since the target date is 1992, implementation of this element has not yet begun.] MB-8. "No DSHS shall provide ongoing evaluation of the results of the monitoring of Anchorage" Areas boating areas and the success of the education program (MB-3) in protecting commercial and recreational shellfish beds from closures due to anchored boats. If DSHS finds that the education program has been unsuccessful in protecting commercial and recreational shellfish beds from such closures, DSHS shall draft legislation with anchorage prohibitions to prevent any restriction in the use of commercial and recreational shellfish beds. "No anchorage" areas shall be enforced by State Parks and Recreation as part of its MSD enforcement program (MB-5). The education program shall warn boaters of the potential for anchorage prohibitions if the education program is unsuccessful in achieving water quality and shellfish standards in boating areas. Target Date: If necessary, legislation shall be submitted to the 1992 legislature. [Status: Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Boater Education Program (MB-3) and the results of monitoring (MB-6) will occur by 1992.] Forest Practices FP-1. The Authority endorses the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Project and the revisions in Timber/Fish/Wildlife 1987 and 1988 to the Forest Practices Act and Regulations. The Authority sup- Project ports in concept the process and proposed regulatory and programmatic chan- ges outlined in the T/F/W Final Report (February 1987). In particular, the Authority supports the T/F/W approach of significantly increasing enforce- ment and monitoring of forest practices, preplanning and basin planning, inter- disciplinary identification (ID) teams, data management, a comprehensive program for identifying and correcting problems with orphaned roads, riparian management zone regulations, extended forest practice application review period (extended from 15 to 30 days), reorganization and staff increases at DNR, and continuing program evaluation. The Authority will support statutory and regulatory actions, including any federal and state funding proposals, necessary to implement the T/F/W Agreement. The Authority will review and comment on major milestones and documents of the T/F/W Project as they relate to Puget Sound, both providing the Forest Practices Board with comments on regulatory and policy initiatives of the T/F/W Project and participating in the annual T/F/W evaluation process. [Status: The Authority has continued its participation in the T/F/W process.] 79 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan MAJOR PUBLIC 1. The results of the study by DSHS evaluating the need for revisions to WAC ACTIONS FOR 248-96 for on-site septic systems and any subsequent proposed revisions REVIEW15 (NP-0). 2. Ecology guidelines on shoreline master program requirements for marina siting and design (MB-1). 3. Washington Conservation Commission Cost Share Program (NP-14). LEGISLATION 1989 Session REQUIRED 1. Legislation requiring sellers to provide septic system information to pur- chasers prior to transfer and financing of property (NP-11). 2. Legislation for pumpout facilities at existing and new moorage facilities (MB-3). Subsequent Sessions 1. Legislation amending RCW 18.43.070 to allow inclusion of professional en- gineers among the professionals to be covered by the state certification program for designers and installers of on-site systems (NP-12). 2. Legislation would be required to expand Boating Safety enforcement powers to allow inspections of marine sanitation devices on vessels (MB-5). 3. If "no discharge" areas are designated, legislation would be required to prohibit use of Type I and Type II MSDs in those areas (MB-7). 4. Legislation would be required to prohibit anchorage near commercial and recreational shellfish beds (MB-8). 5. Legislation or constitutional amendment may be required to establish a cost- sharing program (NP-14). ESTIMATED COST The estimated cost for the nonpoint program is approximately $13.6 million in the FY 1990-91 biennium. Full funding for this program for the biennium would have cost approximately $20 million, but only 68 percent of that total is being requested for FY 1990-91. Costs will increase to $9.4 million in fiscal year 1992, and decrease to $8.9 million in fiscal year 1993 and $6.9 million in fiscal year 1994. Cost estimates for each element for fiscal years 1989 through 1994 are shown in the following tables. Costs are for developing and implementing watershed action plans and carry- ing out augmented state programs for forest practices, marinas and boats, com- mercial dairy farms, and on-site septic systems. Most elements would likely be financed from the Centennial Clean Water Fund, state general fund and capi- 15 Although PSWQA will not be reviewing as major public actions the actual selection of priority watersheds or the individual action plans adopted for each priority watershed, the selection process and the plans will be reviewed by PSWQA through its general oversight role, as part of the audit of the program described in NP-7, and through the reports required of state agencies and local jurisdictions described in Chapter 6. 80 ACTION PLAN tal funds, and/or local government general funds. Fees (for on-site systems in- spections and maintenance) or rates (for watershed action plan components) are other possible funding sources. Some of the costs for controlling nonpoint pollution would be borne by the private sector. At the local level, in watershed action plans (NP-4), there will be costs for implementing agricultural and stormwater BMPs and for on-site septic system pumpouts or possible replacement. Agricultural BMP costs may be minimal, for example, sealing leaks in animal confinement areas; moderate, for example, stream fencing (approximately $1.00/foot plus watering costs); or high, for example, building manure lagoons. The cost of constructing lagoons may be $50,000 or more per farm. However, farmers implementing BMPs may be eligible for cost-sharing with government agencies. The costs of stormwater BMPs vary widely depending upon the nature of the source and the type of BMP or good housekeeping measure needed. Two ex- amples of stormwater BMPs are building berms and paving drum storage areas at industrial sites and constructing detention basins at residential and commer- cial developments. Examples of costs for stormwater BMPs are given in the Stormwater and CSOs program. On-site septic systems can be pumped out for about $120, but if they need to be repaired or replaced, the costs would be much higher. For example, a new drainfield would cost $1,000 to $2,000 while costs for alternative systems range from $3,000 to $10,000. Low-interest loans from the state Department of Community Development may be available in some cases for sewering areas with high numbers of on-site system failures. There will also be private sector costs for state-level programs. Costs related to the Dairy Waste Management Plan (NP-13) will be for implementing BMPs to minimize pollution from agricultural practices, as mentioned above for the watershed action plans, and may be subject to cost-sharing. Providing re- quired information about on-site systems at property transfers (NP-11) is ex- pected to cost about $75 per transfer. In the marinas and boats program, State Parks estimates an average cost of $100,000 for pumpout facilities at state parks. Although some boaters may have to spend money installing marine sanitation devices because of the state enforcement program (MB-5) ($200 to $1,000 depending on type of MSD and installation costs), the requirement for MSDs already exists in federal regula- tions. Similar costs would be borne by boaters with Type I or II MSDs who might wish to use their toilets legally in "no discharge" areas (MB-7) and there- fore might choose to replace their MSDs with holding tanks (replacement would not be required by law). Boat repair facilities may also incur additional costs for runoff controls, and marinas may incur costs for education and sewage treatment facilities resulting from the revised shoreline master program guidelines (MB-1). For forest practices, there is a potential for private sector costs from actions taken through the T/F/W Project. 81 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION COST BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 NP Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 127,046 127,046 127,046 127,046 127,046 NP-1 Selection of Priority Watersheds ...........176,978 162,000 0 0 0 0 0 NP-2 Guidelines for Watershed Action Plans ...... .152,545 103,644 5,704 5,704 0 0 0 NP-3 Watershed Management Committees ....... 1,410,133 962,053 962,053 1,197,333 1,197,333 1,013,253 NP-4 Plan Adoption and Implementation ........ 1,576,739 1,024,416 2,384,307 1,666,309 3,128,734 2,699,401 1,123,404 NP-5 Program Funding and Incentives .......... 35,000 35,000 150,000 150,000 288,000 288,000 72,000 NP-6 Technical Assistance for Watershed Plans ...... 267,290 250,567 488,981 504,857 703,484 703,484 671,732 NP-7 Program Management ............... 49,864 253,116 197,095 197,095 289,862 289,862 289,862 NP-8 Education Programs ................ 77,576 20,000 56,988 56,988 96,988 66,988 76,988 NP-9 Prevention ................... .. 13,748 1,025,047 7,500 3,750 0 0 0 NP-10 On-Site Regulations and Programs ........ . 39,733 79,466 135,545 135,545 135,545 135,545 135,545 NP-11 On-Site Inspections and Education ........ . 30,777 60,000 45,000 45,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 NP-12 Certification of On-Site Professionals ....... . 30,777 30,777 27,109 59,640 81,327 81,327 81,327 NP-13 Dairy Waste Management Plan ........... 308,560 2,067,562 1,755,410 1,384,348 1,932,333 1,916,957 1,916,957 NP-14 Cost-Sharing Program .................. 0 41,628 20,916 20,916 29,879 29,879 29,879 NP-15 Larger/Alternative On-Site Systems/Septage ........ 0 0 0 0 162,654 162,654 162,654 MB-1 Shoreline Amendments for Marinas ......... 0 0 151,533 149,226 0 0 0 MB-2 Model Ordinances for Liveaboards ......... 14,748 5,499 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 MB-3 Boaters Task Force ................. 149,269 132,520 209,400 217,086 270,502 270,502 270,502 MB-4 Construction of Pumpouts at Priority State Parks . . .555,000 107,000 193,000 193,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 MB-5 Enforcement of MSD Regulations .......... 20,000 20,000 40,674 607,724 536,394 536,394 536,394 MB-6 Monitoring Program for Boating Areas ....... 25,881 53,761 48,796 48,796 54,218 54,218 54,218 MB-7 Study of 'No Discharge" Areas .............. 0 0 0 0 103,790 0 0 MB-8 "No Anchorage" Areas ..................0 0 5,421 10,843 13,554 0 0 TOTAL $4,934,618 $6,882,136 $7,017,901 $6,551,349 $9,447,063 $8,855,011 $6,857,181 Element Notes NP Ecology administrative costs for nonpoint program as a whole. NP-3 Assumes 15 watersheds underway in fiscal year 1990. NP-4 Local planning staff are budgeted under NP-3. All watersheds are assumed to have septic programs, 80% are assumed to have farm programs and 25% are assumed to have stormwater programs. PSWQA will review watershed actiion plans and other reports with Ecology. Ecology costs are in- cluded under NP-7. NP-5 Assumes 12 conservation districts, budgeted under NP-3 and NP-4. NP-14 Cost estimate covers development of a cost sharing program but not implementation. MB-7 Enforcement is budgeted under MB-5. 82 ACTION PLAN NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Sea Grant & Coop Extension ................... ..0 0 9,750 9,750 32,500 32,500 32,500 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252,518 593,552 815,823 812,554 1,186,484 1,067,318 1,067,318 DSHS ......................... 281,604 233,431 327,157 359,688 587,584 564,029 564,029 PSWQA ...................9.......98,093 74,596 62,745 62,745 Fisheries .......................... 12,498 12,498 57,153 68,267 133,358 133,358 101,606 Wildlife .1.........................10,999 10,999 17,349 13,345 26,691 26,691 26,691 Parks and Recreation ................... . 701,772 237,023 408,439 1,005,921 1,040,896 1,040,896 1,040,896 Natural Resources ................. ... . 11,499 11,999 13,721 13,721 34,302 34,302 34,302 Conservation Commission ................... 79,792 104,872 80,675 80,675 139,518 119,518 129,518 Agriculture ................... ...... 12,247 11,873 6,408 6,408 32,040 32,040 32,040 Washington Conservation Corps ................ 35,000 35,000 195,000 195,000 348,000 348,000 132,000 Local Government ..................... 3,032,597 5,393,894 4,560,959 3,460,555 5,117,692 4,688,359 3,422,362 Conservation Districts .................... 406,000 162,400 462,720 462,720 768,000 768,000 273,920 TOTAL $4,934,618 $6,882,136 $7,017,901 $6,551,349 $9,447,063 $8,855,011 $6,857,181 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Capital Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549,000 0 175,000 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Centennial Clean Water Fund ............... 2,636,739 3,517,116 3,619,957 2,768,707 4,325,954 4,087,954 2,738,594 State General Fund ................... ..947,021 1,325,842 1,819,222 2,453,074 3,361,372 3,198,652 2,960,900 Local Sources ........................ 801,858 2,039,178 1,403,722 1,154,568 1,559,737 1,368,405 957,687 TOTAL $4,934,618 $6,882,136 $7,017,901 $6,551,349 $9,447,063 $8,855,011 $6,857,181 83 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan SHELLFISH PROTECTION PROBLEM DEFINITION Importance of the Puget Sound is one of the most productive shellfish growing areas in the Shellfish Resource country. The Department of Ecology determined that the commercial harvest of oysters, clams, and mussels in 1987 was over 14 million pounds, with an es- timated retail value of $76 million. Ecology has noted that existing commer- cial shellfish operations represent only a fraction of the potential production of Puget Sound. In addition, Ecology has estimated the economic losses at- tributable to prohibited, restricted, or conditionally approved shellfish beds to be over $3 million annually. The Department of Fisheries estimates that over one million recreational clamming trips are made to Puget Sound each year, yielding over 3.3 million pounds of clams for an approximate retail value of over $11.2 million. Fisheries also reports that in 1986 approximately 57,700 pounds of oysters were harvested in Hood Canal for noncommercial consumption, a potential retail value of approximately $250,000. The value of the shellfish resource, however, extends far beyond strictly economic benefits. There are few other places where the tie between people and their natural surroundings is as close as on Puget Sound. An important part of this tie is the use of the Sound's shellfish resource-for years people have depended on shellfish for food or have enjoyed shellfish harvesting. For numbers of people, including many who do not themselves harvest shellfish, these and other living resources of the Sound represent historical and cultural values integral to the quality of life of the region. Causes of Some commercial shellfish beds in Puget Sound were closed to harvest as early Contamination as the 1950s. These early closures occurred mainly in urbanized areas due to the beds' proximity to sewage treatment plants and other urban sources of pol- lution. A significant change in this pattern has occurred since 1981. Most restrictions placed on harvesting shellfish now occur in rural, not urban, bays. Animal-keeping practices, failing on-site septic systems, stormwater, sewage treatment plants, marinas, and boats are all sources of fecal coliform bacteria and have been implicated in recent harvest restrictions at commercial shellfish beds. Since December 1986 five additional commercial shellfish beds have been reclassified to a more restrictive status. Preliminary results of monitoring under the recreational shellfish program (SF-4) show five recreational sites that consistently exceed fecal coliform standards. An ongoing Department of Social and Health Services/Environmental Protection Agency study of 25 recreational shellfish areas (SF-3) has revealed bacterial contamination at three sites that consistently exceeded national shellfish standards throughout the two-year study. There is limited information on toxic contamination of commercial and recrea- tional shellfish in Puget Sound. The DSHS study at recreational beaches (SF- 84 ACTION PLAN 3) includes testing for some toxicants. This testing may be expanded by DSHS if results indicate potential toxic contamination of shellfish. PROGRAM STATUS The two major elements of the shellfish protection program are the restora- tion and protection of commercial shellfish beds (SF-2) and the recreational shellfish program (SF-4). Both of these elements are well into the implemen- tation phase. Six "early action" shellfish watershed programs are in place around the Sound as part of the nonpoint source pollution program (SF-2). Ecology provides technical assistance to these local programs, and DSHS coor- dinates its monitoring of shellfish beds with watershed management commit- tees. Based on the results of the DSHS-EPA study of toxicant levels in Puget Sound shellfish, DSHS is conducting additional sampling under the toxicant testing program to establish baseline and trend information (SF-3). Under the recreational shellfish program (SF-4), DSHS has inventoried recreational shellfish beds, established a schedule for monitoring these beds, and initiated sampling at many sites. DSHS is drafting regulations it will propose to the state Board of Health that will govern the recreational harvest of shellfish. The Recreational Shellfish Program Committee has outlined a restoration and protection grants program for local government projects to protect recreational shellfish. Preliminary results from monitoring of recrea- tional shellfish areas show that harvesting at a significant flumber of these beaches may have to be restricted due to bacterial pollution. There may be a need, therefore, for a higher number of recreational shellfish restoration projects than anticipated in the 1987 plan. DSHS published the first annual inventory of shellfish resources (SF-5) in July 1988. It has been distributed to local health agencies, Ecology, other state agencies, and watershed management committees. The Ecology funding as- sessment (SF-6) will begin by 1989. Several public involvement and education activities have taken place (SF-7). Ecology included education and involve- ment in its contract requirements for the six early action shellfish watersheds. Ecology also developed a shellfish and watershed display for the early action watersheds. The Department of Fisheries will soon expand and reprint its shellfish booklet. DSHS public information staff coordinate the agency's educational activities related to the Puget Sound plan. PROGRAM GOAL To prevent contamination of commercial and recreational shellfish beds. Beginning in 1989, to reopen (upgrade classification) at least one commercial shellfish bed every year.' To prevent additional closures of commercial and recreational shellfish beds. To ensure continued measurable improvement in water quality at all shellfish beds. 16 "Commercial shellfish beds" refers to growing areas that are classified by Ecology as "closed/correctable", that are not intensively developed, that do not have major or numerous sewage discharges, and that may be reopened by application of pollution control strategies such as those developed under the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. DSHS uses the classification system of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. "Upgrade classification" refers to this national system where shellfish beds may be reclassified up from a more restrictive to a less restrictive status, such as from "restricted" to "prohibited" or from "conditionally approved" to "approved." 85 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: DSHS has significantly expanded its monitoring program and, as a consequence, has restricted harvest at several more shellfish beds since the plan was adopted. Most restrictions were due to nonpoint pollution.] STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is to (1) adopt shellfish policies that will ensure that pollution source control programs protect shellfish; (2) respond to existing and potential shellfish contamination with an aggressive restoration and protection program; (3) test for toxicants in targeted commercial and recreational shellfish beds; (4) begin monitoring in recreational shellfish areas, implement recreational shellfish restoration and protection projects, and adopt rules governing the recreational harvest of shellfish; (5) develop an in- ventory and data base on the location and status of shellfish resources;(6) iden- tify funding sources for shellfish protection programs; and (7) increase public involvement and education in shellfish protection. PROGRAM ELEMENTS SF-1. Shellfish In developing the programs for Nonpoint Source Pollution (including local Protection and watershed action plans), Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows, and Restoration Policy Municipal and Industrial Discharges, state and local agencies shall ensure that the programs meet these objectives: a. Protection of shellfish beds from contamination and from reclassification to a more restrictive status; b. Lifting of harvest restrictions at commercial beds, especially closed/correc- table areas; and c. Reduction of contamination of recreational shellfish beds. Thrget Date: Upon plan adoption. [Status: This element is on schedule.] SF-2. Restoration and Ecology, in cooperation with PSWQA, DSHS, and local governments, shall Protection of continue and expand its existing shellfish protection program, to be imple- Commercial Shellfish mented primarily under the nonpoint priority watershed program (NP-1 Beds through 4). The objective of this shellfish program is to reopen closed/correc- table commercial shellfish beds and protect open/high threat commercial beds. The program provides that: a. Current Ecology/local government shellfish projects shall be treated as early action watersheds under the nonpoint program, and future Ecology grants to local governments for shellfish protection shall be integrated with the nonpoint program. Ecology shall provide technical assistance, in coor- dination with the nonpoint technical assistance team (NP-6), to local governments, tribes, conservation districts, or other entities carrying out shellfish projects under the nonpoint program. Where shellfish beds need- ing restoration or protection projects are not being addressed under the nonpoint program watershed management process (NP-3 and NP-4), Ecol- ogy shall attempt to target other funding sources on these shellfish beds. 86 ACTION PLAN Other funding sources may include Clean Water Act Section 2050) grants or Section 319 funds, EPA monies, or funds from the discretionary category of the Centennial Clean Water Fund. b. DSHS shall (i) expand and coordinate its investigations and monitoring program with Ecology, tribes, and local governments; (ii) retest sites where harvest restrictions apply; (iii) monitor sites being addressed by local shellfish protection projects; and (iv) develop plans for those water- sheds not addressed under the nonpoint program. Information on monitoring results and source investigations shall be transmitted as soon as available to Ecology and the appropriate local governments and local health agencies, tribes, and agencies. c. The Authority shall review during the plan revision process the success of state and local agencies in controlling identified and potential sources of shellfish contamination. Target Date: Ongoing. [Status: The Authority has reviewed the success of shellfish watershed action plans and has adopted several Puget Sound plan revisions to assist local governments, tribes, and state agencies in controlling nonpoint pollution of shellfish resources. The shellfish watersheds have been incorporated into the nonpoint early action watershed program. DSHS has expanded and coor- dinated its monitoring program, including restoration monitoring and plan- ning. The department has placed harvest restrictions on five additional commercial shellfish beds (eight recreational shellfishing areas exceed stand- ards).] SF-3. Testing Selected DSHS shall establish an ongoing program, consistent with the Puget Sound Shellfish Beds for Ambient Monitoring Program and including the use of Puget Sound Toxicants protocols, to test for toxicants at commercial and recreational areas beginning where recent studies have found toxicants to occur. The results of the tests shall be used to establish baseline and trend information on toxicants in shellfish around the Sound. Beds where toxicants exceed existing FDA action levels, or other accepted standards as developed, shall be closed and routinely reevaluated. PSWQA shall request FDA to reconsider, in consultation with EPA and NOAA, the need to establish standards and require testing for toxicants not covered by existing FDA action levels. Target Date: Ongoing. [Status: This element is proceeding on schedule.] SF-4. Recreational Representatives from Ecology, DSHS, Fisheries, DNR, State Parks, tribes, a Shellfish Program public interest group, and local health departments (with DSHS and Ecology as co-leads) shall comprise a committee for jointly developing a program to protect recreational shellfish from pollution, including: responsibilities of agencies; a schedule that identifies which recreational beds will be tested within a given time frame; water quality and shellfish tissue sampling--consis- tent, to the extent practicable, with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program-in targeted recreational areas; public notification about areas that do not meet Board of Health regulations governing the recreational harvest of shellfish; and initiation of restoration and protection projects in contaminated or threatened areas. 87 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Under the authority of RCW 43.20 DSHS shall propose regulations governing the recreational harvest of shellfish for consideration by the state Board of Health for adoption. DSHS shall evaluate the effectiveness of these rules and submit the evaluation to the Authority. Trget Dates: Submit scope of work to PSWQA by October 1, 1987. Begin im- plementation of survey and testing of recreational areas by October 1, 1987. Adopt regulations by February 1, 1989. Start restoration projects by July 1, 1989. Submit evaluation of rules by January 1, 1990. [Status: The Recreational Shellfish Program Committee has developed an outline of a plan to guide this program and has drafted recommendations for the restoration and protection projects grants. DSHS has inventoried recrea- tional shellfish beaches and begun monitoring. DSHS will present proposed regulations governing the recreational harvest of shellfish to the Board of Health in late 1988. EPA has funded a recreational shellfish restoration project at Penrose Point State Park.] SF-5. Annual DSHS shall annually publish and distribute to local health departments, Ecol- Inventory and ogy and other state resource agencies, tribes, and local watershed management Information committees (see NP-3) an inventory of all shellfish beds, including sites in the ~~~Management ~Puget Sound basin where recreational and commercial shellfish beds have Management been found to be contaminated, indicating the types of contamination tested for and the types found. DSHS, in coordination with the Puget Sound Am- bient Monitoring Program, shall prepare a guide to all existing data bases and information sources on the shellfish resource. DSHS shall consult with Ecol- ogy, the Departments of Fisheries and Natural Resources, the State Parks and Recreation Commission, tribes, and local health agencies and shall update and distribute the guide annually to watershed management committees, recrea- tional shellfish restoration projects, and the entities named above. Target Date: Distribute first inventory by November 1, 1987. DSHS dis- tributes first shellfish information guide by July 1, 1990. [Status: The first annual inventory was completed and distributed in July 1988.] SF-6. Funding Ecology shall assess the adequacy of existing funding mechanisms for shellfish Sources Assessment protection programs, identify new sources, and develop and implement a strategy for securing funds. Ecology shall consult with its Shellfish Protection Advisory Committee and with PSWQA and the Departments of Fisheries and Natural Resources in the development of this program. Ecology shall also con- sult with DNR about the use of funds from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account for the shellfish program. Target Date: Submit assessment to PSWQA by May 1, 1989. Implement strategy by January 1, 1990. [Status: Ecology will begin this element by 1989 in coordination with C-1.] SF-7. Public Ecology, in consultation with the Recreational Shellfish Program Committee Involvement and and the Departments of Social and Health Services, Fisheries, and Natural Education Resources shall implement a program for public involvement in and education on the protection of the shellfish resources of Puget Sound. 88 ACTION PLAN The program shall implement improved mechanisms for disseminating infor- mation among agencies and to the public on shellfish issues, especially beach closures and public health risks. The program shall also include procedures for coordinating workshops and the updating and distribution of agency shellfish publications, citizen involvement in shellfish protection projects, and the prevention of shellfish contamination. DSHS and local health departments shall implement a program of posting, press releases, and other techniques to prevent harvesting of contaminated shellfish and to inform the public, including shellfish growers, of commercial and recreational shellfish contamination and closures and of programs address- ing these issues. The Department of Fisheries shall establish a work group that includes agen- cies, boaters, shellfish growers, and tribes to develop an interpretive program at an appropriate location in Puget Sound (element ES-4.4). Ecology and other agencies shall include, as appropriate, information about shellfish and shellfish protection in other educational programs developed under the Puget Sound plan. Education shall be a required element of all local programs under SF-2 and SF-4 and shall be included, as appropriate, in nonpoint program watershed action plans, nonpoint technical assistance team activities (NP-6), and the boater education program (MB-3). Target Date: Ecology submits progress report to the Authority by November 1, 1989. Fisheries begins interpretive program by May 1, 1990. [Status: Ecology has included education and involvement in its contract re- quirements for the six early action shellfish watersheds. Ecology also has developed a shellfish and watershed display for the early action watersheds. The Department of Fisheries expanded and reprinted its shellfish booklet, and DSHS public information staff coordinates the agency's Puget Sound plan public education activities.] MAJOR PUBLIC 1. Restoration/protection program for commercial shellfish beds (SF-2) ACTIONS FOR REVIEW 2. DSHS program for testing of toxicants in selected areas (SF-3). 3. Recreational shellfish program and regulations (SF-4). 4. Funding sources assessment (SF-6). 5. Public involvement and education program (SF-7). LEGISLATION None REQUIRED ESTIMATED COST The shellfish program is estimated to cost approximately $4.6 million in the FY 1990-91 biennium. The greatest costs are for implementation of the recreational shellfish program (SF-4). This cost is approximately evenly divided between monitoring and restoration. Most costs for continuation and expansion of Ecology's shellfish protection program under SF-2 are estimated in element NP-3, 4, and 6 of the nonpoint program. Additional program 89 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan development, administration, education, and other shellfish program support activities are postponed to the FY 1992-93 biennium, reducing the FY 1990-91 budget request by approximately $0.5 million. Private sector costs resulting from shellfish restoration and protection projects would primarily involve repairs for failed on-site septic systems or implementa- tion of farm animal waste control programs. These costs are discussed in the nonpoint program. ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: SHELLFISH PROTECTION COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 SF Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 18,598 18,598 18,598 18,598 18,598 SF-2 Restoration & Protection of Commercial Beds ....186,261 187,261 334,978 334,978 323,570 323,570 323,570 SF-3 Testing Selected Beds far Toxicants ......... 26,663 27,663 0 0 0 0 0 SF-4 Recreational Shellfish Program ...........131,348 817,468 1,534,975 1,534,975 1,586,986 1,586,268 1,586,268 SF-5 Annual Inventory & Information Management ... . 29,819 29,819 48,214 48,214 48,214 48,214 48,214 SF-6 Funding Sources Assessment ..................... 0 62,905 38,533 32,829 32,829 32,829 32,829 SF-7 Public Involvement & Education ........... 66,952 346,062 342,141 352,141 417,965 391,299 391,299 TOTAL $441,044 $1,471,179 $2,298,842 $2,303,138 $2,409,564 $2,382,179 $2,382,179 Element Notes SF-4 Includes DSHS funding to carry out Board of Health regulations and to certify and fund local labs. Includes Ecology funding for program development, project selection, grants administration, data management and technical assistance, and coordination with other agencies. SF-7 Includes funding for activities and materials that would support the Education Strategy in the Education program. COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Ecology Pass Through to Local .................... 0 0 205,000 205,000 255,000 255,000 255,000 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,177 145,381 159,916 159,916 159,916 159,916 159,916 DSHS ..................... ....366,371 807,134 840,461 840,461 840,461 840,461 840,461 PSWQA ..................... .....5,499 5,499 37,077 31,373 Fisheries ..................... .....3,999 24,339 177,931 187,931 275,012 275,012 275,012 Parks and Recreation ..................... 5,499 5,499 4,781 4,781 5,499 4,781 4,781 Natural Resources ..................... ..5,499 24,622 0 0 0 0 0 Washington Conservation Corps ...................0 0 108,360 108,360 108,360 108,360 108,360 Local Government ........... ..............0 458,705 765,317 765,317 765,317 738,650 738,650 TOTAL $441,044 $1,471,179 $2,298,842 $2,303,138 $2,409,564 $2,382,179 $2,382,179 90 ACTION PLAN MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES PROBLEM DEFINITION Environmental Industries and municipal sewage treatment plants release about 900 million Problems gallons of effluent (wastewater) to Puget Sound every day.17 Municipal and in- dustrial discharges of wastewater are often referred to as "point sources" of pol- .______________ lution because they are discharged into the water at a specified point such as a ,_~ c--.~ 2 pipe or ditch. Extensive and continuing efforts to control conventional pollutants18 from :')5 ~-x ~- ~.~ ~.~,point sources with wastewater discharge permits have proved increasingly suc- cessful, and water quality problems related to these pollutants are now relative- f7 Co~ ) mly rare in Puget Sound.' Where such problems do occur, they are generally localized and transient. Tobxic pollutants are of greater concern in Puget Sound. Of greatest concern are toxicants that are persistent (remaining in existence indefinitely) and those that are irreversibly accumulated and concentrated in sediments and living tis- sues and passed through the food chain. Many toxicants discharged by point sources bind to particles and settle out to become part of the sediment. The concentration of toxicants found in recent sediments from Puget Sound's urban bays is up to 100 times the levels in the cleanest rural bays. Toxicant concentrations in sediments from the central basin and rural bays are much lower but are still elevated over preindustrial levels. High concentrations of toxic contaminants have been associated with high incidences of diseased fish and other adverse biological effects in Puget Sound's urban bays. Toxic substances may also pose health risks to consumers of Puget Sound seafood. While many industries and municipal treatment plants that discharge directly to the Sound and its tributaries discharge significant quantities of toxicants, current effluent monitoring is insufficient to estimate accurately their contri- bution relative to other sources of toxicants such as stormwater, CSOs, and nonpoint sources. 17 This volume would cover an area of 4.3 square miles to a depth of one foot. It is approximately equal to the average daily discharge of the Green/Duwamish River. 18 The federal Clean Water Act divided pollutants into categories with varying requirements for control of each. Conventional pollutants are oxygen-depleting substances, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and oil and grease. Toxic pollutants include 13 heavy metals, 111 organic compounds (such as pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs), asbestos, and cyanide. All other pollutants are classified as nonconventional pollutants. 19 Water quality problems related to conventional pollutants from point sources in Budd Inlet are an example of an exception to this generalization. Overflows from combined sewers are another exception. Another significant exception exists in the case of shellfish beds within approximately one mile of municipal discharges. Because of the risk of contamination with pathogens, current rules automatically require closure of such shellfish beds. 91 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan In cases where municipal treatment systems receive industrial discharges, these "indirect discharges" generally contribute a high proportion of the toxicants discharged by the treatment plant. These toxicants can interfere with the operation of the sewage treatment plant, expose plant workers or equip- ment to damaging substances, or pass through the treatment plant to con- taminate the water, air, or sludge. Industrial pretreatment programs are designed to reduce such problems by removing the problem wastes before they enter the municipal wastewater. While toxic pollution of sediments has become a dominant concern, recent reports show that the sea surface may also be contaminated with toxicants in sufficient concentrations to kill or cripple larvae and fish eggs that are found in this "microlayer." The water itself also sometimes shows concentrations of toxicants that exceed EPA's criteria for the protection of marine life from ad- verse chronic effects. The rate of contamination of sediments by some highly regulated toxicants (e.g., lead, DDT, PCBs) is decreasing. However, the same cannot be said for all toxicants. As population and industrial activity increase, toxic contamina- tion may become more severe. Because of the persistence of many toxic sub- stances, the contamination is not easily reversed. Institutional Problems The federal Clean Water Act and Washington state law have established a strong institutional framework for controlling municipal and industrial dis- charges. Direct dischargers must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Department of Ecology (for nonfederal facilities) or EPA (for federal facilities). Ecology also administers state waste discharge permits, which regulate discharges to sewers (and related pretreatment requirements) and to groundwater. Ecology has been delegated authority to administer the pretreatment program, which regulates certain in- dustrial and commercial discharges to sewers. Under the point source control system, (1) a permit is required for any point source discharge; (2) the permit establishes specific limits on the quantity and concentration of contaminants allowed to be discharged (or on the overall toxicity of the effluent), together with other requirements (for monitoring, spill prevention, and others); (3) dischargers must monitor their effluent and report compliance with the conditions of the permit; and (4) the administering agency periodically inspects the facility and takes enforcement action as neces- sary. Effluent limits in permits must include minimum technology-based limits (generally based on criteria of "Best Available Technology" from federal law or "all known, available, and reasonable treatment" from state law) plus more stringent limits where necessary to meet state water quality standards. A number of weaknesses have been identified in the current implementation of the point source control system that allow toxic contamination to continue. These weaknesses include: * Permits have generally imposed very few limits on toxicants or particulates (either by limits on overall toxicity or on specific toxicants). * EPA effluent guidelines do not cover all industries, waste streams within industries, or contaminants within waste streams. 92 ACTION PLAN * Permit writers often lack sufficient information, guidelines, and standards to write toxicant limits in permits, and must rely on best professional judg- ment in developing permit conditions. * Current, informal guidelines for dilution zones do not take into considera- tion persistent toxicants and reconcentration of toxicants in sediments. The scope of discharger self-monitoring is limited and does not detect problems in sediments. * Past enforcement has been weak and inconsistent. * Felony provisions do not exist in state law for serious, intentional viola- tions. * Inspections are infrequent and are generally announced in advance. * There is no system to detect unpermitted discharges, except to a limited ex- tent in urban bays. * Self-monitoring is rarely independently verified. Laboratory data are sometimes inaccurate and are therefore unreliable. * Municipal operator training is limited in scope, e.g., operators generally receive no training related to pretreatment. * Public participation in permits and related decisions has been limited. * Ecology has lacked adequate resources to effectively carry out its func- tions under the NPDES and pretreatment programs. PROGRAM STATUS This program calls for extensive improvement in the effectiveness of the state's point source control program (including the pretreatment program) and em- phasizes control of toxicants from both industrial and municipal discharges. The program directs the Department of Ecology to include specific conditions in waste discharge permits aimed at controlling the introduction of toxicants into the Sound in both dissolved and particulate forms. In addition, com- prehensive monitoring requirements are added to permits to ensure compli- ance with permit conditions and to detect contamination not controlled by effluent limits and other permit requirements. The program also devotes sub- stantially increased resources to the inspection and enforcement roles of the Department of Ecology, and includes information and education measures to ensure that those individuals with a direct impact on the Sound are fully aware of their responsibilities. The initial implementation of this program was substantially delayed due first to budget uncertainty and ultimately to an overall reduction in the implemen- tation budget of over 50 percent, necessitated by the failure of permit fee legis- lation during the 1987 regular legislative session. Following passage of this legislation in a special session in October 1987, funding was partially restored, and activity has accelerated. Ecology's 1987-88 activities have emphasized (1) the development of criteria, guidance, and procedures necessary for subsequent implementation of several 93 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan key elements; (2) initiation of enhanced sampling inspections by Ecology in- spectors for the more significant dischargers; and (3) implementation of the new permit fee law. Specific accomplishments include adoption of water quality criteria for 22 toxicants as part of the state's water quality standards (P-l), drafting of sedi- ment quality standards (P-2), development of regulations to implement the in- creased discharge permit fees (P-4), development of interim guidelines for biomonitoring and toxicity control (P-8), and continued funding and staffing for the pretreatment program (P-22) and for urban bay action teams (P-13). Additional experience has been gained with Ecology's enforcement policy, which has now been in place since 1985, and useful discussion has occurred regarding the role of the Pollution Control Hearings Board in reviewing Ecol- ogy enforcement actions (P-18). Although delayed by an inadequate budget, crucial work to develop a permit- writer's procedures manual (P-5) and to complete the monitoring guidelines (P-8) is now well underway. Improvements in the requirements included in waste discharge permits (i.e., to better monitor and control the release of toxicants-the essence of the municipal and industrial discharges program) will follow the completion of these elements. Little progress has occurred on the information/education elements. .As a result of extensive discussions with affected groups, the Authority in February 1988 revised the municipal operator training element (P-23) to ease what was perceived as an unnecessarily onerous training requirement and to give greater discretion to the Wastewater Operator Certification Board. Little action took place on the industrial operator certification element (P-24) as funding was not available; consideration was given to changing this element to reflect a voluntary approach to industrial operator certification. No activity occurred to carry out the Employee Education Assistance element (P-25) due to lack of funding. Finally; implementation of several other elements was significantly delayed or not begun due to lack of funding. This includes development of dilution zone criteria (P-3), searching for unpermitted discharges (P-20), and carrying out cross-training for inspectors (P-19). Dilution zone criteria have assumed in- creased importance in view of questions on how to apply the new water quality standards for toxic substances within dilution zones. Felony provisions (P-21) were considered by the legislature but were not enacted into state law. PROGRAM GOAL 'Tb achieve comprehensive improvement in the control of toxic and other pol- lutants discharged into Puget Sound by industrial and municipal dischargers, reducing and eventually eliminating harm from such contaminants entering or accumulating in the Sound. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is (1) to require that all waste discharge permits include appropriate monitoring requirements and limitations on toxicants and other pollutants of concern; and (2) to devote substantially in- creased resources to the inspection and enforcement of waste discharge per- mits for industrial and municipal discharges throughout the Puget Sound basin as well as the discovery and control of unpermitted discharges. 94 ACTION PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS Standards P-1. Adopt EPA Water To assure better control of toxicants, Ecology shall adopt numerical water Quality Criteria quality criteria equivalent to those published in EPRs Quality Criteria for Water. These criteria may be adopted by reference; if so, a summary of the criteria (including the numerical values) shall be appended to copies of the state water quality standards distributed by Ecology. Thrget Date: September 30, 1987 (as part of Ecology's current review and revision of the state water quality standards). [Status: This element was completed on January 5, 1988.] P-2. Standards for Ecology shall develop and adopt by regulation standards for identifying and Classifying Sediments designating sediments that have acute or chronic adverse effects on biological Having Adverse Effects resources or pose a significant health risk to humans. The sediment standards will establish the levels of sediment contamination that are acceptable throughout the Sound over the long term. The standards may use physical, chemical, and biological tests and shall clearly identify pass/fail standards for the prescribed tests. Because methodologies to assess the human health risks of chemical contamination of sediments are not well developed, the initial standards may deal only with adverse effects on biological resources. The standards shall be revised to incorporate information on human health risks as it becomes available. Ongoing work by EPA and the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) to develop sediment quality values may be used as the technical basis for these standards. Various technical and legal issues will be considered by Ecology during the development of these standards including the selection of appropriate methods for measuring or predicting harm, the relationship of these standards to existing state and federal permit programs, and the possible need to allow sediment dilution (or impact) zones. In developing these sediment standards, Ecology shall form an advisory com- mittee which shall include representatives of environmental and public inter- est groups, ports, industry, appropriate state and federal agencies, local governments, and tribes. The standards shall be reviewed and updated as necessary, at least every three years. If apparent effects threshold (AET) values are used as a basis for estab- lishing the standards, the AET values shall be recomputed periodically to in- corporate new data. Ecology shall use these standards as the desired goal for sediment quality in implementing the municipal and industrial discharges program (see element P- 7), the stormwater and CSO program (see element SW-2), and the nonpoint program. These standards shall also be used as a basis to manage the disposal of dredged material (see elements S-3 and S-4), and to identify locations with sediment contamination (see elements S-7 and S-8). In implementing these programs, Ecology will consider other appropriate factors, including the 95 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan availability and reasonableness of treatment and control methods. This con- sideration of other factors may prevent this goal from being achieved in the near term. In particular, municipal, industrial, CSO, and stormwater dischar- ges may not initially be able to meet these standards without the application of sediment dilution (or impact) zones (see elements P-3 and P-6). Sediments that exceed the sediment standards are undesirable in Puget Sound. When they are dredged, they may only be disposed of by meeting the require- ments for use of PSDDA open water disposal sites (see element S-3) or the re- quirements for confined disposal to be developed under Sediments element S-4 (which may include in-water as well as upland disposal methods). Sedi- ments that exceed the sediment standards shall not be used as cap material for dredged material disposal or remedial actions. Ecology may determine that it is not cost-effective to cap, treat, or remove all sediments that exceed the standards developed under this element. Ecology may identify higher (more contaminated) levels that would result in cleanup actions or define cleanup levels (see Sediments element S-7). Target Dates: Interim sediment guidelines are to be completed by June 30, 1988. Final adoption of the initial standards shall be completed by June 30, 1989. [Status: Ecology released a first draft of "Sediment Quality Standards" in March 1988, and a second draft in September 1988. The Authority has ac- cepted the drafts as meeting the "interim guidelines" target date. The draft standards are based on the apparent effects threshold method using the Puget Sound sediment database developed by EPA and Ecology. The Sediment Ad- visory Group met for the first time in August 1988.] P-3. Dilution Zone In order to provide adequate opportunity for public review and comment on Criteria the criteria governing dilution zones surrounding wastewater discharges (within which water quality standards do not apply), Ecology shall adopt ad- ministrative rules specifying criteria for establishment of dilution zones in was- tewater discharge permits. As part of this effort, Ecology shall develop specific criteria for sediment impact zones that shall include provisions for in- terim management and closure plans, where appropriate. Target Date: Final adoption of rules by June 30, 1989. [Status: Staff hired spring 1988 to begin this effort.] Permits P-4. Permit Fees The Authority shall resubmit proposed legislation to the 1988 legislature amending RCW 90.48.460 and directing Ecology to assess permit fees on all permitted dischargers statewide (including industrial, municipal, and federal) to recover the cost of administering the NPDES and state waste discharge per- mit programs. Costs to be included in calculating fees shall include (1) initial permit issuance, (2) compliance review and evaluation, (3) inspections and re- lated monitoring, (4) laboratory support, and (5) overhead expenses directly related to the preceding items. Fees would not be designed to recover expen- ses related to enforcement (including discovery of unpermitted discharges) or expenses that are funded by federal grants. Fees for pretreatment-related state 96 ACTON PLAN discharge permits shall recover expenses related to administration of the pretreatment program. Ecology shall ensure that indirect dischargers are not assessed a double permit fee (i.e., once for their state discharge permit and again as a contribution to the treatment plant's permit fee). [Status: Permit fee legislation was enacted in October 1987, see RCW 90.48.600 through 90.48.640.] Ecology shall adopt an initial schedule for waste discharge permit fees authorized by RCW 90.48.600 through 90.48.640 and shall submit to the Authority a study of the feasibility of establishing a variable charge based on the quantity, toxicity, persistence, and other characteristics of the effluent. A variable component of the permit fee would, to the maximum extent possible, create an incentive for dischargers to reduce the quantity and harmful charac- teristics of their effluent. In establishing the fee schedule Ecology shall consider impacts of fees on small dischargers and provide appropriate relief if such impacts would be excessive. In accordance with RCW 90.48.610(4), Ecology shall submit a report by January 1, 1991, and biennially thereafter to the legislature and to the public on actions it has taken over the past biennium to improve the administrative efficiency of the NPDES and pretreatment permit systems. Ecology shall develop evaluation criteria against which its success in improving administra- tive efficiency can be measured from year to year. 'Irget Date: Begin assessing expanded permit fees by July 1, 1988. Submit feasibility study of the variable charge by January 1, 1990. [Status: Permit fee legislation was enacted October 1987. Fee schedule adop- tion on schedule. Variable fee study not started.] P-S. Procedures Ecology shall prepare and revise as necessary a procedures manual for permit Manual and Internal writers. This manual shall include guidelines and procedures to ensure that all Technical Assistance pertinent information is made available and used by permit writers in for Permit Writers determining appropriate effluent limits, particulate contamination limits (see P7,source control measures, and other conditions in NPDES and state per- mits. Such information may be derived from documents already available to -the department (e.g., the applicant's most recent hazardous waste annual reports) or additional information that would be requested from the applicant (e.g., information on the overall distribution of contaminants between the dis- solved and suspended phases of the effluent). The procedures manual shall require that all NPDES permits include ap- propriate conditions addressing all stormwater runoff from permitted facilities. The procedures manual shali incorporate other requirements of this plan re- lated to permit writing, including enhanced information in public notices and fact sheets pertaining to draft permits, monitoring requirements (P-8), spill control (P-9), 401 certifications (P-1il), assuring inspection access, and assur- ing that inspection results are provided to permit writers and permit modifica- tions made if necessary (P-14). The procedures manual shall encourage Ecology staff to make the best possible use of industry expertise and resources in carrying out permit writing and appropriate related activities. 97 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan The procedures manual shall also include guidelines for permit writers to use in evaluating the potential for cross-media transfer of pollutants. These guidelines shall emphasize mechanisms available to permit writers to en- courage waste reduction at the source rather than end-of-pipe treatment if such treatment results in cross-media transfer of pollution. Ecology shall provide opportunity for the public to review and comment on the draft procedures manual. Ecology shall establish an internal technical assistance team to assist permit writers in researching and writing appropriate conditions for NPDES and state permits. Ecology is encouraged to develop such effluent guidelines and techni- cal standards as may be necessary to assist in the efficient administration of the permit program. Following completion of the permit writer's procedures manual, Ecology shall prepare an inspector's manual which shall incorporate all appropriate com- ponents of this plan, and shall make use of existing manuals, such as those published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to the maximum ex- tent possible. Target Dates: Complete interim procedures manual by June 30, 1988. Com- plete final procedures manual by December 31, 1988. Establish internal tech- nical assistance team by January 1, 1989. Complete inspector's manual by December 31, 1989. [Status: Interim target date not met due to hiring delays; final procedures manual on schedule; initial technical assistance staff hired.] P-6. Toxicant Effluent The objective of toxicant effluent limits in permits is to control through the Limits in Permits use of all known, available, and reasonable methods20 the sources of toxicants in the waste discharge. In issuing or reissuing NPDES or state waste discharge permits, Ecology permit writers shall follow the procedures set out in the per- mit procedures manual developed under element P-5 and shall review the dischargers' operations and incorporate permit conditions which require all known, available, and reasonable methods to control toxicants in the dischargers' wastewater. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, limits on the discharge of specific chemicals and/or limits on the overall toxicity of the effluent. The toxicity of the effluent shall be determined by tech- niques such as chronic or acute bioassays. Such conditions shall be required regardless of the quality of receiving water and regardless of the minimum water quality standards. In no event shall the discharge of toxicants be allowed that would violate any water quality standard, including toxicant standards, sediment standards, and dilution zone criteria. In the fact sheet accompanying each draft major permit, Ecology shall clearly explain how the draft permit fulfills the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating harm from toxic contaminants in Puget Sound, including a sum- 20 Ecology has considered the following criteria, among others, in determining "reasonable methods:" (1) status of planning needed to proceed with the proposed method, (2) environmental or siting constraints, and (3) economic factors. The Pollution Control Hearings Board has upheld Ecology's use of these criteria (see PCHB Nos. 84-178,84-206,84-211). 98 ACTION PLAN mary of the information used to determine which-limits on specific toxicants and/or overall effluent toxicity should be included in the permit (see also ele- ment P-28, Reporting Requirements). The Authority requests EPA to provide a similar explanation for any draft major permit issued by EPA. Tlirget Date: Begin implementing this element by June 30, 1988. [Status: Language nearly identical to the first paragraph of this element was enacted by the 1987 legislature and is now RCW 90.48.520. Implementation not started due to delays in interim procedures manual (P-5). Implementation to be phased in as monitoring guidelines (P-8) and procedures manual are completed.] P-7. Effluent Limits In issuing or reissuing NPDES permits, Ecology shall obtain and review infor- in Permits- mation on particulate contamination in the applicant's effluent and shall in- Particulates clude specific conditions on particulate contamination, appropriate to each case, sufficient to assure that the ambient sediment standards will not be vio- lated, subject to any authorized sediment impact or dilution zones. Such con- ditions may include source control measures, best management practices, numeric limits on toxicity of the particulate fraction of the effluent, numeric limits on the concentration or mass of specific chemicals discharged, or other conditions deemed appropriate by Ecology. However, permittees shall not be required to comply with conditions for which there is no appropriate laboratory protocol, as determined by Ecology. Any draft of a major permit proposed without conditions on particulate contamination shall include, in the accompanying fact sheet, a written explanation of reasons why such limits are not applicable to the specific discharger (see also element P-28, Reporting Requirements). The Authority requests EPA to carry out this element with respect to every NPDES permit issued by EPA in the Puget Sound basin (see also element P- 11). 'Irget Date: This element shall become effective December 31, 1989. [Status: Implementation not started, will be phased in as sediment standards (P-2) and procedures manual (P-5) are developed.] P-8. Monitoring In issuing, modifying, or reissuing NPDES permits, Ecology shall consider the Requirements in need for each of the five types of monitoring listed below and shall include re- Permits quirements in permits for all types of monitoring that are appropriate to each permittee. Monitoring requirements included in permits shall be tiered so that if initial sampling discloses no problems, a reduced monitoring schedule may then apply. Likewise, if initial sampling indicates the possibility of problems, a more frequent and/or more comprehensive monitoring schedule would apply. Ecology shall develop (and revise as necessary) guidelines for the frequency and methodology of these tests and for reporting requirements and format. The guidelines shall include the tiered approach described above. The guide- lines shall use the Puget Sound protocols when available and data manage- ment systems compatible with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. The guidelines shall also define triggers for determining when action is neces- sary to modify a permit. Ecology shall develop the guidelines in consultation 99 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan with municipal and industrial dischargers, laboratories, EPA, the Authority, and others as appropriate. The fact sheet accompanying each draft major permit shall include a brief dis- cussion of how the draft permit has dealt with each of the five types of monitor- ing specified below and shall explain those situations where any of these types of monitoring have not been required in the draft permit. Although these monitoring requirements shall be primarily directed toward the detection of impacts from individual wastewater discharges, as a second priority, and to the extent practicable, Ecology shall develop monitoring requirements for permits that will facilitate the calculation of total contaminant mass loading to Puget Sound. The five types of monitoring are as follows: 1. Monitor specified parameters in the sediment in the vicinity of every sig- nificant outfall; 2. Separately analyze samples of the particulate fraction of the effluent from each significant outfall; 3. Conduct periodic acute and chronic toxicity bioassays on a sample of the ef- fluent from each outfall and on the sediment near each outfall; 4. Conduct periodic surveys of the population, species composition, and health of biota in the vicinity of each significant outfall; 5. Monitor water quality at the boundary of the dilution zone. If, for a given test, Ecology finds that there is no analytical protocol reasonably available, or if there is no public or private laboratory capability to carry out the test, Ecology may suspend the testing requirement for that test until such time as such a protocol and/or laboratory capability becomes available. Ecol- ogy shall promote the development of protocols and laboratory capability in cases where these are not available for the types of monitoring tests listed above (see also Laboratory Support elements L-1 and L-2). Ecology, in cooperation with EPA, shall prepare a list of the highest priority permits (based on the probability of effluent containing a significant quantity of toxic pollutants of concern) to be reopened prior to expiration for inclusion of these monitoring requirements. Ecology shall submit this list to the Authority together with a schedule for completion of permit modifications to include these requirements. Every major and minor permit issued or reissued by Ecology before the monitoring guidelines are implemented shall include a reopener provision al- lowing the modification of the permit to incorporate monitoring requirements in accordance with this element. Every permit issued or reissued by Ecology shall include a reopener clause allowing Ecology to modify, based on monitor- ing results or other causes consistent with state and federal regulations, the ef- fluent limitations, monitoring requirements, or other conditions in the permit. The Authority requests EPA to include similar reopener provisions in every NPDES permit issued by EPA in the Puget Sound basin. Ecology shall submit a report to the Authority on the advisability of providing an "option B" in which Ecology would arrange for an independent organiza- tion to conduct some or all of the monitoring activities (especially those in- 100 ACTION PLAN volving sampling outside the effluent pipes--e.g., 1, 4, and 5 above) for some dischargers in lieu of the individual dischargers performing this monitoring themselves, to be funded by a surcharge on the NPDES permit fee paid by these dischargers. The study shall estimate the amount of the fee surcharge that would be necessary to support this alternative and whether the overall cost to dischargers would be reduced. The study shall also address whether the quality of information derived under such an alternative would be improved. This study shall not be construed as authorizing any delay in the implementa- tion of the monitoring requirements described in this element. Target Dates: Include reopener language in all permits issued or reissued after March 31, 1987. Complete monitoring guidelines by December 31, 1988. Sub- mit report on "option B" by March 31, 1989. Include monitoring requirements in permits issued or reissued after December 31, 1988. Submit list of high priority permits and schedule for completing modifications by March 31, 1989. [Status: Delayed start due to Ecology hiring delays. Reopener language is now routinely included in permits; interim biomonitoring guidelines have been drafted but full guidelines delayed; neither the "option B" report nor the list of high priority permits has been started.] P-9. Spill Control Every major permit issued or reissued shall include appropriate conditions re- Plans Required quiring the development or updating, if necessary, of spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans. At a minimum, such plans shall apply to both oil and hazardous substances. Ecology, in consultation with EPA, shall actively review and comment on the SPCC plans and shall require the permit- tee to implement the approved plan. Ecology shall take enforcement action, consistent with its enforcement guidelines, against any permittee found out of compliance with its SPCC plan (refer to SP-3). 'hrget Date: Begin implementation by March 31, 1988. [Status: Many major permits already include basic spill control provisions, but implementation and follow-up are not complete and not consistent across Ecology regional offices.] P-10. Explanation of For any draft permit whose effluent limitations are in any way less stringent Relaxed and Increased than those in the preceding permit, Ecology shall include a conspicuous notice Limits in Permits and clear explanation of the reasons for such limits in the public notice of the draft permit. This requirement shall apply to all effluent limitations that are, or appear to be, a relaxation of limits in comparison to the previous permit. This requirement for notice and written explanation shall also apply to any draft permit proposing to allow a greater amount of effluent to be discharged due to increases in production. In every such explanation, Ecology shall report on measures available to and undertaken by the discharger to reduce the production of pollutants per unit of product. Ecology shall adopt rules im- plementing this program element. See also element P-28, Reporting Require- ments. Target Dates: Begin notice and explanation process by March 31, 1987. Adopt final rules by June 30, 1989. [Status: Guidance to Ecology permit writers to implement this element was is- sued on schedule. Due to lack of a reporting mechanism to date, it is unclear whether the notice requirement is being implemented in all applicable cases.] 101 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan P-11. Enhanced Requirements for EPA-Issued Permits/Ecology Certifications 11.1. EPA-Issued The Authority requests that the Environmental Protection Agency include Permits conditions in EPA-issued permits at least as stringent as those that are re- quired under this plan in permits issued by Ecology. This request applies to all toxicant and particulate limits and to monitoring, spill control, frequency of in- spection, and public notice requirements. The Authority also requests EPA to review existing EPA-issued permits and modify any permit as necessary to in- clude such limits and requirements. 11.2. Ecology Ecology shall not issue an NPDES permit, nor certify the issuance or renewal Certifications of any NPDES permit for a federal facility under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, unless the permit includes numeric limits and other conditions re- quired to comply with all applicable water quality and sediment standards and other elements of this plan. Before considering a permit or 401 certification for a federal facility permit, Ecology shall seek to be familiar with the facility site, through site visits, inspections or other means. Target Date: This element shall be applied to Ecology 401 certifications in a phased manner, beginning April 30, 1988. All appropriate guidance from the procedures manual (P-5), monitoring guidelines (P-8), and sediment standards (P-2) shall be used as those products are completed. [Status: Not started. Implementation delayed pending completion of proce- dures manual, monitoring guidelines, and sediment standards.] P-12. Reevaluate The Authority requests that EPA give special consideration to early comple- Allocation of Permits tion of its reevaluation of the major/minor permit classification for permits in into Major/Minor the Puget Sound basin. Ecology shall communicate to EPA any discrepancies Categories it is aware of in the classification of permits in the Puget Sound basin. Categories [Status: Delayed at national level. EPA currently expects to propose a revised system for rating discharges by October 1988, with rating of actual discharges to begin in mid-1989. Any modifications to the list of major dischargers that result from this revised rating system could then be formalized in the fiscal year 1990 State/EPA agreement.] Compliance Assurance P-13. Urban Bay The Authority recognizes the "Urban Bay Approach" as an essential part of a Action Teams comprehensive strategy to control point source pollution and requests EPA to continue providing resources for the urban bay programs. Support for the urban bay action teams is included in the cost estimates for elements related to permit writing (P-6, -7, -8), inspections (P-14), searching for unpermitted dis- 102 ACTION PLAN charges (P-20), and investigations and cleanup of contaminated sediments (S- 8). [Status: Urban bay action teams are functioning in Elliott Bay, Commence- ment Bay, and Everett Harbor. Teams are planned for Sinclair Inlet, Budd Inlet, and Bellingham Bay.] P-14. Inspections Ecology shall conduct a significant number of class I inspections on an unan- nounced basis. Similarly, a significant number of class II inspections shall in- clude an unannounced sampling visit. Ecology shall assure that such conditions as may be necessary to provide a prearranged means for Ecology in- spectors to obtain unannounced samples of effluent on a 24-hour basis are in- cluded in appropriate permits. Ecology shall conduct inspections in accordance with the following minimum schedule: Type of permit Number of inspections per year per permit Class I Class II Major 2 1 Significant minor 1 0.5 State and minor NPDES 1 0.1 Additional inspections (both announced and unannounced) shall be con- ducted based on the permittee's record of compliance. Ecology shall ensure that results of inspections are promptly made available to permit writers. Ecology shall ensure that discharge permits are modified as necessary to incorporate appropriate monitoring requirements or effluent limits to correct problems identified through inspections. Ecology shall submit a report to the Authority on the number and type of in- spections (including unannounced inspections) undertaken between July 1, 1988, and December 31, 1989, together with records of the number and type of violations discovered and actions initiated in response to violations. Ecology shall also report any occasions on which an authorized Ecology inspector was denied access to a facility. Target Date: Begin phasing in enhanced inspection schedule by September 30, 1987. Complete phase-in by July 1, 1992. Submit report on inspections by March 31, 1990. [Status: First staff hired January 1988 to begin phase-in of increased inspec- tion schedule. Policies for unannounced class I inspections have been developed. Policies for unannounced class II inspections still must be evaluated.] P-15. Study of Ecology shall submit to the Authority the results of a study evaluating alterna- Independent tive methods of carrying out independent verification of self-monitoring Verification of reports submitted by dischargers, together with Ecology's proposed plan and Self-Monitoring estimated costs for implementing a verification program. Possible methods to 103 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan be evaluated may include combining the independent verification function with the quality assurance/quality control procedures contemplated under the laboratory certification program (see elements L-1 and element P-16) and also "option B" in element P-8. Target Date: Submit study by September 30, 1990. [Status: Not funded; no activity during 1988-89 biennium.] P-16. Use of Certified Ecology shall adopt regulations requiring all permittees to use a certified Labs for laboratory for their wastewater analyses and requiring all certified laboratories Self-Monitoring to use specified protocols and comply with specified quality assurance/quality control procedures (see Laboratory Support program). Before implementing this requirement of permittees, Ecology shall ensure that the laboratory certification program is operational (see element L-1) and that a sufficient number of certified labs are available to carry out needed analyses. Labs owned and operated by individual industrial and/or municipal dischargers shall be eligible for certification. The Authority shall include authorization for Ecology to require use of certified labs in proposed legislation to be submitted to the 1987 legislature under element L-1. Target Dates: Adopt regulations by March 31, 1989. Permittees to begin using certified labs by July 1, 1989. [Status: Lab certification program being developed; implementation of this element is expected to begin on schedule.] P-17. Data Ecology shall complete the initial implementation of its computerized Waste- Management water Discharge Information System for tracking self-monitoring reports of dischargers and other information related to major NPDES permits. Ecology shall complete the initial loading of data related to state (pretreat- ment) and minor NPDES permits and begin incorporating routine self- monitoring data for these permits into the Wastewater Discharge Information System (WDIS). Ecology shall ensure that the WDIS system incorporates results of class I and class II inspections. Ecology shall store monitoring data of the five types outlined in element P-8 submitted by dischargers in a manner compatible with information in the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (see element M-6). Target Dates: Complete initial implementation of the WDIS system by March 31, 1987. Load state and minor permit data and ensure that inspection results are routinely entered by June 30, 1989. [Status: Basic data entry is largely completed, but the WDIS system is not yet fully operational. Ecology anticipates meeting 1989 target date.] 104 ACTION PLAN Enforcement P-18. Adopt In accordance with Chapter 7, Laws of 1987, 1st Ex. Session, Ecology shall Enforcement Policies adopt regulations specifying minimum penalties for permit violations. Ecol- as Regulations; Report ogy shall also consider adopting as regulations other significant policy ele- on Enforcement ments of its enforcement guidelines, including the escalation policy for continuing or repeated violations. It is the intent of this element that Ecology fully consider for adoption the significant policy aspects of its enforcement guidelines rather than the procedural details. It is the intent of the Authority in directing that enforcement policies be considered for adoption as rules that significant changes to these policies be subject to the public review and com- ment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act before such chan- ges are implemented. Ecology shall submit to the Authority a list of all water-quality related civil and criminal enforcement actions taken during the previous two years, together with statistics on the percentage of Ecology enforcement actions that were appealed and the dollar amounts of penalties assessed versus those sus- tained. Where possible, Ecology may include statistics on cases in which the Pollution Control Hearings Board has considered the post-penalty behavior of a violator in determining the amount of penalty to be sustained. Ecology is en- couraged to submit its analysis of the effects of the Board's actions on the Department's enforcement program together with any recommendations it may have. rlrget Date: Ecology to adopt rules and submit an enforcement report as soon as resources permit but not later than December 31, 1989. [Status: PCHB's report on de novo review was submitted on schedule. PCHB could not review Ecology's enforcement guidelines due to lack of informa- tion-the guidelines are not considered in appeals due to their status as guidelines rather than formal regulations. Due to a later target date, Ecology has not yet started its enforcement report.] P-19. Training for Ecology shall establish an ongoing, vigorous program of training for inspec- Inspectors and tors and permit-writers, including cross-training in other environmental Permit-Writers regulatory programs, recognition of problems related to cross-media transfer of pollution, and opportunities to reduce or recycle waste at the source. Ecol- ogy shall assure that an appropriate percentage of inspectors' and permit- writers' time is allocated to training activities. Ecology shall take advantage of existing training programs, such as those offered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to the maximum extent practicable. Target Date: Establish the program by September 30, 1988. [Status: Funding to begin this element became available in February 1988. Ecology expects to begin implementation of the program by the revised target date, with hire of a training coordinator/facilitator to follow at a later date.] P-20. Search for Ecology shall carry out a coordinated program for detection of wastewater dis- Unpermitted charges not covered by permits. This shall apply to both direct and indirect Discharges wastewater discharges and to direct discharges of stormwater from industrial facilities. Ecology shall ensure that its enforcement guidelines incorporate ap- 105 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan propriate automatic penalty provisions for instances when dischargers without permits are discovered. Ecology shall submit a report to the Authority on the number and characteristics of unpermitted discharges discovered though this element and through the urban bay action teams, together with any analysis and recommendations that the Department may have. Ecology shall amend chapter 173-216 WAC (and other rules as necessary) to clarify that the "domestic sewage exclusion" under federal law does not apply under Washington's hazardous waste rules and that a hazardous waste may not be legally discharged to a sewer unless this is specifically permitted. Ecology shall take steps to ensure that hazardous waste generators are aware of this clarification. 'Target Date: Implement search for unpermitted discharges by January 1, 1990, and submit report by January 31, 1991. Adopt amendment to rules and dis- seminate information to generators by December 31, 1989. [Status: Not funded during 1988-89 biennium; there has been no effort to dis- cover unpermitted discharges except to a limited degree in areas where urban bay action teams are functioning.] P-21. Felony The Authority shall submit proposed legislation to the 1989 legislature to Provisions amend the state water pollution control act to provide for felony penalty provisions. Target Date: Resubmit to 1989 legislature. [Status: Proposed legislation passed the House but failed to pass the Senate in the 1987 and 1988 legislative sessions.] Pretreatment P-22. Additional Staff Ecology shall assign sufficient staff to fully carry out the pretreatment for Pretreatment program, including permitting (with appropriate conditions for monitoring Program and control of toxicants in accordance with elements P-5 through P-8), com- pliance tracking, inspections, spill control, public notice, auditing of local programs, and enforcement as needed. Ecology is encouraged to develop such effluent guidelines and technical standards as may be necessary to assist in the efficient administration of state and local pretreatment programs. Target Dates: Begin phasing in additional staff by January 1, 1988. Reach full staffing by July 1, 1992. [Status: Plan resources were used during fiscal year 1988 to allow Ecology to retain existing pretreatment staff when federal funding ceased. A modest in- crease in staff levels is planned for fiscal year 1989. Staffing level remains below the target level contemplated in the budget for this element.] 106 ACTION PLAN Information/Education/ Technical Assistance P-23. Municipal The Waterworks and Wastewater Certification Board shall ensure that each Operator Training wastewater treatment plant operator certification examination covers basic is- sues and facts about industrial discharges, pretreatment laws and regulations, treatment technologies, maintenance and troubleshooting, and recognition of pretreatment-related problems. The Board shall consult with PSWQA and af- fected groups of wastewater treatment plant operators in drafting any addition- al test questions related to these topics. The Board shall also assist the Department of Ecology in the preparation of handouts identifying up-to-date pretreatment rules, regulations, and technology. Such handouts shall be mailed to all certified operators annually. The Board shall encourage certified operators to attend pretreatment workshops, conferences, and courses for credit toward the mandatory professional growth requirement. The Board is encouraged to review its testing and certification methodology to reflect the level of responsibility of the operator for pretreatment programs. Target Date: Board initiates annual mailing by December 31, 1988. Board adopts test changes, if necessary, by April 30, 1989. [Status: The element shown here is the amended version adopted by the Authority in February 1988. Ecology and the Board expect to meet the target dates.] P-24. Certify In conjunction with its technical outreach to dischargers under element P-27, Industrial Treatment Ecology shall explore and facilitate the development of a voluntary process for Plant Operators certification of industrial treatment plant operators, through a private trade or professional association or other appropriate entity. In exploring this ap- proach, Ecology shall consult with industrial dischargers and treatment plant operators, private trade and/or professional organizations, appropriate labor unions, the Authority, and other interested individuals and groups in Washington and other states. Ecology shall report to the Authority on its ex- perience in implementing this element, together with its analysis of the ex- pected effectiveness of the voluntary approach and any recommendations it may have. Target date: Seek to establish a certification program by October 31, 1989, and submit report to the Authority by February 28, 1990. [Status: Not funded; no activity during 1988-89 biennium.] P-25. Employee (See also element ES-2.2) In connection with the current employee education Education Assistance programs required under the state Worker Right-to-Know law (Chapter 49.70 RCW), Ecology and the Department of Labor and Industries shall prepare and implement a coordinated plan for developing and distributing educational materials for employees to appropriate employers in the Puget Sound basin. This plan shall establish a schedule for distribution of such materials to these employers and shall establish a schedule for any necessary rulemaking by Ecol- ogy or Labor and Industries. Educational materials to be prepared shall provide information on the environmental consequences of waste disposal 107 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan decisions typically made by employees of the firms and/or agencies included in the program. Target Dates: Complete employee education plan by December 31, 1989. Begin distribution of educational materials by March 31, 1990. [Status: Not funded; no activity during 1988-89 biennium.] Public Involvement P-26. Public Outreach Ecology shall establish a public outreach position to actively contact and assist groups and individuals regarding the NPDES and state waste discharge permit program and related activities. For each permit or action under consideration, this person shall seek out those who may be interested or affected, inform them of the significance of the action, highlight key decision-making points, and provide technical assistance in working through the process. Ecology shall also expand its permit mailing lists to achieve broad circulation, regularly provide program information in general publications (e.g., newslet- ters, brochures), provide informative and widespread public notice of draft per- mits, and establish criteria for deciding when a public hearing will be held on a permit. In establishing criteria, adopting guidelines, and developing rules, Ecology shall actively seek and provide opportunity for meaningful public in- volvement in accord with the public involvement policy (EPI-3) of this plan. Target Date: Establish position by September 30, 1988. [Status: Staff was hired on schedule.] P-27. Technical (This element constitutes a part of element ES-2.2. The "target audience" is Outreach to municipal and industrial dischargers.) Dischargers Ecology shall develop (or contract with an appropriate organization to develop) a program to provide technical outreach to dischargers on the en- vironmental requirements with which they are expected to comply, beginning with the requirements of Ecology programs. Tob the maximum extent possible, Ecology shall consolidate water pollution control information with other en- vironmental requirements to provide useful, timely, coordinated, and acces- sible information and "one-stop" answers regarding multiple environmental programs. For maximum efficiency, the program shall emphasize delivery of information through existing mechanisms such as trade and professional or- ganizations rather than to individual dischargers. In developing the program, Ecology shall consult with staff who operate similar functions in other states. Ecology shall coordinate this program with the business assistance ("pollution prevention pays") program authorized by RCW 70.105B.200. Experience gained in providing consolidated information to dischargers shall be transmitted to agency program development staff to ensure that environ- mental programs are consistent with each other. Target Date: Establish program by March 31, 1990. 108 ACTION PLAN [Status: This new element is proposed to begin in July 1989.] P-28. Ecology Report In addition to the biennial reporting requirement under RCW 90.70.070, Ecol- on Waste Discharge ogy shall publish a report on the NPDES and state permits in the Puget Sound Permits basin that it has considered for issuance, renewal, or modification. Ecology shall consider the following items for inclusion in the report: a. Toxicants present in wastewater as reported in the applicant's permit applica- tion; b. Toxicant-related (P-6) and particulate-related (P-7) effluent limits or other conditions that were included in final permits: c. Monitoring requirements (parameters required to be monitored, including type(s) of biomonitoring tests required) included in each final permit (P- 8); d. Spill control requirements included in each permit (P-9); e. Permits containing water quality-based effluent limitations (as opposed to technology-based limits); f. Action taken by Ecology in relation to the Section 401 certification of EPA- issued permits (P-11); g. Effluent limits and conditions in previous versus reissued permits (including permits issued with relaxed or increased limits as addressed in element P- 10), limits in draft and final versions of reissued permits, and reasons for differences; h. Appeals of permit conditions and the outcome of each completed appeal; i. Analyses of the rate of compliance and significant noncompliance for categories of dischargers, based on WDIS data (P-17). Ecology is encouraged to include other information that may be useful, to present the information in tabular, comparative, or other form that facilitates review and analyses, to comment on its experience in implementing these ele- ments, and to provide appropriate recommendations. Target Date: Submit report outline to Authority for approval by September 1, 1989. Submit report by March 1, 1990, and annually thereafter. [Status: This new element is proposed to begin in July 1989.] MAJOR PUBLIC 1. Adoption of amendments to water quality standards to include toxicant ACTIONS FOR criteria and sediment standards (P-l, P-2). REVIEW 2. Adoption of rules for expanded permit fees (P-4). 3. Adoption of permit writers' procedures manual (P-5). 4. Adoption of monitoring guidelines (P-8). 109 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 5. Employee education program (P-25). 6. Report on waste discharge permits (P-28). LEGISLATION 1987 Session REQUIRED 1. Expanded permit fees (P-4). 2. Felony provisions (P-21). [Status: Legislation authorizing expanded permit fees was enacted in October 1987; felony provisions were considered but not enacted by the 1987 and 1988 legislatures.] 1989 Session 1. Felony provisions (P-21). ESTIMATED COST Full funding for this program would have cost approximately $4.1 million during fiscal year 1990 and $5 million during fiscal year 1991. Present funding requests are for $3.1 million for fiscal year 1990 and $3.4 million for fiscal year 1991. Cost estimates for each element for fiscal years 1990 through 1994 are shown on the table below. The elements with the largest costs include inspec- tions (P-14), incorporation of effluent limits and monitoring requirements into permits (P-6, -7, -8), full staffing for the pretreatment program (P-22), and searching for unpermitted discharges (P-20). In accordance with legislation enacted in October 1987, Ecology began charg- ing increased permit fees on July 1, 1988. The legislation authorizes Ecology to collect $3.6 million per year statewide to operate the permit program. It is assumed that about $2 million per year would be available to support the fee- eligible activities in the Puget Sound basin. Activities in the Municipal and In- dustrial Discharges Program that are not fee-eligible as defined in RCW 90.48.600, as well as fee-eligible activities that exceed the fee revenues authorized, would be funded from other sources such as the general fund. The cost estimates shown do not include costs that may be incurred by dis- chargers in complying with the more stringent monitoring requirements, per- mit limits, and other elements of the plan. Most dischargers would incur increased costs for the additional monitoring that would be required under element P-8. While the specific costs would depend on the content of the guidelines that Ecology is directed to prepare and on the particular characteristics of each effluent stream and the local receiving environment, the tiering approach would be expected to minimize ad- ditional monitoring costs for dischargers where no problems are discovered during first-tier monitoring. A rough estimate of the maximum cost of first- tier monitoring for the largest, most complex discharges is $20,000 to $30,000 per year. Monitoring costs would be much less for smaller, less complicated discharges. In cases where problems are discovered in first-tier monitoring, costs for further monitoring to confirm and characterize the source of the problem (and for additional pollution control of any problem pollutants dis- covered) could be substantial, but cannot be estimated with current informa- tion. 110 ACTON PLAN Some dischargers would have new or more stringent limits imposed on the dis- charge of specific toxicants (in the dissolved or particulate phase) or on the overall toxicity of the effluent. The cost of meeting more stringent limits would depend not only on the specific limits that are chosen by Ecology but also on the particular circumstances of the plant involved. Costs to meet ef- fluent limits could vary widely, from virtually no cost to many millions of dol- lars for new treatment systems or process changes. For example, a toxicant in the effluent of a pulp mill was traced to contamination in one of the chemicals purchased by the mill. This toxicant was controlled at virtually no cost to the mill by having a chemical supplier provide uncontaminated chemicals. On the other hand, some toxicants are either unavoidable by-products of or required in the discharger's process. Requiring "known, available, and reasonable" treat- ment to control these toxicants may necessitate substantial modification of the process or the installation of a new, end-of-pipe treatment system. Costs for toxicant control cannot be estimated until Ecology determines specific case-by- case limits and each discharger determines what modifications, if any, are necessary to meet the limits. Other elements of the program may also affect costs to dischargers. Permit fees under this program have increased substantially in accordance with the legislative changes enacted in 1987. Laboratory costs may increase slightly due to the requirement to use certified labs. The greater cost per test might be offset by the need to do fewer tests because of greater accuracy. Industrial treatment plant operators would incur some cost in complying with certifica- tion requirements to be established and in paying certification costs. Some dis- chargers would incur costs as a result of enforcement action taken when violations are detected through increased inspections and compliance review efforts by Ecology. Finally, dischargers would incur some increased costs to comply with spill and stormwater control requirements for plant sites. These costs would be extremely variable and would depend on the characteristics of the site and the types of materials used or stored on the site. 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY89 FY90 FY 91 FY92 FY93 FY 94 P Implementation and Coordination ............ 0 26,000 260,325 260,325 231,804 231,804 231,804 P-2 Sediment Standards ....................... 139,558 60,305 102,930 99,930 13,172 13,172 13,172 P-3 Dilution Zone Criteria ......................... 0 27,496 6,385 6,385 3,193 3,193 3,193 P-4 Permit Fee .....................160,936 0 120,976 120,976 30,244 30,244 30,244 P-S Procedures Manual and Internal Tech Assist . . . . .123,991 120,608 136,436 136,436 150,080 150,080 150,080 P-6-10 Effluent Limits and Monitoring in Permits ...... 54,156 520,875 606,585 678,124 1,063,900 1,307,772 1,577,484 P-11I Enhanced Requirements for EPA-issued Permits . . . . 7,431 24,120 91,966 91,966 91,966 91,966 91,966 P-14 Inspections .....................358,052 360,579 886,798 966,798 1,112,600 1,250,714 1,243,026 P-15 Study of Self-monitoring Verification ...........0 0 31,222 0 0 0 0 P-16 Use of Certified Labs for Self-monitoring ......... 0 0 3,903 3,518 3,518 3,518 3,518 P-17 Data Management ........................ 59,583 95,386 100,308 100,308 100,308 100,308 100,308 P-18 Adopt Enforcement Guidelines ........... 17,000 0 35,184 0 0 0 0 P-19 Cross Training for Inspedctors ...............0 33,441 41,927 44,427 46,927 46,927 46,927 P-20 Search for Unpermitted Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 88,055 129,395 184,578 90,367 90,367 P-21 Felony Provisions .............. ......0 0 8,556 0 0 0 0 P-22 Additional Staff for Pretreatment .......... 85,710 110,832 254,783 337,149 419,514 501,879 584,244 P-23 Municipal Operator Training . .......... 14,000 65,991 93,903 93,518 93,518 93,518 93,518 P-24 Certify Industrial Treatment Plant Operators ......2,852 0 35,184 14,073 0 0 0 P-25 Employee Education Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 119,552 21,110 21,110 21,110 P-26 Public Outreach ...................... 0 54,156 65,860 65,860 65,860 65,860 65,860 P-27 Technical Outreach to Dischargers ............0 0 78,325 109,800 145,118 141,274 141,274 P-28 Ecology Reporting Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 11,708 14,458 14,073 14,073 14,073 TOTAL $1,023,269 $1,499,789 $3,061,318 $3,392,997 $3,791,484 $4,157,780 $4,502,169 Element Notes P PSWQA and Ecology administration and coordination. P-1 Assumes that WQ standards revisions are funded from Ecology 'current level" budget P-3 Assumes that permit writer training is funded by P-6, 7, 8, and 19. P-6-1 0 Combines elements P-6 through P- I 0 which involve writing discharge permits and establishing effluent limits and monitoring requirements. P-11 Includes state certification of EPA-issued permits under section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. P-12 Delayed at EPA P-13 Cost included in P-6,7,8,9,10,14,20, and S-8. P-1 9 Element estimate is for trainers. Staff being trained are included in elements P-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 22. P-23 Assumes test changes are adopted during FY 89. P-25 Estimate includes start-up costs in FY 91. ACTION PLAN MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 EPA ..................... .......0 0 66,426 66,426 66,426 66,426 66,426 Ecology ....................... 1,003,417 1,407,798 2,867,816 3,199,721 3,635,058 4,001,354 4,345,743 PSWQA ......................... 2,852 26,000 37,077 28,521 Labor & Industry ..................... .....0 0 0 8,330 0 0 0 Pollution Control Hearings Board .................. 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Government ..................... ....0 65,991 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL $1,023,269 $1,499,789 $3,061,318 $3,392,997 $3,791,484 $4,157,780 $4,502,169 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Federal Funding ........... ...............0 0 66,426 66,426 66,426 66,426 66,426 State General Fund .................... 180,841 192,077 774,140 871,050 731,431 633,376 633,376 State Fee Programs .................... 842,428 1,241,721 2,130,752 2,365,522 2,903,627 3,367,978 3,712,367 Local Sources ........... ................0 65,991 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL $1,023,269 $1,499,789 $3,061,318 $3,392,997 $3,791,484 $4,157,780 $4,502,169 Funding Notes The estimate for state fee programs is based on the existing legislation. This estimate may change if Initiative 97 passes on November 8. 113 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AND DREDGING PROBLEM DEFINITION Environmental The accumulation of toxicants in sediments and resulting damage to natural Problems populations is increasingly recognized nationally and internationally as one of the most serious threats to the marine ecosystem. Toxic contaminants bind to particles and are retained as sediments in the Puget Sound basin. Toxic com- pounds are found in a wide range of concentrations in recently deposited sur- face sediments at many locations in the Puget Sound area. Contamination levels of surface sediments in the deep central Puget Sound basin are sig- nificantly higher than estimated preindustrial levels. In urban areas the present levels of contamination are much higher, up to 100 times the levels in ....,__ _the cleanest rural bays. As reported in the EPA Pollutant of Concern Matrix21 (EPA, 1986), 40 chemi- cals have each been found in at least one sediment sample in the Puget Sound basin at a level that causes biological harm. Sediment samples collected in recent years from many locations in Puget Sound-including Bellingham Bay, Commencement Bay, Port Gardner Bay, Elliott Bay, and Eagle Harbor-were very toxic to bioassay organisms. Lower levels of toxicity have been observed in samples from many other locations. These samples were generally collected from the top two centimeters of sedi- ment-the material that had accumulated within the last one to five years- indicating recent or ongoing sources of contamination. The benthic (bottom-dwelling) populations at many locations are also con- sidered damaged (significantly altered in composition or seriously reduced in total abundance) by sediment pollution. 'IToxicants reach the water from many sources, but the principal ones are unper- mitted discharges, raw sewage discharges (e.g., combined sewer overflows), stormwater runoff, and permitted point source discharges (industrial and municipal outfalls). In addition, dredging and disposal can disturb and redistribute these materials. Institutional Problems Sediment contamination is generally regulated by programs aimed at protect- ing water quality. Since toxicants can concentrate in sediments, harmful sedi- ment contamination can occur even when the water column is not seriously contaminated. Prior to adoption of the 1987 plan, the existing programs 21 The matrix contains information on 52 toxic substances that are of concern in Puget Sound. The matrix reports observed sediment concentrations of 41 pollutants of concern along with apparent effect threshold (AET) values. These AET values, as described in the PSWQA Contaminated Sediments and Dredging issue paper, are estimates of the sediment concentration at which adverse biological effects will always occur. If sediments at a station exceed the AET values, one can be reasonably certain that biological harm is actually occurring at that site. 114 ACTION PLAN lacked clearly stated goals or policies for the prevention of sediment con- tamination. The regulation of discharges, the management of dredging and disposal, and the identification and ranking of contaminated sediment sites for cleanup have all been hampered by the absence of any adopted sediment standards. In addi- tion, regulation of sources of toxicants has generally not addressed the con- taminated sediment particles suspended in effluents. Dredging is necessary to create and maintain docks and navigation channels. Dredging and disposal are highly regulated through state and federal permit systems. Dredged material with low levels of contamination may be disposed of at open water sites. Dredged material with higher levels of contamination is required by these programs to be disposed of at confined disposal sites. The Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA), a cooperative effort by the Corps of Engineers, EPA, DNR, and Ecology, has recommended new stand- ards and sites for unconfined open water disposal in central Puget Sound. PSDDA has also recommended improved permitting and management of monitoring and disposal sites. But PSDDA is not designed to develop or adopt standards for disposal of sediments that are too contaminated to be dis- posed of in unconfined open water sites. In addition, although there is some agency interest in establishing multiuser disposal sites for the more con- taminated sediments, many unknowns must be resolved about the utility and viability of such sites before any are proposed. Areas that have been identified as having serious sediment contamination are being addressed in several locations through the EPA-Ecology Urban Bay Ac- tion Program and Superfund investigations. But no complete inventory of locations with contaminated sediments exists, and it is unlikely that the exist- ing level of funding for the urban bay program will allow even the known areas of contamination to be addressed very soon. The decision criteria for identify- ing contamination, addressing sources, and deciding whether to propose sedi- ment cleanup actions tend to be reinvented for each contaminated sediment site. PROGRAM STATUS Implementation of the contaminated sediments program has been delayed by severe funding limitations, timing of hiring, and delays in the PSDDA program. The program received only 40 percent of the Ecology funding needed in the FY 1988-89 biennium to implement the program. bTo allow progress on elements that will produce crucial management rules, most of the shortfall was taken out of the investigations of contaminated sediment areas (S-8). Significant progress is now being made on other elements. The first phase of PSDDA, covering central Puget Sound, was completed during the summer of 1988, and shoreline permit decisions on the three proposed disposal sites are pending as of October 1, 1988. Baseline studies of the three phase 1 sites are completed. Ecology has issued draft marine sediment standards (a vital part of the sedi- ment program required under element P-2) for review. A work plan to develop confined disposal standards (S-4) has been completed, an advisory committee formed, and work is under way. A work plan for the study of multi- user confined disposal sites (S-6) has also been developed. Funding restrictions prevented any significant increases in the investigations of contaminated sediment sites (S-8). This element received only about 10 per- 115 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan cent of the desired funding level. The EPA/Ecology uryban bay investigations have continued, but the increase in effort contemplated by element S-8 has been postponed. EPA is undertaking a review of the past urban bay efforts to determine whether the methodology should be changed. A number of major projects related to contaminated sediments have been, or are now, under consideration. The Navy Everett Homeport project involves capped in-water disposal of sediments unsuitable for open water disposal. The project received a water quality certification from Ecology requiring extensive monitoring. The city of Everett also granted a shoreline permit for the project. The shoreline permit and the water quality certification were im- mediately appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board and the Pollution Con- trol Hearings Board. A federal court granted an injunction to prevent construction from proceeding until such time as the shoreline permit is finally granted. The Pollution Control Hearings Board affirmed the water quality cer- tification and the Shoreline Hearings Board was divided, which has the effect of approving the shoreline permit. As of October 1, 1988, federal court has ruled that the ETS for the project was not adequate and has issued another in- junction. In a major project involving a cleanup action, Simpson 'Jhcoma has capped highly contaminated sediments at its plant on Commencement Bay. The Port of Tabcoma is proposing burial of dredged material unsuitable for open water disposal in a proposed fill of a portion of the Milwaukee waterway. Metro has proposed placing 'clean" dredged material on the hot spot caused by the Denny Way combined sewer overflow in Elliott Bay. PROGRAM GOAL ' lb reduce and ultimately eliminate adverse effects on biological resources and humans from sediment contamination throughout the Sound by reducing or eliminating discharges of toxic contaminants and by capping, treating, or removing contaminated sediments. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is (1) to classify sediments that cause ad- verse biological effects; (2) to implement Soundwide controls on sources of contaminants causing sediments to fail the sediment standards; (3) to provide rules and sites for disposal of dredged materials; and (4) to expand the urban bay program to provide for additional source control and consideration of cleanup actions for existing areas of high sediment contamination levels.22 22 The first two elements of this strategy, classification of contaminated sediments and source controls, are included in the Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program and the Stormwater and CSOs Program. 116 ACTION PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS Policies S-1. Sediment The following policies shall be followed by all state and local agencies in ac- Program Policies tions affecting sediment quality, including rulemaking, setting priorities for funding and actions, and developing permit programs: a. All government actions will lead toward eliminating the presence of sedi- ments in the Puget Sound basin that cause adverse effects to biological resources or pose a serious health risk to humans. b. Programs for management of dredging and disposal of sediments should result in a net reduction in the exposure of organisms to adverse effects.23 c. Sediment cleanup programs (which may include capping in place) shall be undertaken when reasonable to reduce, with the intent of eliminating, the exposure of aquatic organisms to sediments having adverse effects. [Status: Agencies are incorporating these policies into their programs and ac- tivities.] UJnconfined Open Water Disposal S-2. Program for The Authority shall review each draft report and environmental impact state- Unconfined Open ment (EIS) of the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) and Water Disposal provide timely comments to the Corps of Engineers (lead PSDDA agency). In addition, Authority staff shall review preliminary drafts of PSDDA draft EISs and advise the Authority of any significant changes needed. Comments will then be forwarded to PSDDA. Every effort will be made to resolve PSWQA concerns with PSDDA recommendations so that the recommendations in the final reports by PSDDA can be adopted by the Authority. The Authority shall review, modify if necessary, and adopt the recommendations of each phase of PSDDA within three months of the publication of the final reports and EISs. In commenting on the draft EIS and adopting final unconfined open water dis- posal recommendations, the Authority will specify how state agencies and local governments should conform their programs to the recommendations. 23 The intent of this policy is that dredging and disposal contribute to the cleanup of the Sound by allowing unconfined open water sites to have only low levels of contamination and to dispose of more contaminated sediments in a manner that prevents continued exposure of organisms to adverse effects. For proposals where dredging will expose contaminated sediments, project-specific mitigation measures may be required. 24 Element S-7 directs Ecology to develop a decision process which will resolve the question of when cleanup actions are "reasonable." 117 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan After adoption by PSWQA, the recommendations shall become part of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and shall be used by state agen- cies and local governments in reviewing and acting on proposals for uncon- fined open water disposal. If required, all state and local agencies shall promptly modify their regulations and programs as necessary (including shoreline master programs) to conform to the adopted recommendations. Revisions to regulations and programs shall be completed within one year of adoption by PSWQA. Agencies which cannot act within one year shall notify the Authority immediately to request an extension to this time limit. Target Dates: Schedule is governed by PSDDA document production. [Status: PSDDA Phase I report is complete. Authority adoption of recom- mendations for Phase I is incorporated as element S-3. In adopting Phase I recommendations, the Authority is not requiring local governments to amend shoreline master programs to conform to the PSDDA recommended language. Phase II draft is expected in late 1988.] S-3. Unconfined Open The Authority adopts by reference the following portions of the Management Water Disposal Sites Plan for Unconfined Open Water Disposal Phase I: * Selection of dredged material disposal sites in Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma harbors to serve as regional sites for disposal of dredged material that meets the PSDDA evaluation procedures (page 4-5 of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). * Selection of site condition II for the phase I sites (page 4-5 and Chapter 5 of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). It is the Authority's long- term goal that dredged material disposal sites have NO chemical adverse effects. The Authority concurs with the PSDDA recommendation of Site Condition II ("minor" adverse effects) for the near term because: the sites are being selected to minimize the resources affected; the sites will receive large of amounts of material that would pass a Site Condition I standard, which will moderate the potential effects of the material that falls between conditions I and II; and the proposed program of monitoring and reevalua- tion will allow protective adjustments to the evaluation procedures if problems develop. * Evaluation procedures (Chapter 5 and Appendix A of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). * Disposal Site Management Plans (Chapter 6 of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). The Authority supports model shoreline master program language proposed by PSDDA for adoption by local govern- ments and suggests that local governments consider amending their programs but is not requiring local governments to do so. * Disposal site environmental monitoring (Chapter 7 of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). * Data management (Chapter 8 of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). * Annual review and program update (page 9-6 of the PSDDA Phase I Management Report). 118 ACTION PLAN Changes to any of these PSDDA recommendations are considered major public actions subject to Authority review. Target Dates: As described in PSDDA Phase I Management Report. [Status: Permits for the three Phase I sites are pending as of October 1, 1988.] Confined Disposal S-4. Confined Ecology shall develop and adopt by regulation standards for reuse or disposal Disposal Standards of dredged material that exceeds the sediment standards developed under ele- for Sediments ment P-2 and that will not be disposed of at unconfined open water disposal sites established by the PSDDA process. These standards for confined dis- posal will be used by Ecology, shoreline jurisdictions, and local health depart- ments in approving or denying permits for the use or disposal of dredged material that exceeds the P-2 standards. The objective of these disposal stand- ards is to prevent the exposure of aquatic or terrestrial organisms, including humans, to adverse effects from the contaminants in the sediments. In developing the standards Ecology shall consult with agencies and other par- ties with technical expertise and shall provide a public education/public invol- vement program. 'The standards shall address treatment as well as in-water and upland confined disposal methods. Target Dates: Adopt interim standards by September 1, 1989. Adopt final standards by July 1, 1990. [Status: Ecology has begun developing standards.] S-5. Revision of Rules After the adoption by Ecology of disposal standards for sediments that exceed and Programs sediment standards (S-4), the Authority shall review the standards and con- sider the degree to which local governments and other state agencies should conform their programs to the Ecology standards so that the use or disposal of sediments in compliance with the disposal regulations is not unreasonably precluded. Shoreline master programs, solid waste rules, and the hydraulics permit rules may be affected. The Authority may then amend the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan to direct state agencies and local govern- ments to revise their programs. If required, these revisions shall occur no later than two years after final action by the Authority. Any agency or local govern- ment that cannot meet this deadline shall request, at the earliest possible time, an extension from the Authority. Thrget Dates: Begin review on April 1, 1990. Adopt plan language by October 1, 1990. Complete state/local revisions by October 1, 1992. [Status: Will follow S-4. The schedule for state agencies and local govern- ments to revise their programs has been extended by one year because of fund- ing restrictions.] S-6. Multiuser Ecology shall undertake a study of the utility and viability of establishing a sys- Confined Disposal tem of multiuser confined disposal sites. This study shall consider the Sites Study amounts, locations, and contaminant characteristics of sediments projected to be dredged; the fraction of this material that might be disposed of at multiuser 119 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan sites; the legal feasibility, including liability issues; the financial feasibility of establishing such sites including fee options; the institutional options for such sites; and the technical feasibility of such sites, including in-water and upland methods. T'he results of the study, including specific recommendations as to whether, and by whom, multiuser sites should be established, shall be provided to the Authority. In carrying out this element, Ecology shall consult with agencies and other par- ties with technical expertise and shall provide a public education/public invol- vement program. Ecology may choose to make an early recommendation on whether a multi- user confined disposal site program should be established and then prepare recommendations on siting guidelines, liability management, and possible can- didate sites. The Authority will review the status of this element and decide whether a sup- plemental budget request should be submitted to the legislature for the 1990 session to support actual site development. rlrget Date: Begin study by July 1988. Complete study by July 1, 1990. [Status: On schedule.] Contaminated Sediment Investigations and Cleanup S-7. Guidelines for ' lb establish a uniform decision process concerning what to do about sediment Sediment Cleanup contamination, Ecology shall develop guidelines for deciding whether existing Decisions sediments that exceed the sediment standards developed under element P-2 should be capped, excavated, or otherwise treated, or whether no action should be taken. In developing the guidelines, Ecology shall consult with agen- cies and parties with expertise in these issues and provide a public educa- tion/public involvement program. Development of the guidelines shall include consideration of deadlines for making decisions on cleanup actions. As a guide in deciding whether to wait for natural processes to cap or dilute the sediments or to undertake cleanup actions, the guidelines shall also in- clude consideration of a time by which surface sediments should no longer have adverse effects. Because of the high cost of treatment or removal of con- taminated sediments, the guidelines shall include a process and criteria for es- tablishing priorities for such actions, including consideration of the cost of cleanup. Development of the guidelines should include trigger levels for iden- tifying high levels of contamination requiring expedited cleanup actions. TIhrget Dates: Complete guidelines by January 1, 1991. [Status: Should be completed ahead of schedule.] 120 ACTION PLAN S-8. Investigations This element constitutes an expansion of the ongoing EPA and Ecology and Cleanup of program of investigations and source control efforts in urban bays and other Contaminated areas of the Sound where sediment contamination is known or suspected. This element deals with sediment contamination in three tiers. In element 8.1, Sediments specific sample locations that exceed sediment standards are inventoried. In 8.2, Ecology uses the inventory and other information to identify bays or other similarly sized areas for further investigation under elements 8.3 and 8.4. In 8.6, Ecology identifies specific sites that should be considered for cleanup ac- tions under elements 8.6 and 8.7. Although this element contains specific directives and assignments, the Authority intends that EPA, Ecology, and other agencies and local govern- ments exercise flexibility in resolving contaminated sediment problems. EPA is requested to continue or increase existing support for this effort through various programs including the national funding for estuary programs, federal Superfund activities, and federal funding for Ecology water quality and hazard- ous waste programs. 'lb organize and coordinate the program, Ecology, in cooperation with EPA, shall undertake an integrated program consisting of the guidelines called for in S-7 and the following components: 8.1. Inventory of 'lb provide information to PSWQA and the public and to allow for tracking of Locations With increases or decreases in the extent of sediment contamination, Ecology shall Contaminated maintain an inventory of.points or locations in the basin where sediment Sediments samples have been taken which violate the sediment standards developed under element P-2. The inventory should consist of maps with locations of contamination indicated. All available sources of data, including monitoring, permit applications, and published research studies, should be used in develop- ing the inventory. The inventory shall be integrated into the Puget Sound Atlas if possible. This inventory shall be published every two years. The Authority shall assist in distributing the inventory and include a summary of the inventory in the State of the Sound Report. As an aid in targeting source control activities, Ecology's inventory shall identify the chemicals or other characteristics for each location that causes it to be on the inventory. 8.2. Contaminated Ecology shall develop decision criteria for identifying areas of Puget Sound Sediment Area where locations with sediment contamination have been identified or are Priority List and suspected and where investigations both to control sources and to consider cleanup actions should be undertaken. These criteria will be used to establish Investigation nSchedule25 a priority list of areas to be investigated, to allocate resources for con- ~~~Schedule25 ~taminated sediment investigations, and to establish a schedule for these inves- tigations. Every effort should be made to investigate each area on this priority list within five years of its first appearance on the list. Ecology shall reevaluate both the area priority list and the investigation schedule every two years. 25 An "area" is a bay or similar-sized region where sediment contamination might be studied and an effort made to control sources of contamination. A "site" is smaller than an "area" and defines a specific hot spot that might be caused by a single source and considered for cleanup actions. 121 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 8.3. Investigations of Ecology and EPA, in cooperation with other agencies and local governments, Contaminated shall carry out investigations of contaminated sediment areas identified and ~Sediment Areas ~listed under element 8.2 Investigations shall be designed on a case-by-case ~(formerly 8.4) basis using Elliott Bay and Commencement Bay studies as the models. The in- (formerly 8.4) vestigations shall include reviews of existing information on contamination and sources as well as field investigations designed to refine information on levels and distribution of contamination and probable sources.26 8.4. Action Teams and For each contaminated sediment area being investigated, Ecology, EPA, and Source Control other appropriate agencies will form a team of investigators to work on source (formerly 8.5) controls. The teams should include Ecology regional office inspectors and per- mit writers who normally handle the area. The team's activities shall be in- tegrated with the Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program by focusing activities under that program in locations associated with contaminated sedi- ment areas. The teams shall carry out various source control and investigation actions including: * Review existing discharge permits and compliance with them; * Reopen and modify discharge permits of sources in the vicinity to control toxicants identified at problem levels in the sediments; * Search for unpermitted discharges and take enforcement actions; * Investigate contamination in storm drains or groundwater and search for sources of such contamination; * Take other actions to control sources of sediment contamination by seek- ing to achieve full compliance with applicable laws and regulations in loca- tions that drain into the contaminated area; and * Identify sites within the area that should be considered for cleanup. Ecology and EPA are encouraged to make use of industry scientists, engineers, and other experts to assist in these efforts. 8.5. Ranking Method Ecology shall review the existing method of ranking contaminated sites in Study (formerly 8.3) urban bays as well as the ranking systems used under the federal Superfund law (CERCLA and SARA) and the state Hazardous Waste Cleanup Act (HWCA) and recommend how the ranking of sites with sediments that violate the sediment standards established under the Municipal and Industrial Dis- charges Program can be made consistent with the other programs. The study also shall identify and compare various funding sources for contaminated sedi- ment area investigations, sediment site cleanup action feasibility studies, and actual cleanup actions, and shall make recommendations on future funding. Contaminated sediment sites should be ranked and investigated under a separate system that is comparable to the state and federal Superfund 26 Costs for this element are estimated assuming that most of the work will be performed by consultants. If this work is to be done by agency staff, additional staff (FTEs) would be required, but the total cost would be about the same. 122 ACTION PLAN programs. Then funding from these programs may be available should sedi- ment cleanup actions with public funds be necessary. The results of this study shall be used in updates of the site priority list called for in element 8.6. 8.6. Sediment Site Following the guidelines developed under S-7, when sites with high levels of Cleanup Actions sediment contamination are idexitifled, Ecology shall consider the feasibility and reasonableness of sediment cleanup actions. Ecology, as part of this ele- ment, shall develop decision criteria for determining when sediment cleanup actions should be taken pursuant to water quality and discharge permit laws (sediment restoration activities) and when cleanup actions should be taken pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Act (sediment remedial actions). If sediment cleanup actions are necessary, funds for such actions will be sought first from responsible parties and then from public sources. Ecology shall maintain a priority list of specific sediment sites where cleanup will be con- sidered. 8.7. Responsible The Authority recognizes that identifying the parties responsible for sediment Parties contamination is generally difficult. Often neither the underlying property owner nor the abutting property owner is responsible for the contamination. But cases have occurred and will occur when responsible parties can be iden- tified. Where treatment or removal of contaminated sediments is recomn- mended, Ecology shall attempt to have such cleanup actions, including investigations and feasibility studies, undertaken and paid for by responsible parties whether they are dischargers under water quality laws or liable persons pursuant to HWCA_ Every reasonable attempt will be made to recover cleanup costs from responsible parties including study costs. Thrget Dates: Complete ranking system study by June 1, 1990. Complete area priority list by June 30, 1991. Complete initial location inventory by January 1, 1990. [Status: Extremely limited funding has prevented the proposed increase in urban bay activities. Funding during the FY 1988-89 biennium was only 10 percent of that requested. Some work is proceeding. This element is further delayed by the reduced funding request for FY 1990-91.1 Education S-9. Public Ecology shall increase staffing for public involvement for sediment program is- Involvemrent/Education/ sues including sediment standards (P-2). A staff person will be assigned to Technical Assistance coordinate Ecology public outreach and education on sediment issues and im- prove the response to technical inquiries. This element will be coordinated with the development of educational materials on sediments under element ES-4.4. rUrget Date: Ecology shall assign staff for this element by August 1, 1989. [Status: This new element is proposed to begin in 1989.] 123 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan MAJOR PUBLIC 1. Changes to PSDDA recommendations adopted by reference in element S-3. ACTIONS FOR REVIEW 2. Adoption of contaminated sediment disposal standards (S-4). 3. Priority list for contaminated sediment area investigations (S-8). LEGISLATION New legislation may eventually be required to allow the establishment of multi- REQUIRED user dredged material disposal sites. ESTIMATED COST The estimated cost of the sediment program, as scaled back for the 1990-91 biennium, is $1.4 million in fiscal year 1990 and $1.7 million in fiscal year 1991. The cost increases to $2.0 million in fiscal year 1992 and decreases to $1.5 million per year thereafter. Full funding for the same period would re- quire over $2.5 million per year. The largest cost of the program is the investi- gation and cleanup of contaminated sediments (elements S-7 and S-8). About $850,000 per year is being requested. This would allow some progress on site investigations and source control but does not include public funds that might be needed to clean up contaminated sediments. Such costs could run $100,000 per acre for removal or treatment and $5,000 per acre for capping. Estimates of costs to dredge and dispose of sediment "hot spots' in Commencement Bay ranged from $8 to $79 per cubic yard depending on the type of disposal selected. Establishing standards for sediment disposal is projected to cost $1 million over three years. Preparing a recommendation on multiuser confined disposal sites is estimated to cost $200,000 over two years. The PSDDA recommendations that will be reviewed by the Authority are ex- pected to result in costs for monitoring and baseline studies of up to $1.3 mil- lion in the peak year and more than $600,000 per year on an ongoing basis. DNR and Ecology would share these costs, which are not included in the plan estimates. Large public and private sector costs are currently associated with dredging or disposal of dredged material. As recently as 1984 dredging and open water dis- posal of clean material cost only $2 to $3 per cubic yard. For the past few years testing of material suspected of being contaminated has cost an addi- tional $1 per cubic yard. In addition, disposal fees have increased and will in- crease more in the future. Disposal of dredged material that cannot go to open water now costs anywhere from $15 to $40 per cubic yard. Disposal of highly contaminated material, as discussed above for cleanup actions, has been estimated at up to $79 per cubic yard. Since annual dredging volumes are in the hundreds of thousands of cubic yards, these are significant costs for the region. Private sector costs associated with investigating and dealing with contami- nated sediments sites may also increase. This would occur when responsible parties are required to investigate and remedy sediment "hot spots" resulting from their discharges. 124 ACTION PLAN ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AND DREDGING COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 S-2,3 Unconfined Open Water Disposal .......... 5,704 11,400 11,408 11,408 0 0 0 S-4 Confined Disposal Standards for Sediments ... . 303,489 470,826 196,862 70,860 0 0 0 S-5 Revision of Rules and Programs .............. 0 0 0 567,716 593,866 0 0 S-6 Multiuser Confined Disposal Sites Study .......... 0 270,108 144,544 65,171 0 0 0 S-7 Guidelines for Sediment Cleanup Decisions ........ 0 75,704 214,739 67,930 0 0 0 S-8 Investigations and Cleanups ............ 91,554 392,022 710,528 705,054 1,332,866 1,430,784 1,415,784 S-9 Public Involvement ................... . 0 0 110,775 80,498 70,498 70,498 70,498 TOTAL $400,747 $1,220,061 $1,388,856 $1,568,636 $1,997,230 $1,501,282 $1,486,282 Element Notes S-2,3 Costs to develop and implement PSDDA are not included. S-5 Assumes 12 counties and 25 cities have to modify programs. S-6 If Ecology recommends that multiuser sites be developed, supplemental funding may be requested for FY91. S-8 EPA funding will be sought for continued urban bay field investigations. S-9 Cost estimate includes cost to develop educational materials called for in element ES-4.4 in the Education program. COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 350,192 1,017,586 1,031,621 760,268 1,201,682 1,226,644 1,211,644 PSWOA ................... ........8,556 34,212 45,633 34,224 Fisheries ................... ..........0 0 22,226 25,321 30,956 12,701 12,701 Wildlife ................... ..........0 0 0 11,406 16,940 0 0 Natural Resources ................... .......0 0 183,487 175,452 146,836 128,604 128,604 Local Government ................... ....41,999 168,262 105,890 561,964 600,815 133,333 133,333 TOTAL $400,747 $1,220,061 $1,388,856 $1,568,636 $1,997,230 $1,501,282 $1,486,282 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Centennial Clean Water Fund ................. 31,500 126,200 65,000 65,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 State General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. 358,748 1,051,798 1,282,967 1,006,672 1,396,415 1,367,949 1,352,949 Local Sources ................... ......10,499 42,062 40,890 496,964 500,815 33,333 33,333 TOTAL $400,747 $1,220,061 $1,388,856 $1,568,636 $1,997,230 $1,501,282 $1,486,282 125 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan STORMWATER AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOs) PROBLEM DEFINITION Combined Sewer Nine cities27 around Puget Sound have combined sewers where sanitary Overflows (CSOs) sewage, industrial wastewater, and stormwater are collected in a single sewer system. Metro, because it accepts wastewater for treatment from Seattle, hand- les wastewaters from combined sewers, although Metro owns no combined sys- tem. In a combined sewer system neither the pipes nor the sewage treatment i, ~ ?--'z-- -_ 7 plants are sized to carry all of the volume of combined wastewater, and during large storms some of the effluent is discharged directly to the Sound and ad- < . [1t1 / - jacent waters without treatment. Except for Metro and Seattle, basic information on frequency, quantity, and ef- fects has been lacking for most CSOs discharging into Puget Sound. In an average year, Metro and Seattle discharge about 2.8 billion gallons of raw sewage, untreated stormwater, and industrial effluents from about 110 CSOs -.Q \ <in the Seattle area. This volume is approximately six percent of the annual dis- charge from the West Point treatment plant. The Metro and Seattle discharge contains approximately five percent of the total annual load of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids discharged from the West Point treatment plant. Although the volume of effluent of CSOs is relatively small compared to the discharge of sewage treatment plants, CSO discharges are untreated and are usually in close proximity to sensitive shoreline areas. The discharge of raw sewage from CSOs contains high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and suspended solids. Sediment samples col- lected around the Denny Way CSO in Seattle have shown highly elevated con- centrations of heavy metals and organic toxicants. The biota around the CSO has also been adversely affected by the discharge. Because the high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in raw sewage indicate the presence of pathogens, areas around CSOs have been closed to swimming and shellfishing. Until recently, the control of CSOs was given a low priority by federal and state agencies. EPA policy, and standard engineering practice, has been to separate sanitary and storm sewers, and, in fact, EPA will no longer fund con- struction of combined systems. With the passage of HB 815 by the Washington State Legislature in 1985, all municipalities with CSOs are required to develop plans for the "greatest reasonable reduction at the earliest possible date." The legislation required submittal of CSO reduction plans to Ecology by January 1, 1988. Each of the municipalities with CSOs is making efforts to control its CSOs. Ecology and those local jurisdictions which have yet to submit plans are negotiating schedules to submit CSO reduction plans during 1988. These plans are to include locations, baseline annual frequency and volume, and some water quality and sediment sampling. 27 Anacortes, Bellingham, Bremerton, Everett, Mt. Vernon, Olympia, Port Angeles, Seattle, and Snohomish. 126 ACTION PLAN CSO control techniques have typically involved separation and/or storage. Separation involves construction of storm drainage systems which collect stormwater and discharge to natural waters. Storage means using tanks, vaults, oversized pipes, and related equipment and facilities to hold and store combined effluent for later discharge to the treatment plant. Typically, separa- tion systems are the less expensive to construct of the two alternatives. Separated drainage systems will be subject to stormwater management programs as mandated by the stormwater elements of the plan (SW-1 and SW- 2). Stormwater Rainfall may evaporate, be transpired by plants, infiltrate into the ground, or run off into drainage courses. Residential, commercial, and industrial land uses have a much higher volume of runoff than rural land uses. This is be- cause urban land uses have a much higher percentage of impervious areas. Im- pervious areas are hard surfaces such as rooftops, driveways, streets, parking lots, and highways. Stormwater is defined as runoff from these land uses and is often called urban runoff. In developed areas, certain pollutants are more prevalent than in undeveloped areas. Typically, contaminants include suspended solids, nutrients, bacteria, oils and grease, and metals and other toxicants. Many of these contaminants are associated with motor vehicles; others with applications of fertilizers, pes- ticides, or herbicides; pet feces; or poor management of various wastes. At- mospheric deposition, or dust, contains particulates and associated contaminants from cars, factories, and wood stoves. Runoff from developed areas carries these pollutants into the nearest body of water-a stream, lake, or Puget Sound. Stormwater is a significant source of the pollutants that have concentrated in sediments in several urban bays. Some storm drains in Seattle were found to be major sources of lead and PCBs found in the sediments of Puget Sound. The potential for significant pollution from stormwater has been increasingly recognized in the past 10 years. Metro28 detected six metals in all 78 samples collected in the Seattle area between 1980 and 1982, including arsenic, cad- mium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Nickel was detected in over 50 per- cent of the samples. The average stormwater concentrations exceeded chronic water quality criteria for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The con- centrations of metals did not appear to be different between the three basic land use types sampled-residential, commercial, and industrial. Runoff from freeways, however, was consistently higher for most metals. Compared to ef- fluent from secondary sewage treatment, urban runoff in Bellevue contained higher concentrations of lead and zinc. Average concentrations of total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, and nitrate/nitrite from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program29 runoff data were higher than the annual mean concentrations in secondarily treated effluent from the Renton treat- ment plant. 28 Toxicants in Urban Runoff, Metro, 1982. 29 A five-year study (1978-82) sponsored by EPA and many cooperating federal, state, regional, and local agencies, addressing the quality of urban runoff, the significance of the urban runoff problem, and the effectiveness of best management practices. 127 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Based on the known volume of discharge from municipal and industrial sour- ces and the relative area of urban development in the Puget Sound basin, the quantity of pollutants contributed to the Sound and area waters from stormwater runoff is approximately equal to the contribution from municipal and industrial sources. As urbanization of the Puget Sound basin continues, the contribution of stormwater to the pollution of surface waters will become more severe-unless effectively managed. Construction activities contribute to the stormwater pollution problem be- cause of the potential for erosion from construction sites. Local governments typically attempt to control erosion and sedimentation during construction by requiring certain techniques known as best management practices (BMPs). Proper application of appropriate BMPs can significantly reduce the amount of sediment leaving a site. Additionally, local governments often regulate the construction of drainage systems by requiring permits and reviewing designs. These processes are most effective in controlling erosion and the quality and quantity of runoff following development when utilized together. Preventive measures such as drainage and land use regulations can stop problems before they occur. Examples include ordinances to limit develop- ment on sensitive features such as steep hillslopes, floodplains, and wetlands. Establishment of stream corridors and native growth protection easements protect water quality and fish habitat in natural drainage systems. Areas ex- periencing frequent flooding and erosion can be designated as critical areas subject to special restrictions that minimize impacts or improve conditions within a specific stream drainage basin. The primary effect of development on streams has been to increase both the volume and speed of peak flows. The resulting erosion, scouring, and deposi- tion of sediment affect the ecological balance in the stream. Diversity of species decreases and more tolerant (and usually less desirable) species remain. To date, drainage management has focused on controlling flooding problems. Detention basins are used to control the release rate of stormwater from developed properties. Stormwater is then discharged to surface water, groundwater (via infiltration systems), and/or combined sewers. Now many jurisdictions are considering both quality and quantity in surface water management. 'Itaditional techniques to manage quantity offer opportunities to improve water quality; for instance, detention basins while slowing the rate of flow may also settle out particulates and associated pollutants. Management of surface water may conflict with other management goals, in- cluding management of fisheries, groundwater, and wetlands. The potential for groundwater contamination from stormwater is significant. Seven of the 12 counties in the Puget Sound basin rely on groundwater for more than 75 percent of their domestic water supply. In urban areas, stream flows are higher in the wet season, because of the increased rate of runoff, and lower in the dry season because of the decrease in groundwater recharge resulting from covering the ground with impervious areas. Management of streams and rivers for stormwater conveyance may hinder the movements of migratory fish, both by obstructing their passage and by changing flows. Wetlands, both natural and artificial, are being used for storage and treatment of stormwater, with only limited knowledge of the effect of stormwater on wetland habitats. Because most stormwater quality programs are just beginning, we do not know how successful they will be in keeping contaminants out of surface water and groundwater. Even if source controls and BMPs are considered successful, we 128 ACTION PLAN still don't know whether the resulting water will be clean enough to fully protect Puget Sound from harm. Stormwater pollution is a problem associated with land development and the common use of potential pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and numerous others. The pervasiveness of the stormwater problem requires solutions from diverse segments of society-the development com- munity, business, and individuals. Federal, state, and local governments may lead the way by defining control methods, leading educational efforts, conduct- ing investigations, and providing enforcement activity where necessary, but suc- cess in solving the problem will be a function of society-wide efforts. PROGRAM STATUS C SOs With the passage of HB 815 (RCW 90.48.460-490) by the Washington State Legislature in 1985, all municipalities with CSOs were required to develop plans for the "greatest reasonable reduction at the earliest possible date." The legislation required submittal of local CSO reduction plans to Ecology by January 1, 1988. Ecology established a new regulation (Chapter 173-245 WAC) to implement the law consistent with these requirements. The 1987 Puget Sound plan called for CSO reduction guidelines by Ecology (SW-8) and CSO reduction plans by cities with CSOs (SW-9). Ecology's guidelines for the implementation of Chapter 173-245 WAC were completed in September 1987. As of August 1988 the CSO reduction plans of Metro, Seattle, and Everett have been approved by Ecology. Ecology will issue or has issued compliance orders to the other cities, although deadlines have not been established in all cases. The regulation provides that CSO reduction plans will be updated every five years. In its report to the legislature on the implementation of HB 815,30 Ecology defined "greatest reasonable reduction" as one overflow per year at each CSO location. In addition, Ecology has negotiated interim goals of 75 percent and 79 percent reductions of CSO volumes systemwide over the next 20 years with Metro and Seattle, respectively. This will continue the effort to reduce dischar- ges of raw sewage from all sources. In Metro's case, such efforts have resulted in a 90 percent reduction in raw sewage discharges since 1960. As a specific example of actions to be taken under CSO reduction plans, Metro's Denny Way CSO in Seattle, which now discharges approximately 370 million gallons per year into nearshore waters in Seattle's Elliott Bay, will be reduced to approximately 42 million gallons per year within 20 years. The quality of the discharge will be also be improved by the source control efforts under way in the drainage basin. Stormwater Progress on the stormwater elements of the plan has included establishment of a stormwater unit at Ecology in early 1988 and the start of development of the 30 The Status and Future of Combined Sewer Overflow Control, Washington Department of Ecology, September, 1987. 129 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan highway runoff program at the Department of Transportation. The Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program, led by King County, has continued without funding from the plan. Independent develop- ment of stormwater management programs at the local level has made rapid progress. The federal Water Quality Act of 1987, which reauthorized the Clean Water Act,31 establishes new procedures, requirements, and deadlines for the regula- tion of stormwater discharges by municipal and industrial sources. Cities with populations greater than 250,000 are to be issued permits by 1991, and sources are to be in compliance by 1994. Cities with populations greater than 100,000 are to be issued permits by 1993 and are to be in compliance by 1996. EPA will issue regulations for smaller sources by October 1992. The new law provides that permits for municipal discharges may be issued on a systemwide basis. The law also includes a requirement effectively prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to storm sewers. It also requires controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.32 Industrial stormwater sour- ces are still subject to BAT/BCT33 based standards. EPA has recently provided guidance documents for new initiatives in the Water Quality Act. "Nonpoint Source Guidance" describes how states should assess their waters to determine where uses are impaired by nonpoint sources (including stormwater) and develop nonpoint source management plans.34 "State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the Challenges of the Future" is in- tended to serve as an umbrella document for a number of initiatives35 and describes what EPA views as a rational process for states to use in satisfying their Water Quality Act requirements. Ecology formed a stormwater unit early in 1988 to address the requirements of the stormwater section of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan- specifically the requirements for manuals, model ordinances, and technical guidance to local governments. Ecology is also in the process of developing a draft areawide stormwater permit for Bellevue. This permit (which will probably be issued early in 1989) will include monitoring requirements and numerical standards for certain pollutants. Stormwater is being addressed on a watershed basis through the plan's Non- point Source Pollution Program. Regulations adopted by the Authority (Chap- ter 400-12 WAC) encourage local development of management frameworks which will facilitate nonpoint source pollution management. Section 400-12- 630 specifically addresses stormwater and erosion management. 31 33 U.S.C. Section 1342 amended by PL 100-4 Section 402(p). 32 A new standard from the Water Quality Act of 1987,33 U.S.C. Section 1345 as amended by PL 100-4, Section 405. 33 Best Available Technology/Best Conventional Technology, as defined by the CWA. 34 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et. seq., as amended by PL 100-4, Section 319. 35 Surface Water Toxics Control, Nonpoint Source, Estuary, Clean Lakes, and Great Lakes program areas. 130 ACTION PLAN The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) can be used to control surface water runoff pollution. The UFC is adopted by reference in RCW 19.27A.010; the current version is the 1982 UFC. Local jurisdictions adopt the UFC with minor varia- tions. The 1988 draft of the UFC, Article 80, Section 104(b) (Release of Haz- ardous Materials), says, "Hazardous materials shall not be released into any sewer, storm drain, ditch, drainage canal, lake, river or tidal waterway, or upon the ground, sidewalk, street, highway or into the atmosphere." This section, if adopted by local jurisdictions, will give local fire departments wide latitude to deal with inappropriate release and control of hazardous materials. Some jurisdictions, including Bellevue and Redmond, have adopted the 1988 version early, and use this authority, in coordination with other local agencies and departments, to help control environmental impacts. Since all fire depart- ments conduct regular inspections of commercial/industrial facilities, they can be particularly effective at detecting and correcting potential problems. The Urban Bay Action Program, a joint effort by Ecology, EPA, and local agen- cies, has conducted source control programs in urban bays since 1985. Stormwater is one source of toxic contamination to many urban bays. The urban bay action teams have developed specific source control programs to control stormwater and other sources of toxic contamination in these bays (see element P-13). At the local level, the trend has continued toward establishment of surface water utilities. Anacortes, Auburn, Bellevue, Gig Harbor, Issaquah, Kent, Lacey, Mountlake Terrace, Olympia, Port Townsend, Poulsbo, Redmond, Ren- ton, Seattle, Steilacoom, Tacoma, Thmwater, Winslow, and portions of King, Snohomish, and Thurston counties have surface water utilities at this time. Several other cities, including Bellingham, Bremerton, Kirkland, Marysville, and Mukilteo, are considering formation of utilities. Many more cities are reviewing and revising stormwater management policies, programs, and or- dinances. The Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program is a regional effort coordinated by King County to scientifically establish the short- and long-term effects of urban stormwater on regional wetlands and to determine the downstream water quality benefits which might be provided by the use of wetlands to treat stormwater. While the bulk of the research is long- term and results will not be available for several years, a survey of the charac- teristics of upland wetlands both affected and unaffected by urban runoff as well as a literature review have been completed. PROGRAM GOAL To protect shellfish beds, fish habitat, and other resources, to prevent the con- tamination of sediments from urban runoff and CSOs, and to achieve stand- ards for water and sediment quality by reducing (to the maximum extent practicable) pollutant discharges from stormwater and CSOs throughout Puget Sound. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is (1) to develop stormwater programs in urbanized areas of Puget Sound in a phased program starting with the largest cities; (2) to require that all cities and counties develop operation and main- tenance programs, adopt ordinances for new development, and develop stormwater education programs; and (3) to require all cities with CSOs in the Puget Sound basin to develop and implement plans providing for the greatest reasonable reduction of CSO events. 131 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan PROGRAM ELEMENTS SW-1. Stormwater All counties and cities in the Puget Sound basin shall adopt ordinances requir- Programs for All ing stormwater controls for new development and requiring maintenance of Counties and Cities36 private stormwater systems. This program shall not affect the Department of Ecology's authority to require appropriate corrective action (pursuant to Chapter 90.48 RCW) whenever existing facilities cause or contribute to viola- tions of state water quality standards. Each county and city also shall develop operation and maintenance programs for new and existing public stormwater systems. Each county and city shall maintain records of new public and private storm drainage systems and appur- tenances. Counties are responsible for the stormwater programs in unincor- porated residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Ecology will ensure that all appropriate areas are included in these programs. All programs and or- dinances developed under this element shall be consistent with Ecology rules, guidelines, and model ordinances in elements SW-3 and SW-4. Each city and county shall adopt ordinances consistent with Ecology's model ordinances (SW-4) requiring stormwater quality and quantity controls for new develop- ment and requiring and enforcing maintenance of privately owned stormwater systems. Education programs to inform citizens about stormwater and its ef- fects on water quality, flooding, and fishwAvildlife habitat, and to discourage dumping of waste material or pollutants into storm drains are included in the Education and Public Involvement Program elements (ES-2 and ES-5.3). Ecology shall oversee compliance with these requirements, auditing each city's and county's operation and maintenance and runoff control program every two years to ensure consistent and adequate implementation. If local govern- ments fail to prepare and implement the required programs under this ele- ment, Ecology shall either prepare and implement these programs itself or use its regulatory authority under Chapter 90.48 RCW, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, or other authority to direct local governments to prepare and implement operation and maintenance programs for stormwater systems and runoff ordinances for new development. The status of the stormwater ordinances and maintenance programs shall be evaluated by PSWQA as part of the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Thrget Date: All cities and counties shall adopt ordinances and comply with the operation and maintenance program requirements by June 30, 1991. By the same date, cities and counties with ordinances and operation and main- tenance programs predating Ecology guidance under element SW-4 shall bring 36 Elements SW-1 and SW-2 are reversed from the 1987 plan. 132 ACTION PLAN their ordinances and programs into compliance with Ecology guidelines. By June 30, 1993, Ecology shall complete the first round of biennial audits. SW-2. Stormwater Starting with six of the larger cities in the basin and four other cities or unin- Programs for corporated or watershed areas38 and eventually expanding to cover all ur- Urbanized Areas37 banized areas, each city and unincorporated urbanized area shall develop and implement a stormwater management program consistent with Ecology rules and guidelines (SW-4). This program shall not affect the Department of Ecology's authority to require appropriate corrective action (pursuant to Chapter 90.48 RCW) whenever existing facilities cause or contribute to viola- tions of state water quality standards. The program shall be submitted to Ecol- ogy for approval. Ecology will schedule submittal of stormwater management programs by the remaining cities and counties. The purposes of the management program shall be: 1. To control erosion and manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from public and private activities; 2. To protect and enhance water quality, and achieve water quality and sedi- ment quality standards; 3. To reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable; and 4. To protect beneficial uses, as described in Chapter 173-201 WAC. Each urban stormwater program shall seek to control the quality and quantity of runoff from public facilities and industrial, commercial, and residential areas including streets and roads. Each program shall cover both new and exist- ing development. Ecology shall allow for early action by urbanized areas which are prepared to implement stormwater control programs. Emphasis shall be placed on controlling stormwater through source controls and best management practices. In some cases, significant stormwater problems may be originating in urbanized areas outside of a local jurisdiction. In those situa- tions, the sequencing of areas for urban stormwater programs may be modified by Ecology to address problems in shared watersheds. The neighboring juris- dictions will develop local coordination mechanisms to cooperatively resolve the identified problems. Where joint programs are not developed, Ecology shall ensure consistency in programs through its oversight role.39 The urban stormwater programs shall be based on minimum standards con- tained in the technical manuals, model ordinances, rules, and guidelines 37 Urbanized areas are as defined by the United States Bureau of the Census. Counties are responsible for the comprehensive urban stormwater programs (SW-2) in unincorporated urbanized areas. Ecology will ensure that all appropriate areas are included in these programs. 38 The six cities are Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett, Bellingham, and Bremerton. The four other areas will be selected by Ecology following a procedure which ranks local willingness to participate and includes the likelihood of significant success. 39 The priority watershed process (elements NP-2, NP-3, and NP-4) would require joint efforts. 133 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan developed in SW-3 and SW-4. Ecology shall provide technical assistance to the cities and counties developing and implementing stormwater programs. Ecology will coordinate its stormwater program development with other state programs which have stormwater implications, i.e., wetlands, floodplain management, nonpoint, underground injection control, and the sediment quality criteria development program. Ecology will comply with the federal regulations for the municipal areawide NPDES stormwater permits, which may be used to implement urban stormwater programs. Each city or urban area will have the flexibility to design its own program to be phased in over several years, but the content, priorities, and deadlines for compliance for the program shall be subject to review and approval by Ecology. At a minimum, each urban stormwater program shall include: a. Identification of potentially significant pollutant sources and their relation- ship to the drainage system and water bodies. b. Investigations of problem storm drains, including sampling.40 c. Programs for operation and maintenance of storm drains, detention systems, ditches, and culverts.41 d. A water quality response program, to investigate sources of pollutants, spills, fish kills, illegal hookups, dumping, and other water quality problems. These investigations should be used to support compliance/enforcement efforts. e. Assurance of adequate local funding for the stormwater program through surface water utilities, sewer charges, fees, or other revenue-generating sources. f. Local coordination arrangements such as interlocal agreements, joint programs, consistent standards, or regional boards or committees. g. Ordinances requiring implementation of stormwater controls for new development as defined by Ecology per SW-3 and SW-4.41 h. A stormwater public education program aimed at residents, businesses, and industries in the urban area. i. Inspection, compliance, and enforcement measures.42 j. An implementation schedule. 40 The Elliott Bay Revised Action Program: Storm Drain Monitoring Approach, March 1988 (draft), Tetra Tech, for EPA Region 10 presents an approach particularly suited to industrial areas. 41 Items c and g are parts of the areawide stormwater programs (SW-1), but may be developed under SW-2 by those cities and counties which proceed directly with the comprehensive stormwater program. 42 Local government may request Ecology's assistance with enforcement measures. 134 ACTION PLAN k. If after implementation of the control measures listed in a-j above, there are still discharges that cause significant environmental problems, retrofitting of existing development and/or treatment of discharges from new and ex- isting development may be required. Stormwater quality in public stormwater systems in commercial and industrial areas shall have a high priority in city and county programs. Ecology shall determine, in compliance with EPA regulations, and in consultation with local governments, the appropriate approach to controlling stormwater discharges from industrial and commercial facilities which are not currently required to have point source discharge permits. Stormwater controls are included in NPDES permits for discharges of stormwater from commercial and industrial point source facilities, which are addressed in the Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program (P-5). Ecology shall have compliance oversight responsibilities for the urban stormwater programs. Ecology shall audit each urban stormwater program every two years to ensure consistent and adequate implementation. If local governments fail to prepare and implement urban stormwater programs, Ecol- ogy shall either prepare and implement programs itself or use its regulatory authority under Chapter 90.48 RCW, the Puget Sound Water Quality Manage- ment Plan, or other authority to direct local governments to prepare and im- plement urban stormwater programs. The effectiveness of the urban stormwater programs shall be evaluated by PSWQA as part of the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Ecology shall participate with Bellevue in a pilot areawide stormwater permit process intended to result in issuance of an areawide stormwater permit to Bel- levue at the earliest possible date. The purpose of this permit process is to gain experience with use of the permit to implement the urban stormwater programs. Urban stormwater programs may be part of the priority watershed action plans (NP-2 and -4). Target Dates: By December 31, 1989, the six named cities and another four cities or unincorporated areas begin developing stormwater programs. By the year 2000, all urbanized areas in the Puget Sound basin implement urban stormwater programs. Ecology shall audit each city or county program for sub- stantial progress toward implementation of the elements listed above within two years of its initiation. SW-3. Technical Ecology shall produce technical manuals for use by local jurisdictions in Manuals on stormwater planning. In preparing these manuals Ecology shall use existing in- Stormwater and formation. The technical manuals shall define minimum standards for in- Erosion Controls clusion in local programs (SW-1 and SW-2). The technical manuals shall include: a. Best management practices for the control of erosion and sedimentation from construction sites, including standards for operation, maintenance, and inspection procedures. b. Hydrologic analysis procedures, including selection of design storms and es- timation of runoff. 135 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan c. Design, operation, and maintenance standards for public and private reten- tion/detention facilities and conveyance systems. Emphasis is to be placed on systems which will maximize water quality benefits as well as water quantity control, such as the inclusion of biofiltration techniques where practicable. d. Techniques for the reduction or elimination of pollutants in runoff from problem land uses. The development of these manuals shall be closely coordinated with the development of the guidelines and model ordinances for stormwater programs (SW-4). Ecology shall also update these manuals as needed and provide tech- nical assistance in interpretation of these manuals to local jurisdictions. Target Dates: Complete the technical manuals by December 31, 1989. [Status: A stormwater unit was established at Ecology in January 1988 and has begun work on this element.] SW-4. Rules, Ecology shall prepare and update guidance, consisting of rules, guidelines, and Guidelines, and Model model ordinances, for stormwater programs for all cities and counties (SW-1) Ordinances for SW-1 and for comprehensive urban stormwater programs (SW-2). Ecology, in con- and SW-2 sultation with local governments and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, shall prepare an evaluation to determine which aspects of the guidance (see 4.1 below) should be in rule, and which in supplemental guidelines. Ecology shall consult with cities, counties, developers, citizens' groups, and other interested parties, as it develops the rules, guidelines, and model ordinances. The rules, guidelines, and model ordinances shall be used by local jurisdictions in preparing their stormwater programs. The rules and guidelines shall provide minimum program requirements. Ecology shall also provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions during preparation and im- plementation of their stormwater programs. 4.1. Guidance for The guidance for SW-1 and SW-2 shall include: SW-1 and SW-2 a. Procedures for developing local programs, including procedures for Ecology review and approval of programs. b. Minimum requirements for runoff controls required in local ordinances. c. Minimum requirements for control of private sector maintenance of private drainage systems. d. Minimum requirements for the operation and maintenance programs, in- cluding record-keeping requirements for new drainage systems and facilities. Additionally, the guidance for the comprehensive urban stormwater programs (SW-2) shall include: a. Procedures for identification of potentially significant pollutant sources and their relationship to the drainage system and water bodies. 136 ACTION PLAN b. Procedures for source tracing investigations, including sampling of problem storm drains. c. Procedures for investigations, implementation of spill control measures, en- forcement, and remedial actions. d. Methods for assuring adequate local funding for the urban stormwater program. e. Provisions for agreements with neighboring jurisdictions when stormwater and watersheds do not follow jurisdictional boundaries. f. Requirements for public education programs. g. Requirements for retrofitting and/or treatment measures, if necessary. h. Procedures for inspection, compliance, and enforcement measures. i. Requirements for implementation schedules. The guidance shall lay out acceptable approaches to control stormwater from new development, such as water quality policies for use in SEPA and other per- mit decisions; density controls to limit development in sensitive areas; develop- ment standards to limit the amount of impervious surfaces; regional detention ponds; oil separators or other treatment facilities; drainage ordinances; erosion control programs; preservation of wetlands; or other elements. In the guidance for SW-1 and SW-2, Ecology shall address the issue of respon- sibility and procedures for dealing with direct discharges of stormwater from industrial and commercial facilities into the waters of the state. 4.2 Model Ordinances The model ordinances for elements SW-1 and SW-2 are intended to set mini- mum standards for adoption by local governments, and shall include at least the following elements: 1. A drainage element which (a) sets policy; (b) defines the role of surface water management; (c) defines water quality criteria and standards; (d) provides local enforcement authority; (e) provides for inspection and maintenance of private drainage facilities; (f) authorizes administrative development of operation and maintenance standards, development stand- ards, and spill response procedures; and (g) generally integrates the management of surface waters with other appropriate codes affecting water quality, (i.e., the Uniform Fire Code, public health codes, and land- use codes). 2. A clearing and grading element which specifies erosion-control authority and provides for inspection and enforcement. 3. An element ensuring protection of streams and wetlands that is consistent with Ecology standards developed under plan element W-4. 'Thrget Date: Ecology submits the completed evaluation of items for inclusion in rules and supplemental guidelines to the Authority for approval by February 1, 1989. Ecology completes the rules, guidelines, and model ordinan- ces by December 31, 1989. 137 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan [Status: A stormwater unit was established at Ecology in January 1988 and has begun work on this element.] SW-5. Puget Sound The Washington Department of 'ransportation (WDOT) shall develop a Highway Runoff program to control runoff from freeways and highways in the Puget Sound (WDOT) basin. This program shall be consistent with Ecology guidelines. Ecology shall develop guidelines for the Puget Sound Highway Runoff Program and shall coordinate with WDOT in its development of a runoff program. During preparation of these guidelines, Ecology shall consult with WDOT, other appropriate Ecology programs, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and affected local jurisdictions. Ecology shall provide technical as- sistance to WDOT and local jurisdictions during development and implemen- tation of this program. The guidelines shall include requirements for: a. Control and/or treatment of runoff from highways in the Puget Sound basin. b. Implementation of BMPs and/or treatment facilities for new construction. c. The use of BMPs addressing water quality and quantity control, the use of herbicides and pesticides in highway rights of way, and the use of de-icing chemicals. d. Compliance with Ecology and local stormwater programs. Ecology shall seek to provide consistent requirements for the highway program in dif- ferent jurisdictions. e. For phasing in the runoff program, priority will be given to the most heavily traveled highways, while keeping in mind the site-specific constraints of implementing best management practices. f. WDOT funding of construction and operation and maintenance of local or private stormwater systems receiving highway runoff. Such funding shall be commensurate with the proportional water quantity and pollutant load- ing contribution of such runoff. Ecology will describe methods to deter- mine quantity and loading contributions to the stormwater system. g. Determining site-specific constraints in implementing best management practices and/or treatment measures for existing highways. h. An implementation schedule. Target Date: The Department of 'ransportation shall begin implementation of its highway runoff program by June 30, 1990. Ecology shall complete the final guidelines by December 31, 1989. [Status: A highway runoff unit was established at WDOT in March 1988 and has begun work on this element.] SW-6. Runoff from As part of the state certification process under Section 401 of the federal Federal Facilities Clean Water Act, Ecology will require that all NPDES permits for federal facilities, including military bases, written by EPA contain stormwater controls that are at least as stringent as those required for industrial facilities in 138 ACTION PLAN Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program element P-5, including all toxicant and particulate limits and requirements for monitoring, spill control, and public notice. EPA is requested to review existing EPA-issued permits and modify any permit as necessary to include such limits and requirements. (See Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program elements P-5 through P-11). Before considering a 401 certification for a federal facility permit, Ecology shall seek to be familiar with the facility site through joint site visits or inspec- tions with EPA or other means (for discharges of wastewater from federal facilities, see Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program element P-11). 'Target Date: Ecology shall initiate this program on January 1, 1987. After September 30, 1987, Ecology shall not certify the renewal of any NPDES per- mit for a federal facility under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act unless the permit includes numerical limits and/or other conditions required to comply with all applicable water quality and sediment standards and other elements of this plan. [Status: Not started. Implementation delayed pending completion of proce- dures manual (P-5). SW-7. Stormwater- Related Research 7.1. Stormwater- Ecology shall partially fund and participate in research on the use of wetlands Wetlands Research for stormwater quality and quantity control. Ecology shall cooperate with state and local agencies that are participating in the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program developed by King County, which addresses the water quality benefits of wetland treatment and the im- pacts of stormwater on wetland ecology. Ecology shall encourage a research program designed to obtain the data necessary to support policy and regulatory decisions regarding water quality and the effects of stormwater dis- charges on wetlands. The King County wetlands study will require five years to complete. After the second year, Ecology shall evaluate the results and determine their applicability to Ecology's needs. 7.2. Stormwater Ecology shall conduct a comprehensive search of the literature to identify and Research Needs prioritize stormwater research needs, in collaboration with the Research Program (see element R-l), and report the results. Target Date: Ecology shall participate in the wetlands research project which commenced on January 1, 1987. Ecology shall report on other research needs by June 30, 1990. [Status: The research project is proceeding with King County, Metro, and other funding. Ecology funding has not been available as of October 1988.] SW-8. CSO Reduction The Authority recognizes that Ecology is nearing completion of guidelines for Guidelines local planning to achieve greatest reasonable reduction of CSOs. The goal of the guidelines shall be to achieve greatest reasonable reduction of pollutants from both stormwater and sanitary sewage in CSOs. If local governments choose stormwater separation as a CSO reduction technique, best manage- ment practices, including a source control program, shall be required and the 139 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan impacts of stormwater on receiving waters shall be monitored by the municipality as required by Ecology. Ecology shall also update the guidelines and provide technical assistance to local governments implementing the guidelines (SW-9). [Status: Ecology completed the regulations for CSO reductions (Chapter 173- 245 WAC) in January 1987 and the guidelines for implementation in Septem- ber 1987.1 SW-9. CSO Reduction As required by RCW 90.48.480, each city, sewer jurisdiction, or other entity Plans by Cities (or with CSOs43shall submit to Ecology a plan to achieve greatest reasonable Sewer Districts) reduction of CSOs consistent with Ecology guidelines. The plans will include priority ranking of CSOs, implementation schedules, and provisions for fund- ing of the corrections. Ecology will review the plans, develop compliance schedules, and modify NPDES permits. 'Trget Dates: Cities with CSOs were to submit CSO reduction plans to Ecol- ogy for approval by November 1, 1987. Ecology was to approve or disapprove of the plans by January 1, 1988. The controls are to be implemented according to a compliance schedule negotiated between Ecology and each jurisdiction. [Status: As of September 1988 Metro, Seattle, and Everett have submitted plans. Ecology either has issued or will issue compliance orders to the remain- ing cities, although the deadlines have yet to be established in some cases.] MAJOR PUBLIC 1. Ecology guidelines for urban stormwater programs (SW-4). ACTIONS FOR REVIEW 2. Program for Puget Sound highway runoff (SW-5). 3. Ecology CSO guidelines (SW-8) (completed). LEGISLATION None REQUIRED ESTIMATED COSTS The costs to the state for the stormwater and CSO program are estimated to be $741,000 in fiscal year 1990, $809,000 in 1991, and $1 million in fiscal year 1992. These costs are reduced approximately 30 percent from a full program budget resulting in emphasis on implementation of the regionwide stormwater program (SW-1) and slower implementation of the comprehensive urban stormwater programs. Local costs are estimated to be $600,000 in fiscal year 1990, increasing to $1,800,000 in 1991, $3,900,000 in 1992, $6 million in 1993, and $8.1 million in 1994. For planning purposes, the local costs are con- sidered to be the incremental, or additional, cost of providing water quality 43 Deadline set by current state law. All CSO deadlines in this program are based upon the need to comply with current state law requiring CSO reductions. Cities known to have CSOs and therefore affected by this requirement are Seattle (and Metro), Anacortes, Bellingham, Bremerton, Everett, Mount Vernon, Olympia, Port Angeles, and Snohomish. 140 ACTION PLAN programs above and beyond other drainage activities, typically oriented towards water quantity control. Although some of the local costs may be supported by the Centennial Clean Water Fund, the bulk of the costs are expected to be funded through the forma- tion of drainage districts or utilities. Comprehensive control of stormwater from non-NPDES permitted industrial or commercial facilities is a potentially expensive task, not currently included in cost estimates for the stormwater or municipal and industrial discharges programs. CSOs The CSO control programs are expensive. Costs for CSO reduction were es- timated by Metro, Seattle, and Everett, and by Ecology for the other cities. Over the next 18 years these costs are estimated to be $223 million. Total costs for these cities to control CSOs to the ultimate goal of the one overflow per year level is approximately $425 million, of which $289.5 million is for Metro. These costs are a result of existing requirements; this plan does not impose new requirements on CSOs. Urban Stormwater An informal survey was conducted in 1988 of local stormwater management Program programs, including all of the drainage utilities which could be identified. The survey included King, Skagit, and Snohomish Counties, and Anacortes, Auburn, Bellevue, Bellingham, Kent, Lacey, Mountlake Terrace, Olympia, Port Tobwnsend, Poulsbo, Redmond, Renton, Seattle, Shelton, Steilacoom, Thcoma, Tumwater, and Winslow. Many of these cities and counties have al- ready completed several elements of the urban stormwater program. Local governments which already have vigorous stormwater programs underway would be expected to have less of an increase in costs than those with only min- imal programs. The total budgets for drainage and stormwater functions cur- rently in place by the jurisdictions surveyed was approximately $35.3 million. An extrapolation of this figure to the region indicates an annual budget of $50 to $160 million dollars to perform current functions, which typically include drainage operation and maintenance, capital improvements, comprehensive drainage planning, and drainage-related permitting for property development. Given the tendency of most local surface water management programs to em- phasize flood control rather than water quality control, some additional costs would be incurred by virtually all local governments to implement water quality programs. Because source controls and best management practices are emphasized before treatment, the costs to local government may not be as significant as they would be if treatment were required. There will, however, be costs for operation and maintenance of systems, remedial actions, public education, and the other elements of the comprehensive stormwater management programs. Operation and Because there are fewer requirements, the costs for the regionwide stormwater Maintenance programs to be developed by all cities and counties (SW-1) will be less than Programs and Runoff the urban stormwater programs (SW-2). Also under the regionwide Ordinances stormwater programs, the cities and counties will have to review or adopt or- dinances for maintenance of privately owned stormwater systems. 141 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Highways The Washington State Department of Transportation (WDOT) estimates that it would cost $50 million to implement stormwater controls on all state high- ways in the Puget Sound basin. ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: STORMWATER AND CSOs COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY90 FY 91 FY92 FY 93 FY 94 SW-1 Stormwater Programs for All Counties & Cities . . . . 8,556 2,800 707,652 1,688,512 1,861,377 2,701,377 3,541,377 SW-2 Stormwater Programs for Urbanized Areas ........ 0 2,800 241,588 680,932 2,815,128 4,052,065 5,312,065 SW-3 Stormwater/Erosion Technical Manuals ....... 54,200 176,563 92,212 0 0 0 0 SW-4 Guidelines and Model Ordinances ......... 57,104 116,235 66,212 0 0 0 0 SW-5 Puget Sound Highway Runoff ............ 14,355 63,105 81,048 86,786 75,378 75,378 75,378 SW-6 Runoff from Federal Facilities ............ 28,349 55,636 30,754 30,754 31,669 31,669 31,669 SW-7 Stormwater-Related Research .............2,852 17,921 60,386 60,386 57,534 57,534 0 SW-9 CSO Reduction Plans ................ 81,011 123,462 78,196 78,196 75,344 75,344 75,344 TOTAL $246,427 $558,522 $1,358,049 $2,625,567 $4,916,430 $6,993,367 $9,035,833 Element Notes SW- 1,2 Estimates for local costs represent the incremental costs of the water quality activities required by the plan. Significant local costs to control drainage (quantity rather than quality) are not included. SW-I Regionwide stormwater quality controls. SW-2 Urban stormwater quality programs which apply in urbanized areas and are in addition to the regionwide SW-I programs. SW-7 Wetlands research money is intended to support King County regional wetland research projects. COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 EPA ................... .......16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 Ecology ................... .......207,063 516,462 698,668 766,186 999,830 976,767 919,233 PSWQA ..........................22,764 25,460 42,781 42,781 Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 0 0 600,000 1,800,000 3,900,000 6,000,000 8,100,000 TOTAL $246,427 $558,522 $1,358,049 $2,625,567 $4,916,430 $6,993,367 $9,035,833 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Federal Funding ........................ 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,600 State General Fund ................... ...229,827 541,922 741,449 808,967 999,830 976,767 919,233 Local Sources ............ ..........0 0 600,000 1,800,000 3,900,000 6,000,000 8,100,000 TOTAL $246,427 $558,522 $1,358,049 $2,625,567 $4,916,430 $6,993,367 $9,035,833 142 AMTON PLAN WETLANDS PROTECTION PROBLEM DEFINITION The Importance of Wetlands are an economically, biologically, and physically valuable resource. Wetlands They are the most biologically productive ecosystems in nature, anchoring the estuarine and freshwater food chains through photosynthesis and the produc- tion of innumerable small organisms upon which larger creatures depend. For a vast diversity of species, including birds, fish, reptiles, invertebrates, and mammals, wetlands44 are an essential habitat for feeding, nesting, cover, and A ~~~. ~breeding. At least one-third of our state's threatened and endangered species require wetlands for their survival. The state Department of Wildlife lists over 175 wildlife species that use wetlands for primary feeding habitat and 140 species that use them for primary breeding habitat. Wetlands are critical to the survival of shellfish, salmonids, and other marine and freshwater species. 'Me annual retail value of these fisheries to the Puget Sound region is over $202 million.45 Other physical and economic values of wetlands include the slowing and ( storage of floodwaters and reduced shoreline erosion from wind and tidal ac- tion. These functions may eliminate the need in some cases for costly en- gineered flood and erosion control measures such as dredging, diking, and construction of detention facilities. Wetlands function naturally to recharge groundwater supplies and to improve water quality. Wetlands filter out sedi- ments, use excess nutrients, and break down some toxic chemicals. Economic values for the overall benefit to the Puget Sound region of both the water quality and water quantity control functions of wetlands have not been es- timated, but experts recognize they are high. Wetlands also provide quality-of-life benefits. Wetlands are scenic destina- tions for hiking, boating, photography, and nature appreciation. It is difficult to derive economic values for these benefits. One measure might be annual tourist expenditures in the 12 Puget Sound counties. These were nearly $3 mil- lion in 1986, supporting almost 55,000 jobs.46 Individuals visiting wetlands often gauge the value of these benefits in more qualitative terms, such as per- 44For the purpose of this plan, the definition of wetlands used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been adopted: Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoils and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season each year. 45 PSWQA, State of the Sound 1988 Report. Table 2-1: Fish and wildlife uses of different wetland types. 46 Ibid, page 2-23. 143 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan sonal fulfillment and renewal. Finally, wetlands furnish us with important educational and research opportunities. The Loss of Wetlands More than half of the wetlands along the coasts and riverbanks of Puget Sound have been destroyed by human activity. In the Skagit Valley, for example, 90 to 95 percent of the wetlands have been lost, primarily to agriculture. Com- mercial development in areas such as the Green/Duwamish and Puyallup river basins has eliminated over 95 percent of the original wetlands. Sensitive, rare, and important wetland types, including herring and smelt spawning beds and salt marshes, have been lost or are threatened. In some cases, such as inland freshwater wetlands, the nature and extent of wetland loss is unknown because wetland inventories are lacking. Some of the original causes of wetland loss, such as diking wetlands to create pastureland, no longer pose a threat to wetlands. However, wetlands, especial- ly marine shorelines, remain choice locations for certain types of industrial, commercial, and residential use. Incremental loss of some estuarine wetlands continues to occur from port industrial development and to an unquantified extent from small projects such as bulkheading. These losses can represent sig- nificant percentages of some habitat types in certain areas. Laws and Programs A variety of federal, state, and local laws are now in effect that help control for Protecting wetland losses. The scope of these laws is limited, however, and programs Wetlands derived from them are often inadequately funded and not well coordinated among different levels of government. The decision to protect wetlands is dis- cretionary rather than mandatory under many of these laws. A recent study by the Department of Ecology shows that the State Environ- mental Policy Act (SEPA) provides inadequate protection to isolated wetlands and fails to satisfactorily identify wetland areas and impacts.47 This study also provides evidence of a general lack of knowledge about wetlands at the local level. Another study, by the Region 10 Office of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, shows that most efforts to compensate wetland losses by enhanc- ing existing wetlands or creating new ones have not been successful at replacing the functions and values of the eliminated wetland.48 Most of the applicable laws exclude small water bodies and wetlands from regulation or contain various exemptions. Minor development projects and ac- tivities, for example, are typically exempted. Actions adjacent to wetlands but lying outside a regulatory boundary, such as the 200-foot limit of the Shoreline Management Act, can also adversely affect wetlands. In the past, no program has focused exclusively on either the protection of wetlands on state-owned lands or the restoration of degraded wetlands. 47 Hull, S.W. and J.S. MacIvor. 1987. State environmental policy act wetlands evaluation project. Washington Department of Ecology, Wetlands Section, as cited in PSWQA, State of the Sound 1988 Report. 48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Implications of wetland mitigation practices pursuant to Section 404 permitting activities in Washington state. Region 10, unpublished report, as cited in PSWQA, State of the Sound 1988 Report 144 ACTION PLAN The cumulative effect of these exemptions, programmatic gaps, and limita- tions is that wetlands throughout the Puget Sound basin continue to be degraded or lost. PROGRAM STATUS The wetlands protection program includes preservation through fee-simple or other type of acquisition, enhanced regulations, protection for wetlands on state-owned lands, education, and restoration. By October 1988 Ecology had formed technical review and citizen advisory committees for both the preserva- tion and the enhanced regulatory programs. Under Criteria Development and Program Planning (W-l), Ecology submitted a report to the Authority on criteria and techniques for preservation in September 1988. Ecology has wide- ly distributed a nomination questionnaire requesting groups and individuals to identify wetlands to be preserved (W-2). A draft working list of wetlands to be preserved will be prepared by Ecology in November 1988, consisting of sites from the Puget Trough Coastal Wetlands Report. The final list of important wetlands is due in April 1990. As an early action under Wetlands Preservation (W-3), the Department of Natural Resources has committed funds allocated by the legislature for this program to Snohomish County to acquire portions of the Snohomish Delta wetlands. By August 1988, acquisition of one site had been completed, with a second pending and two additional candidate sites identified. DNR actively participates in drafting wetland selection criteria (W-l) and in compiling the working list of important wetlands (W-2). DNR will use the additional criteria for marine and estuarine wetlands it is preparing under W-1 for the develop- ment of its management program for state-owned wetlands (W-6). W-7, Wet- lands Education Strategy, and W-8, Wetlands Restoration Program, are scheduled to begin in July 1989. PROGRAM GOAL Th ensure that there is no net loss of wetland functions, values, and acreage and that in the long term there is a net gain through restoration and enhance- ment of wetlands in the Puget Sound basin. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving the goal of no net loss and a net gain of wetlands has several facets. First, wetlands will be preserved, either through purchase or some other mechanism, to safeguard their functions and values (W-l, -2, and -3). Second, local governments will develop and implement programs that meet minimum state standards for protecting wetlands promulgated in rule by Ecology (W-4 and -5). Next, the Department of Natural Resources will develop and implement a program for protecting wetlands on state-owned uplands and aquatic lands. DNR will also evaluate, along with other state agencies with land management responsibilities, applicable authorities and programs to determine their adequacy in protecting wetlands on all lands managed by the state (W-6). Finally, Ecology will develop and implement a long-range wetlands education strategy (W-7) and a wetlands restoration program (W-8). 145 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan PROGRAM ELEMENTS W-1. Criteria With Ecology as lead and with assistance from DNR, a preservation program Development and shall be prepared. The first element of this program shall include a report con- Program Planning sisting of the following: 1. Detailed criteria for selection of wetlands to be preserved, including repre- sentative wetlands of various types. DNR shall provide additional criteria for marine/estuarine wetlands based on biological and physical functions and characteristics (M-2). 2. Evaluation of techniques and mechanisms for preservation of wetlands that may be used by state agencies, local governments, and private organiza- tions, including acquisition by purchase, exchange, or gift, and use of in- novative methods such as conservation easements and transfers of development rights. This report shall include written concurrence from DNR with the wetlands preservation program and shall be submitted to the Authority for review. Rchnical assistance in developing the program shall be provided to Ecology by state agencies, such as the Departments of Natural Resources, Fisheries, and Wildlife. Close coordination with the existing DNR Natural Heritage Program shall be maintained. A working group shall be formed by Ecology consisting of wetland scientists, wetland specialists from state and local govern- ment agencies, and representatives of Indian tribes, landowners, developers, conservation groups, and industry. The expertise and advice of this group shall be used to develop innovative approaches to wetland preservation, to recommend sources of long-range funding for wetland preservation, and to as- sist in making a broad range of potentially interested individuals, local govern- ments, and organizations aware of the wetlands preservation program. This group shall continue to provide assistance throughout the implementation process. rlrget Date: Submit report on criteria and techniques for preservation by Sep- tember 1, 1988, with marine/estuarine components submitted by December 1, 1989. [Status: The final criteria have been completed and presented to the Authority. DNR will complete components based on biological functions and characteristics for marine/estuarine wetlands by December 1989.] W-2. Identification of With Ecology as lead and with assistance from DNR and technical assistance Wetlands to be from other state agencies, such as Wildlife and Fisheries, the wetlands to be Preserved preserved shall be identified. Nominations of wetlands to be preserved shall be solicited from a broad range of potentially interested parties, including local governments, citizens' and other groups, tribes, and individuals. Wetlands already identified in the Puget Rough Coastal Wetlands Report as having high value shall comprise the first draft of a working list of wetlands to be preserved. This working list shall be updated periodically prior to comple- tion of the final list of wetlands to be preserved. Ecology shall identify those sites on the working list that are candidates for early action, and DNR shall 146 ACTION PLAN take the necessary steps under W-3 to preserve these sites. The final list may be periodically revised as necessary. Documentation shall accompany the final list describing the size, location, and general functions and values of the selected wetlands and demonstrating how the final list of wetlands was chosen. When documentation includes field in- vestigations, sampling shall use, to the extent practicable, protocols and a data management system compatible with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. The final list and documentation shall be jointly submitted by Ecol- ogy and DNR. The Authority shall review the final list and documentation of wetlands selected for preservation. Public workshops shall be held to provide education and to encourage partici- pation by local governments and a broad spectrum of the public in the selec- tion process. Target Date: First draft of the working list of Puget Trough Report sites sub- mitted to the Authority by November 1, 1988. Final list submitted to the Authority by April 1, 1990. [Status: Ecology held public workshops around the Sound in March and April 1988. In September 1988, Ecology distributed a questionnaire to local govern- ments, citizens' groups and other entities, and individuals to solicit nomina- tions of wetlands for preservation.] W-3. Wetlands With DNR as lead and with assistance from Ecology and other state agencies, Preservation the state shall take actions necessary to preserve and protect in perpetuity those wetlands identified under element W-2. This is an ongoing program in which specific sites are protected as funds and other mechanisms become avail- able. DNR may make grants to local governments and other entities wishing to sponsor wetlands preservation projects. DNR, Ecology, and other state agencies shall develop general management standards to ensure that wetlands secured by the preservation program are protected in perpetuity. These agencies shall recommend a preservation strategy for each site that includes (a) a technical rating of site preservation value; (b) preliminary site management and preservation methods; (c) an analysis of effects that recent federal and state court decisions49 dealing with the public trust doctrine may have on preservation strategies; and (d) an ap- propriate management entity(ies). Funds appropriated to DNR to carry out this program shall be expended con- sistent with the agencies' recommended site preservation strategy. All govern- ment and private entities are encouraged to use other appropriate funds available to them to acquire wetlands in accordance with each specific site preservation strategy. DNR shall take early action to preserve available sites on the working list, and acquisition may continue prior to completion of the final list. After sites are secured, a detailed site management plan shall be developed and implemented. Site plans shall be developed by the management entity in 49 For example, Phillips Petroleum Company v Mississippi 108 S. Ct. 791 (1988). 147 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan consultation with DNR, Ecology, and other state agencies and shall meet the general management standards and include any necessary site-specific require- ments. Management plans may include educational components that are developed in consultation with the Environmental Education Task Force (see element ES-7.1) and with the wetlands education strategy (W-7). DNR and Ecology shall provide technical advice and limited staff support to any agency, local government, organization, tribe, or private party wishing to take the lead in preserving any site, including those not on the final list. State preservation actions should coordinate with and complement preservation programs of private organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and rust for Public Lands. Data on functions, values, and acreages of all wetlands preserved under this program shall be provided to the Department of Ecology for measuring progress in achieving the wetlands program goal of no net loss of wetlands in Puget Sound. Target Date: Initiate acquisition for most important sites on August 1, 1988. Identify recommended preservation strategies and appropriate management entities for sites on the final list by December 1, 1990. Develop site preserva- tion and management plans as funding and other mechanisms become avail- able. [Status: DNR has taken early action to acquire wetlands in Snohomish County.] W-4. State Rules for By rule, Ecology shall adopt minimum standards for local wetlands programs Wetlands Protection in the Puget Sound basin. These rules shall prescribe the minimum features that must be contained in local programs. In developing the rules, Ecology shall study means of enhancing regulatory protection for water quality and habitat functions of wetlands. This study shall include the identification of wetland types or sizes which require additional protection and necessary and optional means of providing such protection. The study shall also contain a recommendation on whether wetlands protection should be included in the state water quality standards (Chapter 173-201 WAC) when these are revised in 1990. The rules may contain standards for wetland use and development, such as re- quirements for water dependency, an absence of practical alternatives, public benefit exceeding public loss from wetland changes, and use of mitigation. The rules shall set forth a schedule and process for local legislative bodies and Ecology to approve the local programs and shall require extensive public invol- vement in the development of local programs. In developing the rules, Ecol- ogy shall identify legislative actions, including funding for the development and implementation of local wetland programs, that may be necessary to carry out the enhanced regulatory program. Ecology shall also review existing wetland inventories and determine if they are adequate to meet the needs of the enhanced regulatory piogram. If Ecol- ogy determines that they are not, Ecology shall, as part of the rulemaking process, establish minimum requirements for wetland inventories. Ecology shall use existing wetland inventory and other trends analysis information to establish a tracking system for monitoring progress in achieving the wetlands program goal of no net loss and a net gain of wetlands in Puget Sound. Prior to adopting the rules, Ecology shall work closely with entities having ex- *pertise in wetlands management and regulation, such as federal, state, and 148 ACTION PLAN local governmental agencies and tribes. In particular, Ecology shall coor- dinate with efforts of the federal Environmental Protection Agency in class- ifying and protecting wetlands. Target Date: Adopt rules by September 1, 1989. [Status: Ecology has established technical review and advisory committees and has begun developing the rules. Ecology has held meetings with local government officials to explain the program and to seek their comments.] W-5. Local Wetlands Local governments shall measure their wetlands protection efforts against the Programs state standards contained in Ecology's wetlands protection rules (W-4) and take those actions necessary to implement a local program that meets the standards. Local governments shall submit programs to Ecology for review. Ecology shall approve programs that meet the state standards. Ecology shall provide technical assistance to local governments for program development. Local governments are encouraged to use existing authority to implement wet- lands programs prior to the dates identified by this plan, and to implement programs that exceed the minimum state standards adopted in Ecology rules. Target Date: Submit local wetland programs for all Puget Sound counties to Ecology by September 1, 1990. Submit programs for all cities with marine or estuarine wetlands to Ecology by December 1, 1990. Submit programs for all other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound basin to Ecology by May 1, 1991. Ecol- ogy completes approval process within three months of submittal. [Status: No wetlands programs will be submitted until Ecology adopts the rules. Local governments are participating in the rule development process (W-4), and many are currently implementing programs and ordinances related to wetlands protection.] W-6. Program to For state-owned uplands and aquatic lands managed by DNR, DNR shall use Protect Wetlands on its authorities and programs to ensure that existing wetlands are preserved and State-Owned Lands protected. At a minimum, DNR's program for protecting wetlands on state- owned uplands managed by DNR shall: * Inventory wetlands on state-owned uplands under DNR management. DNR shall use protocols and data management systems for the inventory that are consistent, to the extent practicable, with the Puget Sound Am- bient Monitoring Program. * Develop procedures for complying with adopted local wetlands programs in the department's management of wetlands on state-owned uplands, con- sistent with laws pertaining to state land management. * Study the laws, regulations, policies, and programs and their implementa- tion pertaining to DNR's uplands management responsibilities to deter- mine their effectiveness in protecting wetlands on lands under DNR management. DNR shall propose amendments if needed. * Coordinate with Ecology to ensure that DNR management programs for state-owned uplands are consistent with Ecology wetland rules (W-4). 149 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Prepare and implement an overall strategy based on the above four ele- ments, as well as any additional elements the department determines are necessary for protecting wetlands on DNR-managed uplands. At a minimum, DNR's program for protecting wetlands on aquatic lands shall: Implement a management program for wetlands on state-owned aquatic lands in the Puget Sound basin. This program shall (a) be implemented through DNR's proprietary authorities for state-owned aquatic lands; (b) be based on the nearshore habitat inventory under M-2; (c) address habitat protection; (d) consider use of appropriate wetlands for education- al purposes, including development of interpretive programs and displays (in coordination with W-3 and with the wetlands education strategy (W- 7)); and (e) include review of key regulatory actions of other agencies, use of appropriate conditions in aquatic lands leases, and withdrawal of criti- cal aquatic land areas from leasing. * Meet the standards in Ecology rules and be consistent with local adopted wetlands programs. * Study the laws, regulations, policies, and programs and their implementa- tion pertaining to DNR's management of aquatic lands to determine their effectiveness in protecting wetlands on aquatic lands, and propose re- quired amendments. DNR shall submit a progress report to the Authority that describes DNR's program for preserving and protecting wetlands on lands managed by DNR. At a minimum, the report shall include: * A summary of the programs for protecting wetlands on state-owned uplands managed by DNR and on aquatic lands; * The types and values of wetlands inventoried on state-owned aquatic lands; * A description of the procedures developed for complying with local wet- land programs and Ecology rules in DNR's management of wetlands on state-owned uplands; * The results of the study of laws, regulations, programs, and policies per- taining to DNR's land management responsibilities, including recommen- dations, if needed, for strengthening provisions for wetlands protection; * An estimate of funding required to implement the overall wetlands protec- tion program for state-owned lands under DNR management. Other state agencies shall study applicable laws, regulations, programs, and policies and their implementation to determine their adequacy in protecting wetlands on the lands they manage. These agencies shall include, but not be limited to, the Departments of Wildlife, Fisheries, Transportation, Correc- tions, Social and Health Services, General Administration, the University of Washington and other state educational institutions managing lands in the Puget Sound basin, and the State Parks and Recreation Commission. Each agency's study shall include the general status of the wetlands on lands the agency manages (including acreage information, if available) and recommenda- tions for the revisions that would be needed to ensure that implementation provides protection of wetlands on state-owned lands under that agency's management. 150 ACTION PLAN DNR and other state agencies shall provide the Department of Ecology with information on the status of wetland functions, values, and acreage on state- owned lands under each agency's management to assist in Ecology's monitor- ing of progress in achieving the wetlands program goal of no net loss and a net gain of wetlands in Puget Sound. Thrget Date: DNR submits progress report to the Authority by April 1, 1990, and submits the protection program for wetlands on DNR-managed uplands and aquatic lands to the Authority by May 1, 1991. Other state agencies sub- mit reports to the Authority on the results of their studies by January 1, 1990. [Status: DNR has begun the inventory of aquatic wetlands. The department will begin the inventory of state-owned upland wetlands in the FY 1992-93 biennium. DNR will prepare the program in conjunction with Ecology's development of the rules (W-4).] W-7. Wetlands Ecology shall develop and implement a long-range wetlands education Education Strategy strategy that augments Ecology's existing wetlands education program. The strategy shall involve entities and individuals possessing expertise in the field of wetlands education. These include staff from DNR, Fisheries, Wildlife, the Environmental Education Task Force, tribes, local government, and private nonprofit conservation groups. The strategy shall target schools and the general public, as well as groups, such as landowners, professional and civic organizations, local governments, and in- terest groups. It shall address wetland characteristics, functions, values, the Wetlands Protection Program, and other important wetland issues. Ecology shall work with those state agencies and groups mentioned above to implement the components of the strategy, which may include (a) guidebooks on wetlands protection techniques, such as a technical bulletin on wetland ac- quisition (based in part on W-1 report); (b) wetland resource teams in coor- dination with ES-5; (c) model and site-specific interpretive programs in coordination with W-3; and (d) public workshops. Tb the extent possible, public libraries shall be provided with wetland education materials for their patrons. alrget Date: Ecology submits wetlands education strategy to the Authority by May 1, 1990. Agencies complete interpretive program by September 1, 1990. [Status: This program will begin in July 1989. Due to funding limitations in the FY 1990-91 biennium, the primary focus of activities in the FY 1990-91 biennium will include the resource teams, short-term educational needs, and support for other elements of the wetlands protection program.] W-8. Wetlands Ecology shall develop and implement a program to restore wetlands in the Restoration Program Puget Sound basin. At a minimum, this program shall include: Definition of the term "restoration;" Description of goals and objectives for the restoration program, including how the program contributes to achieving the no net loss and net gain goal of the Wetlands Protection Program; 151 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan * Analysis of existing research on restoration methods, costs, and sites; * Action to restore specific wetland sites in Puget Sound, especially diked es- tuarine wetlands no longer utilized for agriculture; * Site management plans and identified management entities for ap- propriate restoration projects; Estimate of the costs of a comprehensive restoration program and options for funding, for example, bond measures, excise taxes, funds allocated by the legislature for wetland preservation (W-3), and other mechanisms for purchase or non-fee simple acquisition (this analysis is to be coordinated with the Puget Sound Cost and Financing Study (C-i)),; * Procedures for coordinating the restoration program with the preserva- tion program (W-1, -2, and -3); the enhanced regulatory program (W-4 and -5); the program to protect wetlands on state-owned lands (W-6); and the wetlands education strategy (W-7). Ecology shall work with federal agencies, especially EPA, and the Department of Natural Resources and other state and local agencies, as well as interested and affected parties, in developing and implementing this program. Ecology shall prepare a report describing its strategy for accomplishing the tasks out- lined above. Restoration projects at specific wetland sites may proceed prior to completion of the report. Target Date: Ecology submits report to the Authority May 1, 1990. Restora- tion projects will be undertaken as funding becomes available. [Status: This element will begin in July 1989. EPA is currently funding a study to identify potential restoration sites in Puget Sound. It is anticipated that Ecology's analysis of existing research (under item #3) will include an ex- amination of the results of this EPA study to determine if adequate informa- tion is provided to identify specific candidate restoration sites in Puget Sound and to initiate restoration activities. Total costs for implementing the restora- tion program, both for staff resources and for capital funds for restoration projects, will be high. Budget constraints in the FY 1990-91 biennium will therefore limit Ecology's effort to preparation of a strategy, to include es- timates of long-term costs, for implementing the program.] MAJOR PUBLIC 1. Ecology's acquisition criteria (W-1). ACTIONS FOR REVEW 2. Ecology's final preservation list (W-2). 3. Ecology's adoption of state rules (W-4). 4. DNR's program for wetlands on state-owned land (W-6). 5. Other agencies' wetland protection reports (W-6). 6. Ecology's wetlands education strategy (W-7). 7. Ecology's wetlands restoration program (W-8). 152 ACTION PLAN LEGISLATION Some amendments to existing statutes may be recommended to provide fund- REQUIRED ing for local government wetland programs and to implement other aspects the program. ESTIMATED COST This program is estimated to cost approximately $5.7 million in the FY 1990- 91 biennium. Full funding for the program would require an additional $3.0 million for the biennium. Of this, $2.0 million would be dedicated to W-3 ac- quisition funds, with the remainder providing additional staff support for agen- cies carrying out tasks in elements W-3, W-6, W-7, and W-8. Consequently, the following tasks will be postponed to the FY 1992-93 biennium: (1) com- pletion of management plans for all sites on the final list of wetlands to be preserved under W-3; (2) DNR's inventory of upland wetlands under W-6; (3) completion of the model interpretive program and full development of the final long-range education strategy under W-7; and (4) early implementation of wetland restoration projects in Puget Sound. Of the $5.7 million for the FY 1990-91 biennium, the greatest public cost is for wetland acquisition, at $3.0 million ($1.5 million from the Aquatic Lands En- hancement Account and $1.5 million from the state building construction ac- count). It is intended that the expenditure of these public funds will be coordinated with the wetland acquisition program of The Nature Conservancy to achieve the most effective wetlands protection. Implementation of local wetland programs may entail substantial public and private expense, but the amount of expense is unknown until the rules are developed.50 Private sector costs are potentially greatest-and most difficult to estimate-where development activities are severely restricted in wetland areas. If state assistance to local governments for the development of wetlands management programs (W-5) cannot be provided through the Centennial Clean Water Fund, other sources should be considered. Ecology is provided with resources for technical assistance to local governments (W-5). DNR will require additional funds in the FY 1992-93 biennium to conduct upland inven- tories. Education strategy development (W-7) and the wetland restoration program (W-8) are each estimated to cost approximately $130,000 and $79,000 respectively in the FY 1990-91 biennium. The following table shows fiscal year costs for individual elements. 50 A potential substantial public cost for the 1990-91 biennium is conducting wetland inventories by local governments. However, the need for these inventories will not be determined until September 1, 1989, when Ecology adopts the rule. These potential costs are therefore not included in this plan. 153 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: WETLANDS PROTECTION COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 W- Administration and Coordination ............. 0 0 18,598 18,598 18,598 18,598 18,598 W-1 Criteria Development and Program Planning ... . 54,907 0 0 0 0 0 0 W-2 Identification of Wetlands to be Preserved ...... 68,574 103,237 81,991 11,087 10,119 10,119 10,119 W-3 Wetlands Preservation ...............278,496 318,293 1,669,837 1,698,748 2,656,297 2,656,297 2,656,297 W-4 State Rules for Wetlands Protection ......... 118,563 120,610 0 0 0 0 0 W-5 Local Wetland Programs ................. 0 0 937,541 937,541 588,023 588,023 588,023 W-6 Protecting Wetlands on State-owned Lands ........ 0 28,496 71,456 71,456 137,208 137,208 137,208 W-7 Wetlands Education Strategy ............... 0 0 65,173 61,329 119,345 115,501 115,501 W-8 Wetlands Restoration Program .............. 0 0 41,516 37,672 37,672 37,672 37,672 TOTAL $520,540 $570,636 $2,886,112 $2,836,431 $3,567,262 $3,563,418 $3,563,418 Element Notes W- Ecology administration and coordination costs. W-3 Assumes $1.5 million from Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account and $1.5 million from other capital accounts for acquisition in FY-90/91. W-5 Assumes programs in all 12 counties and 25 cities in FY90 and FY91. In FY92-94, assumes all 12 counties and 32 cities have programs. W-7 Provides materials and resources to support wetlands portions of the education strategy in the Education program. COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Ecology ................... .......178,146 180,915 307,224 297,543 331,372 327,528 327,528 PSWQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,249 16,799 11,408 11,408 Fisheries ................... ........5,205 4,136 9,526 9,526 6,350 6,350 6,350 Wildlife ................... ........7,200 4,800 8,007 8,007 10,676 10,676 10,676 Parks and Recreation ................. ..... 0 0 5,157 5,157 5,157 5,157 5,157 Natural Resources ................... ....321,741 363,985 1,721,510 1,681,510 2,715,812 2,715,812 2,715,812 Local Government ................... ....... 0 0 818,498 818,498 488,332 488,332 488,332 Other State Agencies .................. ..... 0 0 4,781 4,781 9,562 9,562 9,562 TOTAL $520,540 $570,636 $2,886,112 $2,836,431 $3,567,262 $3,563,418 $3,563,418 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Capital Account ........................250,000 250,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Centennial Clean Water Fund ....................0 0 600,000 600,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 State General Fund ................. ...270,540 320,636 586,114 536,433 613,930 610,086 610,086 Local Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 199,998 199,998 113,332 113,332 113,332 TOTAL $520,540 $570,636 $2,886,112 $2,836,431 $3,567,262 $3,563,418 $3,563,418 154 ACTION PLAN SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROBLEM In November 1985 jet fuel spilled into Des Moines Creek, killing fish and DEFINITION other organisms in four miles of stream. The spill eventually reached Puget Sound. In December 1985 crude oil was spilled in Port Angeles harbor as a result of the grounding of the tank ship Arco Anchorage. These events served to renew the concern for oil spills and their effects on Puget Sound and its tributaries. Several major spills have occurred more recently. In January 1988 an oil barge sank near Anacortes releasing heavy bulk and lighter grade oil. In March 1988 crude oil was released from an oil tanker moored at March Point near Anacortes. Numerous minor spills also occur every year in Puget Sound. Such spills have obvious potential for significant water quality impacts, both short and long term. When a spill occurs, the oil can remain at the surface of the water where it is encountered by marine birds, fish and shellfish eggs and larvae, and other or- ganisms; it can sink to the bottom of the water body where it can smother or- ganisms and contaminate sediments; and it can remain suspended in the water column where it can be encountered by fish and fishermen. Bird mortality, fish kills, and fouled beaches are dramatic acute effects of spilled oil. The chronic and long-term effects are not as well known. Spills of oil and hazardous materials in Puget Sound are violations of both federal and state law. Under the Clean Water Act, the party causing a petroleum spill is responsible for cleaning it up and paying the costs of doing so. The federal CERCLA (Superfund) statute assigns the same respon- sibilities for spills of other hazardous materials. Cleanup efforts are con- ducted pursuant to national, regional, and state contingency plans, which identify what is to be done by whom in the event of a spill. The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead agency responsible for spill response in Puget Sound, with state and local governments performing a secondary role. The grounding of the Arco Anchorage demonstrated that several areas of confusion and possible improvement exist in spill response. These include: reporting procedures, the role of local authorities, the use of volunteers, damage assessment methodologies, and wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. Other issues related to spill prevention and response have arisen with subsequent spills, including barge design and modification, operator training, and financial responsibility. Additional efforts to prevent spills and improve spill response are warranted. For more information, refer to Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention and Response in Chapter 5. PROGRAM STATUS Ecology established the Oil Spill Advisory Committee in 1986 as required by Engrossed House Concurrent Resolution No. 19. The committee issued its report to the legislature in December 1986, listing 29 specific recommenda- tions. 'To recommendations did not require further action. Efforts were on- going on two of the recommendations at the time the report was published: legislation passed in 1987 required that containment and recovery equipment be available during bunkering and lightering, and directed that investigation of alternative methods of spill damage assessment be performed. The equipment will be required for all bunkering and lightering operations after June 30, 1988. Thomas Leschine at the University of Washington completed a prelimi- nary draft report to the legislature of his study of damage assessment methods in October 1988. The remaining recommendations in the Oil Spill Advisory 155 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Committee Report will be included in a workplan to be completed by Ecology by February 1, 1989. Ecology produced a Spill Management Policy Recommendations report in January 1987, addressing some of the issues listed under Policy Implementa- tion (SP-1), such as guidelines for the use of volunteers, and failing to address others, such as equipment placement and critical resource area identification. Ecology has increased its inventory of spill response equipment, adding equipped vans, radio systems, and a boat for the Northwest Regional Office. Ecology has placed on-scene coordinators in the Northwest and Southwest Regional Offices to deal with spills. Ecology issued a draft Contingency Plan for Spills of Oil and Hazardous Sub- stances for review in January 1988. Major portions of the plan were blank in the review copies. A second issue of the Contingency Plan was produced in July 1988 which included previously missing appendices but still lacked the Operational Spill Response sections. PROGRAM GOAL lbTo enhance spill prevention and response capability in Puget Sound and its tributaries and to ensure that the spill response and prevention actions of state agencies are coordinated among themselves and with federal, local, tribal, and private efforts. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is to analyze issues and policies, and use cooperative state and local contingency planning to address prevention of and response to major spills of oil and hazardous materials. PROGRAM ELEMENTS SP-1. Oil Spill Policy Ecology shall address the issues described below and implement the recom- Implementation mendations contained in the 1986 Oil Spill Advisory Committee Report to the legislature, the 1987 Ecology Spill Management Policy Recommendations report, and any further recommendations generated by continuing policy analyses. In instances where the responsibility for implementing a recommen- dation properly rests with another entity, Ecology shall specify the responsible party and contact them directly concerning a specific task. When the respon- sibility rests with the legislature, Ecology shall prepare draft legislation. Issues of particular importance to be addressed include: Role of Local Governments and Tribes: Methods to maximize involvement of local governments and tribes shall be developed including using existing state and local emergency management channels. Local governments and tribes shall be requested to indicate what specific roles they could fulfill in spill prevention and response. Role of Volunteers: Guidelines shall be developed for the use of volunteers in spill response. 156 ACTION PLAN Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation: Legal authorities and responsibilities shall be clarified. Funding, coordination and participation, and preparedness shall be addressed. Equipment: Placement of and authority over public and private spill response equipment shall be analyzed with respect to maximizing the speed and effec- tiveness of spill response. Cleanup Authority: Methods shall be examined to maximize Ecology authority to manage cleanup and damage assessment while recognizing the legitimate role of other entities. Thaining: Careful attention shall be paid to training which ensures that the contingency plan is implemented correctly. Ecology shall cooperate with local governments, federal agencies, and industry in staging annual spill response drills. Post-drill debriefing and evaluation shall result in contingency plan modifications as needed. Critical Resource Areas: An evaluation shall be made of whether information on priorities for protection of critical resource areas in Puget Sound is avail- able and accessible. The need for additional information and/or synthesis of existing information will be evaluated. Cleanup Funding: An examination of current cleanup funding shall be made with recommendations for alleviating potential shortfalls. DamageAssessment: An evaluation of the Leschine damage assessment report shall be made. The availability of funding for damage assessment from spills shall also be examined and recommendations made for alleviating potential shortfalls. Draft legislation implementing the recommendation on damage as- sessment shall be prepared. Trget Dates: Ecology shall complete a schedule of the work program to im- plement the Oil Spill Advisory Committee recommendations by February 1, 1989. All Ecology's tasks are to be completed by February 1, 1990. Quarterly progress reports shall be submitted by Ecology to the Authority by May 1, August 1, and November 1, 1989. Spill response drills by Ecology, federal agen- cies, and industry shall occur at least annually, beginning prior to March 1989. [Status: The Oil Spill Advisory Committee Report to the legislature was com- pleted in December 1986. Ecology completed its Spill Management Policy Recommendations report in January 1987. The reports did not address several issues in a comprehensive manner, such as the role of local governments and tribes in spill response, the placement of spill response equipment, and means to alleviate potential shortfalls in cleanup funding. Follow-through on recom- mendations produced by the advisory committee and by Ecology has been limited.] SP-2. Contingency Ecology shall complete major revisions to the existing state Contingency Plan Plan and Spill for Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances. The plan shall be consistent with Response the policy and roles of local, state, and federal entities involved with spill response. The plan shall be updated on an ongoing basis. The plan shall be reviewed by the Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Committee (SP-4). 157 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Ecology shall provide for implementation of the revised contingency plan with increased staff, including on-scene coordinators and spill support and damage assessment specialists. Spill response drills by Ecology, federal agencies, and industry shall occur at least annually, beginning prior to March 1989. Ecology shall perform post- drill analysis and debriefing and modify the contingency plan accordingly on an ongoing basis. Target Dates: Ecology shall complete revisions to the existing state Contin- gency Plan for Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances by July 1, 1989. Ecol- ogy shall implement the revised contingency plan in fiscal year 1989. [Status: The draft contingency plan was distributed for review in January 1988. The plan contained numerous blank appendices and incomplete Opera- tional Spill Response procedures. Ecology has identified On-Scene Coor- dinators in the Northwest and Southwest Regional Offices. A second version of the contingency plan was produced in July 1988. The Operational Spill Response sections were still missing. Ecology hired one additional staff per- son in November 1987.1 SP-3. Spill Prevention The Authority, in consultation with interested and affected federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and industry, and other private entities, shall assess the adequacy of federal, state, and local spill prevention measures for oil and haz- ardous materials. The investigation will examine regulations, policies, and pro- cedures that affect spill prevention, including state requirements for spill prevention plans (P-9), building permits, land use regulations, and federal preemption of certain functions. The investigation will also examine measures implemented in other states and localities in the United States in order to determine the state of the art in spill prevention. The investigation will build upon the Ecology report on storage tank spill prevention, being prepared pur- suant to Section 4 of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6741. This study will ad- dress public and agency recommendations made during the review of the draft 1989 Puget Sound plan. Based upon these analyses, the Authority shall prepare a report containing recommendations regarding legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures that would decrease the likelihood of spills affecting Puget Sound. Implemen- tation of oil spill measures in SP-1 and SP-2 will continue simultaneously. As the oil spill policies and methodologies are already more developed, the report will be divided into two sections: (1) oil spills and prevention, and (2) hazard- ous materials spills and prevention. This will allow the forward momentum of the oil spill program to continue. In addition, Ecology shall hire one full-time employee to perform on-site in- spections, to enforce Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan provisions, and to review NPDES permits for SPCC compliance. (See Element P-9 of the Municipal and Industrial Discharges Program.) Ecology is encouraged to use spill response staff for spill prevention when not actually responding to spills. Prevention activities could include post-event analysis and prevention education during on-site and community visits. Target Dates: The Authority shall complete the spill prevention investigation by January 1, 1990. Ecology shall hire inspection and enforcement personnel 158 ACTION PLAN for fiscal years 1990 and 1991. Prevention activities by Ecology's spill response staff shall be ongoing. [Status: This is a new element.] SP-4. Spill Prevention A Spill Prevention and Response Advisory Committee shall be created under and Response the management of the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) agencies: Ecol- Advisory Comimittee ogy, EPA, and the Authority. This committee shall review and comment on contingency plan updates, review and comment on Ecology's quarterly progress reports, and assist in the investigation of spill prevention issues (SP- 3) to be produced by the Authority. The committee shall include repre- sentatives from industry, Ecology, citizen groups, the Washington Public Ports Association, the academic community, PSWQA, the U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, NOAA, and other appropriate entities. Thrget Date: The committee is to be convened by March 1, 1989. [Status: This is a new element.] MAJOR PUBLIC 1. Implementation schedule by Ecology (SP-1). ACTIONS FOR REVIEW 2. Contingency plan revisions by Ecology (SP-2). ESTIMATED COST The following table provides costs associated with policy implementation, con- tingency plan revision and printing, increased staffing necessary to implement the plan, and the study of prevention measures. The spill program is es- timated to cost $439,000 in fiscal year 1990 and about $578,000 for fiscal year 1991. The program will cost $573,000 in subsequent years. Some private sec- tor costs may result from future changes to the contingency plan. Improve- ments in spill response coordination may actually reduce ultimate cleanup costs to the spiller. Additional costs that may be incurred by state and local governments and the private sector based upon spill prevention recommenda- tions cannot be estimated at this time. 159 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 SP Administration and Coordination ............. 0 0 2,426 2,527 2,527 2,527 2,527 SP-1 Oil Spill Policy Implementation .............. . 0 0 84,717 0 0 0 0 SP-2 Contingency Plan and Spill Response ........ 81,908 78,092 152,876 386,949 469,981 469,981 469,981 SP-3 Spill Prevention ...................... 0 0 170,037 160,037 83,032 83,032 83,032 SP-4 Advisory Committee ...................0 0 28,943 28,943 17,534 17,534 17,534 TOTAL $81,908 $78,092 $438,998 $578,456 $573,074 $573,074 $573,074 Element Notes SP Ecology costs for administration and coordination. SP-2 Assumes that Fisheries and Wildlife coordinate with Ecology on the list of maps and data for critical resource area protection. Does not include local costs for contingency plans since such plans are required under federal law (Title 3 of SARA). COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 EPA ................. .......... 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Ecology .......................... 81,908 78,092 324,740 474,198 557,230 557,230 557,230 PSWQA ............................. 0 0 98,414 88,414 Fisheries ............................. 0 0 3,175 3,175 3,175 3,175 3,175 Wildlife .............................. 0 0 2,669 2,669 2,669 2,669 2,669 TOTAL $81,908 $78,092 $438,998 $578,456 $573,074 $573,074 $573,074 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Federal Funding ................... ........0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 State General Fund ................... ...81,908 78,092 428,998 568,456 563,074 563,074 563,074 TOTAL $81,908 $78,092 $438,998 $578,456 $573,074 $573,074 $573,074 160 ACTON PLAN LABORATORY SUPPORT PROBLEM Many of the programs in this plan depend on the accuracy and timeliness of DEFINITION laboratory analyses. These include the programs for nonpoint source pollu- tion, shellfish protection, municipal and industrial discharges, contaminated sediments and dredging, stormwater and combined sewer overflows, monitor- .4 / ~~~~ "it ~ing, research, and household hazardous waste. Labs provide information on presence, concentrations, and effects of contaminants in Puget Sound. Lab in- ~~%~~4.z-' ~~~formation will be needed to design programs to remedy the effects of con- tarninants and prevent or limit future contamination. * - r ~~~~~Many lab analyses are conducted pursuant to federal, state, or local laws .~,, ~,., 4 *48designed to prevent degradation of water quality and threats to human health. For example, the Clean Water Act requires routine monitoring of municipal ~~ 'i-v 9 /7 ~~ and industrial wastewater discharges. Ecology and EPA rely on the results to / r/q ~~~~ -it ~assess compliance with the law and specific permit requirements, and to deter- h-V" g~r ~s-~' v~fr. mine whether enforcement action is necessary. The Department of Social and ~~.' '4~ tri..~'t) Health Services relies on results of water quality and shellfish tissue analyses to determine whether fecal coliform bacteria levels are within specific levels designed to protect human health. Lab analyses are also conducted for routine ambient monitoring to establish trends and for investigations designed to answer specific questions. Ecology's laboratory program has insufficient staff and financial resources to adequately service the analytical needs of the programs it supports. This lack of sufficient analytical capability results in delays in supplying the program of- fices with data critical to responsible enforcement and planning decisions. Standardized protocols (procedures) for the collection and analysis of environ- mental samples within Puget Sound exist, but their use is not uniform. The Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols were developed under contract to EPA to standardize sample collection and analysis within the Sound, allowing for comparability of data and determination of long-term environmental trends. Nonetheless, other protocols continue to be used, resulting in data that are not comparable. Standardized, clearly-defined quality assurance and quality control procedures are lacking for many types of analyses. When they exist, there is no method to determine the extent to which they are followed. Thus, lab results may come into question, and their usefulness can be impaired. PROGRAM STATUS The Washington State Legislature passed a law in 1987 RCW 43.21A.230 that authorizes Ecology to establish a laboratory certification program (L-1). The law exempted from certification those labs owned by dischargers that operate solely for their own use and that participate in a quality assurance program adl- ministered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ecology completed the plan for the laboratory certification program by August 1, 1988, and expects to begin lab certification by the designated target date of April 1, 1989. Ecology did not complete the first laboratory plan (L-2) by the August 1, 1988, target date. The target date is now November 1, 1988. Concurrently with 161 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan developing the plan, Ecology has been implementing changes to improve ser- vices and data quality. Ecology established a Quality Assurance Section in March 1988, in Manchester, separate from the Manchester Laboratory facility. The section is staffed by two FTEs and will be responsible for the tasks outlined in element L-4. PROGRAM GOAL Th assure the quality and timeliness of physical, chemical, and biological laboratory tests necessary to support the protection and enhancement of the waters of Puget Sound. PROGRAMN' The strategy for achieving this goal is: (1) to establish a laboratory certifica- STRATEGY tion program administered by Ecology that will review the capability of en- vironmental laboratories to generate data of known quality; (2) to assure that adequate laboratory support exists for agency and other sampling programs; and (3) to develop protocols to standardize data collection, analysis, storage, and transfer within Puget Sound. PROGRAM ELEMENTS L-1. Laboratory PSWQA shall submit proposed legislation to the 1987 legislature authorizing Certification Program Ecology to conduct a laboratory certification program and to charge fees to laboratories seeking certification. [Status: The required legislation was submitted and passed in 1987.1 Ecology shall prepare a plan for a laboratory certification program. Under the program, Ecology shall certify all labs performing environmental analyses for substances and chemical groups and media in a phased manner with first priority given to certifications that support water quality programs. During the design and implementation of the certification program Ecology shall work with federal, state, and local agencies and consult with individuals from the scientific community, private labs, environmental groups, and industry. Laboratories owned and operated by individual industrial and/or municipal dischargers shall be certified unless exempted by the enabling legislation. Agency-operated laboratories shall also apply for certification under the same rules that apply to private laboratories. The certification program shall be coordinated to the maximum Wxent possible with existing laboratory certifica- tion programs. Ecology shall negotiate agreements with other state certifica- tion programs meeting the standards of the Washington program to allow for reciprocity. As a part of the certification program Ecology shall adopt rules requiring all certified laboratories to use approved field and laboratory protocols and to comply with specified quality assurance/quality control procedures. Ecology shall assure that all certified labs have the capability to use adopted Puget Sound protocols (L-3). Ecology shall implement the protocols in the Ecology laboratory at Manchester prior to implementation of the certification program. 162 AMTON PLAN Lab users shall not be required to use certified labs until the certification program is operational and an adequate number of certified labs are available to perform needed analyses. (See also element P-16.) Ulrget Dates: PSWQA submits legislation to the 1987 legislature. Ecology completes draft certification program plan by August 1, 1988. Certification of labs begins by April 1, 1989. [Status: Ecology hired two staff to develop the certification program and com- pleted the certification program plan on schedule. Ecology created a Quality Assurance Section to administer the certification program and conduct other quality assurance activities. Ecology has indicated that certification of labs will begin by the indicated target date.] L-2. Laboratory Ecology shall prepare a laboratory plan that addresses Ecology and other agen- Capacity cy short- and long-term needs, capacity, and data management, and make recommendations regarding means to rectify shortfalls in the ability of the labs to support agency programs. The plan shall: specify acceptable holding times for analyses; assess available means to assure that all samples are analyzed within those times while meeting the highest possible quality standards; in- clude sample tracking and data management systems; include a consideration of the need for additional staff, including night shifts, to fully utilize existing agency lab equipment and facilities; fully explore the use of lab capacity pos- sessed by other agencies and the use of contract labs before recommending es- tablishment of new lab facilities. Ecology shall biennially submit to the Authority and the legislature an up- dated laboratory plan that includes (1) a revised estimate of the number and types of analyses needed to support Ecology programs; (2) a review of the ser- vice provided by Ecology laboratories including holding and sample turn- around times, data quality, data management, and staff communication during the preceding two years; and (3) an updated analysis of the additional laboratory capacity needed to carry out these analyses within the target turn- around times which Ecology shall specify. In preparing the laboratory plan, Ecology shall consult with other state agen- cies, including DSHS, Agriculture, and Labor and Industries, and incorporate their laboratory needs and capabilities related to the Puget Sound plan in the reports. UTrget Dates: Ecology submits the laboratory plan to the Authority by Novem- ber 1, 1988, and biennial updates every two years thereafter. [Status: Ecology did not complete the laboratory plan by the original target date of August 1, 1988, and a revised target date of November 1, 1988, was agreed upon. Ecology has implemented a sample allocation system to improve turnaround times, and increased the number of samples sent to contract labs.] L-3. Puget Sound ' M e Authority, in consultation with EPA and Ecology, shall develop and imple- Protocols ment a process for review and adoption of Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols. The process shall provide for development of new protocols, for review and revision of existing protocols, and for formal adoption of the protocols. 163 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan The development and review of the protocols shall involve technical experts in fields relevant to the individual protocols. The technical experts shall prepare recommendations which shall undergo extensive peer review. Consideration shall be given to involving experts from federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, the private sector, the academic community, and the public. The Authority shall recommend the protocols to the Puget Sound Estuary Program Management Committee for adoption. New protocols shall be developed as needed and all existing protocols shall be reviewed biennially. The need for additional protocols shall be reevaluated in the 1991 plan. Thrget Dates: Authority staff makes its initial recommendation to the Manage- ment Committee for adoption of protocols by December 1, 1989. The Management Committee adopts protocols by January 31, 1990. Authority staff completes design of the development, review, and adoption process by March 31, 1990. [Status: This new element is proposed to begin in July 1989.] L-4. Ecology Quality Ecology shall prepare a plan that addresses quality assurance and quality con- Assurance/Quality trol (QA/QC) issues as they pertain to sampling and analysis in support of Control Ecology programs and projects. The plan shall result in a program which com- plements the laboratory certification program by requiring that quality as- surance be incorporated into all Ecology data development activities, and that data collection, analysis, storage, and transfer be standardized within Puget Sound. The QA/QC program shall include the following: * Establishment of guidelines for preparing quality assurance program plans (QAPP) and individual quality assurance project plans (IQAPP) developed under the QAPPs as required by the state/EPA agreement. The guidelines shall include establishment of specific objectives and development of sampling plans commensurate with objectives for major surveys. * Audits of data quality (based on selected IQAPPs), including checks that sampling and analytical procedures have been correctly performed, and reviews of data to verify that they meet user requirements including data quality objectives. * A training plan for Ecology staff, including training needed to determine the appropriate number and type of samples and analyses for areas of in- vestigation commonly encountered. Training needs will build upon infor- mation gained during the planning process and during implementation and oversight of the resulting program. * QA/QC assistance to the Ecology staff, including guidelines for use by regional office and Industrial Section staff in reviewing discharge monitor- ing report (DMR) data, guidelines for use by regional and Environmental Investigations staff in their evaluation of environmental laboratories, and technical guidance to Ecology staff concerning QA/QC in general. * Other appropriate measures resulting from issues identified during the planning process. 164 ACTON PLAN rlrget Dates: Ecology submits QAIQC plan to the Authority by April 1, 1989. Ecology completes QAPPs for programs requiring analytical services by August 1, 1989. Ecology prepares IQAPPs as needed and performs audits of data quality for the purpose of identifying QAIQC deficiencies and corrective measures, and provides annual reports to the Authority beginning July 1, 1990. [Status: Ecology has created a Quality Assurance Section and located the sec- tion in Manchester separate from the laboratory. 'Me location is intended to assure independence but facilitate coordination and interaction.] "A OR PUBLIC 1. Ecology's laboratory certification program (L-1). ACTIONS FOR REVIEW 2. Ecology's laboratory plan (L-2). 3. Ecology's QAIQC plan (L-4). LEGISLATION Legislation authorizing Ecology to conduct the laboratory certification REQUIRED program and to administer certification fees (L-1). [Status: The required legislation was approved in 1987.] ESTIMATED COST This program is estimated to cost approximately $850,000 a year in fiscal year 1990, $825,000 in fiscal year 1991, and $775,000 per year for fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Costs presented for element L-1 of this program are for the water quality com- ponent of the certification program and do not include costs for other areas (such as hazardous waste) for which Ecology may eventually certify laboratories. Costs for laboratory analyses needed by other programs in the Puget Sound plan are found in the cost estimates for the programs. Certifica- tion fees are expected to fund a large portion of the certification element. The laboratory certification program may entail private sector costs beyond the certification fees to those NPDES permit holders not participating in an EPA-approved quality assurance program, to private laboratories, and to others who utilize private laboratories. These costs will vary depending upon several factors, including the current quality of the equipment and staff of the lab applying for certification and the protocols called for in the certification program Ecology designs. Given that these factors will not be defined until the certification program is designed, it is not possible to estimate the actual costs to the private sector. Because the certification program will require quality assurance/quality con- trol protocols and other measures designed to ensure accurate results, addi- tional samples will be required. It is likely, however, that fewer repeat analyses will need to be conducted. This could result in reduced laboratory costs to NPDES permittees and others who use private laboratories. If the laboratory plan (L-2) recommends new lab facilities for agencies, con- siderable additional costs could be incurred. The magnitude of those costs would depend on the location and size of the new lab. Any such costs would only be incurred after approval by the legislature. 165 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Responsibilities for quality assurance and quality control within the Depart- ment of Ecology have been transferred from element L-2 to element L-4. Ap- propriate financial resources have also been transferred. A goal of elements L-3 and L-4 is to achieve greater efficiencies in Ecology and other programs and activities. These efficiencies should result in cost savings in the long term. ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: LABORATORY SUPPORT COSTS BY ELEMENT FY a88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 L-1 Laboratory Certification Program ............ . 0 50,000 406,080 406,080 406,080 406,080 406,080 L-2 Laboratory Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153,769 294,073 198,289 103,668 103,668 103,668 103,668 L-3 Puget Sound Protocols . . . . . . ....... ....0 0 112,471 112,471 43,950 43,950 43,950 L-4 Ecology QA/QC Program ................0 0 139,778 201,423 219,917 219,917 219,917 TOTAL $153,769 $344,073 $856,617 $823,642 $773,615 $773,615 $773,615 COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 EPA . . . . ...................0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Ecology ..........................114,946 304,250 718,612 685,636 704,130 704,130 704,130 DSHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,774 17,774 17,285 17,285 17,285 17,285 17,285 PSWQA .............................0 0 68,521 68,521 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,274 13,274 6,350 6,350 6,350 6,350 6,350 Wildlife .............................0 0 5,338 5,338 5,338 5,338 5,338 Agriculture ...........................8,774 8,774 6,408 6,408 6,408 6,408 6,408 Labor& Industry ..........................0 0 4,165 4,165 4,165 4,165 4,165 Local Government ..........................0 0 14,938 14,938 14,938 14,938 14,938 TOTAL $153,769 $344,073 $856,617 $823,642 $773,615 $773,615 $773,615 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Federal Funding .......................... . . . . 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 State General Fund ............ .........153,769 294,073 423,099 390,124 340,097 340,097 340,097 State Fee Programs ............ ............0 50,000 406,080 406,080 406,080 406,080 406,080 Local Sources ............ ...............0 0 12,438 12,438 12,438 12,438 12,438 TOTAL $153,769 $344,073 $856,617 $823,642 $773,615 $773,615 $773,615 166 ACTION PLAN HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEM Household hazardous wastes come from a variety of toxic products used in the DEFINITION home: paints, paint thinners, lawn and garden pesticides, fertilizers, cleansers, degreasers, medicines, cosmetics, transistors, dyes, and automotive products such as antifreeze, batteries, and oil. The use and disposal of many of these products are a chronic source of pollution to Puget Sound both in urban and rural areas. Environmental TIbxicants from household products enter the Sound as components of both Problems point and nonpoint source pollution. Many of them are emptied down drains or flushed down toilets and enter municipal sewage treatment plants. Metro estimates that residential areas contribute 7 to 11 percent of the metals, 31 to 36 percent of the volatile organics, and 55 to 64 percent of the extractable or- ganics to Metro sewage treatment plants. The percentage contribution of household toxicants to smaller treatment plants may be much larger. While secondary treatment degrades or dilutes some of these toxicants, others settle in the sludge, evaporate into the air, or continue in suspension or solution through the discharge pipe. Those in sludge or in the air can then enter Puget Sound through rains and runoff. Many household wastes are disposed of at landfills. 'Ibxicants can then be transported to the Sound when the landfill leachate is taken to municipal treat- ment plants or when the leachate in uncontained landfills contaminates sur- face runoff and groundwater. Many wastes are dumped in storm drains, ditches, or backyards, where they contribute to nonpoint pollution by entering streams, rivers, and groundwater in both rural and urban areas. Fish kills in small streams can occur when concentrated amounts of oil, antifreeze, ferti- lizers, or pesticides are dumped by householders. Finally, household wastes are sometimes incinerated. They can then contaminate runoff through rainfall or through the ash being spread in yards, backyard pits, or even landfills. Institutional Problems Until recently, household hazardous wastes were not regulated. While specific toxicants found in household products were prohibited from disposal at solid waste landfills, "household quantities" of these toxicants were accepted. However, in 1985 household hazardous wastes were included in the state Haz- ardous Waste Management Act under the definition of "moderate risk waste." This puts them into the same category of wastes as those generated by small commercial and industrial operations which use very similar products. While these household substances are now technically regulated, there are very few legal, conventional, proper, or practical disposal mechanisms avail- able to the householder or to small businesses. Several counties and a few cities have collection sites for some household chemicals, and some counties and cities hold collection days when citizens may bring household wastes for appropriate disposal. Only Whatcom County and Thurston County have an ongoing collection system for all household chemicals, but these, too, are sys- tems only for those willing to deliver their wastes to the site, and they are not well utilized. These collection days and sites are resource-intensive, have their own safety and health issues, and rely on the participation of citizens who have been informed. They depend on local government funding or private sector underwriting of costs, and potentially expose local governments to long-term liability for the wastes. With the exception of these sporadic collection events, 167 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan the dumpster, garbage can, ditch, storm drain, and backyard incinerator remain as the only disposal mechanisms for most citizens around the Sound. RCW 70.105.220 addresses this issue by mandating that local governments un- dertake a planning process to identify local moderate risk disposal options and to implement a disposal program by December 31, 1991. The implementation of this RCW is dependent on funding which was not initially appropriated. There is now $2.3 million from the Local 'IToxics Control Account which is available to local governments for local moderate risk waste plans. The legislature specifically asked that PSWQA address the issue of household hazardous waste education in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. With the exception of providing education on less-toxic household alter- natives, educational efforts on household hazardous wastes are frustrating and futile until household hazardous waste disposal options are available for all citizens. This will happen only when the local hazardous waste planning process is completed and disposal programs are implemented. PROGRAM STATUS This program provided for management of household hazardous waste through a phased implementation of local hazardous waste plans (RCW 70.105.220) and for education on less-toxic alternatives for household products. Under this program, King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Island counties received grants to act as pilot programs to complete their local hazardous waste management planning process by June 1989. In addition, Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, and Jefferson counties have pending applications to undertake their planning process with funding from the Local Toxics Con- trol Account. The Authority and Ecology provided information on less-toxic alternatives for household products through the Authority's newsletter, Soundwaves. Household hazardous waste collection days were held successfully throughout the region in 1987 and 1988. Several hundred people had to be turned down at a collection day held for Bellevue, Seattle, and Kent because response was much greater than anticipated. Several other collection days are scheduled for 1988, including some con- ducted under the Public Involvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund). PROGRAM GOAL To improve management of household hazardous waste through the provision of appropriate disposal options and associated education of the public. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is to ensure a phased approach to full im- plementation of recent amendments to the Hazardous Waste Management Act. 168 ACTION PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS 11HW-1. Phased PSWQA shall recommend to the legislature that adequate funds be ap- Funding of Local propriated to: (1) implement the preparation of local hazardous waste Hazardous Waste management programs (RCW 70.105.220-235) as currently scheduled by Ecol- Management Plans ogy, including public involvement in and education on the management of household hazardous waste; (2) accelerate the preparation of plans in a few Puget Sound counties for the purpose of early implementation; and (3) carry out those duties of the hazardous substance information office (RCW 70.102.020(4)) that are related to these activities. Target Dates: Planning activities per current Ecology schedule for 1987-89 with plans completed by December 31, 1990. Accelerated pilot plans com- pleted by June 30, 1989. [Status: Five Puget Sound counties are awaiting funding under the Local Toxics Control Account which was created in October 1987. Regulations governing grants from this account were proposed in April 1988. Ecology has proposed to make $2.3 million available through June 30, 1989. Plan prepara- tion was accelerated in four counties to meet June 30, 1989, target date. The hazardous substance information office has had limited involvement with this program because it was not funded to work with the program.] HHW-2. Information Ecology and PSWQA shall work with local governments to make information and Education on available on less-toxic alternatives to household toxicants. Ecology shall con- Less-Toxic tinue its support and monitoring of ongoing efforts to collect and develop in- Alternatives for formation on alternative products or practices for toxic household products. The Authority shall distribute this information in its newsletter or by other ap- Household Products poraemas propriate means. Thrget Date: Authority begins information distribution by March 30, 1987. [Status: Ongoing. Ecology and the Authority have worked together to pub- lish a series of articles on less-toxic alternatives in the Authority newsletter, Soundwaves. However, Ecology has not had staff to research less-toxic alterna- tives.] MAJOR PUBLIC None ACTIONS FOR REVIEW LEGISLATION None REQUIRED ESTIMATED COST This program would cost approximately $231,000 during fiscal year 1990, $171,000 during fiscal year 1991, increasing to approximately $310,000 during fiscal year 1992. Program costs include oversight and education staff for Ecol- ogy and local governments during both the creation and implementation of local hazardous waste management plans, and funds for education on less- toxic alternatives. 169 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 HHW-1 Phased Funding for Local Plans .................. . 0 32,000 69,774 69,774 7,500 0 0 HHW-2 Information on Less-Toxic Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 161,516 101,516 301,516 181,516 181,516 TOTAL 0 $32,000 $231,290 $171,290 $309,016 $181,516 $181,516 COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Ecology .............................0 32,000 131,290 131,290 69,016 61,516 61,516 Local Government ...................................... 0 0 100,000 40,000 240,000 120,000 120,000 TOTAL 0 $32,000 $231,290 $171,290 $309,016 $181,516 $181,516 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Toxics Account ............................0 0 189,774 129,774 309,016 181,516 181,516 Stoate General Fund .........................0 32,000 41,516 41,516 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 $32,000 $231,290 $171,290 $309,016 $181,516 $181,516 170 ACTION PI-AN LEGAL AND PERSONNEL SUPPORT PROBLEM DEFINITION Legal Support for ' M e Office of the Attorney General provides legal advice and representation State Agencies to all state agencies, including those which have enforcement responsibilities. Some state agencies, such as Ecology and Fisheries, have their own enforce- ment units that work with attorneys from the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General's office also provides advice on agency rulemaking, permit writing, and other tasks related to implementation of state laws and regula- tions. A lack of sufficient attorneys to provide advice at various stages of agency ac- tivity hinders effective enforcement. Legal advice during the early stages of agency activity (such as permit writing) can dramatically reduce the need for lengthy and expensive litigation. The Puget Sound plan has increased the need for attorneys as existing programs are more vigorously enforced and as new programs are implemented. Local Government One of the themes which emerged from the analyses conducted for the plan is Enforcement that many existing laws and programs designed to protect the water quality and resources of Puget Sound are not being fully enforced. This is true not only of state and federal laws, but also of city and county ordinances regulating land use and development, such as shoreline master programs, zoning ordi nances, and local health codes governing on-site septic systems. Due to inade- quate. resources or law enforcement priorities, enforcement of these laws has not received adequate emphasis from prosecuting attorneys and others. Personnel Support State agencies hire new employees through the state Department of Personnel and must follow the procedures and job classifications established by the Department of Personnel. If appropriate job classifications do not exist, state agencies can work with the Department of Personnel to create new job clas- sifications, but this takes time and requires advance planning. Salaries of many state job classifications currently lag behind salaries for similar positions in the private sector. These factors can lead to delays in hiring and difficulties in acquiring qualified staff. Lack of sufficient staffing has been identified as a major weakness in the ability of several state agencies to carry out their existing responsibilities. The Puget Sound plan increases the responsibilities of several state agencies and re- quires them to hire new staff to carry out these new responsibilities. PROGRAMV STATUS This program reflects the Authority's concern that agencies responsible for im- plementing the plan need highly qualified staff and an adequate level of legal support. It calls on the Attorney General and Department of Personnel to provide adequate resources for plan implementation by providing support to state agencies responsible for implementing the plan. The October 1, 1987, report submitted by the Attorney General analyzing the legal support needs of state agencies called for additional legal support for Ecology, DSHS, and 171 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan DNR. The Attorney General has recently authorized the Ecology Division of the Attorney General's office to have 14 attorneys, up from 10 in December 1986. Additional legal support may be warranted due to the passage of the per- mit fee legislation (see element P-4) in 1987. Under Department of Personnel Assistance (LP-3), the Department of Person- nel assisted the Department of Ecology in filling new positions as well as developing new examinations. Other support in hiring was supplied to DSHS, DNR, and other agencies involved in plan implementation. The local enforcement component (LP-4) reflects the Authority's belief that much can be done to improve protection of wetlands and to prevent nonpoint source pollution if local governments are vigorous in exercising existing legal authority. Tob assist in this regard, the plan calls for matching grants to local governments for enhanced enforcement efforts. The funds for the grant program will be derived from the Centennial Clean Water Fund. The per- manent rule for fund disbursement was adopted in June 1988. It is unclear how much of the fund will be available for this purpose. The plan envisioned that the Attorney General support and the enhanced local enforcement programs be continued beyond the 1988-89 biennium. Sup- port from the Department of Personnel will continue to be provided as needed. PROGRAM GOAL 'lb ensure that state agencies implementing the plan have adequate support by legal counsel and by the state personnel system and that local agencies have adequate staff for enforcement of local programs. STRATEGY The strategy for achieving this goal is (1) to provide resources to the Attorney General and the Department of Personnel to allow them to continue their sup- port to state agencies carrying out the Puget Sound plan; and (2) to make funds available to local governments for enhanced enforcement. PROGRAM ELEMENTS LP-1. Attorney The Attorney General shall make every effort to support the Puget Sound General Support plan by providing enough attorneys to assist in agency rulemaking, permit writ- ing, and enforcement. Legal expertise should be provided at all stages of environmental protection activities. T'he Attorney General shall provide the Authority with estimates of the legal staff support needed by agencies responsible for implementing the plan and shall propose a program for supplying that legal support. In preparing the report the Attorney General's office shall consult with affected agencies to ob- tain their estimates of support needed. During the interim the Attorney General's office shall plan for three attorneys in its personnel allocation in ad- dition to attorney support needs reflected in agency budget requests for fiscal years 1988-1989. Thrget Date: Ongoing. 172 ACTION PLAN [Status: The Attorney General's report was received and circulated to agencies for their review and comments. The report called for additional support for the Ecology, DSHS, and DNR divisions of the Attorney General. All agencies concurred with the report and only Ecology added a caveat. Ecology was un- sure at the time whether additional legal support was required due to the pas- sage of the permit fee legislation last year. The Attorney General's office and Ecology are meeting during the next few months to determine the actual need.] LP-2. Department of Each state agency responsible for implementing the Puget Sound Plan shall Personnel Support prepare a report to the Authority and Department of Personnel concerning whether existing job descriptions, qualifications, salary levels, and hiring proce- dures are adequate to support their activities. The Authority shall host a meet- ing of agencies to discuss the results. Based on the reports, the Department of Personnel's response, and resulting discussions, the Authority may amend the plan and make specific recommendations to agencies or the legislature to im- prove personnel support for the plan. Target Date: State agencies report to the Authority and the Department of Personnel by November 1, 1987. [Status: Minimal response was received from the agencies regarding this task. Only one agency, the state Department of Agriculture, submitted a report. Not a high priority-will be reconsidered in 1991 plan.] LP-3. Department of In order to fill positions authorized for fiscal years 1988 and 1989, state agen- Personnel Assistance cies responsible for implementing the plan need immediate support from the Department of Personnel. The Department of Personnel shall provide such as- sistance to the maximum extent possible and shall immediately designate one staff member to coordinate this effort. The Department of Personnel shall also hire one part-time staff member for fiscal year 1988 to assist with this ef- fort. [Status: The Department of Personnel did not receive funding during the cur- rent biennium for this task and utilized existing resources. This task is ongo- ing.] LP-4. Enhanced Local Local governments are encouraged to strengthen enforcement of laws which Enforcement protect the water quality and habitat functions of wetlands and which control specific sources of nonpoint pollution. The state will provide matching funds to counties, cities, or local health agencies to augment investigations and prosecutions under those laws. The enhanced enforcement of wetland protection laws may encompass shoreline master programs, zoning ordinances, or other land development or construction codes which protect wetland water quality or habitat functions. Nonpoint enforcement efforts eligible for state grants include on-site septic systems, pumpout facilities at marinas, farm practices, or other sources which are identified as a result of the local nonpoint planning process. Local govern- ments or health agencies are encouraged to use existing legal authority (includ- ing general police power, state health authority, or other legal tools) to adopt such ordinances or regulations as may be necessary to address nonpoint sour- ces of pollution. 173 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Funds will be made available for investigation and prosecution of violations. Preference for grant awards shall be given to applicants whose enhanced enfor- cement program includes an educational component that publicizes enforce- ment actions. Efficient and innovative approaches to enforcement such as civil penalties, dedicated fines, and community service shall be encouraged. Tirget Date: Program established August 1988. [Status: The funding for this element is proposed to come from the Centen- nial Clean Water Fund. The element had been delayed until the permanent rule for fund disbursements is adopted. 'Me rule was adopted in June 1988. It is unclear at this time whether adequate funds will be available from the fund for this element.] MAJOR PUBLIC None ACTIONS FOR REVIEW LEGISLATION None REQUIRED ESTIMATED COST Full funding for this program would cost approximately $750,000 per year. Of this, $660,000 per year would be for enhanced local enforcement (LP-04) to be funded by state matching grants to local governments. Only $842,000 is being requested for this program for the 1990-1991 bien- nium. Of this, $667,000 is requested for local government enhancement (LP- 4). No private sector costs have been identified for this program. 174 ACTION PLAN ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: LEGAL AND PERSONNEL SUPPORT COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 LP Administration ......................0 8,556 8,556 8,556 0 0 0 LP-1 Attorney General Support .................. 44,159 0 79,310 79,310 79,310 79,310 79,310 LP-2 Department of Personnel Support .......... 45,468 1,141 0 0 0 0 0 LP-3 Department of Personnel Assistance ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LP-4 Enhanced Local Enforcement .............. 186,822 687,423 333,333 333,333 666,667 666,667 666,667 TOTAL $276,449 $697,120 $421,200 $421,200 $745,977 $745,977 $745,977 Element Notes LP-1 Ecology Attorney General costs covered by indirect charges included in costs of other Ecology staff. COSTS BY AGENCY FY88 FY89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY94 Ecology ......................... 195,987 20,758 0 0 0 0 0 DSHS ..........................13,702 0 40,333 40,333 40,333 40,333 40,333 PSWQA ...........................1,141 9,697 8,556 8,556 Fisheries .......................... 8,434 0 2,540 2,540 2,540 2,540 2,540 Wildlife ..........................11,434 0 2,135 2,135 2,135 2,135 2,135 Natural Resources . ..................... 14,202 0 34,302 34,302 34,302 34,302 34,302 Attorney General . . . ...................31,549 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Government ... ......................0 666,665 333,333 333,333 666,667 666,667 666,667 TOTAL $276,449 $697,120 $421,200 $421,200 $745,977 $745,977 $745,977 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Centennial Clean Water Fund . . ............. 186,822 520,758 250,000 250,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 State General Fund . . . . .................89,627 9,697 87,866 87,866 79,310 79,310 79,310 Local Sources .... .......................0 166,665 83,333 83,333 166,667 166,667 166,667 TOTAL $276,449 $697,120 $421,200 $421,200 $745,977 $745,977 $745,977 175 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ESTIMATED COSTS AND POTENTIAL FINANCING PLAN CO STS The plan imposes costs on federal and state agencies, local governments, the private sector, and individuals. Potential revenue sources to meet public sec- tor costs include the state general fund, the Centennial Clean Water Fund "P - '~~~~~~ (cigarette tax), the state superfund ('Txics Control Accounts), a variety of fees, and the National Estuary Program. Financing decisions by the U.S. Congress, the gvrnor, the legislature, the Authority, and local jurisdictions will affect ~~~~~ ~~~~the implementation of the plan. Revenue constraints have affected plan implementation in the FY 1988-89 N.. ~~fe biennium. After action by the 1987 legislature on the plan's budget, the -' ~~~~~~~~Authority delayed and scaled bakactivities in many of the pla' rograms to reflect a funding shortfall. In an effort to propose a realistic budget for the FY 7 ~~~~~~~1990-91 biennium, the Authority cut back this plan to about two-thirds of the funding needed for full implementation. This was again accomplished by pdfunding and thecurreng backiu aihcotivitimaes innerl tevr proram. 1989 cr vi..~~~ ~ ~~~~~pre f u n d aing indth scurrent bienniumivithiotestinmnarlyever program thbe daf coin- and final scaled-down plan.) Recognizing that stable, long-term funding is cru- cial for success in protecting the Sound, a new element, C-i, Study of Long- 'irm Funding Options, has been included in this section. The study will identify new and existing potential sources of funding to support the long-term implementation of the Puget Sound plan. Public agency costs for implementing the draft 1989 plan have been estimated. 'Ihbles B and C summarize the federal, state, and local costs of each program for each year through fiscal year 1994 (through June 1994 for state and local, September 1994 for federal). Programs in the plan continue past 1994, but costs have not been estimated past that date. Estimated public sector costs from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 1994 average about $31 million per year. Annual costs rise from $16 million in fiscal year 1988 to $40 million in fiscal year 1994. Possible public capital costs resulting directly from plan im- plemnentation are discussed within each program. Tabbles summarizing the es- timated costs of each program by element, by year, and by public agency are included with each program description. These estimated costs represent the best judgment of the Authority in assess- ing the public agency work involved in plan implementation. The Authority has consulted extensively with federal, state, and local agencies to develop these estimates. Several agencies provided specific estimates of their program costs for both the full plan amounts listed in the Draft 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and for the final scaled-down plan. Federal Agencies The Authority believes that the Puget Sound effort should be more significant- ly assisted by federal appropriations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has minimal resources to perform its role under the plan. Further, the Authority expects a decline in federal estuary program funds due to the desig- nation of several new programs in other areas of the country. These additional designations mean that the limited estuary program funding will have to be divided over a growing number of estuary programs. 'Me Washington State Congressional delegation is seeking a line item for increased funding for the Puget Sound Estuary Program. 176 ACTION PLAN TABLE A. EFFECTS OF SCALING DOWN THE 1989 PLAN % of Draft 1989 Plan Final 1989 Plan Draft PROGRAMS FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 90 FY 91 Plan1 Monitoring ........................ ...... 145,926 649,141 3,945,712 3,246,268 2,554,841 2,066,860 64% Research ........................ ...... 103,745 75,541 2,271,675 2,330,500 898,407 898,407 39% Education and Public Involvement .............992,313 997,380 3,233,064 3,480,341 1,774,028 1,585,028 50% Nonpoint Source Pollution ................... 4,934,618 6,882,136 10,110,069 9,841,362 7,017,901 6,551,349 68% Shellfish Protection .....................441,044 1,471,179 2,386,654 2,390,951 2,298,842 2,303,138 96% Municipal & Industrial Discharges .............1,023,269 1,499,789 4,118,778 5,026,269 3,061,318 3,392,997 71% Contaminated Sediments ................. . .400,747 1,220,061 2,145,868 2,904,610 1,388,856 1,568,636 59% Stormwater and CSOs ...................246,427 558,522 2,373,009 11,780,137 1,358,049 2,625,567 28%2 Wetlands Protection ................... 520,540 570,636 4,686,660 3,875,187 2,886,112 2,836,431 67% Spill Prevention ...................... 81,908 78,092 405,515 583,284 438,998 578,456 103% LaboratorySupport ................... 153,769 344,073 830,407 830,407 856,617 823,642 101% Household Hazardous Waste ..................0 32,000 231,290 171,290 231,290 171,290 100% Legal and Personnel Support ................276,449 697,120 754,533 754,533 421,200 421,200 56% Costs & Financing ................... ....0 0 115,666 0 115,916 0 100% Institutional Analysis ................... ...0 14,029 10,764 3,696 10,764 3,696 100% AuthorityActivities ................... 1,027,161 1,140,341 1,637,080 1,771,435 1,430,998 1,457,824 85% % of Draft 1989 Plan Final 1989 Plan Draft COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 90 FY 91 Plan1 Federal Agencies (incl. EPA) ................ 30,100 30,100 488,130 488,130 480,276 480,276 98% Conservation Commission . .. . . . ... .. . . 79,792 104,872 115,614 125,494 80,675 80,675 67% DSHS ..................... ..686,522 1,065,410 1,855,617 1,755,959 1,430,553 1,431,417 79% Ecology ..................... 2,517,592 4,881,680 12,638,138 13,604,101 8,457,951 8,412,970 64% Fisheries ..................... ..49,373 59,461 802,715 749,994 759,079 696,932 94% Natural Resources .....................363,042 407,958 3,448,475 3,368,828 2,186,858 2,081,362 63% Other State Agencies .................... 73,070 24,146 349,379 302,270 174,845 124,175 46% Parks and Recreation .................... 715,520 248,022 597,736 1,523,159 427,940 1,020,640 68% PSWQA ..................... .2,047,696 2,231,939 6,082,081 6,246,055 4,035,305 3,781,873 63% Washington Conservation Corps ................. 35,000 35,000 384,360 384,360 303,360 303,360 79% Wildlife .. . . . . . . . .. ............39,322 22,739 382,819 357,443 308,065 275,938 79% Local Governments ............. .....3,304,887 6,956,312 11,494,720 19,467,517 7,636,510 8,132,183 51%2 Conservation Districts ............. .....406,000 162,400 616,960 616,960 462,720 462,720 75% TOTAL $10,347,916 $16,230,040 $39,256,744 $48,990,270 $26,744,137 $27,284,521 61% % of Draft 1989 Plan Final 1989 Plan Draft COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 90 FY 91 Plan1 State Capital Account ...................799,000 250,000 2,500,000 2,680,000 1,945,000 1,765,000 72% Federal Funding . . ................... . .. . . .158,585 168,979 202,078 204,078 224,990 224,990 111% Toxics Account ................... ......0 0 521,901 461,901 189,774 129,774 32% Centennial Clean Water Fund ............. 3,405,080 5,111,696 7,960,995 6,570,995 5,709,957 4,858,707 73% State General Fund ...................4,100,176 6,829,851 20,137,202 20,597,933 13,559,310 13,549,254 67% State Fee Programs ................... 842,428 1,291,721 3,446,485 4,554,481 2,536,832 2,771,601 66% Local Sources .......... .. . . .. . .. ..1,042,647 2,577,793 4,488,083 13,920,882 2,578,274 3,985,195 36%2 TOTAL $10,347,916 $16,230,040 $39,256,744 $48,990,270 $26,744,137 $27,284,521 61% 1The final 1989 plan was significantly scaled down from the "full funding' levels called for in the draft 1989 plan. This column displays the final 1989 plan as a per- cent of the draft 1989 plan for the FY-90/91 biennium. 2 The large apparent reduction in the Stormwater program was caused by a change in how local costs are estimated. In the final 1989 plan, only the incremental cost to local governments resulting from plan requirements is estimated. Anticipated local costs to control stormwater volumes were included in the draft 1989 plan estimates. 177 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan TABLE B. ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: COSTS BY PROGRAM FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Monitoring ...................... ...145,926 649,141 2,554,841 2,066,860 3,091,622 3,091,622 3,091,622 Research . ..................... ..103,745 75,541 898,407 898,407 3,352,027 3,410,164 3,969,206 Education & Public Involvement .................992,313 997,380 1,774,028 1,585,028 2,854,734 3,355,834 2,851,280 Nonpoint Source Pollution ................... . .. . . . 4,934,618 6,882,136 7,017,901 6,551,349 9,447,063 8,855,011 6,857,181 Shellfish Protection ...................... 441,044 1,471,179 2,298,842 2,303,138 2,409,564 2,382,179 2,382,179 Municipal & Industrial Discharges ...............1,023,269 1,499,789 3,061,318 3,392,997 3,791,484 4,157,780 4,502,169 Contaminated Sediments & Dredging .............400,747 1,220,061 1,388,856 1,568,636 1,997,230 1,501,282 1,486,282 Stormwater & CSOs . . ................... . 246,427 558,522 1,358,049 2,625,567 4,916,430 6,993,367 9,035,833 Laboratory Support . ....................153,769 344,073 856,617 823,642 773,615 773,615 773,615 Wetlands Protection . ....................520,540 570,636 2,886,112 2,836,431 3,567,262 3,563,418 3,563,418 Spill Prevention & Response ................. 81,908 78,092 438,998 578,456 573,074 573,074 573,074 Household HazardousWaste . ..................0 32,000 231,290 171,290 309,016 181,516 181,516 Legal & Personnel Support . .................276,449 697,120 421,200 421,200 745,977 745,977 745,977 Costs & Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 115,916 0 0 0 0 Institutional Analysis .........................0 14,029 10,764 3,696 0 0 0 Authority Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,027,161 1,140,341 1,430,998 1,457,824 ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Capital Account ........................799,000 250,000 1,945,000 1,765,000 2,756,000 3,336,000 2,756,000 Federal Funding ........................158,585 168,979 224,990 224,990 167,026 168,026 168,026 ToxicsAccount ......................... ..0 0 189,774 129,774 309,016 181,516 181,516 Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF) ............3,405,080 5,111,696 5,709,957 4,858,707 6,409,704 6,151,704 4,802,344 State General Fund ....................... 4,100,176 6,829,851 13,559,310 13,549,254 18,386,761 18,048,133 18,372,334 State Fee Programs ......................842,428 1,291,721 2,536,832 2,771,601 3,309,707 3,774,058 4,118,447 Local Sources ........................1,042,647 2,577,793 2,578,274 3,985,195 6,490,883 7,925,402 9,614,684 TOTAL $10,347,916 $16,230,040 $26,744,137 $27,284,521 $37,829,097 $39,584,839 $40,013,351 Funding Notes CCWF Ecology will have nearly twice the usual annual amount to distribute in FY89 because the administrative rule governing distribution was not completed in time for the FY88 amount to be distributed in FY88. The undistributed FY88 funds will be distributed in FY89. Capital Half of the $3,000,000 for wetlands acquisition in FY90/91 will be requested from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA). The rest will be re- quested from a different state capital account. 178 ACTION PLAN TABLE C. ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Sea Grant & Coop Extension ...................... 0 0 365,250 365,250 743,500 743,500 743,500 EPA ................... ..... .. 16,600 16,600 115,026 115,026 115,026 115,026 115,026 Other Federal ........................ 13,500 13,500 0 0 0 0 0 Ecology Pass Through to Local ................... 0 0 205,000 205,000 421,064 421,064 504,096 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,517,592 4,881,681 8,457,951 8,412,970 11,154,387 11,390,873 11,663,127 DSHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686,522 1,065,410 1,430,553 1,431,417 1,707,082 1,683,528 1,683,528 PSWQA Pass Through to Local ................. 533,500 533,500 550,000 550,000 PSWQA ....................... 1,514,196 1,698,439 3,485,305 3,231,873 Fisheries . ........................49,373 59,461 759,079 696,932 945,003 926,748 894,996 Wildlife ......... .. . . ...................39,322 22,739 308,065 275,938 394,354 377,414 377,414 Parksand Recreation ................... 715,520 248,022 427,940 1,020,640 1,062,309 1,061,591 1,061,591 Natural Resources ..................... 363,042 407,958 2,186,858 2,081,362 3,088,223 3,069,991 3,069,991 Conservation Commission .................. 79,792 104,872 80,675 80,675 139,518 119,518 129,518 Superintendent of Public Instruction .................0 0 21,136 21,136 70,456 70,456 55,456 Agriculture . .........................24,521 24,146 51,263 51,263 51,263 51,263 51,263 Washington Conservation Corps ............... 35,000 35,000 303,360 303,360 456,360 456,360 240,360 Personnel .... ... .. ... ...........................0 0 10,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Attorney General ..................... .31,549 0 0 0 0 0 0 Labor& Industries ..................... ....0 0 4,165 12,495 4,165 4,165 4,165 Pollution Control Hearings Board .................. 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community Colleges ................... .. . . ..0 0 0 0 33,819 33,819 33,819 Local Government .................... 3,304,887 6,956,312 7,431,510 7,927,183 11,926,338 12,982,857 13,816,859 Conservation District .................... 406,000 162,400 462,720 462,720 768,000 768,000 273,920 Other State Agencies .............. ..........0 0 87,781 35,781 156,443 96,443 96,443 Education Organization ....................... 887,537 1,449,837 876,851 Monitoring Organization ....................... 348,723 348,723 348,723 Research Foundation ......................... 3,352,027 3,410,164 3,969,206 TOTAL $10,347,916 $16,230,040 $26,744,137 $27,284,521 $37,829,097 $39,584,839 $40,013,351 Agency Notes PSWQA Central coordination and support activities for the monitoring, research, and education programs are assigned to PSWQA through FY91 and to the Monitoring Organization, the Research Organization and the Education Foundation thereafter. Host agencies for those programs after FY91 have not been identified. Overhead Estimated FY88/89 expenditures for some agencies do not include overhead costs. Forecast values for FY90 and beyond include overhead estimates. 179 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Several other federal agencies are making significant contributions to the Puget Sound effort. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers is playing a major role in developing a dredging management program for the Sound. NOAA maintains an ongoing research program addressing a wide range of Puget Sound issues. The Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) is providing essential support to local nonpoint programs through its Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study. The U.S. Geologic Survey is assisting in development of computerized mapping systems for the Sound and in the monitoring program. Several of the military installations around Puget Sound have expressed an interest in more direct participation in many plan activities. State Agency Costs State agency responsibilities under the plan are primarily funded by appropria- tions from the state general fund, although there are some revenues from fees and a few activities which are capital expenditures. Expenditures from the general fund will be $10.9 million in the current biennium (FY 1988-89). The draft 1989 plan called for $40.7 million from the general fund in the next bien- nium (FY 1990-91). The final plan calls for $27.1 million. Substantial cuts were made in nearly every program to achieve this scaled-down level. About half of the increase over the current biennium is due to the new initiatives for research, monitoring, and education. The rest is due to the continued phase- in of activities started during the current biennium. In October 1987 the state legislature passed legislation popularly known as the state superfund. One section of the legislation authorized an increase in waste discharge permit fees. One result is that general fund money previously allo- cated to Ecology's waste discharge permit program became available for im- plementation of the Puget Sound plan as well as other Ecology activities. In addition to the general fund and waste discharge fees, state agencies may use funds from the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Puget Sound Estuary Program (EPA funds), the USGS, and the federal Clean Water Act to implement some plan elements. Improvements by the state Department of �lansportation to highway drainage systems are expected to be paid for by federal interstate funds, state gasoline tax, and other highway revenue sources. Element C-l, Study of Long-Ierm Funding Options, addresses the issue of ad- ditional sources of funding. Puget Sound Water The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority carries out a number of activities to Quality Authority protect Puget Sound. These responsibilities are specified in RCW 90.70, the ~~~~~Budget ~Puget Sound Water Quality Act. These responsibilities include the develop- ment of the plan, preparation of the State of the Sound Report, public out- reach and education activities, and ensuring compliance with the plan. The Authority's costs for these activities during the FY 1988-89 biennium and es- timates for the FY 1990-91 biennium are included in Tables A, B, and C (as Authority activities) and detailed in 'Ible D. The Authority is directly responsible for certain tasks in the plan's programs. These tasks generally fall within the areas of planning, coordination, and education. These plan costs are included in the cost tables associated with each program. Table D summarizes the Authority's costs for all of these assignments. A major part of the increase in the Authority's budget for the next biennium would fund a temporary "home" for coordination of the three new initiatives in 180 ACTION PLAN TABLE D. PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY BUDGET FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES Administration .............206,218 208,055 198,463 188,515 Plan Development ...........358,247 441,957 486,855 505,502 Public Outreach/Education ......263,665 305,853 333,530 352,902 State of the Sound Report . . . . . . . .92,684 31,060 188,558 131,498 Plan Compliance .......... 106,347 153,416 223,592 279,407 Authority Activity Subtotal $1,027,161 $1,140,341 $1,430,998 $1,457,824 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND OVERSIGHT Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,917 107,750 370,903 341,903 Research ...............103,745 75,541 898,407 898,407 Education & Public Involvement . . . .668,719 702,015 883,500 703,500 Nonpoint Source Pollution ........98,093 74,596 62,745 62,745 Shellfish Protection ............... 5,499 5,499 37,077 31,373 Municipal & Industrial Discharges ... . 2,852 26,000 37,077 28,521 Contaminated Sediments & Dredging . . 8,556 34,212 45,633 34,224 Stormwater & CSOs ........... 22,764 25,460 42,781 42,781 Laboratory Support ............ .0 0 68,521 68,521 Wetlands Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 8,249 16,799 11,408 11,408 Spill Prevention & Response ..........0 0 98,414 88,414 Household Hazardous Waste ............ 0 0 0 0 Legal & Personnel Support . . . . . . . . 1,141 9,697 8,556 8,556 Costs & Financing ........... ...0 0 28,521 0 Institutional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 14,029 10,764 3,696 Plan Implementation Subtotal $1,020,535 $1,091,598 $2,604,307 $2,324,049 TOTAL $2,047,696 $2,231,939 $4,035,305 $3,781,873 Program Notes The Research budget includes $600,000 per year for competitively selected research studies. The Education program budget includes $550,000 per year for local PIE-Fund projects. This table represents the Authority's budget request as of October 19, 1988. 181 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan the 1989 plan: research, monitoring, and education. Support activities for these programs would be housed in the Authority through the end of fiscal year 1991. Chapter 4 calls for a study (PDI-1) to examine the long-term in- stitutional options for these programs as well as for the Authority's other func- tions. Local Government The Centennial Clean Water Fund (cigarette tax) will be disbursed to local Costs governments starting in fiscal year 1989.51 Local government activities re- quired under the plan are expected to receive between $4 million and $6 mil- lion annually through grants from the Department of Ecology. Other sources of local funds may include sewer and storm drainage utility revenue, fees for in- spections of on-site septic systems, state superfund monies, USGS, National Estuary Program, federal Farmers Home Administration grants, and local general fund sources. Some elements of the plan will require substantial fund- ing at the local level. While the Centennial Clean Water Fund will provide some funding, local governments may find it necessary to pay for the increas- ing costs for some of these activities with new long-term revenue sources. For example, funding to cover the cost of stormwater activities is expected to come from drainage utility revenues and the Public Works Trust Fund. These long- term funding issues created by the plan will be addressed by work done under element C-1, Study of Long-'Irm Funding Options. Private Sector Costs Many program elements will result in pollution control actions by private par- ties. The private sector, including individuals, may incur added costs as plan elements are implemented (for example, the private costs of upgrading septic systems). These expenses are broadly identified, where possible, in the text of each program area. It is not possible to determine private costs more precisely until public agencies adopt regulations called for in the plan and the nonreg- ulatory programs are developed and implemented. Private entities may participate in the financing of certain plan elements. For example, The Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Lands regularly as- sist in the acquisition of Puget Sound wetlands. Private consulting firms and research institutions helped finance the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. Corporations and other private entities have participated extensive- ly in funding and carrying out public involvement and education activities. This kind of support is expected to continue and grow. SUMMARY Implementing the 1989 plan will cost agencies and local governments ap- proximately $54 million during the period from July 1989 through June 1991. The Authority is concerned that there will continue to be unmet funding needs, especially over the long term. A new element addresses these funding needs and potential funding mechanisms. The element calls on state and local agencies and their representatives to provide information to the Authority regarding funding problems and existing and potential funding sources. 51 Ecology disbursed some initial funds to local governments from this fund under emergency regulations in fiscal year 1988. 182 ACTION PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENT C-1. Study of PSWQA shall identify new and existing potential sources of funding to sup- Long-Term Funding port the long-term implementation of the Puget Sound plan. This study shall ~~~~Options ~be conducted in consultation with the Association of Washington Cities, the Washington State Association of Counties, tribes, the members and staffs of the legislative Ways and Means Committees, other legislators, the Governor's Office, citizens' groups, business associations, other relevant public and private entities, and state agencies. Agencies include but are not limited to the Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, Social and Health Services, Wildlife, the Washington Conservation Commission, the State Parks and Recreation Commission, the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, the Office of Financial Management, and the Department of Revenue. At the conclusion of the study PSWQA shall propose appropriate legislative or regulatory changes necessary to facilitate the use of potential long-term fund- ing sources. Target Date: Identify and list revenue sources by June 30, 1989. Propose legis- lative and regulatory changes by December 1, 1989. This element is estimated to cost $115,700 in fiscal year 1990. ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: COSTS AND FINANCING COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY 92 FY93 FY 94 C-1 Study of Long-Term Funding Options ...........0 0 115,916 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 $115,916 0 0 0 0 COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Ecology .............................0 0 8,303 0 0 0 0 DSHS .............................0 0 5,762 0 0 0 0 PSWQA .............................0 0 28,521 0 Fisheries .............................0 0 6,350 0 0 0 0 Wildlife .............................0 0 5,338 0 0 0 0 Parks and Recreation ............ ...........0 0 4,781 0 0 0 0 Natural Resources ............ .............0 0 6,860 0 0 0 0 Other State Agencies ............ ............0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 $115,916 0 0 0 0 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE State General Fund ........... .............0 0 115,916 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 $115,916 0 0 0 0 183 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan SUMMARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TASKS Participation of local governments and regional organizations is a vital part of the overall management scheme for protecting Puget Sound. In the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan local governments play an important role in plan implementation. Although plan implementation has only recently begun, local governments have been involved in the efforts to improve Puget Sound's water quality for several years in numerous ways. The plan requires significant commitment of local expertise and resources for programs to protect wetlands and control pollution from nonpoint sources and stormwater. Not all local governments in the Puget Sound basin will have implementing responsibilities while some may have several tasks for which they are respon- sible. Below is a list of tasks that local governments have responsibility for im- plementing. For more detail, please refer to the appropriate plan program dis- cussion. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM (NP-i) Local governments participate in the nomination of early action watersheds. Completed. Local governments are represented on watershed ranking conmmittee (chaired by counties) to rank all watersheds in each county. Ranking submitted to the Department of Ecology. Ongoing. (NP-3) Local governments within selected watersheds are represented on watershed management committee to develop a watershed action plan for submittal to Ecology. Ongoing. (NIP-9) Local governments evaluate their water quality programs and submit a written report to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. By July 1, 1989. (NP-10) Local governments participate in DSHS study of local government on-site Sys- tern programs. Ongoing until April 1, 1989. (MB-i) ~~~~~~Local governments amend their shoreline master programs to incorporate state standards for siting and design of marinas to be prepared by the Depart- ment of Ecology. Programs amended by January 1992. (MB -2) Local governments may adopt a model ordinance for sewer hook ups for liveaboards. (This is a voluntary program for local governments.) Model ordinance complete by January 1, 1989. 184 ACTION PLAN SHELLFISH PROTECTION PROGRAM (SF-1) Local governments incorporate the plan's shellfish protection/restoration policy into local programs for nonpoint, stormwater, combined sewer over- flows, and point sources developed under the Puget Sound plan. Ongoing. (SF-2) Local governments participate in the program to restore and protect commer- cial shellfish beds. Ongoing. (SF-4) Local health departments, in cooperation with several state agencies, begin testing, closing, and posting contaminated shellfish areas. Ongoing. Local health departments participate in the development of a program to re- store recreational shellfish beds. Ongoing. (SF-7) Local health departments begin informing the public of contaminated shellfish beds through posting, press releases, and other public information processes. Ongoing. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AND DREDGING PROGRAM (S-5) After Ecology adopts disposal standards for contaminated sediments, local governments revise shoreline master programs, solid waste rules, and rules for hydraulics permits if required by the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Complete revisions by October 1, 1992. STORMWATER AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOS) PROGRAM (SW-I) All cities and counties demonstrate that they have (1) met the requirements for operation and maintenance of stormwater systems; (2) adopted ordinances requiring stormwater controls for new development (Ecology to prepare model ordinances with assistance from local government representatives); and (3) reviewed existing maintenance ordinances for privately owned stormwater systems to determine the adequacy of the ordinances. By June 30, 1991. 185 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (SW-2) Urbanized areas develop and implement comprehensive stormwater manage- ment programs consistent with Ecology guidelines. Begin developing programs by December 31, 1989, and implement program by the year 2000. (SW-9) As required by RCW 90.48.480, Seattle, Metro, Anacortes, Bellingham, Bremerton, Everett, Mount Vernon, Olympia, Port Angeles, and Snohomish submit a plan to Ecology to achieve the greatest reasonable reduction of CSOs. By November 1, 1987. Not fully completed. WETLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM (W-4) Local governments participate in the development of state rules for wetlands protection. Rules to be adopted by September 1, 1989. (W-5) Local governments measure their wetlands protection efforts against state standards and identify what actions are necessary to establish a local program which meets the standards. Assessments and proposed actions are to sub- mitted to Ecology. By September 1, 1990. (W-7) Local governments assist in the development of a wetlands education strategy. Strategy to be completed by May 1, 1990. (W-8) Local governments assist Ecology in the development of the wetlands restora- tion program. Program to be developed by May 1, 1990. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM (HHW-i) Selected counties prepare local hazardous waste programs (pilot plans) re- quired by RCW 70.105.220-235. All counties prepare local hazardous waste programs required above. By December 31, 1990. Accelerated pilot plans by June 30, 1989. EDUCATION AND Local governments will have the opportunity to participate in the Education PUBLIC and Public Involvement Program although participation is not mandatory. INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM 186 ACTION PLAN (ES-2.1) Local governments participate in evaluating, hiring, and placing of local field agents. Placement to be based upon interest shown by individual local govern- ments. By August 1, 1989. Local governments assist local field agents in developing countywide nonpoint education programs. Begin September 1, 1989. (ES-8) Funding to be available for local education efforts. Ongoing. LEGAL AND PERSONNEL SUPPORT PROGRAM (LP-4) Matching funds available for enhanced local enforcement efforts. By August 1988. LOCAL COSTS Total local expenditures for implementation of these plan programs for the 1990-1991 biennium is estimated at $15,608,694. In addition, other water quality-related efforts, e.g., CSO reduction and secondary treatment, require expenditures by local governments. CSO Reduction The total costs for CSO reduction is expected to reach $380 to $425 million of which $224 million is for projects after the year 2000. These projects are par- tially grant funded or grant eligible. Secondary Treatment As required by the federal Clean Water Act, all sewage treatment plants dis- charging to Puget Sound are required to achieve secondary level of treatment of effluent. The costs to provide secondary treatment at municipal facilities in the Puget Sound region is estimated to be $995 million. These projects are in various stages of planning, design, or construction. All projects should be com- pleted or under construction by 1992. All projects are partially grant funded or grant eligible, typically at 50 percent local match. 187 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan PROGRAMS THAT REQUEST TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT Following are brief descriptions of elements in the 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan that request the involvement of tribes in the Puget Sound basin. There are other programs and elements in the plan which may be of interest to tribes or in which they may need or wish to be involved. Dates noted are those by which specific elements or activities under elements are targeted for completion. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROGRAM (NP-1) ribes participate in nomination of early action watersheds. Completed. Tribes are represented on watershed ranking committees to identify and rank watersheds within their jurisdiction. By January 1989. (NP-2) Tribes assist PSWQA on guidelines for watershed ranking, management com- mittees, and action plans. Completed. (NP-3) Affected tribes serve on watershed management committees. Tribes evaluate their desired level of participation following each round of watershed selection process. Ongoing. (NP-4) ribes carry out their portions of watershed action plans. Ongoing. (NP-6) Tihbes assist Ecology in preparing technical assistance information for water- shed management committees. Ongoing. (NP-9) Tribes evaluate their water quality programs. Guidance prepared by PSWQA and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission by November 1988. (MB-3) Tribes participate in Boaters Thsk Force. Ongoing. SHELLFISH PROTECTION PROGRAM (SF-2) Tribes receive technical assistance in carrying out shellfish projects under the nonpoint program. Ongoing. 188 ACTION PLAN Tribes participate in monitoring program with DSHS. Ongoing. (SF-4) Tribes participate in a committee to develop a program to protect recreational shellfish from pollution. Ongoing. (SF-5) Tribes receive an annual inventory of shellfish beds from DSHS. Ongoing. Tribes are consulted by DSHS on information for shellfish information guide. Ongoing. (SF-7) ribes participate in a work group established by Fisheries to develop an inter- pretive program. Ongoing. WETLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM (W-i) ribal representatives participate in wetlands preservation working group. On- going. (WV-2) ribes nominate wetlands to be preserved. By February 1989. (W-3) ribes taking the lead in wetlands preservation projects receive technical assis- tance from DNR and Ecology. Ongoing. (W-4) Ecology consults with tribes on state rules for wetlands preservation. By November 1, 1989. (W-7) Ecology consults with tribes regarding development and implemention of a long-range wetlands education strategy. See ES-4.4 below. Begins by May 1, 1990. (W-8) Ecology consults with tribes on development and implementation of wetlands restoration program. MONITORING PROGRAM (M-1) ribes are represented on Monitoring Management Committee. Ongoing. 189 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (M-2) ribes may serve as implementing agencies of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Ongoing. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM (ES-4.2) Tribes are represented on a committee convened by the Authority to recom- mend development of new interpretive centers. Delayed until 1992/93 bien- nium. (ES-4.4) Tribes are represented on a committee convened by Fisheries that will develop a model watershed interpretive program at a hatchery. Begins by September 30, 1989. raibes are represented on a committee convened by Fisheries that will develop an interpretive program on shellfish. Begins by May 1, 1990. Ecology consults with tribes regarding development and implemention of a long-range wetlands education strategy. Begins by May 1, 1990. (ES-5.3) Tibal representatives serve on resource teams to respond to groups wishing to do stream enhancement or restoration. Begins by January 1, 1990. (ES-7.1) Tribal representatives serve on the Environmental Education Task Force. Begins by September 30, 1989. (ES-7.2) 'Tribal representatives serve on a technical coordinating committee for im- plementing the Puget Sound Plan education strategy. Begins by November 1989. 190 Chapter 4. Plan Development and Implementation INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the role of the Authority in developing and overseeing the implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The first part of the chapter summarizes the various planning and public out- reach activities that the Authority carries out under its authorizing legislation. The second part describes the oversight procedures that the Authority has es- tablished to assure that the plan is fully implemented. The third part addres- ses the question of how to assure the continued protection of Puget Sound following the scheduled "sunset' of the Authority in 1991. PLANNING AN]) PUBLIC OUTREACH FUNCTIONS Long-Range Planning The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority was charged by the legislature with developing a comprehensive management plan for the protection of Puget Sound's water quality. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, developed pursuant to RCW 90.70.055, affects state agency and local govern- ment decision-making related to water quality throughout the Puget Sound basin. RCW 90.70.060 lists the requirements of the plan, addressing subjects such as nonpoint source pollution, wetland preservation, municipal and in- dustrial discharges, and contaminated sediments. This is the second of three plans required before 1991. Plan Update The plan establishes a long-range approach to maintaining and enhancing water quality in Puget Sound. In order to incorporate new information and make adjustments in the long-range strategy, the statute creating the Authority directed that the plan be reviewed and revised every two years (RCW 90.70.055(3)). The 1989 plan reflects the Authority's review of progress to date in implementing the plan. Similarly, the Authority will review the 191 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan progress of implementation over the next two years as a basis for preparing the 1991 plan. Authority Activities Although nearly all activities to implement the plan are carried out by other Under the Plan state and local agencies, the Authority carries out a number of direct respon- sibilities under various plan programs. These direct responsibilities fall in the areas of planning, coordination, analysis, and education. For example, the Authority developed and adopted as a state regulation (Chapter 400-12 WAC, "Local Planning and Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution") the guidance and procedures needed by state and local agencies to implement a major portion of the plan's nonpoint source pollution program. Puget Sound Estuary The Authority, along with Region 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency Program and the state Department of Ecology, co-manage the Puget Sound Estuary Program, a joint federal-state program for the protection of Puget Sound. The federal Water Quality Act of 1987, which amended the Clean Water Act, named Puget Sound an "estuary of national significance." In February 1988 the EPA Administrator formally designated the Puget Sound Estuary Program as part of the National Estuary Program. Under the national program, each designated estuary is to develop a "comprehensive conservation and manage- ment plan" (CCMP) that recommends actions to restore and protect the es- tuary. The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is now recognized as a partial CCMP. The 1989 and 1991 Puget Sound plans will serve as additional increments to the CCMP. Under the terms of the federal designation, the 1991 plan must meet all of the requirements of the federal program. Coordination Role 'lb carry out its responsibilities under the enabling legislation, the Authority plays a major coordinating role essential for successful implementation of the plan. The Authority has played an important role in catalyzing actions in other agencies that are necessary to implement the plan and carry out the legis- lated mission of protecting the Sound. The Authority has coordinated a num- ber of interagency activities, including the development of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program and the development of a long-range education strategy. RCW 90.70.060 requires the Authority to develop procedures to "as- sure" local government-initiated planning for Puget Sound water quality and requires that the plan include ways to improve coordination among the various levels of government. The Authority is also represented on numerous state and local committees, task forces, and work groups dealing with Puget Sound water quality and resources. Public Outreach The legislature required the Authority to develop public involvement strategies and solicit public participation in the planning process (RCW 90.70.060(10)). The Authority has taken a lead role in conducting and coor- dinating public educational activities relating to Puget Sound. Through its 192 Plan Development and Implementation Public Education and Involvement Fund (PIE-Fund),52 the Soundwaves newsletter, and active efforts to maintain ongoing relationships with local governments, tribes, and constituencies around the Sound, the Authority keeps people informed and involved in the plan's implementation. State of the Sound The State of the Sound Report is prepared every two years by the Authority pur- suant to RCW 90.70.055(4). This report provides an analysis of the status and conditions of Puget Sound including a determination of the Sound's economic value. The report also addresses current and foreseeable trends in water quality and management of Puget Sound resources. Additional Duties and In addition to the responsibilities discussed above and the Authority's plan im- Responsibilities plementation oversight role discussed below, the Authority has additional program support responsibilities which include contract and grant administra- tion, conducting studies and research relating to Puget Sound water quality, preparation of a biennial budget request, and the adoption of rules to imple- ment Chapter 90.70 RCW. Authority Costs for The Authority costs for these responsibilities are divided among administra- Planning and tion, plan development, public outreach and education, and the State of the Outreach Activities Sound Report. Tahble D in the Costs and Financing Section in Chapter 3 shows these costs. The total for these activities is $1.9 million for the fiscal year 1988- 89 biennium and $2.4 million for the 1990-91 biennium. ASSURING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Plan Consistency The Authority is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. This section describes some of the statutory requirements and other procedures the Authority uses in carrying out its oversight role. The Authority emphasizes assistance and coordination, attempts to focus on the most significant activities related to Puget Sound water quality, and endeavors to meet all of its statutory obligations. The principal means by which this plan is implemented is through the actions of state agencies and local governments. The Authority assists those entities in various ways to assure that their actions are consistent with the plan as re- quired by the Puget Sound Water Quality Act (Chapter 90.70 RCW). There are also significant features of the plan which require close coordination with federal agencies. The Authority provides information and assistance to those entities and coordinates plan implementation at all levels. These efforts are supplemented by the following specific responsibilities under the act. 52 The PIE-Fund was established to support model public involvement and education projects. In January 1988 the Authority awarded 20 PIE-Fund contracts totaling $584,200. In June 1988 28 contracts were awarded totaling $412,000. 193 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan First, the Authority must monitor the performance of state agencies and local governments in implementing specific programs prescribed in the adopted plan. This includes compliance with implementation time schedules as well as attainment of specific management goals, such as the acquisition of important wetlands. Second, the Authority must review major proposed public actions and deter- mine if a proposed action, whether specifically prescribed as a plan element or not, is consistent with the policy of the Puget Sound Water Quality Act and with the general intent and objectives of the Puget Sound plan. For example, a proposal to construct a cross-Sound oil pipeline might be evaluated for water quality ramifications regardless of whether such an action was specifically iden- tified in the plan. Plan Consistency There are several specific reporting and reviewing requirements laid out in the Procedures statute creating the Authority. The Authority attempts to minimize bureaucratic reporting requirements by making sure that the statutory require- ments are used as meaningful steps in implementing the plan. Oversight of Plan 1. Each state agency and local government which is given responsibilities by Implementation this plan has been assigned an Authority staff liaison. The staff assures that the agency or government understands its responsibilities under the plan, assists the agency or government in implementation, monitors progress, and assists in resolving problems that arise during program im- plementation. The Authority staff accomplishes these tasks through com- municating with and, when necessary, coordinating the various agency and local government efforts regarding a particular program; providing techni- cal assistance to implementing agencies; assisting agencies in plan inter- pretation; and representing the Authority on numerous committees, work groups, task forces, and other organizations that are called for in the plan. In addition, the Authority conducts briefings for state and local agencies to inform agency employees about the plan and about program implemen- tation and reporting. 2. Biennially, state agencies and local governments identified in the plan must submit written reports to the Authority documenting their consistency with the plan as required by RCW 90.70.070(3). The Authority provides instructions to implementing agencies for that purpose. The Authority uses the information gathered during the biennial review process to prepare revisions to the plan as required by RCW 90.70.055(3). 3. Biennially, the Authority reviews the success of plan implementation (includ- ing public and private actions) and reports the results to the legislature and the governor in the State of the Sound Report as required by RCW 90.70.055(4)(c). The Authority is also using the 1989 and 1991 plans as an additional means to report on plan progress. 4. In addition to the biennial review described above, the Authority may review budgets and regulatory and enforcement activities of state and local im- plementing agencies as prescribed by RCW 90.70.055(5). The purpose of this review is to assist agencies in meeting timelines and other plan re- quirements and to ensure that they have adequate resources to fulfill their responsibilities under the plan. 194 Plan Development and Implementation 'lb assist the Authority in its review and tracking of plan implementation each agency is encouraged to prepare a work plan for major program respon- sibilities. In addition, each state agency shall: a. Notify the Authority, in writing, whenever modifications are proposed to be made to plan budget allocations for transfers to nonplan activities, for transfers between plan programs, or for transfers within plan programs where target dates or implementation of a task are affected. Notice shall be sent prior to any irretrievable commitment of resources to allow the Authority an opportunity to comment, if necessary; b. Submit a brief report periodically to the Authority regarding the status of the tasks assigned to the agency. 'Me reports shall be submitted at least once every six months. The Authority will provide guidance to implement- ing agencies regarding this requirement; and c. Provide copies to the Authority of reports, interagency agreements, work plans, and other significant work products developed pursuant to its im- plementation of each plan element. 'Me information obtained above will allow the Authority to make mid-term ad- justments to target dates and program tasks as necessary to ensure plan im- plementation. Review of Major As provided in RCW 90.70.070 the Authority reviews major public actions Public Actions being considered by federal and state agencies and local governments in order to determine whether the proposed action is consistent with the Puget Sound Water Quality Act and the Puget Sound plan, with Authority goals and objec- tives, and with review criteria developed by the Authority. As a result of such review the Authority may respond to a proposal in a variety of ways. The Authority staff may respond to projects or documents which fall short of "major" but where clarification of plan requirements or technical comments would be of assistance to the responsible agency. The chair of the Authority may submit comments on actions which are critical to plan implementation or affect more than one program. The Authority shall submit comments where unmitigated water quality impacts or substantial conflicts with the plan are in- volved. The Authority keeps a record of its review and comment activities. The Authority is authorized to intervene in administrative or judicial proceed- ings (RCW 90.70.070 (4)). While the Authority intends that intervention in judicial proceedings would be the least common form of response, reserved for very rare circumstances, the Authority may intervene in administrative proceedings as warranted. The Authority emphasizes that its review of major public actions does not replace the authority of the permit-issuing agency to make the substantive decision on a permit or other matter. Furthermore, Authority review of a proposed action does not in any sense constitute an appeal of an agency decision; the Authority does not intend to function as an appellate body. In order to further define the Authority's role in reviewing major public ac- tions and to provide guidelines for determining an appropriate level of Authority response, the Authority establishes the following criteria governing its involvement: 195 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan * Whether the action is critical to implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. * Whether the action may be in direct and substantial conflict with the plan. * Whether the action entails significant adverse water quality impacts which cannot be mitigated. * Whether the action will have multiple effects or implications for various water quality issues or programs. The Authority will respond to a proposal within the established review period or within a timely period if no formal response period exists. Notice of Actions In order to ensure that the Authority is aware of activities which potentially Subject to Review merit its attention, the Authority will inform state and local agencies of the specific types of actions for which notice to the Authority should be given53 Th determine which actions to review other than actions specifically imple- menting the Puget Sound plan, the Authority wIl use the criteria listed above to determine which proposed actions are 'major.' These actions may include program, policy, and permit actions, including actions taken under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All state agencies and local governments shall provide SEPA documents to the Authority wherever water quality, wet- lands, or related issues within the Puget Sound plan area are involved. The Authority will respond when the proposal being analyzed meets one of the criteria listed above. Authority Costs for Plan compliance activities, including review of major public actions, are es- Compliance Activities timated to cost $260,000 for the fiscal year 1988-89 biennium and $503,000 for the 1990-91 biennium. AS SURING THlE RCW 90.70 calls for the Authority to go out of existence on June 30, 1991, at LONG -TERM the end of the third biennium of its tenure. By that time the Puget Sound plan PROTECTION OF will have gone through three planning and evaluation cycles. Coincidentally, PIJGET SOUND the Puget Sound Estuary Program is to have met all the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act by that time. Therefore, although the management plan requires programs to be implemented well beyond 1991, neither the state nor federal mechanisms for planning and overseeing plan implementation are scheduled to exist after the 1991 legislative session. At the time the Authority was created, discussion focused on the need for a comprehensive plan for all state and local entities to follow. As 1991 ap- proaches, the discussion is shifting to a focus on assuring long-term commit- ment to the actions necessary to protect the Sound. And it is becoming critical to address the continuing needs for coordination, planning, and oversight- both generally for Puget Sound and for specific programs. 53 Failure of a state agency or local government to provide such notice to the Authority should not void or otherwise invalidate the action taken. 196 Plan Development and Implementation Several interested parties have urged that the functions now being performed by the Authority be continued. In addition, the three task forces that reported to the Authority this year on recommended research, monitoring, and educa- tion strategies each recognized the need for an ongoing institutional structure to coordinate those efforts. In each case, the task forces have asked that the Authority play at least an interim role as the coordinator of those efforts until some alternate suitable "home" can be created or found. One of the commit- tees recommended the formation of an independent Puget Sound Research Foundation, which could of course be given a broader mandate. Another recommended a foundation to secure long-term funding and coordination of the Puget Sound education effort. It is also obvious from the nature of the Sound's problems and the likelihood of more difficult challenges in the future that some thought must be given to how to accomplish ongoing, or at least pe- riodic, efforts to reassess the situation, to make sure that the Sound is being protected, and to take corrective actions. There is already a strong emphasis in the plan on building the institutional capability in state agencies, local governments, and other places to carry out the activities that are necessary to protect the Sound. The municipal and in- dustrial ("point") source control program is a good example of this approach. The program emphasizes procedures, criteria, training, and other institutional initiatives. The nonpoint source control program is another example of a program designed to run over a long period of time. The watershed ranking process will lay out many years of work in a priority order and is combined with a long-term funding source (the cigarette tax). But over the next two years, much more thought will have to go into how to assure the long-term suc- cess of the plan. The problems of Puget Sound have developed over more than a century. While it shouldn't take a century to solve them, the pollution sources which must be addressed take lengthy efforts to bring under control, and this is an ecosystem which does not show quick results. In addition, because the Authority planning process is unique, there are no models which can help predict the likelihood of success of the current plan. The most troubling issue is that while trying to control pollution sources, protect wetlands, and under- stand Puget Sound better, the population is growing and the causes of the problems are changing. It will not be easy to sustain sufficient support over the many years that will be needed to bring success. That is why it is important to consider the future of the Sound in the context of uncertainty about the institutional framework after 1991. Such an examination should assess the functions now being per- formed by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and other agencies with responsibilities for the Sound to see which of them are necessary over the long term to achieve the goal of a healthy and productive Sound. The following questions are an important part of that assessment: 1. Is there a need for the continued development and revision of comprehen- sive plans for Puget Sound water quality? 2. Should some agency have the responsibility for oversight of the implementa- tion of those plans? 3. Should some agency have the responsibility to review, comment, and inter- vene in actions in order to prevent negative effects on the Sound and to en- sure that plans will be implemented? 197 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 4. Should outreach to and education of constituencies about the Sound and plans for the Sound be a function of state government? 5. How can coordination among the federal, state, and local government agen- cies with responsibilities for the Sound be maintained? As the last scheduled Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, the 1991 plan will need to address the mechanisms for implementation in the long term. 'lb assist in the planning process, the Authority recommends that the governor appoint a committee to address the above questions and make recommenda- tions for plan language, legislation, or other means to achieve the goal of assur- ing the restoration and preservation of Puget Sound in the long term. The following plan element addresses this need: PDI-1. Long-Term The Authority shall request that the governor appoint a committee to make Puget Sound recommendations about the appropriate mechanisms for assuring the restora- Institutional Structure tion and preservation of Puget Sound in the long term, including the institu- tional requirements of the Research, Monitoring, and Education and Public Involvement programs. 54 Among other options, the committee could recom- mend: 1. Assigning the responsibilities of the Authority to one or more existing state agencies. 2. Asking the federal government to continue the Puget Sound Estuary Program for an additional time or indefinitely. 3. Creating one or more new entities to carry out part or all of the functions needed. 4. Continuing the Authority but giving it a different role and shifting some of its responsibilities to other agencies. 5. Continuing the Authority as is for an additional period of time. 'Be committee shall consult affected constituencies and experts in govern- ment structure. The committee shall be appointed by the governor and shall present its report to the governor, the legislature, and the Authority. After presenting its report, the committee shall remain in existence to assist the Authority and the legislature as they take action on the committee's recom- mendations. 'Trget Date: Governor appoints committee by November 1988. Committee presents its report by August 1989. ESTIMATED COST 'Ibtal cost for this element are approximately $14,000 for fiscal year 1989, $10,800 for fiscal year 1990, and $3,700 for fiscal year 1991. These costs in- clude the establishment of the committee, related expenses such as travel and printing, consultant fees, and PSWQA staff assistance. 54 See elements R-2 and M-1 and the Education and Public Involvement Program discussions in Chapter 3. 198 Plan Development and Implementation ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS: INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS COSTS BY ELEMENT FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 PDI-1 Long-Term Institutional Structure ............. 0 14,029 10,764 3,696 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 $14,029 $10,764 $3,696 0 0 0 COSTS BY AGENCY FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Governor's Office/PSWQA ................. 0 14,029 10,764 3,696 TOTAL 0 $14,029 $10,764 $3,696 0 0 0 COSTS BY FUNDING SOURCE State General Fund .................... 0 $14,029 10,764 3,696 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 $14,029 $10,764 $3,696 0 0 0 199 Chapter 5. The Unfinished Agenda INTRODUCTION The Authority conducted a public "scoping" process during the fall of 1985 as part of its initial efforts to prepare a comprehensive list of Puget Sound en- vironmental problems and possible causes. Many issues of concern were sug- gested for consideration. In December 1985 the Authority selected the issues to be addressed in the 1987 plan. A number of issues could not be dealt with during the 1987 plan process. Many of these were presented in chapter 7 of the 1987 plan as the 'unfinished agenda." At that time it was hoped that at least some of the unfinished agenda issues would be addressed by proposals in this 1989 plan. However, inadequate funding for the Authority made it neces- sary to put them off until the 1991 plan, the final edition of the plan that will be adopted by the Authority prior to its scheduled 'sunset" in 1991. There is now also a federal mandate to address the unfinished agenda. On March 17, 1988, Puget Sound was designated as part of the National Estuary Program under Section 320 of the federal Water Quality Act of 1987. This act, which amended the Clean Water Act, created the National Estuary Program and called for each estuary in the program to develop a Comprehensive Con- servation and Management Plan (CCMP). The Authority's 1991 plan must be the complete CCMP for Puget Sound under that program. It is therefore es- sential that all significant issues affecting Puget Sound water quality and habitat be addressed by the time the 1991 plan is adopted. This portion of the plan describes issues that may affect the health of the Sound but are not currently addressed by plan programs. The public was asked to comment on the importance of these issues as part of their review of the draft 1989 plan. Public response to the unfinished agenda issues was excel- lent. Over 200 people submitted written comments or provided verbal com- ments in the July 1988 public meetings on one or more of the unfinished agenda issues. In addition, over 300 people participated in ranking the issues they thought were most important by responding to a ranking questionnaire mailed with the draft plan or by voting on the issues at the public meetings. All comments and results of the ranking exercise were considered by the Authority in the process of determining how to address each of the 14 un- finished agenda issues, as well as other issues that were raised by commenters. Summaries of comments received and the resulting Authority actions are provided for each issue in the following discussions. In addition, these discus- 201 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan sions include specific language changes that were made in response to review comments on the draft plan. The unfinished agenda issues that are addressed in this chapter are: * Aquaculture * Contamination of the Sea-surface Microlayer * Effects of Air Pollution on Water Quality * Federal Facilities * Fish and Wildlife Habitat * Freshwater Use and Availability * Groundwater Contamination *hazardous wastes *solid waste *underground storage tanks *infectious wastes * Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention and Response * Human Health Risks *human use of beaches *human consumption of seafood * Nutrient Effects * Pesticides * Plastic Debris in Marine Waters * Trlansboundary Pollution * 'Iteatment of Domestic Wastes * integration of treatment issues * treatment bypasses and failing infrastructure * sludge and septage management * chlorination * Other Issues * islands * public access to beaches * sole source aquifers * fecal coliform bacteria contamination by seals In summiary, Authority actions on the unfinished agenda include further tech- nical and regulatory analysis and possible preparation of issue papers on fish and wildlife habitat and pesticides. Authority staff will also coordinate a tech- nical study of the effects of air pollution on water quality. Other Authority ac- tions will include continuation of ongoing work on federal facilities and human health risks; a request for a special study by the U.S. Geological Survey on the effects of contaminated groundwater on Puget Sound; study of preven- tive issues related to hazardous materials; a request for special focus by the In- ternational Joint Commission on transboundary water quality concerns; and general review and comment on major activities related to aquaculture, fresh- water use and availability, groundwater contamination, plastic debris in marine waters, and treatment of domestic wastes. Contamination of the sea- surface microlayer and nutrient effects issues will be referred to the Commit- tee on Research in Puget Sound. 202 The Unfinished Agenda Authority action on other issues raised during the public review process will in- clude special consideration of island issues and inclusion of an island ecology section in the 1990 State of the Sound report; review and comment on major issues related to public access to beaches and sole source aquifers; and referral of the issue of seal bacteria contamination to the Department of Wildlife. AQUACULTURE Problem Definition Aquaculture in the state of Washington involves the controlled cultivation and harvest of aquatic animals and plants such as shellfish, finfish, and edible "sea vegetables" (marine algae). This industry utilizes a number of different production methods to produce a wide variety of species. Methods include tideland cultivation, off-bottom culture (for oysters), open water suspension, net-pen rearing, and pond or tank culture. In 1986 state aquaculture produc- tion in processed weight totalled 8,412 tons (7,630 metric tons) with an es- timated reported value of $22.7 million. Aquaculture production in Puget Sound in 1986 had a reported value of $15.8 million. Pacific oyster production accounted for about 30 percent of this value, while coho salmon and manila clams were also important. Other species with the economic potential to be- come viable aquaculture industries include nori (an edible seaweed), geoduck, and sturgeon. There are 12 salmon net-pen facilities operating in Puget Sound in 1988, lo- cated in Clallam, Kitsap, Mason, Jefferson, and Skagit Counties. 'No more facilities are in the construction phase and 12 more are actively seeking per- mits to begin development in Clallam, Island, Jefferson, and Mason Counties. There is substantial public controversy over some aspects of the aquaculture industry, particularly over the floating culture of salmon, shellfish, and nori. Navigational areas, recreational fishing areas, open space, and unobstructed views are considered by many to be limited resources in the Sound, particular- ly with the increasing pressures of population growth in the area. As a result, opposition to the siting of these aquaculture facilities has focused on potential conflicts with boating, fishing, and aesthetic values (such as residential views). Other concerns are related to the potential effects on water quality and bot- tom organisms. There have been some additional questions about the intro- duction of disease, antibiotics, and competition with natural fishery stocks. Four counties (Island, Jefferson, San Juan, and Skagit) have instituted tem- porary moratoria on facility siting until these and other concerns can be resolved. A recent study of the environmental (physical, chemical, and biological) ef- fects of salmon net-pens found that a potentially adverse effect which may occur is the accumulation of organic-rich sediments beneath the pens, al- though the degree and potential effects of this accumulation are related to site- specific characteristics such as depth and currents. Sediment accumulation can reduce the oxygen available for bottom-dwelling organisms as well as change the bottom community to species that are more tolerant of organic en- richment (e.g., certain polychaete worms). According to the study, other quan- tifiable potential effects associated with salmon net-pens (e.g., effects on water circulation, water quality, phytoplankton productivity; the introduction of dis- eases and exotic species; and potential effects associated with the use of an- tibiotics) were considered less probable and highly dependent upon site-specific conditions or the species cultured. The study was based on a literature review of current research and did not attempt to quantify the use 203 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan conflicts or aesthetic effects potentially associated with floating aquaculture in Puget Sound. Regulatory Framework The state Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and local shoreline master programs are the primary vehicle for regulating the siting and development of aquaculture facilities. The act identifies aquaculture as an "activity of statewide and national interest" and as a preferred use of the water under the act (RCW 90.58.020). Prior to facility siting and development, numerous federal, state, and local permits must be acquired by any aquaculture facility. Depending on the location and facility type these permits may include: (1) dredge and fill permits from the Corps; (2) navigational markings for fixed or floating structures from the U.S. Coast Guard; (3) aquatic land lease from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for any use of publicly owned aquatic lands; (4) hydraulic project approval from the Department of Fisheries or Wildlife (WDF or WDW) for the modification of natural flow or bed of any salt or fresh waters; (5) statement of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act from the Department of Ecology; (6) water quality certifica- tion from Ecology; (7) water quality standards modification from Ecology; (8) NPDES or state waste discharge permit from Ecology; (9) identification of private sector aquaculture products from the state Department of Agriculture (WSDA); (10) registration of aquatic farmers from WDF; (11) a fish disease control permit from WDF and WSDA; (12) shellfish certification from the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS); and (13) a shoreline sub- stantial development permit from the appropriate county or city. Public opposition to salmon net-pens and county difficulties over permitting facilities through local shoreline master programs prompted Ecology, in con- junction with the state Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Natural Resources, to release interim guidelines in 1986 for the siting of salmon net- pen facilities in Puget Sound. The guidelines specify minimum requirements for water depth, localized current velocity, and the horizontal separation from significant bottom habitats. The guidelines also restrict salmon production in 19 Puget Sound sub-basins to eliminate potential nutrient enrichment problems. These guidelines are intended to allow permitting to proceed on salmon net-pen operations while a programmatic environmental impact state- ment (EIS) is being prepared. Although not designed to be adopted as regula- tions, the guidelines provide criteria for selection of culture sites, husbandry practices, monitoring programs, and state reporting requirements. Ecology has stated that these guidelines will "mitigate most anticipated adverse en- vironmental effects" and that projects that meet the guidelines will result in Z�eek;v/~=s~~=3 ~~~~minimal impacts to water quality, bottom sediments, and critical habitats. However, the guidelines do not address aesthetic or navigational impacts, both of which are issues that must be resolved if conflicts and controversy are to be minimized. WDF is currently preparing a programmatic EIS for salmon net-pen culture to improve the level of knowledge, evaluate impacts, and develop mitigation measures which might reduce potential conflicts associated with the siting of net-pen facilities. The draft EIS is scheduled to be released in December 1988. Opposition to nori culture operations (such as those proposed near Guemes Island in Skagit County) has focused primarily on the large size of the proposed facilities and their potential hazards to recreational boating and com- mercial fishing, interference with recreational and commercial crabbing, and interference with views. In October 1987 DNR released a programmatic EIS 204 The Unfinished Agenda for nori culture which provides guidance for the siting of nori and other sea vegetable operations. Another issue which involves all forms of aquaculture is the question of whether counties or the state should have the primary regulatory respon- sibility for the siting and development of aquaculture facilities. For example, Jefferson and San Juan counties are developing shoreline master program amendments in 1988 that specifically address aquaculture. Results Comment summary This issue generated a considerable number of written and verbal comments in the scoping process. Many people noted the controversial nature of the issue and the importance of the size of aquaculture facilities. A number of people expressed the view that the aquaculture industry is being adequately regulated so the Authority should not get involved. Others indicated that there is a need for an objective look at the issue which the Authority might be able to provide. Relative to the other issues on the unfinished agenda, Aquaculture was generally ranked low in priority. Authority action The aquaculture industry is currently receiving the attention of a wide range of state and local agencies, industry representatives, and citizen groups. The Authority will continue to review and comment on significant actions related to this issue, including the upcoming programmatic EIS on salmon net-pen culture being prepared by WDE CONTAMINATION OF THE SEA-SURFACE MICROLAYER Problem Definition The sea-surface microlayer, located at the interface between the water and the air, is only about 0.002 inches (50 micrometers) thick. It may contain high con- centrations of floating material composed of a complex mixture of natural and (sometimes) synthetic substances. This material has a patchy distribution on the sea-surface and is often visible as a "slick". The sea surface is a highly productive habitat, supporting an abundance of bacteria, microalgae, and planktonic animals that feed on these sources of food. Natural bacteria con- centrations in the microlayer are typically several thousands of times greater than concentrations in the subsurface water. Moreover, the surface-dwelling eggs and larvae of numerous species of invertebrates and fish (e.g., crabs, sole, flounder, cod, and hake) may be sufficiently buoyant during certain life stages to be exposed to the sea-surface microlayer. In Puget Sound, the eggs of English sole and sand sole develop on the sea surface, suspended under but possibly in contact with the microlayer. In addition, planktonic organisms (e.g., the early larval stages of the Pacific octopus) may vertically migrate daily from the water column into the surface layer to feed on the highly productive surface film. Contaminants with low solubility in water and contaminants associated with floating particles can become concentrated at the sea surface. Concentrations 205 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan of contaminants can be orders of magnitude greater than the concentrations of the same contaminants in the underlying water (e.g., PCBs have been found at 10,000 times the subsurface concentrations). Substances that have been found to concentrate in the microlayer in Puget Sound include both natural and anthropogenic PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, metals, oils, greases, inorganic nitrogen compounds, and bacteria. Concentrations of microlayer con- taminants tend to be higher near their sources (i.e., urban areas). Sources of contamination to the sea-surface microlayer may include the atmosphere (e.g., dust, smoke, or rain), petroleum or fuel spills, dredged material disposal, recreational and commercial boating activities, stormwater runoff and other nonpoint sources, and the water column (e.g., floatable oil and grease and or- ganic matter from wastewater treatment plants or industrial outfalls). Several laboratory bioassays have demonstrated that microlayer samples from visible slicks in Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, and Port Angeles harbor are often toxic to fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae. For example, in a laboratory bioassay the hatching success of sand sole eggs exposed to a con- centrated sample of the microlayer material from Port Angeles harbor was reduced as much as 42 percent compared to the hatching success of sand sole eggs exposed to a sample of the microlayer material from Sequim Bay (a rural "control area"). obxicity and the resulting reduced hatching success was believed to be due to a mixture of chemicals rather than to one particular con- taminant. However, results of these laboratory bioassays cannot yet be ex- trapolated to determine what effects the microlayer may be having on naturally occurring surface-dwelling eggs and larvae. There is little field evidence that naturally spawned pelagic fish eggs actually come into contact with the sea-surface microlayer, and the distribution of eggs in the water column is not well described. More research is needed to verify the results of the laboratory studies, to determine whether actual exposure to the microlayer is occurring in the field, and to determine whether microlayer exposure may be affecting adult populations of Puget Sound fish and invertebrates. The significance of sea-surface microlayer contamination is unknown for Puget Sound. For instance, very little is known about (1) the extent of sea-sur- face contamination throughout the Sound; (2) how winds may be able to move patches of the contaminated microlayer from place to place; (3) the deposition of sea-surface contaminants on beaches and other intertidal areas and poten- tial effects on human health as well as on fish and shellfish resources located in shoreline areas (see the Human Health Risks discussion); (4) persistence of the microlayer, which relates to how long organisms may be exposed to the contaminants; (5) the relative contributions from various point and nonpoint sources including atmospheric deposition; and (6) what lethal or sublethal ef- fects the microlayer may be having on natural populations of fish and inver- tebrates in Puget Sound. Researchers have found high levels of contaminants (including nutrients and toxic pesticides) in the microlayer in the Chesapeake Bay and other areas on the East Coast; as much as one-fourth of the nutrients appear to be introduced from atmospheric sources (see the Effects of Air Pol- lution on Water Quality discussion). Microlayer contamination thus appears to be an emerging concern around the nation and the world. Regulatory Framework There is currently no direct regulatory control of sea-surface microlayer con- tamination. However, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting system for point source discharges, some poten- tial microlayer contaminants may be controlled from some sources. For ex- ample, discharge permits typically contain oil and grease limits (if appropriate) as well as some language related to no visible sheen. Permits for 206 The Unfinished Agenda the disposal of dredged material also may contain language that requires monitoring of floatable material and slicks, particularly if the sediments are suspected of having significant concentrations of oil and grease. Recent legis- lation that prohibits the ocean dumping of plastics, food wastes, and other waste products (MARPOL Annex V; see the Plastic Debris in Marine Waters discussion) may also assist in the reduction of microlayer contamination. However, no direct monitoring of the sea-surface microlayer is required be- cause very little is known about the relative significance of various sources or what effects microlayer contaminants may be having on living resources in the Sound. In addition, there are no standards or criteria available with which to evaluate the results of any monitoring of the microlayer. Results Comment summary People who commented on this issue generally recognized that more research is required to better understand sea-surface microlayer contamination and the consequences of this form of pollution. Several commenters emphasized the relationship between microlayer contamination and air pollution, and indi- cated that these two unfinished agenda topics should be addressed together. Relative to the other issues, Contamination of the Sea-surface Microlayer was ranked medium to high in priority. Authority action Because more research is required before microlayer contamination can be adequately understood, this issue will be referred to the Committee on Re- search in Puget Sound. The Authority will also recommend that a workshop on microlayer research be funded through the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) to help determine the extent of the problem in Puget Sound. Microlayer contamination, as related to the effects of air pollution, will be ad- dressed in an upcoming PSEP study of atmospheric deposition of toxic con- taminants in Puget Sound. EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION ON WATER QUALITY Problem Definition There are many types of air pollution from both point sources and area sour- ces. Examples of sources include industrial smokestacks, motor vehicle ex- hausts, woodstoves, aerial spraying of pesticides, evaporation from waste treatment plants, slash burning, landfill gases, incinerator emissions, and release of volatile substances from dry cleaners. Pollutants may eventually be deposited directly to Puget Sound waters through precipitation or direct fall- out. Pollutants may also enter Puget Sound via surface water runoff that picks up contaminants that have been similarly deposited on the ground or into streams that flow into Puget Sound. Recent studies indicate that atmospheric deposition is the major pathway by which toxic pollutants, such as metals, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocar- bons (PAHs), and PCBs enter the upper Great Lakes. In some coastal areas (such as the southern California Bight) measurements show that up to half of the PAHs and particulate metals entering the water come from direct atmos- 207 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan pheric deposition. Logically, it is possible that air pollution is a significant source of contamination in Puget Sound. There are currently no direct measurements of atmospheric deposition of con- taminants to Puget Sound, although the chemistry of fog and precipitation has been measured in the Puget Sound region as part of acid rain studies. These chemical analyses typically did not include organics, heavy metals, or other toxics. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) and the state Department of Ecology (Ecology) conduct an annual survey of toxic in- dustrial emissions in some of the Puget Sound counties. In 1986 81 different toxic air contaminants were reported by industries in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties including toluene, methylene chloride, benzene, and chloroform. Ecology is currently concerned about 87 air toxics statewide in- cluding volatile organics, phenols, xylene, toluene, manganese, formaldehyde, and benzene. Because ambient concentrations of toxic air contaminants have largely not been measured in the Puget Sound area, it is not known whether the deposition of these and other airborne contaminants into Puget Sound or its tributaries is a serious problem. PSAPCA and the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) are currently conducting limited studies to quantify am- bient concentrations of some toxic air pollutants in the central Puget Sound basin. This Will help determine the extent of atmospheric contributions to the water quality problems of Puget Sound. Contaminants that reach the Sound via direct atmospheric deposition are like- ly to accumulate, at least for the short term, in the sea-surface microlayer. The microlayer is the top 50 micrometers of the water column and is in direct con- tact with the atmosphere. The microlayer often contains high concentrations of metals and organic compounds which can be several orders of magnitude greater than the remainder of the water column or overlying atmosphere. Some research indicates that the eggs and larval forms of several economically important fish and shellfish species may be in close proximity with the microlayer and possibly in contact with it. Laboratory bioassays with microlayer water show that it can be toxic to fish larvae and can also cause biological abnormalities. Characteristics of the Puget Sound microlayer sug- gest that significant PAH contamination is from fossil fuel combustion (and therefore atmospheric deposition) rather than spills or direct discharges. The ultimate accumulation of air contaminants in the sediment, either through settling of particles or food chain processes, is also of concern. Ar- senic from the ASARCO smelter emissions in Tlcoma is detectable in sedi- ments at some distance from the stack, including the northern end of Lake Washington (the smelter closed in 1985). PAH concentrations are particularly high in sediments that date back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were a higher number of coal-fired power sources than today. Although PAH levels in more recently deposited sediments appear to be lower, this apparent trend could change somewhat when the power plant located at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton converts to coal-fired operation in the summer of 1989. Lead concentrations in Puget Sound sediments generally have been decreasing since the 1960s, corresponding with restrictions on lead in gasoline and control of the ASARCO emissions. There is increasing concern about the potential air quality impacts of solid waste incineration facilities in the Puget Sound basin. Solid waste incinerators represent a new source of air contaminants to the region. Burning solid waste can result in emissions of dioxin and increased levels of particulates. Any air contaminants that are collected by control equipment at the facility remain in the ash, which sometimes meets the state's criteria for hazardous wastes. If im- 208 The Unfinished Agenda properly disposed of, the contaminants from the ash could enter Puget Sound via surface water runoff or as leachate from landfills. There are at least four incineration facilities under consideration in the Puget Sound area, including Skagit County, Tacoma, King County, and the Thlalip TIribes Reservation. The Skagit County and Tacoma facilities are scheduled for completion during 1988. The King County project has been delayed and a con- struction site has not been selected. The Tulalip Tribes will not begin construc- tion until waste stream commitments from local governments are received. In addition to these projects, there are incinerators already operating in What- com and San Juan counties. Regulatory There is a three-tiered regulatory scheme for air pollution control in Framework Washington with overlap of federal, state, and local regulations. The mini- mum standards for air emissions are prescribed by the federal Clean Air Act. Pursuant to this law EPA is responsible for designating pollutants and estab- lishing acceptable standards. EPA, however, has failed to formally designate many pollutants (particularly toxic air pollutants) and there are some who feel that the standards for the identified pollutants are too lenient to adequately protect human health. It is important to note that the primary standards re- quired by the Clean Air Act are developed to protect the health of persons who breath the air, while secondary standards are designed to protect the en- vironment and human welfare. The data base for setting both of these stand- ards is limited, however, and primary and secondary ambient standards have been established for only six pollutants. Under the state Clean Air Act, the state is responsible for enforcing the state's air pollution standards. These standards must be at least as stringent as, or more stringent than, federal standards. There are also local air pollution con- trol authorities that may adopt and enforce standards that are additional to and/or more stringent than the state's. However, primarily due to lack of resources, the state generally is forced to rely on EPAs data, and seldom does the state identify pollutants that are not listed by EPA. As a result of this tiering, the local agencies generally play the lead role in en- forcement in the Puget Sound region while EPA establishes most standards. There are three local authorities in the Puget Sound region. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) is responsible for King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties. The Northwest Air Pollution Control Authority (NWAPCA) is responsible for Island, Skagit, and Whatcom coun- ties. The Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) is responsible for Clallam, Jefferson, Mason, Thurston, Grays Harbor, and Pacific counties. Ecology is the lead agency in the areas of the state where there is no local agen- cy or where the local agency is not adequately enforcing air quality laws. Ecol- ogy also retains jurisdiction for chemical pulp mills, primary aluminum plants, and motor vehicles. All industries that emit air pollutants must register with either Ecology or the local air pollution control authority. At most local air authorities (but not at Ecology) a registration fee is charged to cover the costs of administering the registration program. The registration is a one-time requirement and no an- nual permit is required. The state Clean Air Act establishes monitoring re- quirements and minimum standards for all facilities and establishes more stringent requirements for new construction. 209 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Industries are classified by type and regulated in accordance with their clas- sification. All sources must meet reasonably available control technologies (RACT). General regulatory requirements apply to industries that do not fit into a specific category. 'Typical regulatory standards include opacity (a visual measure of the amount of the pollution) and emission limits on the amount of specific pollutants. Industries must also comply with regulatory orders issued by the state or local agency. These orders, issued on a case-by-case basis, may require the industry to install additional control technologies beyond RACT. The orders may result in more stringent emission controls than those prescribed by the emission standards. The regulatory orders generally include a compliance schedule and deadlines. Routine monitoring of emissions is required for many new sources and for e >X_ Ecology-registered sources such as pulp mills. For some industries monitoring is required monthly; other industries must monitor continuously. The or regulatory agency generally must rely on the monitoring data provided by the ,�c z ~ IP industry. Source tests, surveillance, and annual or unscheduled compliance in- 1-- / f spections constitute the bulk of local agency compliance assurance programs. '- ~ -x' The agencies may take enforcement action if the monitoring data reveal a - 0 ~ violation or if a violation is discovered during an inspection. -i~'g~~ There are more stringent requirements for the construction of new industries that emit air pollutants. A notice of construction must be submitted to the regulatory agency. All new sources must (1) meet federal new source perfor- mance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS); and (2) install the best available control technology (BACT) for emission control. These requirements would apply to the con- struction of new solid waste incinerators, as would the requirements of the new state incinerator regulation (WAC 173-434). If the proposed new source is located in a nonattainment area (i.e., an area designated by EPA as exceeding a national ambient air quality standard), stric- ter standards apply. There are nonattainment areas for various pollutants in the Tacoma and Seattle metropolitan areas. In addition to the requirements of NSPS, NESHAPS, and BACT, any new industry in a nonattainment area that emits more than 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant must also (1) comp- ly with the lowest achievable emission rate for those contaminants designated as being out of compliance with attainment standards; (2) ensure that emis- sions from the new source will not add to total pollution levels; and (3) demonstrate that any other major sources owned and operated by the ap- plicant are in compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. In areas that exceed national air quality standards for carbon monoxide or ozone, and that were granted the five-year extension to reach attainment, applicants for new sources must demonstrate that the benefits of the source significantly outweigh the resulting environmental and social costs. If these requirements are met, an order for approval of construction is granted. The order may contain conditions to ensure continual compliance with the air quality standards. If the regulatory agency finds that the proposed source does not comply with the requirements of the air quality laws, an order is issued preventing construction. 210 The Unfinished Agenda Results Comment summary A number of people commented on the importance of this issue and how air pollution relates to sea-surface microlayer contamination. Several people also suggested that the issue requires more research. This issue had a medium to high priority relative to the other unfinished agenda issues. Authority action The Authority will coordinate a PSEP-funded study that will evaluate atmos- pheric deposition of toxic contaminants to Puget Sound. Personnel from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and other air quality experts will assist with this study. The study will examine direct deposition of air pollutants to the surface waters of Puget Sound, the indirect contribution of atmospheric pollutants in stormwater that flows to the Sound, and the occurrence of air pol- lutants in the sea-surface microlayer. The study will also include an analysis of the regulatory structure affecting this issue. Results of the study will be due in time to consider recommendations in the 1991 plan. FEDERAL FACILITIES Problem Definition The concerns arising from the normal activities on military installations and other federal facilities around Puget Sound are almost identical to those aris- ing from the normal activities in homes, farms, and industry throughout the region. The Puget Sound plan addresses these issues for the civilian popula- tion through a program that emphasizes prevention of future problems. In- dividuals and organizations throughout the 12-county region are being asked to take on new tasks as their part in implementing the plan. In order for the plan to be as effective as possible, it is important that everyone in the region carry an equal share of the responsibility and that progress be made in all geographic areas at roughly the same pace. Therefore, it is important that federal facilities participate in the implementation of the plan. Federal facilities in the Puget Sound area include: * McChord Air Force Base * Fort Lewis Army Base * Defense Fuel Support Point at Mukilteo * Trident Submarine Base at Bangor * Naval Supply Center at Manchester * Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station at Keyport * Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station on Indian Island * Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island * Naval Station Puget Sound, Seattle * Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton * Navy Homeport at Everett (proposed) In addition, there are numerous small federal facilities including national parks, used ammunition disposal sites, abandoned missile silos, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) facilities, and the EPA laboratory. 211 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan There are many water quality concerns involving federal facilities in the Puget Sound region. It is probable that the types of significant pollution problems addressed in the plan are present in the waters bordering military bases. Toxic or Hazardous Wastes. There are federal Superfund sites pending at the Fort Lewis Army Base, McChord Air Force Base, the Trident Submarine Base at Bangor, the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station at Keyport, and two sites at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. EPA has compiled a nation- al priority list of federal facilities that have handled hazardous substances. The purpose of EPAs list is to (1) identify all federal facilities that must be evaluated to determine if they pose a risk to public health and the environ- ment; (2) compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA on these facilities; and (3) provide a mechanism to make this information available to the public. This region (EPA Region 10) has the highest percentage and highest actual number of federal facilities on the national priority list of any EPA region nationwide. EPA has identified 25 federal facilities in the vicinity of Puget Sound that have handled hazardous substances. Federal and state authorities periodically inspect federal facilities and develop compliance schedules when problems are discovered. EPA has recently conducted multi- media environmental inspections and Superfund work at some Navy facilities, and others are planned for the near future. There are real limits to the ad- ministrative authority necessary to force compliance in most programs. Point Source Discharges. Nine Department of Defense facilities have received NPDES permits. All of these permits are issued by EPA as there has been no delegation of the program to Ecology. The industrial pretreatment facilities at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton is an example of an NPDES permit for a federal facility. The sewage treatment plant at the Naval Air Sta- tion on Whidbey Island has failed to meet the standards of its permit. A Memorandum of Agreement has been established between EPA and the Navy that focuses on bringing that facility into compliance, and the facility is now being redesigned. EPA has required biomonitoring of facility discharges in those instances where there is a significant potential problem from the dis- charge of toxicants (e.g., at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton and the Naval Supply Center at Manchester). Ecology has not made full use of its authority under the federal Clean Water Act (Section 401) to place additional conditions on the permits. Nonpoint Sources. The primary nonpoint pollution concerns relate to surface water runoff and hazardous waste sites. McChord Air Force Base and the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station use solvents to clean airplanes and accumu- late significant amounts of jet fuel on runways. Some solvents used are recycled and there are systems for managing jet fuel runoff, but the effective- ness of those programs is unclear. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton also uses many types of toxic substances. The Bangor, Fort Lewis, McChord, and Whidbey facilities all have significant resident populations with the same types of nonpoint problems as small cities. The Keyport facility may represent a serious threat to recreational shellfish due to toxicants from his- torical waste disposal sites. Sediments and Dredging. Several of the Naval facilities require dredging and disposal of dredged material in order to maintain navigational channels and to create new dock space. In addition to the proposed Everett Navy Homeport, dredging practices at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton may present problems due to the levels of contaminants in Sinclair Inlet sediments. The shipyard recently had to dispose of contaminated dredge material upland. 212 The Unfinished Agenda Future dredging and the subsequent disposal of dredged material will also be necessary. Wetlands. The Fort Lewis, Whidbey Island, Indian Island, and Bangor facilities have many miles of shoreline and some significant upland wetlands. There is no inventory of these wetlands or a consistent policy for preservation. Fort Lewis, however, is engaged in an aggressive program to restore wetlands for habitat purposes. Each Navy installation maintains a Natural Resources Management (NRM) Program for shore activities. The NRM Program addres- ses a wide range of natural resource topics including the protection and iden- tification of wetlands, floodplains, and coastal barrier islands; soil and water conservation; fish and wildlife management; and development and manage- ment of ecological reserves and research areas. Spills. The Naval Supply Center at Manchester annually receives and disper- ses an average of 23 million gallons of diesel fuel for ships and 123 million gal- lons of jet fuel. This base has a very good record for spill prevention, but the potential for spills will increase with the significant increase in ships and planes expected to result from the proposed Everett Homeport. There is capacity for storage of 753,000 barrels of jet fuel at the Defense Fuel Support Point at Mukilteo. The Mukilteo facility is quite old and contains no safety dikes, underground pipes, or any system for stormwater collection and separa- tion. The base may be phased out by the Department of Defense in the near future. In addition, there is a large number of hazardous materials regularly handled on military bases. Radioactive materials are handled at Bangor, Bremerton, Whidbey, and Indian Island, and perhaps also at Fort Lewis Army Base and McChord Air Force Base. In the Puget Sound region the Navy has oil spill response teams and equipment at Indian Island, Keyport, Bangor, Whidbey Island, Bremerton, Manchester, and the Naval Station Puget Sound facility in Seattle. In August 1988 the Navy used its spill response team and equipment to contain a spill of 50,000 gallons of JP-5 jet fuel at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station on Crescent Harbor. Regulatory Framework All federal environmental laws apply to federal facilities unless the President grants an exemption. These are generally only granted on a case-by-case basis and must be renewed periodically, usually once a year. The Justice Depart- ment has not helped recent enforcement efforts by EPA at federal facilities. As a result, EPA concedes that enforcement of federal environmental laws in some cases may result only from state actions. Congressional efforts to clarify EPPs role and the authority of the states have been opposed by the Justice Department. The acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Land and Natural Resources Division claims that legislation granting EPA clear authority to enforce environmental laws on federal facilities is unconstitutional because it would interfere with the President's authority to mediate disputes among executive agencies. He also claims enfor- cement of environmental laws could weaken national security. The extent to which a federal facility would be subject to fines or penalties depends upon the environmental statute and the particular waiver of sovereign immunity in ques- tion. Basically, the Justice Department has taken the position that internal dis- putes between federal executive agencies should be resolved internally without court intervention. Several statutes have been proposed recently by Congress to aid EPA in enforcement actions with federal facilities. Several programs have been developed specifically for military facilities to sup- plement the basic requirements of federal hazardous waste and water quality laws. The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for the Air Force, Army, 213 The Unfinished Agenda FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Problem Definition Fish and wildlife habitat consists of the combination of factors such as avail- able food, water, cover, and open space that enables animals to survive in their environment. Without food and water, protection from predators, room to breed and raise young, and territory such as migratory corridors to meet their basic needs through the seasons, animals will not survive. Habitat is typically lost or degraded when land and water bodies are developed for human uses or contaminated by waste from human activities. This forces organisms into habitats that are not optimal, or puts them in competition with other in- dividuals for remaining optimal habitat. Diminished habitat also may create "ecological islands" that are too small to support or maintain ecological func- tions that are necessary for survival. Fish and wildlife individuals perish, populations are reduced, and the species composition of an area may change as a result of the loss of preferred habitat. The protection of fish and wildlife habitat is thus crucial for the maintenance and enhancement of an ecosystem such as Puget Sound. Likewise, the ultimate purpose of protecting water quality is to provide habitat that supports the survival and enhancement of fish and wildlife species that are important economically, as well as to enhance the general quality of life in the Puget Sound region. Habitats of the Puget Sound area can be distinguished by the extent to which they are saturated by water. Three broad habitat categories present in the area are non-wetland terrestrial habitats (including old growth forests, upland riparian corridors, riverine floodplains, and shrub and grassland areas), wet- lands (marine, estuarine, and freshwater), and the deep/open water of the Sound. The boundaries between these habitats are blurred by the continual movement of water and life across them, and they together form the single, in- tegrated network of interdependent species and habitats that constitutes the Puget Sound ecosystem. The Puget Sound Water Quality Act calls for the Puget Sound plan to include recommendations on "protecting, preserving and, where possible, restoring wetlands and wildlife habitat and shellfish beds throughout Puget Sound" (RCW 90.70.060 (11)). The Puget Sound plan includes a wetlands protection program and a shellfish protection and restoration program, both of which are currently being implemented. However, there is no comparable program for the protection and restoration of non-wetland terrestrial or deep/open water habitats. Non-wetland terrestrial The condition and availability of habitats in upland areas can be of vital impor- habitat tance to Puget Sound fish and wildlife species. Many of these species are de- pendent on non-marine/estuarine and non-wetland habitats during portions of their life cycle for such critical activities as breeding or feeding. The Depart- ment of Wildlife estimates that up to 70 terrestrial species plus all the anadromous fish species rely on both the marine waters of the Sound and non- wetland terrestrial habitats (usually upland riparian corridors). For example, numerous songbirds, water-related birds (e.g., eagles, herons, egrets, shorebirds) and other wildlife (e.g., beaver, otter, racoon) depend on both wet- land and non-wetland habitats. Many species that use wetlands for primary breeding habitat may depend on other habitats during other life stages. In ad- dition, upland buffer zones adjacent to wetland habitats are important for protecting sensitive wetland habitats as well as providing escape habitat for 215 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan resident species. The type and extent of development of upland areas (e.g., parking lots, clearcuts, and feed lots) can also directly affect the water quality and therefore habitat value of nearby water bodies. The Authority's 1986 Habitat and Wetlands Protection Issue Paper concluded that maintenance of existing populations of many Puget Sound species will depend on preservation of upland habitats as well as the wetlands and fresh- water and marine habitats of the Puget Sound area. Although it is important to protect those habitats seemingly most important to the most species (e.g., wetlands), the protection of critical non-wetland habitats is also important. The trend in land development to residential multi-unit construction on the hillsides of rural areas surrounding suburban communities has increased the losses of wooded wetlands and uplands, particularly those not directly as- sociated with streams. With a 20 percent increase in population around the Sound projected by the year 2000, there will be a 70 percent increase in lands developed for rural non-farm use. Many of these lands currently provide habitat critical to the survival of Puget Sound fish and wildlife populations. Despite the recognition that a variety of habitats are both important and threatened, we have a very incomplete understanding of the extent of (1) over- all habitat losses in the Puget Sound area, and (2) the tools needed for widespread habitat protection and restoration. Deep/open water habitat The open waters of the Puget Sound area provide critical habitat for thousands of organisms. Primary inhabitants include phytoplankton and zooplankton, subtidal macroalgae (kelp), benthic invertebrates (e.g., am- phipods, worms, clams, shrimp, and crabs), benthic and pelagic fish (e.g., sole, flounder, herring, salmonids, hake, pollock, and cod), marine birds (e.g., loons, grebes, and alcids), and marine mammals (e.g., harbor seals, sea lions, and orca whales). Many programs in the Puget Sound plan are focused on water and sediment quality in the marine waters of Puget Sound, with an emphasis on control of toxicants. However, the plan does not directly address the question of quantitative physical losses of deep/open water and non-wetland habitats due to development or other human-induced perturbations (although it does address the introduction of toxicants). For example, the Contaminated Sedi- ments and Dredging Program of the plan is intended to improve the quality of sediment in the Sound but does not directly focus on the physical loss of ben- thic habitat (e.g., that may result from the open water disposal of dredged material). The protection of subtidal eelgrass beds (critical habitats for a num- ber of species) from dredging or marina construction would not necessarily be enhanced by programs in the Puget Sound plan, yet the state Department of Wildlife estimates that the state has lost 33 percent of its historic eelgrass beds. In addition, while the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program may be ex- pected to address sources of contaminants in priority watersheds, the plan does not include a comprehensive program for stream or riparian zone protec- tion. Regulatory Framework There is no law specifically designed for habitat protection in Washington State. Protection, to the extent it is achieved, is through implementation of several laws administered by federal, state, and local governments. Each law applies to a different geographic area and to a different set of activities, which results in variable levels of protection for important habitats. For example, multiple laws will apply to an action in the intertidal area of an estuary, whereas a similar major development in an inland wildlife habitat may require no approval other than local building permits. In some cases the laws are 216 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and Navy is a program instituted by the Department of Defense to comply with the requirements of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or, more commonly, Superfund). These programs are designed to (1) identify inactive hazardous waste disposal sites; (2) assess their potential for contaminating the environ- ment; and (3) plan and implement appropriate corrective actions. These studies are underway at all of the major bases. In addition to these investigations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for a program that evaluates the waste sites on abandoned military installations. There are at least 150 of these around Puget Sound in such places as Vashon Island, Kingston, Poulsbo, Sand Point, Discovery Park, Paine Field, Olympia Municipal Airport, Port Angeles, Blaine, and TIlalip. EPAs Region 10 office has initiated a joint effort with the state to identify the various environmental concerns at federal facilities. Inspections have been completed at the Tident Submarine Base at Bangor, Fort Lewis Army Base, and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton. An inspection of the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station at Keyport is planned for 1988. EPA and the Department of Defense are negotiating interagency compliance agreements to begin a program of regular environmental self-audits of these facilities. Most federal environmental laws also require that federal facilities comply with state and local laws and standards. The federal Clean Water Act states: "Each department ... of the Federal Government... engaged in any activity resulting... in the discharge or runoff of pollutants... shall be subject to and comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local requirements, administra- tive authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent as any non- governmental entity... '(Section 1323). Similar provisions exist for hazard- ous waste management and cleanup. If there is a discrepancy between state and federal requirements, however, the federal requirements may supersede the state's. Results Comment summary Public comments encouraged federal compliance and cooperation with the plan. Descriptions of ongoing agency enforcement and inspection activities as well as several existing environmental programs on military bases were omitted from the draft plan discussion. This issue was ranked of medium to high priority relative to other issues on the unfinished agenda. Authority action An overview of existing programs and enforcement actions was added to the above discussion. The Authority, in cooperation with EPA and Ecology, will continue ongoing efforts to achieve plan compliance by Department of Defense facilities. After on-site visits in 1988, compliance agreements will be negotiated. Other action items may be addressed in the 1991 plan pending evaluation of the compliance progress. The Authority will work with the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) to ensure that its federal consistency report is integrated with the plan, and to assist the PSEP Management Committee in developing action recommendations related to federal activities for the 1991 plan. 214 The Unfinished Agenda *:~~-~~S~~c ~~tightly coordinated, for example, the federal Clean Water Act Section 404 and the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 programs are integrated with other federal and state programs. However, in many cases coordination is minimal or lacking, and the quality and quantity of habitats are not sufficiently protected. Federal laws that address habitat are the Clean Water Act, the Fish and '� Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Section 404(b)(1) guidelines are adopted pursuant to the Clean Water Act and contain provisions for habitat preservation. These guidelines require, among other things, project applicants to document that practicable alternatives to fill in v"f. ~ ~ aquatic/wetland sites do not exist. In Puget Sound the permit process under the Clean Water Act is also supported by the strong mitigation policies of EPA Region 10 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some limitations of the Sec- tion 404 process are that it pertains solely to waters of the United States (in- cluding wetland habitats) and actions in areas less than one acre are exempt. As a result there may be cumulative effects from the losses of small isolated wetlands. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that wildlife conservation be given equal consideration to the other aspects of water resource development. The Endangered Species Act prohibits funding or permitting of projects by the federal government if such projects would threaten the continued existence of an officially threatened or endangered species. Likewise, the Marine Mammal Protection Act affords some protection to habitat, although the focus of this act is on prevention of harassment and harvesting of marine mammals. Washington has a state shoreline management program that addresses those shoreline activities that are regulated by the federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act. While wetland areas are specifically included in the federal act, many local shoreline master programs do not specifically identify valuable riparian and other habitats or contain explicit policies concerning habitat protection. The state Shoreline Management Act (SMA) provides some protection for wildlife habitat in that it requires preparation of land use plans for any development on Puget Sound shorelines. The SMA also institutes a permit program for construction activities in and on shorelines in the state. However, the SMA does not explicitly and effectively prevent either the loss or degradation of habitat, particularly because of its exemption of wetlands as- sociated with streams and lakes smaller than 20 acres. The state hydraulic project approval (HPA) process is administered by the Washington Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and is required for " ... any person or government agency desiring to construct any form of hydraulic project or other work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any river or stream or that will utilize any of the salt or fresh waters of the State." The HPA process is linked to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Sec- tion 404 of the Clean Water Act. While the evaluation criteria are very specific for some habitats and resources, HPA does not apply to resources other than fisheries. Thus, wetlands, riparian corridors, and other habitats that are considered to be primarily wildlife habitat are not protected under the program. This is partially due to a lack of information which would definitive- ly show the value of non-stream habitats (such as wetlands adjacent to the Sound) to fisheries resources. 217 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Other state laws and programs which affect habitat protection are the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Department of Natural Resources aquatic lands management and leasing program. Mitigation for habitat loss may be required under SEPA, but the act lacks specific guidance on ap- propriate types of mitigation or the extent to which mitigation should be re- quired for given types of habitat impact. DNR management and leasing of state-owned aquatic lands does affect habitat protection, and DNR may use funds collected from leasing fees for habitat improvements. In certain areas (for example, estuarine areas) existing regulatory authority can successfully protect important habitats. However, these protective measures are not based on clearly defined state objectives for habitat protec- tion but rather on individual agency interpretations of their authorities; both the authorities and their interpretations tend to vary. An additional problem related to fish and wildlife habitat is that the quantity, quality, and compara- tive importance of specific habitats in the Puget Sound area has not been com- prehensively determined. It is also not well understood what minimum size may be required for a habitat to retain its functional value or how important adjacent but different habitats may be to resident species. A Soundwide inven- tory based on carefully developed criteria (e.g., functional values of individual habitats) should be completed in order to determine the extent of the need for habitat protection and restoration throughout the Sound. Results Comment summary This issue received a considerable number of comments and was ranked very high in priority relative to the other unfinished agenda issues. A number of people suggested that more studies are needed and that more needs to be done to protect important habitats in the Puget Sound area (e.g., by improving exist- ing regulations). Several commenters suggested that important "indicator species" should be used to monitor the health of the Sound, and another stressed the importance of maintaining the ecological functions and diversity of key habitats in the Sound. Authority action Because of the complexity of this issue and the range of comments received in the scoping process, Authority staff will conduct additional scoping of the tech- nical and policy/regulatory questions related to fish and wildlife habitat and report back to the Authority in March 1989 with a recommendation for the best way to address the issue. Depending on the results of this scoping exer- cise, an issue paper may be prepared to further analyze unanswered technical and regulatory questions related to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., the link be- tween habitat protection and water quality standards, the use of indicator or- ganisms, and various jurisdictional questions). The issue paper may lead to a 1991 plan program or to possible modifications to existing plan programs. FRESHWATER USE AND AVAILABILITY Problem Definition There are many competing interests for the use of fresh water. Some interests require that water remain in the streams or rivers. For example, fisheries depend on adequate instream flows and habitat conditions. Hydroelectric 218 The Unfinished Agenda power and some recreational activities (such as boating and fishing) also depend on adequate instream water supplies. Other activities require diver- sion of the water for out-of-stream uses. Industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural users compete for the water that is withdrawn from the stream. Estimates of water consumption in the Puget Sound basin indicate that 52 percent is consumed for domestic use, 12 percent for commercial use, and 36 percent for industrial use, including agriculture. While some interests compete for the right to withdraw available water, others fight to keep water in the streams for fish, energy production, and recreation. Water availability is a function of hydrologic conditions and the patterns and extent of existing uses. Although western Washington generally receives ade- quate precipitation on an annual basis, the rainfall pattern creates some problems. Most of the precipitation is received during the winter, while sum- mer and early fall tend to be rather dry. Nearly all streams in the state reach their lowest flows during this period. Water demand for many uses, including irrigation and municipal use, peaks during this dry period. The low flow period is also a critical time for recreation, aesthetic values, water quality, and fish and wildlife. In many cases the level of fish production is determined by flows during this low flow period. The primary concern of fresh water availability for Puget Sound, as defined by state law, is the effect on fisheries resources and habitat. If too much water is allocated to out-of-stream uses such as municipal water supplies and industrial processing, the remaining instream flow can be too low to provide adequate habitat. Decreased quantity is often associated with decreased water quality due to less flushing and higher concentrations of sediment and pollutants. The small streams in the Puget Sound basin are particularly vulnerable. Even small allocations to out-of-stream uses can leave these streams unsuitable for fish migration, spawning, and rearing. If anadromous fish do not find suitable habitat for spawning, fish production in Puget Sound could drastically decline. There are other potential problems to Puget Sound with increased allocation of fresh water. Wetlands can be reduced or eliminated when they are not ade- quately replenished by fresh water. Much of the fresh water that is removed from natural systems becomes wastewater and must receive treatment in was- tewater systems. There is also a potential problem when reduced freshwater flow allows saltwater to move upstream at the mouth of an estuarine river. This can harm biological resources that rely on freshwater flows. All of these concerns are accentuated during droughts. Some of the competing needs for fresh water include: Fisheries. The inland waters of Washington provide habitat for 76 species of fish, 46 of which are native. Fourteen species are anadromous; they spawn in fresh water but spend most of their adult lives in marine waters. The rest are resident fish and spend all of their lives in fresh water. There are over 10,000 individual streams draining into Puget Sound which are suitable as fish habitat. Salmon and trout need clean, oxygen-rich, cool flowing streams for rearing and clean gravel for spawning. Water flow is also an important ele- ment of fish habitat. 'Ibo much flow can scour a stream bed and reduce water quality. TIbo little water can reduce habitat, overly expose eggs, or result in water temperatures that are too high. Fisheries studies show a clear correla- tion between total fish production and the level of lowest persistent flow during fresh water life phases. "Wet" summer and fall years consistently produce more fish than "dry" summer and fall years. This is of particular im- 219 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan portance to Puget Sound tribes who believe that maintaining their fishery resources through adequate instream flows is a reserved treaty right. Municipal and Domestic Water Supplies. The cities of Seattle, 'Ilcomna, and Everett operate municipal water supply projects on the Cedar and T~t Rivers, the Green River, and the Sultan River, respectively. These systems provide the majority of the domestic water supply for the central Puget Sound _____________- -~ Cmetropolitan region, although some cities are supplemented significantly with -~~~~~~ ~~groundwater, particularly Thcoma. Other large surface water systems in western Washington include Bellingham, Olympia, Bremerton, and Port An- geles. New surface water diversions are being considered by Seattle, Bellevue, 'Ihcoma, Jefferson County, and Kitsap County. Many small independent private and public domestic water systems exist throughout Washington. Many of these water supply systems were severely hit by the 1987 drought, which intensified the competition for water. Industrial and Commercial Water Supplies. The primary industrial and commer- cial uses of water are chemical and mechanical processing and cooling. Pulp mills, the production of semiconductor chips, and food processing are ex- amples of industries that require heavy water usage. Most industrial and com- mercial users obtain water from municipal water systems, and this accounts for more than half of the water taken from some municipal water systems. Agriculture. Agricultural water use in western Washington is primarily divided between livestock watering and irrigation. Livestock watering involves provid- ing drinking water to animals dIirectly from streams or diverting water from streams to maintain a drinking water supply. Dairy farming in northwestern Washington is the primary livestock use in the Puget Sound basin. Although reliance on irrigation is not as great in western Washington as it is in the east- ern part of the state, there is scattered irrigation throughout the lowland areas of the Puget Sound basin. Irrigation water may be drawn f~romn private wells, supplied by municipal water systems, or drawn from surface water diversions. Energy. Hydropower represents over 70 percent of the electrical energy capacity in Northwest. Many hydroelectric plants were installed on the rivers of western Washington in the early part of the century. Smaller plants were removed from service as large hydro plants on the Columbia provided ample inexpensive electricity. Some of these small plants (generally run-of-river plants that do not use a dam) have been under consideration for redevelop- ment as a part of the trend toward small, decentralized facilities. All hydroelectric plants can affect the fish, wildlife resources, recreation, and scenic values of rivers. Habitat. Riparian habitats are characterized by high diversity, density, and productivity of plant and animal species. Numerous species can be affected by varying stream flows. Riparian areas provide necessary food, water, cover, breeding and rearing space, hiding and resting areas, and thermal protection for many species. Some amphibians and mammals and many waterfowl are to- tally dependent on riparian or wetland areas for food, either from riparian vegetation or from predation on the species that live in riparian habitats. Low stream flows can destroy riparian vegetation and drastically alter habitat areas. Recreation. Water-related recreation is becoming increasingly popular in western Washington. Water-dependent recreation includes such things as boat- ing (including kayaking and canoeing), fishing, and swimming. In addition, ac- tivities such as camping, backpacking, picnicking, and hiking often depend on water for scenic value. 220 The Unfinished Agenda Regulatory Framework The issue of instream flows was specifically addressed in 1949 when the legisla- ture declared it to be the policy of the state "...that a flow of water sufficient to support game fish and food fish populations be maintained at all times in the streams of this state." The legislation (RCW 75.20.050) authorizes the Depart- ment of Ecology to deny water allocation permits "if in the opinion of the director of Fisheries or the director of Game [now Wildlife], such permit might result in lowering the flow of water in any stream below the flow neces- sary to adequately support food and game fish populations in the stream." Under this authority, Ecology has closed approximately 250 streams to further appropriation and has applied low stream provisions to another 250 streams. The Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act (Chapter 90.22 RCW) requires Ecology, when requested by the directors of Wildlife or Fisheries, to establish minimum stream flows and lake levels in order to protect fish, game, birds, other wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, or water quality. The law does not define criteria for the determination of the minimum flows. The Water Resources Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.54 RCW) provides that "peren- nial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for the preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic and other en- vironmental values, and navigational values." Ecology adopted the Water Resources Management Program regulation in 1976 to provide guidelines for instream flow and water allocation activities. This regulation establishes 62 Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) as planning units. Of the 19 WRIAs surrounding Puget Sound, 12 have established instream resource protection programs. Instream flows protect streams only from water appropriations approved after the adoption of the minimum flows. When the flow of the stream falls below a specified level, these new appropriations must stop removing water until the minimum instream flow is met or exceeded (RCW 90.22.030 and 90.54.900). However, under existing law water rights issued prior to the establishment of the minimum instream flow cannot be affected by a later instream flow regula- tion. There has been increasing controversy over the approval or denial of water right permits based on the need to protect instream resources. In September 1985 the state Ecological Commission advised against adoption of Ecology's instream flow regulations for the Skokomish-Dosewallips Water Resource In- ventory Area because of concern that it would not adequately protect pristine streams. In response to public concern, the Commission sponsored a public in- stream flow workshop. In February 1986 Ecology appointed a 20-member In- stream Flow And Water Allocation Advisory committee. Ecology prepared a programmatic environmental impact statement for instream resources and water allocation, and the report of the Advisory Committee is addressed in the EIS. In November 1987 Ecology proposed a preferred alternative comprised of various components of the alternatives in the EIS. The preferred alternative met with some dissatisfaction, primarily by municipal water suppliers and agricultural interest groups who felt Ecology was exceeding its authority to set instream flows. There was also concern that the alternative did not adequately address the economic impacts of limiting out-of-stream uses. As a result of the controversy, the 1988 legislature passed a bill that required Ecology to contract with an independent fact-finder. This objective fact-finder has facilitated discussions among the various interest groups and evaluated the clarity and consistency of existing water policy laws. The fact-finder reported his findings to the Joint Select Committee on Water 221 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Resource. Policy of the legislature in June 1988. The joint select committee will prepare recommendations by December 1, 1988, for the full legislature to consider in January 1989. Until July 1, 1989, Ecology may not (1) amend cur- rent guidelines, (2) adopt the preferred alternative for instream resources and water allocation, (3) adopt new water reservations, or (4) issue any new per- manent appropriation permits for surface water. Ecology is also staffing the Water Use Efficiency Study Committee of the legislature which is simiul- taneously exploring conservation measures. Results Comment summary Much of the public concern expressed was for groundwater contamination and the availability of drinking water. Water conservation measures were en- couraged. Comments reflected the ongoing debates about the use of water for fish habitat, farming, fishing, and drinking. Recognition of functioning state and local programs led to a low ranking of this issue for future Authority effort. Authority action The Authority will continue to review and comment on significant activities, such as the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Water Resource Policy and the Water Use Efficiency Study Committee. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION Problem Definition In addition to surface water sources, contaminated groundwater can carry pol- lutants to the waters of Puget Sound. Groundwater basins can be hydrogeologically linked to both surface waters in the basin amcl to the Sound itself Thus, pollutants in groundwater can affect water quality in the Sound. Contaminants can reach groundwater from a variety of sources including im- proper disposal of solid or hazardous wastes, failing on-site sewage disposal (septic) systems, spills and accidents, and other activities that allow potential contaminants to migrate underground. Groundwater is found in porous underground geological formations that form dynamic reservoirs known as aquifers. In the Puget Sound basin groundwater is found throughout subsurface water-bearing sediments deposited within the last million years by streams and glaciers. A critical physical connection exists between surface water and groundwater. Although the amounts are not known, water from aquifers discharges into Puget Sound at shoreline areas. On the land, shallow aquifers tend to fill and deplete with an obscure distinction between surface and groundwater boun- daries. These aquifers are recharged by surface infiltration during wet seasons and discharge water to streams throughout the year. Deeper aquifers also exist that are recharged by shallow aquifers in upland areas. These deeper aquifers discharge to overlying aquifers near streams at lower elevations and along the Sound. Due to these hydrogeological relationships there are several potential routes for contaminated groundwater to reach Puget Sound: (1) subsurface move- ment from an aquifer to the Sound; (2) introduction of contaminated 222 The Unfinished Agenda groundwater to a surface stream which flows to the Sound; (3) groundwater that is removed for irrigation, domestic, or industrial use and then discharged into Puget Sound or a tributary; and (4) seepage of contaminated groundwater into an underground storm drain which discharges to the Sound. A variety of site-specific factors influence the potential for contaminated groundwater to reach Puget Sound such as the degree and type of contamination, the proximity of the contamination to the Sound, and local hydrogeologic condi- tions. Although relatively little is known about the extent of contamination of Puget Sound by groundwater, some cases have been documented. One of the best known examples is Commencement Bay where groundwater contaminated by historical industrial activity joins the many surface water discharges. Groundwater contamination was confirmed in at least two waterways in the Commencement Bay vicinity due to past waste disposal practices and leakage from underground storage tanks and pipelines. In one waterway groundwater was found to contribute 74 percent of the total loadings of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene (or 5.9 pounds per day). These contaminants are from solvent plant wastes that were disposed on site from 1947 to 1973. Groundwater carrying contaminants to Puget Sound has also been confirmed in Eagle Harbor and Budd Inlet. Both sites involve wood preserving opera- tions where creosote and other organic compounds have built up in the ground over time and are now visibly seeping into Puget Sound. The direct link between contamination of surface water and groundwater is illustrated in the Nooksack River where applications of the pesticide EDB to farm fields has contaminated both surface and groundwater. Although only relatively few cases of groundwater contamination of Puget Sound are verified, other studies are in progress. For example, EPA is conduct- ing a groundwater investigation of the Harbor Island Superfund site. The in- vestigation will assess the impact of contaminated groundwater on Puget Sound. Regulatory Framework In addition to the general water quality provisions of state and federal laws there are some programs that are specifically focused on groundwater. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) contains groundwater management provisions to protect sole source aquifers (i.e., aquifers that are the only source of drinking water for a given population). The SDWA also defines a program which states may utilize to develop and implement a wellhead protec- tion program to protect wells from contamination. In order to deal with the institutional problems of groundwater that flows through many jurisdictional boundaries, the legislature required Ecology to es- tablish a statewide Groundwater Management Strategy. The strategy placed the highest priority on the development of groundwater quality standards. These are currently being developed for release in the fall of 1988. The strategy identifies and designates groundwater management areas. Once these areas are designated, the various governmental entities with jurisdiction develop a groundwater management program. As of January 1988 nine groundwater management areas had been designated in the Puget Sound area, and grants totalling $2.7 million were given to local agencies to support the ef- fort. These efforts are to be coordinated with local watershed planning efforts to control nonpoint pollution. 223 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Sources of It is becoming increasingly clear that sources of groundwater contamination Groundwater are often the same sources that contaminate surface water. This demonstrates Contamination a need to have a regulatory system that integrates protection measures for both surface water and groundwater. Given the variety of sources of con- tamination and their corresponding regulatory structures, there is often a failure to recognize potential problems and correct them before damage is done. For example, the Department of Social and Health Services is respon- sible for regulating drinking water while Ecology is responsible for regulating groundwater. Within Ecology the hazardous waste regulators sometimes act independently of the groundwater regulators. There is clearly a need to im- prove regulatory decision-making processes so that cross-media effects are ad- dressed and hopefully prevented. Ecology has established an internal groundwater coordination committee to address these issues. Ecology has also undertaken a pilot study to test for agricultural chemicals in groundwater in selected areas of the state. Many sources of groundwater contamination could threaten Puget Sound in- cluding pesticides, failing septic systems, and stormwater. In addition, four sources of groundwater contamination are currently receiving a lot of atten- tion and are not specifically addressed elsewhere in the plan: hazardous was- tes, solid wastes, underground storage tanks, and infectious wastes. 1. Hazardous Wastes Problem definition Hazardous wastes are the highly toxic wastes that can cause cancer, birth defects, or other human health problems. Hazardous wastes also include materials that are explosive, corrosive, or flammable. (Radioactive wastes are not generally regulated as hazardous wastes unless the two wastes are mixed together). The primary environmental effect of improper management and disposal of hazardous wastes is water pollution, either to surface waters or groundwater. Nearly every site that is being addressed by state and federal haz- ardous waste cleanup laws is either contaminating a body of water or is threatening to contaminate the water. Because the movement of groundwater is not documented it is difficult to assess the impact of hazardous wastes on Puget Sound. However, the majority of sites designated by the state and federal governments as the most severely contaminated sites in the state are in the Puget Sound region (e.g., Harbor Island, Eagle Harbor, and Commence- ment Bay). Therefore, hazardous wastes represent a potential source of con- tamination to Puget Sound. Regulatory framework There are two major state laws that deal with hazardous wastes: one to regu- late the current production of the wastes in order to prevent future problems, and another to address the cleanup of past problems. Washington's Hazard- ous Waste Management Act (HWMA) provides a management scheme in- tended to prevent future problems but does not regulate the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Any person who generates waste in Washington is responsible for proper classification and management of that waste. A waste generator must first determine if the wastes are defined as solid wastes or haz- ardous wastes. This involves testing for hazardous characteristics of the waste and determining the quantities generated. If the generator produces less than 220 pounds of hazardous wastes per month the wastes are classified as solid wastes. The generator is not required to comply with any other state laws or procedures for these "moderate risk" wastes, although local governments are 224 The Unfinished Agenda currently developing plans for handling these wastes. The local plans required by state law are subject to Ecology review. If the generator has classified the waste as hazardous the HWMA establishes permit, reporting, and handling requirements. Although the HWMA estab- lishes management priorities for hazardous wastes (waste reduction and recy- cling are the top two priorities, and land disposal is the lowest priority) in practice they are not often followed. This is due to a combination of cost con- siderations, a lack of available technologies, and inadequate enforcement of the priorities. The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Act (HWCA) was enacted by the state legisla- ture in October 1987 to establish a process to clean up dangerous sites and to establish liability for persons who generate hazardous wastes or are respon- sible for a site where wastes are disposed.55 The HWCA basically provides that any person who contributes to a hazardous waste problem is responsible for cleaning up the site even if the contribution represents only a small portion of the problem. If a responsible party cannot be identified or fails to assume cleanup responsibilities, Ecology is authorized to conduct the cleanup, issue strict penalties to persons who fail to cooperate, and recover their costs from responsible parties. The HWCA also imposes a tax on the first sale of hazard- ous substances to fund cleanup and enforcement activities. Because this program is so new it is impossible to assess its effectiveness. However, it is clear that the new tax will generate substantially more revenue to conduct cleanup actions and to initiate enforcement. These two state laws supplement federal law. The federal Resource Conserva- tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes regulations for the management of hazardous wastes, but in most instances the regulatory responsibility has been delegated to the state. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com- pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; commonly known as Superfund) provides financing and minimum requirements for cleanup of the worst sites in the country. 'wenty-eight sites in Washington are designated as federal Su- perfund sites. Eighteen of these sites surround Puget Sound including those in Commencement Bay and Eagle Harbor. The state list includes over 50 addi- tional sites with more than 30 in the Puget Sound area. These state sites have not been designated under the federal law and therefore the state is respon- sible for financing the cleanup and for establishing the cleanup standards. 2. Solid Waste Problem definition In order to eliminate the air pollution problems associated with open burning, in 1972 the state required that garbage be disposed in "sanitary" landfills. Al- though these landfills were once considered safe they have caused severe en- vironmental and social problems. Some communities are faced with contaminated groundwater and methane gas migration. In fact, many of the 55 The November 1988 ballot will include an initiative regarding hazardous waste cleanup. If the initiative passes, it will replace the state's existing hazardous waste cleanup law. 225 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan contaminated sites needing to be cleaned up under state and federal hazardous waste cleanup laws are former solid waste landfills. Although the Solid Waste Management Act establishes management priorities (i.e., (1) waste reduction, (2) recycling, (3) incineration, and (4) landfill) the state continues to rely on the lowest management priority: landfills. Tobday over 80 percent (2.5 million tons) of the state's garbage is landfilled while only 15 percent is recycled. Many communities have reached capacity at their cur- rent landfill sites. For example, Seattle no longer has an operating landfill and is using King County's facilities. In 1984 the legislature directed Ecology to adopt new standards for landfill design, construction, operation, and closure. The standards are intended to eliminate the leachate, methane gas, and other environmental problems as- sociated with landfills. Existing landfills must comply with these standards by November 1989, although there is concern that this deadline will not be met or enforced. Replacing existing landfills with environmentally sound "state-of-the-art" landfills will require a substantial investment. Ecology estimates it will cost be- tween $450 million and $1 billion over the next 20 years to bring landfills up to the minimum functional standards (this excludes land acquisition, legal fees, environmental review, and financing costs). While waste disposal has been a bargain in the past, today's garbage ratepayers will be paying the true cost of disposal for past and future generations. Although incineration is not one of the top management priorities, many com- munities (Spokane, King, Skagit, and Pierce counties, and others) are looking to incineration facilities to reduce their reliance on landfills. However, siting either an incinerator or a landfill is a controversial local issue and is generally met with significant public opposition. Citizens continue to be concerned with the environmental and financial issues surrounding both types of facilities, and few people want a landfill or an incinerator in their backyard. In addition to the problems posed by permitted solid waste facilities, the most severe problems affecting Puget Sound may be from unknown landfills that are operating without a permit as well as from abandoned landfills (particularly those located in shoreline areas). These sites are often discovered only when a serious environmental problem (such as contaminated drinking water) re- quires an investigation of its cause. Unfortunately, this approach does not facilitate preventive actions. Regulatory framework Responsibility for proper solid waste management rests primarily with local governments. Local health departments are responsible for issuing permits for all solid waste facilities and for enforcing the conditions of the permits. Ecology is responsible for ensuring appropriate statewide management of solid wastes. Ecology may appeal the issuance of a permit by a local health department to the Pollution Control Hearings Board but does not have ul- timate approval or denial authority. Ecology is responsible for approving local solid waste management plans and for establishing statewide standards for solid waste facilities. However, because local health departments are the primary enforcement entity and cities and counties are often the owners or operators of landfills, there can be a conflict of interest. County health depart- ments are placed in a difficult position when enforcement actions must be taken against county commissioners who also oversee the health department. 226 The Unfinished Agenda Ecology has taken a limited role in solid waste enforcement due to inadequate statutory authority and budget. 3. Underground Storage Tanks Problem definition Petroleum products and other chemicals enter groundwater through un- detected leakage of underground storage tanks and lines. Many of the under- ground tanks and lines in the country were installed in the mid-1970s or before. As is the case with many aspects of our infrastructure, they are wear- ing out. Ecology coordinates a federally required underground storage tank notifica- tion program which has identified almost 35,000 such tanks in Washington. Fifty-seven percent are located in counties surrounding Puget Sound. About 99 percent of the tanks store or once stored petroleum products; the rest store chemicals. The primary method used to detect leaks in tanks is a daily inventory record. Although this record is required by the state Uniform Fire Code, it is kept for only 42 percent of the tanks in the state. About 25 percent of the tanks cur- rently in service employ no leak detection method at all. At least 90 percent of the tanks are single-wall and have no protection from corrosion. More than 40 percent of the tanks identified are over 15 years old. The nation- wide average for the safe life of a tank is 16 years; after this tanks are statistical- ly likely to leak. Ecology estimates that, at a minimum, more than 1,500 tanks are leaking in Washington and concludes that this could lead to a very serious threat to public health and the environment. Approximately 1,000 of these leaking tanks may be located in the counties that surround Puget Sound. Be- cause of current leak detection practices many existing leaks may not be iden- tified until environmental or public health damage occurs. Although it is clear that underground storage tanks may represent a severe threat to groundwater in the Puget Sound region, it is less clear that they repre- sent a significant threat to Puget Sound water quality. The extent of the problem depends on the type of contaminant that is leaked, the migration pat- terns of the groundwater, and the sensitivity of the resources. Regulatory framework The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that storage tanks be idenified and that a federal program to properly manage these tanks be developed. This portion of RCRA has not been delegated to Ecology and therefore EPA is primarily responsible for implementation. EPA is currently adopting regulations which will be in effect in Washington unless the regulatory responsibility is delegated to the state (if the state seeks such delegation). Ecology may request that the legislature authorize the agency to request delegation of the program, but this will not happen for at least a year. The 1988 legislature created a Joint Select Committee on Storage Tanks to as- sess the need for state delegation as well as the need for additional state and local regulation of storage tanks. The committee will report its recommenda- tions to the legislature by December 1988. 227 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 4. Infectious Wastes Problem definition Infectious wastes are generally defined as wastes capable of transmitting an in- fectious disease. They can range from used band-aids and disposable diapers to highly contaminated medical wastes. 'ypical medical wastes include waste blood, bandages, instruments, supplies, and lab cultures. Health officials are devoting increasing attention to the public health risks associated with the management and disposal of potentially infectious wastes. Considerable un- certainty exists within the public health community regarding the specific sour- ces of infectious wastes and their associated risks. One of the concerns expressed is that infectious wastes can contaminate groundwater if they are im- properly disposed of. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health recently conducted an examination and risk evaluation of infectious waste in King County. One con- clusion was that because a majority of infections occur in people while at home, residential waste must be seen as equally infectious as most medical waste. The study also concluded that exposure pathways to the public are low if solid waste storage and disposal regulations are observed. Public education and worker safety programs were recommended. Regulatory framework The state Board of Health is authorized to adopt regulations for the preven- tion of health hazards related to solid and liquid waste disposal and for the prevention of infectious diseases. The Board has adopted regulations requir- ing proper handling and disposal of potentially infectious wastes by hospitals and nursing homes, but has not adopted regulations for other types of facilities or institutions. The Board's regulations are written only in general terms and do not specifically define infectious wastes. Although the state has statutory authority to regulate infectious waste as a hazardous waste under RCW 70.105, it has not yet promulgated regulations. The legislature recently passed a bill that will require Ecology to study the in- fectious waste problem. The department must review existing infectious waste management practices in the state and assess the preferred management prac- tices. The study will be conducted with the assistance of the Department of So- cial and Health Services (DSHS). A report and recommendations will be presented to the legislature by January 1, 1990. Results Comment summary Many comments were received which focused on the availability of drinking water rather than the potential contamination of Puget Sound via groundwater. The need for more study of aquifers and water quality was recog- nized. This issue was ranked high by technical reviewers and the general public. The specific conditions of island water systems and sole source aquifers were discussed. One commenter suggested stronger links between the Authority staff and professional organizations of engineers to facilitate ex- change of information. The important coordination role of the conservation districts was noted. Overall, the connection between land use planning and groundwater was recognized. 228 The Unfinished Agenda Authority action The Authority will inform Ecology of the extent of public concern for this issue which surfaced during the public review process. Ecology will be en- couraged to provide the public with more information on groundwater management. Coordination of the Ecology comprehensive groundwater program with the nonpoint program will be encouraged more strongly by the Authority, particularly by working with the watershed ranking and manage- ment committees. Because more information is needed on the extent to which contaminated groundwater may be affecting water quality in Puget Sound, the Authority will support U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research on groundwater transport. USGS has an ongoing regional aquifer-system analysis (RASA) program, which will target Puget Sound over the next three to six years. The program in- cludes definition of the aquifer boundaries, description of the flow system and water budget, and quantification of the geohydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality characteristics of Puget Sound aquifers. The Authority will continue to review and comment on significant related ac- tivities such as the pilot study by Ecology, DSHS, and the Department of Agriculture to test for agricultural chemicals in groundwater, and ongoing ef- forts by the local groundwater management committees. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE Problem Definition There are approximately 18,000 shipments of hazardous materials on Washington's highways each year and nearly 5,000 shipments on the state's rail- ways. In addition, there are many hazardous materials transported by air, water, or pipe, or by a combination of the various modes of transportation. Vast quantities of hazardous substances are stored throughout the state, par- ticularly in areas with heavy industrial or military activity. Over a hundred ac- cidents involving hazardous materials occur each year, and an unknown quantity of hazardous substances enters the environment from undetected leaks. The Puget Sound basin is a central industrial area and, according to a report by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, more than half of the state's nonradioactive hazardous substances pass through the region at one time or another. Many dangerous pollutants enter Puget Sound from ac- cidental spills, leaks, and other inadvertent discharges of contaminants. Some- times a discharge enters Puget Sound directly, other times it flows into a tributary. There are many examples of the significant danger of accidental discharges of hazardous substances into water. In November 1986 there was a severe chemi- cal spill into the Rhine river near Basel, Switzerland. Over 30 tons of pes- ticides and mercury compounds were accidentally released into the river which created a chemical slick over 25 miles long. The spill destroyed the progress of a 10-year effort to clean up the river. In the end, over 500,000 fish were killed. The chemicals continued to flow for over 170 miles through France, West Ger- many, and the Netherlands before entering the North Sea. The impacts on the marine environment of the North Sea are still unclear. 229 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan In January 1988 a fuel tank collapsed on the bank of the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania. The tank held 3.5 million gallons of diesel fuel. Retaining walls contained 2.5 million gallons; the rest entered the river. Many people complained that the spill could have been prevented. The tank had been rebuilt a year before the spill, and inspection and permitting requirements should have identified its weaknesses. In addition, preventive measures such as building concrete dikes around the tank were not required. In 1986 a discharge of jet fuel into Des Moines creek near the Sea-vThc airport nearly destroyed the creek's fish population. In January of 1988 an oil barge sank near Anacortes releasing both heavy bulk oil and a lighter grade oil. These incidents plus the 1985 Port Angeles oil spill have renewed public con- cern about the existing spill prevention and response programs in the Puget Sound region. While the 1987 plan addressed oil spill response, it did not ad- dress spill prevention or other aspects of hazardous materials management. (See p. 5-88, 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.) In addition to the effects of large discharges of hazardous substances, Puget Sound is also threatened by the cumulative impacts of small leaks and spills. These are often not detected and therefore it is impossible to quantify their contribution or to assess their effects on water quality and marine resources. Regulatory Framework The regulatory scheme for the transportation and storage of hazardous sub- stances and for response to spills and leaks is extremely complex and continual- ly changing. Without a thorough understanding of the regulatory scheme, however, it is impossible to assess the vulnerability of Puget Sound to acciden- tal spills. Pollutants that threaten Puget Sound through accidental discharge can be loosely placed in three categories: (1) petroleum products, (2) other hazard- ous substances/hazardous waste, and (3) radioactive materials. Hazardous sub- stances and hazardous wastes are defined in state law as substances that may be harmful to human health or the environment due to toxicity, flammability, explosiveness, or other factors. For regulatory purposes hazardous substances do not generally include petroleum products or radioactive substances. The federal Hazardous Materials Ulansportation Act, however, does cover petroleum products and radioactive materials and thus there are some require- ments regarding transportation. While petroleum products are not generally regulated as hazardous substances under state law, they have received increasing attention as a potential threat to water quality, primarily through leaking underground storage tanks and lines. In addition, oil spills have been recognized as a serious threat to water quality since 1969 when the legislature enacted stringent penalties and liability provisions for the discharge of oil into waters of the state. Radioactive substances and radioactive wastes have a complex regulatory framework. Radioactive materials are used on some of the military bases in the Puget Sound region. This includes radioactive fuel used in the nuclear reactor propulsion systems of ships as well as nuclear weapons. It is difficult to gather information on the type or quantity of these materials because the military asserts that, for purposes of national security, this information may not be released to the public. There are many international, federal, state, and local agencies that make regulatory decisions affecting the management of hazardous materials. In 230 The Unfinished Agenda most cases federal agencies are the predominant regulators, and federal laws and regulations often preempt state and local regulations. This provides con- sistency for purposes of interstate commerce. Unfortunately, it can also ex- clude local involvement in situations where local populations are the most heavily affected and where local governments are in the best position to provide adequate oversight and response. Another problem is that federal programs that preempt state and local regulations are often not adequately funded. This can leave state and local governments and the public with inade- quate protection and no authority to address the problems. There are at least seven areas of regulation for each category of potential pol- lutants: (1) transportation, (2) storage, (3) routing limitations, (4) prenotifica- tion, (5) prevention, (6) spill response, and (7) incident reporting. * Transportation regulations provide requirements for such things as label- ing, vessel design, packaging, navigational rules, licensing requirements, and certification of crew members. * Storage regulations provide requirements for container suitability, inspec- tions of the storage site and the containers, monitoring, and worker safety. *Routing limitations ensure that dangerous substances are not transported over precarious routes or near sensitive areas such as schools or densely populated areas. *Prenotification is often desired by state or local entities so that precaution- ary measures can be taken prior to the entry of a dangerous substance. *Preventive measures include inspection requirements for vessels or other modes of transport, training requirements for crew members, restrictions on dangerous activities in certain areas, zoning or siting standards, build- ing code specifications, and speed limits. * Spill response generally involves all levels of government as well as private contractors who must work together to efficiently clean up spills. *Incident reporting requirements ensure that adequate information on the spill is compiled and provided. For each of these areas there can be overlapping federal, state, and local regulations as well as numerous agencies involved at each level of government. International safety standards have been developed by at least five organiza- tions: the United Nations Committee of Experts on the 'Ifansport of Dangerous Goods, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organiza- tion, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the European Economic Community (or the Common Market) Group of Experts on the 'Itansport of Dangerous Goods, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States has representation in all of these organizations. Exporters of hazardous materials must comply with the regulations established by these five entities. In addition, the Canada-United States Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan was signed in 1983 to establish a procedure for spills that affect both countries or are of such magnitude that international assistance is necessary. Federal agencies involved in some aspect of hazardous materials management include: the Department of 'Ikansportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Nation- al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway 231 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Administration, the Federal Railway Administration, the Hazardous Materials Regulations Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Materials Transportation Bureau. State agencies that have a role in hazardous materials management include the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Department of Ecology, the Department of Labor and Industries, the State Patrol, the Depart- ment of Community Development, the Department of Social and Health Ser- vices, the Department of Agriculture, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, and the State Fire Marshall's office. In addition to international, federal, and state organizations, many cities and counties have developed procedures to deal with the transportation and storage of hazardous materials. These regulations can include zoning and building code requirements, siting requirements for transfer and storage facilities, waste disposal standards, notification requirements, and routing re- quirements. The 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (element P-9) re- quires that every major discharge permit issued or reissued in the Puget Sound area must require an adequate spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan. The plans, at a minimum, must address oil and hazardous sub- stances. Questions about the adequacy of existing spill prevention measures have not been researched to date. However, the 1989 Puget Sound plan in- cludes a new element which addresses spill prevention, element SP-3 of the Spill Prevention and Response Program. Results Comment summary Most commenters indicated that a stronger program was desirable, particular- ly in the area of prevention. Specific issues included were drill frequency, training, new technology, transportation, and risk assessment. The sig- nificance of land spills and cumulative small spills was noted. Suggestions were made to merge the study of hazardous waste with the Oil Spill Program. Due to the inherent health risks this issue ranked medium to high with public and technical reviewers. Authority action The Authority will study the specific recommendations made by agencies and citizen groups as part of SP-3 of the Spill Prevention and Response Program, formerly the Oil Spill Response Planning Program. A report will be produced by January 1990 focused on preventive issues related to petroleum products and hazardous materials. A new advisory committee will be formed to help guide the scoping of this study. (See SP-4 of the Spill Prevention and Response Program.) 232 The Unfinished Agenda HUMAN HEALTH RISKS Problem Definition Human health risks associated with Puget Sound and its resources can be categorized into two general areas: (1) human health implications associated with direct physical contact with the shorelines or waters of the Sound; and (2) health implications associated with the recreational and commercial harvest and ingestion of sea vegetables, shellfish, and fish from the Sound. Human use of beaches There are about 500 miles of publicly owned shoreline in the 12 counties bor- dering Puget Sound. Very little is known about the potential health risks as- sociated with recreational uses of public or private beaches around the Sound such as swimming, playing, walking, exploring, tidepools, and clamming. Despite the fact that beaches may be affected by a wide variety of pollutants, few beaches are monitored on a regular basis for the presence of hazardous chemicals, pathogenic organisms, or other pollutants of concern. However, the state Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has recently begun to monitor the water quality (as indicated by the presence of fecal coliform bacteria) of 144 beaches where shellfish are harvested by recreational users. There are numerous sources of pollutants which may potentially affect beaches. For example, storm drain and combined sewer overflow outfalls com- monly discharge water containing high levels of sediments, metals, oil and grease, and bacteria directly onto beaches in the urbanized portions of the Sound. Emergency overflows of untreated sewage from malfunctioning sewage treatment plants or broken pipes may also wash up onto beaches. Fresh water from creeks, streams, and rivers may contribute sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants to beaches. Groundwater that sur- faces along the shoreline of the Sound (through seeps, springs, and wetlands) may be contaminated with pollutants from underground storage tanks, in- dustrial and agricultural activities, landfills, and malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal systems (see the Groundwater Contamination discussion in this chap- ter). Contaminants concentrated in the sea-surface microlayer may wash up onto the shoreline. Like the ring left in a bathtub after the water is drained, these contaminants may be deposited and accumulate in sediments and or- ganisms found on the beach (see the Contamination of the Sea-Surface Microlayer discussion). The deposition of garbage and debris of all types is also an aesthetic as well as health problem on the beaches in Puget Sound (see the Plastic Debris in Marine Waters discussion in this chapter). People are often unaware that contaminants may be present on a beach or af- fecting the biological resources present on a beach. Even if people become aware of a problem on the shoreline (e.g., as evidenced by excessive odors or the presence of oily or unnatural looking substances), local public health offi- cials or state environmental personnel may not be available to inspect the problem or determine its cause. Because of the many miles of shoreline around the Sound and the limited number of personnel available to regularly monitor or inspect beaches, problems often go undetected or untreated. Human consumption of Each year thousands of tons of fish and shellfish are harvested recreationally seafood and commercially from around Puget Sound. In 1986 the recreational catch of salmon, groundfish, shellfish, and other species from the Sound was valued at 233 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan over $102 million. Popular species harvested include nori and other species of marine algae, clams, mussels, oysters, squid, crabs, shrimp, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, sole, flounder, halibut, rockfish, lingcod, and salmon. Commercial landings of fish and shellfish from the Sound had a reported value of $68 mil- lion in 1986. No part of the Sound is completely free of contaminants. Con- centrations of biological and chemical contaminants are typically highest in urbanized embayments around the Sound. Algae, shellfish, and groundfish living near these polluted areas have been found to contain high levels of cer- tain contaminants. Less-developed areas may also be contaminated as evidenced by the restriction of commercial shellfish harvest in certain rural areas throughout the Sound. While most of the seafood captured in the Sound is probably consumed with no unpleasant or dangerous side effects, the routine ingestion of large quantities of contaminated seafood over a lifetime may pose a health risk to a consumer of Puget Sound resources. Several possible health problems might occur from the ingestion of con- taminated seafood. Eating shellfish contaminated with bacteria or viruses from human or animal fecal material may cause illnesses ranging from mild stomach upsets (gastroenteritis) to serious diseases such as typhoid or hepatitis. Unfortunately, many of the less serious illnesses associated with the ingestion of contaminated seafood probably go unreported and/or untreated so it is difficult to know how common or extensive the problem might be. Shellfish and possibly fish may also be contaminated with a toxin produced by the naturally occurring dinoflagellate Gonyaulax catenella. This neurotoxin causes paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) which may result in numbness, paralysis, and possibly death. In addition, the ingestion of large amounts of shellfish and fish contaminated with toxic chemicals may promote the develop- ment of cancer or other diseases, although this represents a low-probability, long-term risk to the seafood consumer. Largely as a result of shellfish protection elements in the Puget Sound plan, selected recreational shellfish beds around the Sound are monitored for the presence of bacteria and toxic contaminants (see plan elements SF-3 and SF- 4). Standards are also being developed for biological and chemical con- taminants in recreationally harvested shellfish in Puget Sound. However, funding and personnel are limited and not all shoreline areas used for the recreational harvest of shellfish can be monitored for the presence of poten- tially harmful substances. Little is currently known about the potential risks associated with eating recreationally harvested marine algae and fish species because these categories of seafood are not routinely monitored for the presence of contaminants. (Some monitoring of these seafood groups is proposed in the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, plan element M- 2). In 1986 and 1987 EPA sponsored sampling and analysis programs to deter- mine the concentrations of PCBs, pesticides, metals, and other toxic con- taminants that may be present in the edible portions of marine algae, shellfish, and fish collected in the Sound. Using these and other data EPA has under- taken an assessment of the potential human health risks associated with the long-term consumption of locally harvested seafood. The study found that there are eight chemicals or compound groups of potential concern with respect to health risks. High priority carcinogens evaluated in the risk assess- ment were arsenic, carcinogenic PAHs, total PCBs, alpha-HCH, and total DDT, high priority noncarcinogens evaluated were cadmium, lead, and mer- cury. Results of the study indicate that over a lifetime of consumption, total PCBs in Puget Sound fish pose the highest potential carcinogenic risk; mer- 234 The Unfinished Agenda cury in fish and cadmium in shellfish pose the highest potential noncar- cinogenic risk. NOAA has conducted a two-year study of the degree to which consumers of recreationally caught fish from the urban embayments in Puget Sound may be exposed to contaminants. The study focused on five main elements: (1) what species people are fishing for, actually catching, and eating from the urban bays; (2) the average ingestion rate of the typical consumer (fish eaten per year); (3) the contaminant levels that are present in the tissue of the species eaten; (4) the effects of cooking on tissue contaminant levels; and (5) average contaminant uptake rate (which is a factor of both typical ingestion rates and tissue contaminant levels). This study found that tissue from recreationally caught fish generally contained low levels of organic compounds and metals (with the exception of arsenic). Arsenic levels varied greatly among species and geographic locations bit were highest in squid and walleye pollock (par- ticularly those collected from Commencement Bay). Although generally present in low concentrations, PCBs were found in all of the recreationally caught fish from the urban bays. Cooking the fish was found to reduce tissue levels of PCBs and other organic contaminants by 50 to 90 percent, but cook- ing had little or no effect on arsenic concentrations. This study did not at- tempt to assess the risk associated with eating fish from urban bays but did provide estimates of contaminant doses being consumed by urban anglers. Regulatory Framework Responsibility for protection of human health generally rests with the state Board of Health, DSHS, and local health departments. With regard to health implications associated with the recreational use of beaches around the Sound, local health authorities generally are able to deal with emergency situations as they occur (e.g., closing beaches in response to overflows of raw sewage). However, few local programs have the time or resources to adequately deal with non-emergency or potential health problems associated with the public use of beaches. It is often not clear what agency has jurisdiction over or is bet- ter equipped to handle overflows, spills, or the presence of noxious substances on beaches that may pose a human health risk. Several potential sources of beach contaminants are addressed by existing regulations and programs such as improved treatment of municipal wastes, pretreatment programs, and the permitting of stormwater outfalls. However, fecal coliform bacteria standards are the only standards that apply to beach contamination and, as a result, many potential problems may never be reported by recreational users. DSHS and local health agencies are generally responsible for protecting public health from the recreational and commercial harvest of shellfish in Puget Sound; water and shellfish tissue samples must meet national standards. However, no local, state, or federal agency has clear responsibility for the determination of health risks associated with the ingestion of other forms of seafood or for the overall protection of recreational harvesters in the Sound. This is particularly a problem in the urban areas where noncommercial seafood from polluted bays may make up a significant portion of the diets of some segments of the population, even though these areas may be posted with health advisories warning people not to eat the seafood caught there. EPA, DSHS, Ecology, the Authority, and several local health departments are cur- rently in the process of characterizing the magnitude of risks associated with the consumption of seafood in the Sound. Based on this risk evaluation the agencies may develop, if needed, a series of recommendations (e.g., fishing bans, beach postings, etc.) to ensure the adequate protection of public health. However, more information is needed on the potential risks associated with the harvest of all forms of seafood from around the Sound. 235 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Results Comment summary Those who commented on this issue generally indicated that more information is required to better understand human health risks and to put these risks into perspective. Several indicated that there needs to be a better reporting of in- formation on health risks in Puget Sound. A number of commenters en- couraged the Authority to become more involved in the issue while several others indicated that this should be a low priority for Authority involvement. Relative to other unfinished agenda issues, human health risks received a mixed priority rating by being ranked quite high by some and low by others. Authority action The Authority will continue to participate on the interagency human health risk work team that is examining potential health risks associated with the con- sumption of Puget Sound seafood. The Authority will also continue to review and comment on this issue and will encourage the coordination of regulatory programs related to human health risks. NUTRIENT EFFECTS Problem Definition Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are some of the primary elements required for the growth and reproduction of all plants including phytoplankton species. Optimal phytoplankton production depends on the proper balance of available light and nutrients; when one or the other is limited, growth is slowed. Conversely, when sunlight and nutrients are readily available to phytoplankton species over an adequate time period (for example, in the springtime), phytoplankton growth may be stimulated and may result in a large increase in phytoplankton abundance (known as a "bloom"). Phytoplankton production is closely linked to circulation patterns in estuaries. When fresh or brackish river runoff encounters seawater, a two-layered es- tuarine circulation pattern develops with the fresh water flowing seaward over the top of the landward-flowing saltwater. The two layers are separated, or stratified, by the physical barrier created by the difference in density between the freshwater and saltwater layers. Nutrients required for phytoplankton growth may become limited in vertically stratified estuaries. This occurs when phytoplankton production depletes the nutrients available in the surface layer and the stratification of the water column inhibits mixing with the nutrient- rich bottom layer. Nutrients may also become limited in nearshore and shoreline areas during periods of high algal productivity in the spring and sum- mer months. Sewage effluent that is discharged into the fresh and marine waters of the Puget Sound area contains high levels of both organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. Other sources of excess nutrients include fertilizers, animal wastes, and on-site sewage disposal systems. These nutrients can, in certain instances, stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, sediment microal- gae, macroalgae, kelp, seagrasses, and marsh plants, particularly in stratified bays and inlets and along shorelines where nutrients might otherwise be limit- ing. Excessive phytoplankton growth that may result from the anthropogenic introduction of nutrients can lead to oxygen depletion in the bottom waters. This is because the sinking and decomposition of plankton and other organic matter can create high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and reduce oxygen 236 The Unfinished Agenda levels in areas that are not well mixed with oxygen-rich surface waters. Fish kills and other biological effects may occur as a result of this depleted oxygen. For example, just a few decades ago excessive nutrients from human sewage led to the very serious degradation of Lake Washington (which has sub- sequently been cleaned up by diverting nutrient discharges from the lake). Currently, researchers have shown that shallow, poorly-mixed stratified bays and inlets in the Sound are particularly susceptible to problems created by ex- cess nutrients (e.g., Budd Inlet, Dabob Bay, Dyes Inlet, Liberty Bay, and Lynch Cove have had documented cases of oxygen depletion during certain times of the year). Budd Inlet in southern Puget Sound is one area where low dissolved oxygen levels, occasional fish kills, and water quality violations have been reported over the last 15 years. The water quality problems in this shallow, stratified inlet have been largely attributed to blooms and subsequent decay of phytoplankton and algal species in the late summer and early fall. A recent study of Budd Inlet conducted for Ecology determined that phytoplankton growth in the inlet is nutrient-limited by the relatively low availability of nitrogen during the peak of the growing season when plankton blooms are present. Hence the magnitude of the spring plankton bloom in Budd Inlet is controlled by the supply of nutrients. In addition, phytoplankton blooms in the late summer and early fall are sustained by nutrient additions to the verti- cally stratified inlet. These sustained blooms tend to extend periods of low dis- solved oxygen for two to four weeks beyond what might occur naturally. An analysis of the relative contributions of various sources of nutrients in Budd Inlet indicated that the Lacey, Olympia, Tlrmwater, Thurston County (LOTT) sewage treatment plant contributes about 75 percent of the nitrate, 95 percent of the nitrite, and 95 percent of the ammonia from all measured sources. Nutrients in the effluent discharged from the LOTT plant are believed to increase the intensity of phytoplankton blooms by 30 to 50 percent compared to natural levels in the inlet. As a result, Ecology has required that the plant remove (by April 1, 1993) at least 90 percent of the nutrient load from its effluent during the months of April through October. After the plant completes the additional level of treatment to accomplish this removal, phytoplankton blooms are expected to be no more than 10 percent greater than background conditions. In addition to sewage treatment plants, nutrients may be contributed to shal- low stratified embayments in the Sound from a variety of other sources includ- ing stormwater, on-site sewage disposal (septic) systems, nonpoint runoff from heavily fertilized agricultural and forest lands, industrial dischargers (e.g., pulp and paper mills), and atmospheric deposition. Research conducted on the East Coast of the United States has shown that airborne nitrates originating mostly from motor vehicles, power plants, and other industrial facilities are a significant source of excess nitrogen that is causing nutrient enrichment and eutrophication (excessive growth of algae) in Eastern coastal waters. The study found that atmospheric sources accounted for about one-fourth of the nitrates that enter Chesapeake Bay while fertilizers accounted for about one- third of all sources. Nitrogen in acid rain appears to be significantly contribut- ing to the serious nutrient enrichment problems in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, and the Albemarle- Pamlico Sound in North Carolina. The increased population that is projected for the Puget Sound area will result in increased land disturbances, increased runoff which can transport nutrients to the Sound, and increased sewage flows. As a result of this increased popula- 237 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan tion, nutrient effects in shallow stratified bays and inlets around the Sound may potentially increase unless sources of excess nutrients are detected and controlled. Although there have been few reported fish kills in the marine waters of the Sound in recent years, there may be other biological effects from nutrient enrichment that are currently not well understood or are not being detected. For example, there is some limited evidence to suggest that the growth and population dynamics of the planktonic dinoflagellate Gonyaulax catenella, the organisms that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), may be influenced in some cases by anthropogenic additions of nutrients. Nutrient in- puts may shift the natural population patterns of phytoplankton species which may have effects further up the food chain. In addition, macro-algal growth may be enhanced by nutrient additions in the nearshore and shoreline areas of the Sound. Further research is required to address these questions as well as others dealing with the potential effects of nutrients in Puget Sound. Regulatory Framework The addition of excessive nutrients from pulp and paper mills was a serious problem in the past for Puget Sound. The problem was largely corrected by improving the treatment of industrial wastes from these mills. Nutrients in the effluent of point sources such as municipal sewage treatment plants are subject to regulation as part of the NPDES permit system. While limitations on the discharge of conventional pollutants such as BOD and total suspended solids may also reduce nutrient discharges, very few permits include any ex- plicit limit on the discharge of nutrients. The requirement for advanced treat- ment at the LOTT treatment plant is the only such limit for any major discharger to Puget Sound. This is partially because the case-by-case develop- ment of nutrient effluent limits for individual dischargers is time-consuming and expensive. The regulation of nutrients from nonpoint sources is accomplished indirectly through regulations and programs such as the inspection of on-site sewage dis- posal systems, local health board regulations for on-site systems, farm plans for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to control runoff of animal wastes, the state's Dairy Waste Management Plan, the non- point program elements of the Puget Sound plan, stormwater permits, and others. However, none of these programs directly controls the introduction of nutrients to Puget Sound or addresses the potential effects of nutrient enrich- ment in the Sound. Results Comment summary This issue received few comments in the scoping process and was generally rated quite low relative to other issues on the Unfinished Agenda. Those who did comment indicated that more control of nutrient additions to Puget Sound is needed. Authority action Because of projected increases in population growth and development, the potential effects of increased nutrients on Puget Sound water quality and ecosystems is an important research topic that needs further study. This issue will be referred to the Committee on Research in Puget Sound, and the Authority will continue to review new information that may become available on nutrient effects in the Sound. 238 The Unfinished Agenda PESTICIDES Problem Definition Pesticides are a large and varied group of substances that are specifically designed to kill biological organisms including weeds, insects, and rodents. In- cluded in this diverse group are fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, nematicides, rodenticides, fumigants, disinfectants, wood preservatives, and an- tifoulants. Pesticides are most commonly used to control weeds and insect pests on agricultural and forest land, on highway and utility rights of way, on military land, and in residential lawns and gardens. Pesticides may reach surface water and groundwater resources and sediments in the Puget Sound area through a number of different mechanisms including direct application, stormwater runoff, accidental spills and leaks, and im- proper storage, handling, and disposal. Pesticides applied to the land may be transmitted through the atmosphere by winds and precipitation; pesticides bound to eroded sediments or dissolved in runoff water can be carried to sur- face water bodies and eventually Puget Sound; and pesticides may leach into groundwater through infiltration at the site of application or where runoff water might be retained such as in storage ponds. Pesticides may also be directly applied to water bodies. For example, pesticides are used to kill un- desirable fish and to control aquatic vegetation in freshwater lakes, and the pesticide Sevin is applied to tidelands to kill ghost shrimp which interfere with oyster cultivation. Spills and leaks of pesticides can occur at manufacturing facilities, at other facilities where bulk pesticides are stored and handled (such as agricultural chemical dealerships or commercial applicator facilities), or during transporta- tion. A major concern are the currently unregulated evaporation pits and rin- sate holding tanks used by commercial applicators. In addition, contamination may result from small spills at mixing and loading areas at the site of applica- tion and where equipment is washed. Improper disposal of pesticides and pes- ticide containers may also result in contamination of surface water or groundwater. This may occur at hazardous and municipal waste landfills, at other waste handling or treatment facilities, or at the application site. A principal concern regarding the effects of pesticides upon fresh and marine water quality, sediment quality, and biological resources in the Puget Sound area is the extent to which the pesticides degrade, bioaccumulate, or biomag- nify. Many pesticides degrade readily and therefore present little risk to aquatic ecosystems. However, certain chemicals used in pesticide formulas do persist and degrade much more slowly in aquatic environments. They repre- sent a potential hazard that is a function of the frequency and duration of ex- posure and the toxicity of the chemical. TIbxic effects related to exposure to pesticides include a wide variety of sublethal responses such as reduced growth, impaired reproductive success, liver dysfunction, kidney failure, and cancerous growths, as well as death. Preliminary results of an EPA survey indicate that over 120 pesticide active in- gredients are known to be used in the Puget Sound area. It is roughly and con- servatively estimated that total annual usage of active ingredients in Puget Sound approaches 2.7 million pounds. There is virtually no monitoring for any of these pesticides. Little is known about the persistence of many of these pesticides or their ability to accumulate and biomagnify in the environment. Studies typically test for a few pesticides including DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and lindane (because they are on the priority pollutant list established by EPA in 1976). All have been detected in Puget Sound. However, with the 239 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan exception of DDT, very little is known about pesticide concentrations that may be present in the water, sediments, and organisms in the fresh and marine water of the Puget Sound region, or about the chronic and acute toxicity of pes- ticides in the environment. In many cases laboratory methods are not avail- able to analyze many of the "new generation" pesticides. This makes it virtually impossible to monitor the environment for their presence. DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin have been banned from use, and as a result con- centrations (of at least DDT) appear to be decreasing in the Sound (although DDT is still found in relatively high concentrations in the urban bays such as Elliott and Commencement Bays). Information on ambient concentrations and potential effects for most of the pesticides currently in use today is lack- ing. There are over 45,000 pesticide products in use nationwide and these products contain over 600 basic chemical groups. However, pesticide labels are not re- quired to disclose "inert ingredients" in their products; these are ingredients that have no effect on targeted pest organisms but that may be poisonous to other species. Seven of the 52 "pollutants of concern" in Puget Sound are pes- ticides, but other pesticides may be concentrating in the environment and may also be a concern. The key question, which is currently unanswered, is what compounds are present in the environment and to what extent and when do these pesticides represent a threat to the water quality and biological resour- ces of the Puget Sound area? The potential for groundwater contamination by pesticides in some areas of the Puget Sound area is high. For example, the pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB), a potent animal carcinogen, was found in well water in Skagit County in 1984 and also has been found in wells in Thurston County. There are many specialty crops (e.g., raspberries, strawberries, cranberries, and ornamentals) grown in the Puget Sound area whose cultivation relies on the application of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides in the late fall, winter, or early spring when rainfall is high and soils are often saturated. Pesticides applied during these times may more readily enter groundwater resources in harmful con- centrations. Pesticides present in groundwater not only represent a threat to public drinking supplies but may also enter the surface waters of the Sound (through seeps, springs, and wetlands) and potentially affect biological resour- ces. T` fill some of the data gaps regarding pesticide use (types, volumes, toxicity, etc.) in the Puget Sound area, EPA Region 10 commissioned a study to review and synthesize available information on the uses, environmental fates, and potential biological effects of pesticides in the Sound. The objectives of this study were to identify pesticides of concern in the Sound; identify the geographic areas and the media (sediments, water, biota) in which the pes- ticides of concern are most likely to accumulate; and recommend a sampling strategy to identify areas where pesticide exposure may be presenting risks to biological communities. EPAs Office of Puget Sound also conducted a one- time reconnaissance sampling of pesticides in urban drainage and estuary delta sediments in July 1988. Results of that reconnaissance sampling will be avail- able in late 1988. Ongoing research being conducted by Western Washington University, the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the Skagit County Con- servation District is examining agricultural pesticide transport to Padilla Bay and what effect pesticides may be having on the biota found in the bay. Preliminary results indicate that measurable concentrations of two of the 14 pesticides being studied (dicamba and 2,4-D) are found in the water and sedi- 240 The Unfinished Agenda ments of the bay after periods of significant rainfall. These and other studies are needed to further quantify the issue of whether pesticides may be affecting the water quality and biological resources of Puget Sound. Studies of the sea- surface microlayer in the Chesapeake Bay found a large number of pesticides in the microlayer, some in very high concentrations. The possible presence of pesticides in microlayer samples from around the Sound needs further inves- tigation. Regulatory Framework EPA is the primary agency that regulates pesticides, generally under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA was enacted in 1947 to replace the Federal Insecticide Act of 1910. FIFRA originally addressed only those pesticides used in interstate commerce and left most of the regulation of pesticide use to the individual states. Increasing en- vironmental and human health concerns due to pesticide use led Congress to substantially amend FIFRA in 1972. The amendments established a regulatory program to oversee the registration and use of all pesticides. Con- gress is currently considering further amendments to FIFRA. Unlike most other environmental laws which focus on pollution control, FIFRA requires EPA to determine whether a pesticide can control pests without causing "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." By defini- tion, FIFRA requires that adverse environmental effects be balanced against the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. This balancing of risks and benefits underlies all regulatory decisions under FIFRA. The 1972 amendments to FIFRA require all new pesticides to be registered with EPA before they enter the marketplace. FIFRA also requires pesticides that were on the market prior to the 1972 amendments to be reviewed by EPA in accordance with a reregistration process. In order to evaluate the risks and benefits of pesticides and to assess the safety of any pesticide prior to registra- tion, EPA requires health and environmental effects data and information from pesticide producers. These data must include assessments of hazards to non-target organisms (those that are not intended to be harmed by the pes- ticide, including fish and wildlife). The ecological fate and effects of the chemi- cal in the environment, after it is applied, must also be assessed. However, in many cases, there are no effective laboratory procedures available to analyze samples collected in the field for the presence of potentially harmful levels of pesticides. Nor is it clear what federal or state agency has the primary respon- sibility for regularly monitoring the environment for the presence of pesticides and pesticide residues that may be harmful to biological organisms. As of 1987 registration standards had been developed for only about 120 of more than 600 pesticide active ingredients. Many standards will not be com- pleted until after the year 2000. Once the standards are developed, pesticide manufacturers are responsible for supplying data to support registration. This data gathering can take four to five years. As a result, there are only a handful of ingredients that have been tested and reregistered. In addition, all data are supplied by pesticide manufacturers; EPA does no independent testing. All pesticides may remain in use during this testing period. It is clear that there is a high probability that dangerous pesticides are on the market today that may not be tested to ensure compliance with the registration standards for many years. This situation is further compounded by the fact that many new genera- tion pesticides are not being regularly monitored for in the environment. EPA does have authority to cancel a chemical's usage in certain situations. However, whenever EPA does this the agency becomes responsible for com- 241 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan pensating the pesticide manufacturer, dealers, and applicators for their remain- ing inventory and for the actual task of disposing of the chemical. As of late 1988 EPA has banned four pesticides on an emergency basis. The agency now faces the prospect of paying hundreds of millions of dollars out of its budget, money that could have been spent on developing standards. FIFRA includes provisions for monitoring the distribution and use of pes- ticides. Civil and criminal penalties are established for violations. For ex- ample, it is illegal to use a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label or to alter the approved label. However, EPMs recent survey of pes- ticide use in the Puget Sound region found that information on sales, distribu- tion, or use is not readily available for pesticide compounds currently being marketed and used in the state. Apparently this information is not collected or monitored by the pesticide industry or by state or federal regulatory agen- cies. The 1972 amendments also authorized cooperative enforcement agree- ments between EPA and the states, and a certification and training program for professional applicators. Additional amendments in 1978 gave the states primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations, subject to over- sight by EPA The state Department of Agriculture is responsible for inspecting pesticide production facilities and enforcing against the illegal sale of unregistered pes- ticides or pesticides that are being used in violation of the label requirements (see Chapters 15.58 and 17.21 RCW). The states have the authority to require more stringent registration standards than EPAs, but usually the procedure is to charge a small fee and generally allow use of a product that has not been banned by EPA. The Department of Agriculture is currently reviewing its pes- ticides programs and is considering expansion of the programs to include such measures as an annual pesticide use report to better determine potential en- vironmental hazards associated with the use of certain compounds. Results Comment summary People who commented on this issue generally felt that more information is needed on the potential occurrence and effects of pesticides in Puget Sound, and more education is needed on the safe use, storage, and disposal of pes- ticides. A number of commenters pointed out that the pesticide issue is close- ly related to the issue of groundwater contamination as well as to the plan's program addressing nonpoint source pollution. Pesticides were rated medium to high in priority relative to the other issues on the unfinished agenda. Authority action The Authority will convene an advisory committee to address the technical and regulatory aspects of this issue. The Authority will also prepare an issue paper that will analyze the unanswered technical questions and address the ex- isting regulatory structure that is established to control the use and disposal of pesticides. The Authority will encourage Puget Sound Estuary Program fund- ing of additional characterization studies to determine the distribution, am- bient concentration, and potential effects of selected pesticides in Puget Sound water bodies, sediments, and biota. Educational efforts by the Cooperative Ex- tension Service and others to promote the safe application, storage, and dis- posal of pesticides will also be encouraged. 242 The Unfinished Agenda PLASTIC DEBRIS IN MARINE WATERS Problem Definition The production of plastics in the world more than doubled between 1975 and 1981. Plastics have become increasingly popular because they are inexpensive, lightweight, and durable. Because of this durability plastics are causing sub- stantial pollution of marine waters. Plastics have become the most common objects sighted at sea. They typically comprise one-half to two-thirds or more of all surface objects sighted. Studies have indicated that the coasts of Oregon and Washington have one of the highest concentrations of marine plastic debris in the world. In fact, a recent Japanese survey concluded that the Washington coast had a higher percentage of floating debris than anywhere else in the Pacific. This concentration is probably due to the active fishing in- dustry in the north Pacific and to the offshore currents that generally carry plastics southward from the Aleutian chain. This form of marine pollution is likely to increase because of the persistence and increasing production of plas- tics. Estimates made over 10 years ago indicated that more than six million metric tons of plastics were discarded into the ocean each year from merchant ships, passenger ships, naval vessels, fishing vessels, pleasure boats, and offshore oil platforms. In addition, it is believed that over 100,000 metric tons of commer- cial fishing gear is lost or discarded each year. Other sources of plastic pollu- tion include discharges from rivers and stormwater systems. Plastic pollution is harmful to the fishing industry and other boaters. Plastic ropes or fishing nets can ensnare boat propellers and can block water intake valves. Some plastic debris is so large that collisions result in serious damage to boats. Fishing nets and gear can also be destroyed by the debris. The most serious concern of marine plastic pollution, however, is the harm to marine life though entanglement or ingestion. Entanglement can lead to drowning, starvation, strangulation, or predation. Loss of limbs through infec- tion from entanglement is also common. It is estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 fur seals die each year from entanglement. There is concern that this is a primary factor in the species' population decline. Entanglement can occur from trawl webbing, cargo strapping bands, six-pack rings, ropes, lines, and net fragments. In addition, lost or discarded fishing nets and crab pots continue to catch fish, crabs, diving seabirds, and other forms of marine life for several years after they are lost. Ingestion of plastics also has harmful consequences for marine life. The im- pact of ingestion varies with the species and the amount ingested, but malnutri- tion or starvation due to blockage of the intestine or ulceration of the stomach is the primary concern. Plastic pellets resulting from resin spills and the physi- cal degradation of plastic products can be mistaken for fish eggs or other food sources. Sea turtles readily ingest plastic bags or plastic sheeting that they mis- take for jellyfish. This is a particular concern because all sea turtle species are listed as either threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Although it is clear that entanglement and ingestion are dangerous to in- dividual animals, there has been insufficient research to determine whether or not plastics are affecting entire populations of marine organisms. Early indica- 243 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan tions are that plastics may have an impact on populations of northern fur seals, but the impact on sea lion or fish populations is unknown. There have been no studies to date of the effects of plastics on marine life in Puget Sound. Many fishing nets have been lost in Puget Sound; these have been observed catching fish, birds, and crabs in shallow waters. Although there is increasing concern that plastics are becoming a dangerous pollutant in Puget Sound, there has been little effort to quantify the total amount of plas- tics in the Sound or the amount that is transported from the North Pacific into Puget Sound. In 1987 volunteers cleaned six tons of litter from 100 miles of Puget Sound beaches. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commis- sion, a joint sponsor of the beach cleanup program with Ecology, estimates that 40 percent of the debris was plastic and 70 percent of all debris was from ocean sources. There has also been no effort to quantify the contribution of plastic debris from Puget Sound to the plastic pollution problem on the Washington coast. It is possible that a substantial amount of plastics are deposited into Puget Sound via tributaries and stormwater systems and sub- sequently transported to the ocean. Regulatory Framework There are a multitude of state and federal laws that require plastics or other debris to be disposed of only at permitted facilities. The state Solid Waste Management Act prescribes penalties for persons who illegally dispose of waste on land or in water unless the waste is disposed of on their own proper- ty. In addition, the federal Ocean Dumping Act prohibits the transportation and dumping of materials in the ocean without a permit. The Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act contains general regulations which state that foreign vessels fishing in the U.S. fishery conservation zone may not release any materials into the water that may be potentially harmful to living marine resources or maritime activity. The enforcement of these laws is extremely difficult, however, because dumping at sea is generally done in isolation. These laws also only apply to U.S. territorial waters, and marine plastics is an international problem. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the primary hope for addressing the problems of marine plas- tics that originate from vessels. The MARPOL convention regulates five types of pollution from ships through five annexes: oil, bulk chemicals, packaged hazardous substances, sewage, and garbage. Annex V (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) contains a provision that prohibits "the disposal into the sea of all plastics, including but not limited to synthetic fishing nets and plastic garbage bags." The MARPOL treaty does not apply to military vessels but does apply to all other commercial and recrea- tional vessels in all navigable waters of the United States. The MARPOL an- nexes go into effect one year after they are ratified by nations collectively representing at least 50 percent of the world's shipping tonnage. Annex V was ratified by Congress in November of 1987 and was signed by the President and delivered to the MARPOL convention on December 30, 1987. When Congress ratified Annex V, it also amended the "Act to Prevent Pollu- tion from Ships" in order to implement the Annex V provisions. These amend- ments go into effect the same time as the international treaty. The amendments make the U.S. prohibitions on dumping plastics at sea consistent with the Annex V provisions. The amendments require the Coast Guard to adopt regulations to implement Annex V These regulations should be com- pleted in the fall of 1988. The amendments also provide that U.S. military ves- sels must comply within five years. However, Congress has not appropriated 244 The Unfinished Agenda any money to implement Annex V or the regulations and therefore enforce- ment will probably be weak. The federal Driftnet Fishing Control Act of 1987 (enacted at the same time as ratification of Annex V) establishes a process for the United States to monitor and enforce regulations controlling driftnets used on the high seas. The intent is to minimize the amount of noncommercial fish inadvertently caught by driftnets and to reduce the number of nets lost. If enforcement agreements are not negotiated with a nation, the act stipulates that the United States can embargo imports of fish from that nation. The state legislature considered numerous bills in the 1988 legislative session that would have banned the sale of certain plastic items in Washington includ- ing disposable diapers, plastic grocery bags, and nonbiodegradable six-pack rings. None of these bills passed. Industry representatives claim that all six- pack rings sold in Washington are photodegradable (i.e., they degrade in sun- light). This voluntary marketing decision was made for Washington after other states banned nonbiodegradable six-pack rings due to litter and entangle- ment concerns. However, it is unclear exactly how long it takes for plastics to photodegrade. It is also unclear whether or not byproducts remain in the water after photodegradation occurs. It is important to question whether non- degradable plastic debris might not be more manageable and environmentally preferable to plastic dust (material which might have more serious effects on 7.7/7 water quality and biological resources). Current industry response has been to address the highly visible aesthetic and entanglement issues rather than the potential toxicity of degradation products. -- - The Commissioner of Public Lands convened a state task force of about 40 members to prepare a state plan of action for marine plastics. The Authority is one of the agencies represented on the task force. The task force addressed public education, institutional and legal issues, economics, and environmental concerns of marine plastics. The task force met through July 1988. The action plan was completed by September 1988 for presentation to agency directors in October 1988. The Washington Sea Grant Program, under a current Public In- volvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund) contract, is working to reduce marine plastic debris with a pilot collection and recycling project at Squalicum Harbor and an educational campaign for commercial fishermen and boaters. The state Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with NOAA and citizen volunteers, has a program for removal of derelict fishing gear. Ecology sup- ports cleanups, education, and related public involvement projects statewide. The Center for Environmental Education in Washington, D.C., has been desig- nated as the nationwide clearinghouse for information about marine debris. In addition, many volunteer groups are active in the marine debris issue. Results Comment summary Public response to this issue was mixed. Some citizens reported on local volun- teer efforts. Others proposed extreme measures such as going to the source by banning the production of plastics. The threat to human health was perceived as minor. Continued research in biodegradability was advised. Current state and federal efforts under MARPOL were recognized. This issue was ranked low in priority relative to the other issues on the unfinished agenda. 245 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Authority action Comprehensive and long-term solutions to the problems associated with non- degradable marine debris will require a combination of innovative and broad- based remedies at the local, state, and national levels. The Authority will continue to participate in the state's Marine Plastic Debris 'Tsk Force as its recommendations are presented to agency directors and the legislature in Oc- tober 1988. Implementation efforts will be tracked. This issue will be coor- dinated with the Boaters rlsk Force, especially in terms of boater education. Other agency efforts will be reviewed and continued, including the Public In- volvement and Education Fund (PIE-Fund) projects. TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION Problem Definition The contaminants that enter British Columbia's waters often end up in the Strait of Georgia and can be transported into Puget Sound. It is unclear exact- ly how much pollution is transported either way across the boundaries be- tween British Columbia and Washington, but it appears that prevailing winds can have a great influence, especially on floating material such as oil or debris. Studies of currents and floating material have shown that the marine waters of British Columbia and Washington are part of the same regional system of the North Pacific. In addition to pollution that crosses the international boundary in marine waters, nonpoint pollution enters the Canadian rivers and streams that dis- charge to the Strait of Georgia. This may represent the greatest portion of pol- lutants that travel from British Columbia to Puget Sound. Pollutants originating from the United States side of the border may also travel northward into Canada creating water quality problems in the Strait of Geor- gia and other waters. However, it is unclear to what extent this may take place. Nearly all of the problems identified in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan are also problems in Canada. Although pollution originat- ing in the Puget Sound basin may be transported to Canada, the Puget Sound plan should help reduce the volume. Therefore, although this discussion focuses on the pollution that flows into Puget Sound from Canada, the need for an international water quality management plan that could comprehensive- ly address pollution issues on both sides of the border should also be ex- amined. The primary problems include: Municipal and Industrial Discharges. British Columbia does not have the same standards as Washington for discharges into water and in many cases the stand- ards are much less stringent. Most sewage receives primary treatment. In the Victoria area the two largest outfalls receive no treatment.. Many industrial and commercial facilities in the Vancouver area discharge wastewater to the sanitary sewers. In addition, pulp and paper mills that discharge effluent into marine waters are controlled to a much greater extent in the United States than in Canada. These issues are being studied by Environment Canada, the country's principal environmental agency. Nonpoint Source Pollution. British Columbia has all the same contributors to nonpoint pollution as Washington. The primary problems in Canada arise from forestry, agricultural practices, and on-site sewage disposal (septic) sys- tems. In addition, Vancouver's solid waste landfills are located in the Fraser River delta area just north of the U.S./Canada border. The leachate from 246 The Unfinished Agenda these landfills has been shown to be toxic to fish. Due to fecal coliform con- tamination many shellfish beds in southern British Columbia have been closed, including those in Boundary Bay just north of Blaine, Washington. In addition, stockpiles of coal at the Point Roberts coal terminal could be a source of airborne contaminants. Hazardous Materials Transportation/Oil Spill Prevention and Response. Oil is the most common hazardous material to be transported in the boundary waters between Washington and British Columbia. There are multiple laws and programs in both nations to address spill prevention and response. In many cases the laws and procedures are complementary; in other cases it is un- clear who is responsible for what. Discharge of hazardous materials during storage and use is a problem on both sides of the border. Fraser River Contributions. The annual flow of the Fraser River in British Columbia is three to five times greater than that of all of the tributaries to Puget Sound. Information provided at a meeting of the Authority indicates that the U.S. waters may receive about 10 percent of the sediments (with as- sociated pollutants) that are discharged into the Fraser River and sub- sequently into the Strait of Georgia. Contaminated Sediments and Dredging. The Fraser River has an annual sedi- ment load of 15 million cubic yards per year. Much of this must be dredged at the mouth of the river to maintain channels for commercial navigation. Limited monitoring in British Columbia's marine waters has shown sediment contamination and abnormalities in groundfish. Dredged material disposal sites may be contributing to these problems. Regulatory Framework Unlike the United States where the federal government develops minimum standards, Canada's constitution grants nearly all powers of environmental regulation to the provinces. This leaves much greater authority to British Columbia to set either very stringent or very minimal standards. For example, municipalities are not typically required to install and are not assisted with the installation of sewage treatment facilities. The primary agency involved in en- vironmental regulation in British Columbia is the Ministry of the Environ- ment and Parks. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans can regulate discharges if they affect fish. The federal Environment Canada also can conduct monitoring of municipal outfalls under the Federal Fisheries Act. Local government entities are also involved in environmental regulation. Canadian local government entities have complained about interference from their federal or provincial governments as they tried to informally address regulatory concerns. Canadians do not have the level of public participation that is sought or re- quired in most American water quality programs. There is no initiative process for the public to alter governmental decisions. If an interest group is dissatisfied with a government program it often must wait until elections to in- fluence a course of action. On the other hand, elected officials do have broad discretion to impose environmental controls if they choose. There are examples of international cooperation in solving water resources dis- putes. Under the Boundary Waters 'Treaty Act of 1909 the U.S. and Canada formed the International Joint Commission (IJC). The IJC has dealt mainly with water flow and storage issues along the boundary but has also examined water quality issues when both countries have asked it to do so, for example, in the Great Lakes. In the 1960s Canada and the U.S. engaged in the joint 247 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan development of water resources in the Columbia River. Other examples in this region include the recent settlement of the Skagit River/Ross Dam dispute and the development of the traffic control system for shipping in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the Strait of Georgia. The Canada-United States Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan was signed in 1983 to estab- lish a procedure for spills that affect both countries or are of such magnitude that international assistance is necessary. Results Comment summary There were few public comments on this issue. All encouraged continued cooperation with Canada. The issue of Transboundary Pollution was not per- ceived by the reviewing public as an issue requiring significant Authority ac- tion at this time. Authority action The Authority will encourage joint efforts with the Canadian and British Columbia governments to examine scientific issues, planning, and prevention technologies associated with transboundary pollution. The Authority will re- quest that the International Joint Commission give some attention to transboundary water quality concerns in Puget Sound, and will seek other mechanisms to prompt work on this issue. TREATMENT OF DOMESTIC WASTES Problem Definition Homes and businesses generate about 80 to 100 gallons of domestic was- tewater per person per day. With nearly three million people living in the Puget Sound area this means that over 300 million gallons of domestic sewage are produced each day. About 75 percent of the area's population is con- nected to sanitary sewer systems, so over 245 million gallons of domestic sewage are collected and delivered to wastewater treatment plants around the Sound each day. Many elements of the Puget Sound plan and regulatory programs ad- ministered by Ecology and EPA deal with the treatment of domestic wastes. However, as called out in chapter 7 of the 1987 plan, there are a number of is- sues that are not being adequately addressed by the plan or existing regulatory systems. Some of these issues include: the need for integration of programs dealing with domestic wastewater; the correction/rehabilitation/repair of emer- gency overflows, combined sewer overflows, and failing infrastructure (con- veyance and treatment systems); the production, treatment, conveyance, use, and disposal of domestic sludge; and the use and effects of chlorine in the was- tewater treatment process. The development and analysis of alternative on- site sewage disposal systems is addressed in the 1989 plan (see element NP-15). Several of these other issues are discussed below. Integration The federal Clean Water Act, state law including the Puget Sound plan, and other government initiatives require that municipalities and other local governments address issues such as (1) the upgrade of wastewater treatment plants to secondary treatment; (2) the construction of new treatment facilities; 248 The Unfinished Agenda (3) the reduction or elimination of emergency and combined sewer overflows; (4) management of stormwater; (5) pretreatment of industrial wastes; (6) reduction of the infiltration and inflow of groundwater and surface water into sanitary sewers; and (7) the maintenance and repair of aging/failing infrastruc- ture. However, the institutional, financial, and engineering integration of these matters is not being adequately addressed. Although a significant amount of planning may occur on any one of the above issues, it is ques- tionable whether the planning is comprehensive enough in most cases to ade- quately address the overlap and interdependency of many of these issues. Lack of coordination among the jurisdictions carrying out these programs can result in excessive costs to the public. This is particularly critical given the costs of, and the limited funding available for, pollution control activities in the Puget Sound area. A recent EPA analysis of the nation's wastewater treatment needs concluded that in 1986 $60.3 billion was needed to build facilities used for the con- veyance, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal was- tewater. These costs included estimates to enlarge, upgrade, and replace/rehabilitate substandard facilities, but did not include operation and maintenance costs and other costs not directly related to treatment (e.g., land acquisition or connections from houses to sewers). Estimated needs for the year 2005 were projected to be $67.2 billion. The federal Water Quality Act of 1987 (1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act added by Public Law 100-4) will have a significant impact on the federal role in wastewater treatment. The act phases out the construction grants program over the next few years and replaces it with individual state revolving funds. As a result, local governments will likely have to pay a larger portion of their wastewater treatment needs. It was estimated in 1987 that $19.68 billion is available from federal and state funding sources for nationwide wastewater treatment up to 2005. 'lb meet their wastewater treatment needs, local govern- ments in Washington could have a total financing burden of over $2 billion be- tween 1986 and 2005. It is therefore critical that wastewater infrastructure funding needs be integrated to make the most efficient use of limited financial resources. Treatment bypasses and TrIeatment bypasses occur when sewer systems either malfunction (e.g., emer- failing infrastructure gency overflows and broken pipes) or become overloaded because of the influx of excessive rainfall runoff (e.g., combined sewer overflows or CSOs). 'reat- ment bypasses can result in significant levels of bacteria, viruses, sediments, metals, and organic toxicants being discharged directly into the fresh and marine waters of the area. Many sewer systems have emergency overflow pipes at pump stations and other locations. In cases of power outages, equip- ment failure, and other malfunctions, raw sewage may be discharged from these locations to the nearest water body. The discharge of untreated sewage to Puget Sound water bodies may also occur if sewer pipes leak or accidentally break. In addition to emergency overflows and occurrences of pipe breakages, there are nearly 150 known CSOs belonging to 10 different municipalities in the Puget Sound area that at times may discharge untreated stormwater and sanitary sewage. Current Ecology efforts include gathering more data on the quality of CSO discharges and the sediments adjacent to them as part of state regulatory requirements. The NPDES permit for each municipality includes a list of emergency over- flow locations. The permits include a condition which explains that discharges from these locations are not permitted and that any discharge must be 249 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan reported. Municipalities which comprise Metro do not have their own NPDES permits (except Seattle) so there is no legal document which requires them to report the location and occurrence of overflows. Municipalities are not spending sufficient funds to maintain their sewer systems. This underfund- ing leads to comprehensive sewer deterioration and excessive flows with poten- tial for bypass. Federal money is not available for maintenance. Sludge and septage Municipal sewage sludge is the semi-solid material left over after treatment of management sewage while septage is the semi-solid material that is pumped from septic tanks and marine holding tanks. Metro, which produces more sludge than any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area, produced about 91,000 tons of sludge in 1987. The production of sludge in the region will double by the early 1990s as new secondary treatment plants begin operation. Septage quantities are also anticipated to increase in the future as more homes are built with on- site sewage disposal (septic) systems. Sludge may be treated to reduce its volume and to lessen risks to public health and the environment. The anaerobic digestion of sludge kills about 90 percent of the pathogens, stabilizes it, and removes most of the odor and the tendency to decay further. After digestion sewage sludge may be dewatered, treated with heat or chemicals, placed in sludge lagoons, or composted. Treated sludge is a useful fertilizer, and most sludge in the Puget Sound area is applied to the land for silviculture, land reclamation, and composting; a small amount is incinerated. TWo percent of the land area in the Puget Sound region, or 12.8 acres out of every square mile of land, could accommodate all of the sludge produced in the region for the next 40 years. Certain risks are associated with the use of sludge due to its contamination with heavy metals, pathogens, and toxic organic compounds. Cadmium in sludge can be taken up by plants and potentially could poison animals or humans. Excessive use of sludge can also contaminate groundwater or surface water with nitrates. Analysis of Metro sludge indicated that, with the exception of cadmium, sludge quality meets recommended federal standards for "high quality" sludge compatible with agricultural uses. Metals concentrations in sludge have declined in recent years primarily because of Metro's industrial pretreatment program and the Seattle Water Department's corrosion control program. Programs designed to effectively and safely manage sewage sludge may include monitoring of soils, groundwater, and runoff; limiting annual and total applica- tion of sludge containing heavy metals; careful site selection and choice of crops where sludge may be applied (non-food chain crops); control of soil acidity (acid soils promote metal uptake by plants); limiting public access to the application site for some time after application; and requiring advanced levels of treatment for the sludge (e.g., heat treatment to destroy pathogenic organisms). However, one of the most efficient means of promoting high sludge quality is industrial pretreatment that removes or reduces many toxic contaminants at their sources. Chlorination Chlorine is applied to wastewater in the final stages of treatment to kill bac- teria, viruses, and protozoans that may be harmful to humans. However, chlorination of sewage effluent may create other problems in the fresh and marine waters where treated wastewater is discharged. For example, chlorina- tion may result in the formation of harmful chlorine residuals and of toxic or- 250 The Unfinished Agenda ganic compounds in the water column and sediments near sewage outfalls. Chlorine can chemically combine with organic substances in the effluent and form highly toxic chlorinated organic compounds. Chronic toxicity effects have been detected in fish exposed to low concentrations of residual chlorine compounds in water. Chlorination may also be a public health concern be- cause of the harmful effects of chlorinated organic compounds (e.g., or- ganohalogens) in wastewater effluents. Chlorine residuals may be reduced (a process known as dechlorination) by the addition of chemicals such as sulfur dioxide or activated carbon or by ozone treatment. However, not all means of dechlorination are known to effectively remove the most toxic residuals such as the organochlorines. Another potentially undesirable consequence of chlorination is that while the microbial organisms (usually fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria) that serve as indicators of the potential presence of harmful organisms are killed by the process, pathogenic viruses and other microorganisms may pass through the treatment process unharmed by the chlorine and undetected (depending on the degree and type of chlorination treatment used). Re- searchers have found that chlorine-treated wastewater effluent may contain viruses even though no fecal coliform bacteria are present. Although fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria are useful indicators of viruses in ef- fluents from which these bacteria are recovered, the absence of these bacteria from chlorinated effluents does not ensure that viruses are also absent. This is a public health concern because viruses cause many of the diseases that are spread by the presence of domestic wastewater, and most of the more impor- tant viruses cannot be easily measured with existing technology. The most prevalent viruses in domestic wastewater are the vaccine-strain polioviruses. Regulatory Framework There is currently no regulatory framework established to ensure the overall coordination and integration of the domestic wastewater issues discussed above, although the administration of the federal grants program may ac- complish some degree of coordination. The regulation of treatment bypasses could be accomplished through NPDES permits. NPDES permits generally re- quire a contingency plan only to prevent illegal discharge during power failures. Owners of plants are currently required to inform Ecology and local health departments immediately if an overflow event occurs so that bathing beaches and shellfish harvest areas can be closed. Ecology's 1989 work plan in- cludes development of a policy for correction of municipal and industrial over- flows and bypasses. There is no regulatory structure in place that requires municipalities and sewer districts to systematically repair and replace sewers and related facilities before failures occur. In addition, funds for rehabilitation and repair of the ex- isting infrastructure are often more difficult to secure than funds for new facilities (federal funds are not available for rehabilitation/repair of existing facilities). As a result, the reasonable lifetimes of the existing infrastructure may be exceeded and failures may occur because of the lack of funds for repair/rehabilitation. The federal Water Quality Act of 1987 amended Section 405 of the Clean Water Act to require the implementation of sludge standards and the develop- ment of requirements for sludge use and disposal. Once the standards have been promulgated, all NPDES permits (or other approved state permits) is- sued to domestic sewage treatment plants will be required to include standards for sludge. These standards will address land application, distribution and marketing, landfilling, incineration, and ocean disposal of sewage sludge. 251 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Generally, the standards will specify limits on pollutants of concern that may interfere with safe disposal. These federal regulations will become more rigorous and more specific for management of trace organic compounds and trace element residuals in sewage sludge. More stringent federal regulations will likely make it more difficult for sludge producers to use sludge on food crops and may affect composting projects involving public markets. Sludge is regulated in Washington as a solid waste by Chapter 70.95 RCW and Chapter 173-304 WAC. Sludge utilization is reviewed and approved by local health departments. Ecology has oversight responsibilities for the solid waste and sludge disposal programs. The agency published sludge utilization guidelines in 1982. Washington is considered to have a model sludge manage- ment program. The new federal regulations are not expected to significantly change existing management programs, but will establish minimum proce- dures for sludge use and numerical criteria for toxic pollutants in sludge. State permitting requirements must be extended, however, to cover all domestic sludge generators rather than just publicly owned treatment facilities. Ecology will continue to oversee solid waste and sludge disposal programs and to ad- minister federal regulations. The regulation of chlorination and the control of harmful chlorine residuals is incorporated into some NPDES permits. However, questions still remain about the degree of harm chlorine residuals may be causing in natural popula- tions in the vicinity of sewage treatment discharges. In addition, it is not clear what effect viruses that are not killed by chlorine treatment of domestic was- tewater may be having in the marine and fresh waters of the Sound. Ecology is currently in the process of reviewing its disinfection policy, including an evaluation of various disinfection technologies and an identification of where chlorine is causing water quality problems and what alternatives are available. This study should be completed in 1989. Results Comment summary Very few public comments were received on this issue. The primary public con- cern was sludge management. Generally, domestic waste was ranked low by technical and agency reviewers because of considerable existing local, state, and federal involvement. Authority action The Authority will continue to review and comment on regulations and related programs proposed by Ecology and by federal and local governments. OTHER ISSUES Comment summary A number of commenters identified other issues that they felt should be ad- dressed as part of the unfinished agenda. These issues included island ecology and the special needs of islands, improved public access to Puget Sound beaches, sole source aquifers, and the effects of seal populations on fecal coliform bacteria levels in the Sound. 252 The Unfinished Agenda Authority action With respect to islands, the Authority will make it a general policy to consider the special needs of islands and ensure that all plan programs give special con- sideration to island issues (e.g., note the proposed expansion of the Oil Spill program). 'Me Authority will also encourage other agencies to give islands special consideration in their respective programs. In addition, the 1990 State of the Sound Report will include a separate section discussing island ecology and the special issues related to islands in the Sound. With respect to public access to beaches, the Authority supports and en- courages improved and expanded public access to Puget Sound shorelands. The Authority will continue to review and comment on other agency's programs related to this issue, including public access aspects of Ecology's shorelands program and public access acquisition efforts by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). With respect to sole source aquifers, the Authority will review and comment on Ecology's groundwater program and encourage the special protection of sole source aquifers. With respect to fecal coliform. bacteria contamination generated by seal populations, the Authority will refer the issue to the Department of Wildlife for their consideration. ESTIMATED COST Work on the unfinished agenda issues is estimated to cost approximately $113,000 per year in fiscal years 1990 and 1991. Of this, about $40,000 per year will be used to fund work on the Fish and Wildlife Habitat issue, another $40,000 per year will fund work on the Pesticides issue, and about $33,000 per year will fund work on the Hazardous Materials issue. Activity on the other unfinished agenda issues will be covered by the Authority's normal operating budget. 253 Appendix A. Acroynms AET-Apparent effects threshold BMP-Best management practice BOD-Biochemical oxygen demand CERCLA-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also known as "Superfund") CFR-Code of Federal Regulations CSO-Combined sewer overflow CWA-Clean Water Act DNR-Washington Department of Natural Resources DSHS-Washington Department of Social and Health Services EIS-Environmental Impact Statement EPA-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FDA-U.S. Food and Drug Administration FTE--Full-time equivalent FY-Fiscal year MGD-Millions of gallons per day MSD-Marine sanitation device NEPA-National Environmental Policy Act NOAA-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES-National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PAH-Polycyclic (polynuclear) aromatic hydrocarbon PCB-Polychlorinated biphenyl PCHB-Pollution Control Hearings Board PIE-FUND-Public Involvement and Education Fund POTW-Publicly-owned treatment works PSDDA-Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis PSEP-Puget Sound Estuary Program PSP-Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning PSWQA-Puget Sound Water Quality Authority RCRA-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW-Revised Code of Washington SCS-U.S. Soil Conservation Service SEPA-State Environmental Policy Act SMA-Shoreline Management Act SPCC-Spill prevention control and countermeasure SPI-Superintendent of Public Instruction T/F/W-Timber/Fish/Wildlife Project USC-United States Code WAC-Washington Administrative Code 255 WDF-Washington Department of Fisheries WDW-Washington Department of Wildlife WDIS-Wastewater Discharge Information System WDOT-Washington Department of ransportation 256 Appendix B. Glossary ACUTE TONICITY Any toxic effect that is produced within a short period of time, generally 96 hours or less. Although the effect most frequently considered is mortality, the end result of an acute effect could be any harmful biological effect. AEROBIC Living, active, or occurring only in the presence of oxygen. For example, soil microorganisms which degrade sewage effluent from septic systems need oxygen in order to function. ALGAE Aquatic, nonflowering plants that lack roots and use light energy to convert carbon dioxide and inor- ganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus into organic matter by photosynthesis. Common algae include dinoflagellates, diatoms, seaweeds, and kelp. An algal bloom can occur when excessive nutrient levels and other physical and chemical conditions enable the algae to reproduce rapidly. AMBIENT MONITORING Monitoring that is done to determine existing environmental conditions, contaminant levels, rates, or species in the environment, against which future conditions can be compared. AMPHIPODS Small shrimp-like crustaceans such as sand fleas and related forms. Many live on the bottom (i.e., are benthic) and feed on algae and detritus. ANADROMOUS FISH Species, such as salmon, which hatch in fresh water, spend a large part of their lives in the ocean, and return to fresh water rivers and streams to reproduce. ANTHROPOGENIC Effects or processes that are derived from human activity, as opposed to natural effects or processes that occur in the environment without human intervention. APPARENT EFFECTS THRESHOLD (AET) The highest sediment concentration of an individual chemical contaminant which is not associated with adverse biological effects. Samples with concentrations of contaminants above the AET have always shown adverse biological effects. AQUACULTURE The controlled cultivation and harvest of aquatic plants or animals (e.g., edible marine algae, clams, oysters, and salmon). AQUIFER 'Me underground layer of rock or soil in which groundwater resides. Aquifers Sre replenished or recharged by surface water percolating through soil. Wells are drilled into aquifers to extract water for human use. AROMATIC A chemical substance characterized by the presence of at least one benzene ring. These substances may have a strong smell and are often persistent in the environment due to the stability of the benzene ring. 257 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan BASELINE STUDY A study that documents the existing state of an environment to serve as a baseline against which future changes are measured. B3ENTHIC ORGANISMS Organisms that live in or on the bottom of a body of water. DEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) A method, activity, maintenance procedure, or other management practice for reducing the amount of pollution entering a water body. The term originated from the rules and regulations developed pur- suant to Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act (40 CFR 130). BIOACCUMULATION The process by which a contaminant accumulates in the tissues of an organism. For example, certain chemicals in food eaten by a fish tend to accumulate in its liver and other tissues. BIOASSAY A test procedure that measures the response of living plants, animals, or tissues to potential con- taminants. For example, marine worms have been exposed to the sediments of Puget Sound, and their responses have been used to determine areas in the Sound where the sediments may be harmful to life. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (ROD) The quantity of oxygen-demanding materials present in a sample as measured by a specific test. A major objective of conventional wastewater treatment is to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand so that the oxygen content of the water body will not be significantly reduced. Although BOD is not a specific com- pound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act. BIO0DEGRADATION The conversion of organic compounds into simpler compounds through biochemical activity. Thbxic com- pounds can sometimes be converted into nontoxic compounds through biodegradation. In some cases complex compounds are first converted into intermediate substances that can be more toxic than the original substance. BIOMAGNIFICATION The process by which concentrations of contaminants increase (magnify) as they pass up the food web such that each animal in the food web has higher tissue concentrations than did its food. For example, concentrations of certain contaminants can increase as they are passed from plankton to herring to sal- mon to seals. BIOTA The animals, plants, and microbes that live in a particular location or region. B31VALVE An aquatic invertebrate animal of the class Bivalvia. Bivalves, such as clams and oysters, have two shells (valves) and most are filter feeders. CARCINOGENIC Capable of causing cancer. CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND (CCWF) also known as the WATER QUALITY ACCOUNT In 1986 legislation was passed creating the Water Quality Account in the state treasury (RCW 70.146). The purpose of the account is to provide financing of water pollution control facilities and activities. The account receives revenue from a tax on tobacco products. Ecology, in adopting rules for administra- tion of the account, has named it the Centennial Clean Water Fund. 258 Glossary CERTIFIED SHELLFISH BED An area where commercial shellfish harvesting is approved by the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), based on measurements of fecal coliform bacteria in the overlying waters. Fecal coliform bacteria are used as an indicator of human health risk. CHRONIC TOXICITY Any toxic effect on an organism that results after exposure of long duration (often 1/10th of the life span or more). The end result of a chronic effect can be death although the usual effects are sublethal (e.g., inhibited reproduction or growth). These sublethal effects may be reflected by changes in the produc- tivity and population structure of the community. CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) Also known as the federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). CLEANUP ACTIVITIES Actions taken by a public agency or a private party to correct an environmental problem. Activities generally consist of the treatment or removal from the environment of contaminants introduced by past practices (for example, capping part of a public park contaminated with carcinogenic compounds or dig- ging up and incinerating soil contaminated with dioxin). CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR) The compilation of federal regulations adopted by federal agencies through the rulemaking process. For example, pretreatment regulations are found in 40 CFR 403. COLIFORM BACTERIA A type of bacteria that is coil or helix shaped. Fecal coliform bacteria are those coliform bacteria that are found in the intestinal tracts of mammals. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the presence of animal feces. These organisms may also indicate the presence of pathogens that are harmful to humans. High numbers of fecal coliform bacteria therefore limit beneficial uses such as swimming and shellfish har- vesting. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) A pipe that discharges untreated wastewater during storms from a sewer system that carries both sanitary wastewater and stormwater. The overflow occurs because the system does not have the capacity to transport, store, or treat the increased flow caused by stormwater runoff. COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM A wastewater collection and treatment system where domestic and industrial wastewater is combined with storm runoff. Although such a system does provide treatment of stormwater, in practice the sys- tems may not be able to handle major storm flows. As a result, untreated discharges from combined sewer overflows may occur. CONTAMINANT A substance that is not naturally present in the environment or is present in amounts that can, in suffi- cient concentration, adversely affect the environment. CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT Conventional pollutants as specified under the Clean Water Act are total suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, pH, and oil and grease. Today a large number of noncon- ventional and toxic contaminants are of concern in addition to the conventional pollutants. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The combined environmental impacts that accrue over time and space from a series of similar or related individual actions, contaminants, or projects. Although each action may seem to have a negligible im- pact, the combined effect can be severe. 259 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan DETENTION The process of collecting and holding back stormwater for delayed release to receiving waters. DISCHARGE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT The release of wastewater or contaminants to the environment. A direct discharge of wastewater flows directly into surface waters while an indirect discharge of wastewater enters a sewer system. DISINFECTION The destruction of infectious agents such as bacteria or viruses. Most wastewater treatment plants use chlorine or bromine for disinfection. DISPOSAL Methods by which unwanted materials are relocated, contained, treated, or processed. Unless con- taminants are converted to less harmful forms or removed from the material before disposal, they may be released again into the environment. DISSOLVED OXYGEN Oxygen that is present (dissolved) in water and therefore available for fish and other aquatic animals to use. If the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water is too low, then aquatic animals may die. Was- tewater and naturally occurring organic matter contain oxygen-demanding substances that consume dis- solved oxygen. DOMESTIC WASTEWATER (SEWAGE) Human-generated wastewater that flows from homes, businesses, and industries. DREDGING Any physical digging into the bottom sediment of a water body. Dredging can be done with mechanical or hydraulic machines, and it changes the shape and form of the bottom. Dredging is routinely done in many parts of Puget Sound in order to maintain navigation channels that would otherwise fill with sedi- ment and block ship passage. ECOSYSTEM A community of living organisms interacting with one another and with their physical environment, such as a rain forest, pond, or estuary. Damage to any part of a complex system, such as Puget Sound, may affect the whole. A system such as Puget Sound can also be thought of as the sum of many intercon- nected ecosystems such as the rivers, wetlands, and bays. Ecosystem is thus a concept applied to com- munities of different scale, signifying the interrelationships that must be considered. EFFLUENT The liquid that flows out of a facility or household into a water body or sewer system. For example, the treated liquid discharged by a wastewater treatment plant is the plant's effluent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) A document that discusses the likely significant impacts of a development project or a planning proposal, ways to lessen the impacts, and alternatives to the project or proposal. EISs are required by the national and Washington state environmental policy acts. EROSION Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces. ESTUARY A coastal water body where ocean water is diluted by out-flowing fresh water. FECAL COLIFORM see COLIFORM BACTERIA 260 Glossary FECES Waste excreted from animals. FOREST PRACTICE Any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land related to growing, harvesting, or process- ing timber. These activities include but are not limited to: road and trail construction, final and inter- mediate harvesting, precommercial thinning, reforestation, fertilization, prevention and suppression of disease and insects, salvage of trees, and brush control. Forest practices are subject to regulation by the Washington Department of Natural Resources. FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) The work one person does in one year--used to estimate costs and people needed to perform certain ac- tions. FUNGICIDE A substance that destroys or inhibits growth of fungus. GROUNDFISH Fish (also known as bottomfish) that live on or near the bottom of water bodies, for example, English sole. GROUNDWATER Underground water supplies stored in aquifers. Groundwater is created by rain which soaks into the ground and flows down until it is collected at a point where the ground is not permeable. Groundwater then usually flows laterally toward a river, lake, or the ocean. Wells tap the groundwater for use. (See AQUIFER) HABITAT The specific area or environment in which a particular type of plant or animal lives. An organism's habitat must provide all of the basic requirements for life and should be free of harmful contaminants. Typical Puget Sound habitats include beaches, marshes, rocky shores, the bottom sediments, intertidal mudflats, and the water itself. HAZARDOUS WASTE Any solid, liquid, or gaseous substance which, because of its source or measurable characteristics, is clas- sified under state or federal law as hazardous and is subject to special handling, shipping, storage, and disposal requirements. Washington state law identifies two categories, dangerous and extremely hazard- ous. The latter category is more hazardous and requires greater precautions. HERBICIDE A substance used to destroy or inhibit growth of vegetation. HOLDING TANK An enclosed container used as part of a sewage disposal system on a boat. The tank is used to tem- porarily store sewage for later pumpout at a marina pumpout facility. HUMAN HEALTH RISK The risk or likelihood that human health will be adversely affected. Estimating health risks is a complex and inexact practice. HYDROCARBON An organic compound composed of carbon and hydrogen; for example, petroleum compounds. HYDROLOGIC CYCLE The continual cycling of water between the land, the sea, and the atmosphere through evaporation, con- densation, precipitation, absorption into the soil, and stream runoff. 261 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan IMPERVIOUS A surface that cannot be easily penetrated. For instance, rain does not readily penetrate asphalt or con- crete pavement. INSECTICIDE A substance, usually a chemical, that is used to kill insects. INTERFERENCE A contaminant can interfere with the normal sewage treatment plant process by diminishing the efficien- cy of the treatment process. For example, a toxic chemical can kill the beneficial bacteria in a treatment plant and interfere with the biological treatment process, thus causing the release of excessively contami- nated effluent. INTERTIDAL AREA The area between high and low tide levels. The alternate wetting and drying of this area makes it a tran- sition between land and water and creates special environmental conditions and habitats. LAND USE The way land is developed and used in terms of the types of activities allowed (agriculture, residences, in- dustries, etc.) and the size of buildings and structures permitted. Certain types of pollution problems are often associated with particular land use practices, such as sedimentation from construction activi- ties. LEACHATE Water or other liquid that has washed (leached) from a solid material, such as a layer of soil or debris. Leachate may contain contaminants such as organics or mineral salts. Rainwater that percolates through a sanitary landfill and picks up contaminants is called the leachate from the landfill. LIVEABOARD Those using a boat, other than a houseboat, as a primary dwelling. LOADING The total amount of material entering a system from all sources. MARINE SANITATION DEVICE (MSD) A device installed on a boat to treat or hold sewage. Section 312 of the federal Clean Water Act re- quires all vessels with installed toilets to have approved MSDs. Federal regulations describe three types of MSDs: Type I and Type II MSDs are treatment devices while Type III MSDs are holding tanks. MARSH A wetland where the dominant vegetation is non-woody plants such as grasses and sedges, as opposed to a swamp where the dominant vegetation is woody plants like trees. METABOLISM All chemical processes occurring within an organism, including both synthesis and breakdown of or- ganic materials. METALS Metals are elements found in rocks and minerals that are naturally released to the environment by erosion, as well as generated by human activities. Certain metals, such as mercury, lead, nickel, zinc, and cadmium, are of environmental concern because they are released to the environment in excessive amounts by human activity. They are generally toxic to life at certain concentrations. Since metals are elements, they do not break down in the environment over time and can be incorporated into plant and animal tissue. 262 Glossary MICROLAYER, SEA-SURFACE MICROLAYER The extremely thin (usually estimated as 50 microns) layer at the top of the water. Contamination of this layer is of concern because many contaminants such as oil, grease, organic toxicants, and pathogens are buoyant in seawater and therefore may concentrate at much higher concentrations in the microlayer than in the water column. The atmospheric deposition of toxicants into the microlayer is also of con- cern. These contaminant concentrations may pose a danger to fish eggs and other organisms that may come into contact with the water surface. MICROORGANISMS Microscopic organisms, (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and protozoans) that are not visible to the unaided eye. Some cause diseases in humans, animals, and plants; some are important because they are involved in breaking down and stabilizing sewage and solid waste. MONITOR lb systematically and repeatedly measure conditions in order to track changes. For example, dissolved oxygen in a bay might be monitored over a period of several years in order to identify trends in con- centration. MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE Effluent from a municipal sewage treatment plant. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) A part of the federal Clean Water Act, which requires point source dischargers to obtain discharge per- mits. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and are administered by the Washington Depart- ment of Ecology. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Pollution that enters water from dispersed and uncontrolled sources (such as surface runoff) rather than through pipes. Nonpoint sources (e.g., forest practices, agricultural practices, on-site sewage disposal, and recreational boats) may contribute pathogens, suspended solids, and toxicants. While individual sources may seem insignificant, the cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollution can be significant. NUTRIENTS Essential chemicals needed by plants or animals for growth. If other physical and chemical conditions are optimal, excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to degradation of water quality by promoting exces- sive growth, accumulation, and subsequent decay of plants, especially algae. Some nutrients can be toxic to animals at high concentrations. OXYGEN-DEMANDING MATERIALS Materials such as food waste and dead plant or animal tissue that use up dissolved oxygen in the water when they are degraded through chemical or biological processes. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed when a substance degrades. PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING (PSP) An illness, sometimes fatal to humans and other mammals, caused by a neuro-toxin produced by a type of plankton called Gonyaulax. During certain times of the year and at certain locations, these organisms proliferate in "blooms" (sometimes called red tides) and can be concentrated by clams, mussels, and other bivalves. The nervous system of shellfish is unaffected. Consumption of the shellfish can cause acute illness in humans and other mammals. PARAMETER A quantifiable or measurable characteristic. For example, height, weight, sex, and hair color are all parameters that can be determined for humans. Water quality parameters include temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and many others. 263 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan PATHOGEN An agent such as a virus, bacterium, or fungus that can cause diseases in humans. Pathogens can be present in municipal, industrial, and nonpoint source discharges to the Sound. PELAGIC Associated with or living in the water column as opposed to the bottom or the shoreline. PERCOLATE Th pass through a permeable substance. For instance, septic effluent and rainfall percolates through soil. PERSISTENT Compounds that are not readily degraded by physical, chemical, or biological processes. PESTICIDE A general term used to describe chemical substances that are used to destroy or control pest organisms. Pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, algicides, fungicides, and others. Many of these substances are manufactured and are not naturally found in the environment. Others, such as pyrethrum, are natural toxins which are extracted from plants and animals. pH The degree of alkalinity or acidity of a solution. A pH of 7.0 indicates neutral water while a pH of 5.5 is acid. A reading of 8.5 is alkaline or basic. The pH of water influences many of the types of chemical reactions that will occur in it. For instance, a slight decrease in pH may greatly increase the toxicity of substances such as cyanides, sulfides, and most metals. A slight increase may greatly increase the toxicity of pollutants such as ammonia. PHOTOSYNTHESIS The process by which plants use light energy to make simple sugars and carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water. PLANKTON Small plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that are suspended in the water and either drift with the currents or swim weakly. POINT SOURCE A source of pollutants from a single point of conveyance such as a pipe. For example, the discharge pipe from a sewage treatment plant or a factory is a point source. POLLUTANT A contaminant that adversely alters the physical, chemical, or biological properties of the environment. The term includes pathogens, toxic metals, carcinogens, oxygen-demanding materials, and all other harmful substances. With reference to nonpoint sources, the term is sometimes used to apply to contaminants released in low concentrations from many activities which collectively degrade water quality. As defined in the federal Clean Water Act, pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinera- tor residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioac- tive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) A group of manufactured chemicals including about 70 different but closely related compounds made up of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine. If released to the environment they persist for long periods of time and can biomagnify in food chains because they have no natural usage in the food web. PCBs are suspected of causing cancer in humans. PCBs are an example of an organic toxicant. 264 Glossary POLYCYCLIC or POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) A class of complex organic compounds, some of which are persistent and cancer-causing. These com- pounds are formed from the combustion of organic material and are ubiquitous in the environment. PAHs are commonly formed by forest fires and by the combustion of gasoline and other petroleum products. They often reach the environment through atmospheric fallout and highway runoff. PRETREATMENT The treatment of industrial wastewater to remove contaminants prior to discharge into municipal sewage systems. PRIMARY TREATMENT A wastewater treatment method that uses settling, skimming, and (usually) chlorination to remove solids, floating materials, and pathogens from wastewater. Primary treatment typically removes about 35 percent of BOD and less than half of the metals and toxic organic substances. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS Substances listed by EPA under the federal Clean Water Act as toxic and having priority for regulatory controls. The list currently includes metals (13), inorganic compounds (two), and a broad range of both natural and artificial organic compounds (111). The list of priority pollutants includes some substances which are not of immediate concern in Puget Sound, and it does not include all known harmful com- pounds. PROTOCOL A standardized procedure for field collection, laboratory analysis, and/or interpretation of samples. Good protocols improve the quality of data and make data from different sources comparable. The Puget Sound Estuary Program protocols were developed under contract to EPA to standardize sample collection and analysis within the Sound, allowing for comparability of data and determination of long- term environmental trends. PUGET SOUND, WATERS OF As defined in RCW 90.70.005, all salt waters of the state of Washington inside the international bound- ary line between Washington and British Columbia, and lying cast of 123' 24' west longitude (east of Port Angeles). PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY (AUTHORITY) The state agency which is responsible for development and oversight of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A particular set of laws, rules, procedures, and agencies designed to govern a particular type of activity or solve a particular problem. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) The federal law that classifies and regulates solid and hazardous waste. REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON (RCW) The compilation of the laws of the state of Washington published by the Statute Law Committee. For example, the law that created the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority is incorporated in the code as Chapter 90.70 RCW. RIPARIAN HABITAT 'lrrestrial habitat adjacent to and associated with streams. SALINITY A measure of the quantity of dissolved salts in water. 265 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan SALMONID A fish of the family Salmonidae (as distinct from a salmonoid which is merely a fish that resembles a sal- mon). Fish in this family include salmon and trout. Most Puget Sound salmonids are anadromous. SANITARY WASTEWATER Wastewater which includes domestic sewage and may contain pathogens. Sanitary wastewater is not sanitary. SECONDARY TREATMENT A wastewater treatment method that usually involves the addition of biological treatment to the set- tling, skimming, and disinfection provided by primary treatment. Secondary treatment may remove up to 90 percent of BOD and significantly more metals and toxic organics than primary treatment. SEDIMENT Material suspended in or settling to the bottom of a liquid, such as the sand and mud that make up much of the shorelines and bottom of Puget Sound. SEPARATED SEWER SYSTEM A wastewater collection and treatment system where domestic and industrial wastewater is separated from storm runoff. A separated system consists of independent sanitary wastewater and stormwater sys- tems. The stormwater is generally discharged directly into open water and the sanitary wastewater goes to a treatment plant. SEPTAGE The sludge and scum material that is pumped out of a septic tank. SHELLFISH An aquatic animal, such as a mollusc (clams and snails) or crustacean (crabs and shrimp), having a shell or shell-like exoskeleton. SHELLFISH CONTAMINATION The contamination of certain bivalves (clams, mussels, oysters) which filter water to feed and tend to col- lect or concentrate waterborne contaminants in their tissues. SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT As regulated by the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) the construction over water or within a shoreline zone (generally 200 feet landward of the water) of structures such as buildings, piers, bulkheads, and breakwaters, including environmental alterations such as dredging and filling, or any project which interferes with public navigational rights on the surface waters. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) The state law (90.58 RCW) that requires local governments to develop a shoreline master program, and requires permits for water and associated land uses. Many local governments promote the protection of wetlands, habitat, and water quality through their shoreline master program. SLUDGE, WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE Semi-solid matter resulting from the treatment of wastewater. Some of the contaminants (especially toxic metals) that were in the wastewater remain in the sludge after treatment. The treated wastewater can be discharged to the Sound, but the sludge must be disposed of elsewhere. Sludge is usually at least partially dried before disposal and if relatively uncontaminated may be added to soil to increase plant growth. SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER The single source of groundwater for human use in any one area. Areas with a sole source aquifer have no other source of groundwater; any contamination of the aquifer could contaminate the entire water supply. 266 Glossary SOURCE CONTROL A practice, method, or technology that is used to reduce pollution from a source; for example, best management practices or end-of-pipe treatment. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) A state law (Chapter 43.21C RCW) that requires that state agencies and local governments consider en- vironmental factors when making decisions on activities, such as development proposals over a certain size, and comprehensive plans. As part of this process, environmental impacts are documented and op- portunities for public comment are provided. STORM DRAIN A system of gutters, pipes, or ditches used to carry stormwater from surrounding lands to streams, lakes, or Puget Sound. In practice storm drains carry a variety of substances such as sediments, metals, bac- teria, oil, and antifreeze which enter the system through runoff, deliberate dumping, or spills. This term also refers to the end of the pipe where the stormwater is discharged. STORMWATER Water that is generated by rainfall and is often routed into drain systems in order to prevent flooding. SUSPENDED SOLIDS Organic or inorganic particles that are suspended in and carried by the water. The term includes sand, mud, and clay particles as well as solids in wastewater. TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS Trlchnology-based effluent standards are developed by considering the effluent quality that can be achieved using various process or treatment technologies, and the costs of those technologies, rather than basing effluent standards on the environmental effects of different loadings of pollutants. TIMBER/FISH/WILDLIFE AGREEMENT (T/F/W) An agreement between timber, fish, and wildlife interests that promotes the monitoring and protection of fish and wildlife resources as an integral component of forestry management practices. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) The weight of particles that are suspended in water. Suspended solids in water reduce light penetration in the water column, can clog the gills of fish and invertebrates, and are often associated with toxic con- taminants because organics and metals tend to bind to particles. TOXIC Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life. TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND TOXICANTS Chemical substances such as pesticides, plastics, detergents, chlorine, and industrial wastes that are poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life. TREATMENT Chemical, biological, or mechanical procedures applied to an industrial or municipal discharge or to other sources of contamination to remove, reduce, or neutralize contaminants. TRIBUTYL TIN (TBT) An organic-metal compound used as an additive in many marine antifoulant paints used to prevent algal and barnacle growth. Tributyl tin is highly toxic to many marine organisms. TURBIDITY A measure of the amount of material suspended in the water. Increasing the turbidity of the water decreases the amount of light that penetrates the water column. High levels of turbidity are harmful to aquatic life. 267 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) The federal agency which administers many federal environmental laws. EPA Region 10, which includes Puget Sound, is headquartered in Seattle. UPLAND MANAGEMENT AREA A mandatory unharvested area for wildlife use and protection in a forest clearcut. These areas typically represent two percent or more of the clearcut area. This term originated from the Timber/Fish/Wildlife agreement. VOLATILE Can be readily vaporized at a relatively low temperature. WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATiVE CODE (WAC) Contains all state regulations adopted by state agencies through the rulemaking process. For example, Chapter 173-201 WAC contains water quality standards. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) The state agency which is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing many environmental protection laws and policies, including the state Clean Water Act and the Shoreline Management Act. Note that the abbreviation DOE is confusing because the federal Department of Energy uses the same term. Ecology is the preferred term for referring to the Department of Ecology. WATER COLUMN The water in a lake, estuary, or ocean which extends from the bottom sediments to the water surface. The water column contains dissolved and particulate matter, and is the habitat for plankton, fish, and marine mammals. WATER QUALITY ACCOUNT see CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND WATER TABLE The upper surface of groundwater or the level below which the soil is saturated with water. WATERSHED The geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water. A watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land drains. Watershed boun- daries are defined by the ridges of separating watersheds. WELLHEAD The immediate area around the top of a well. Contamination of the aquifer may occur from surface water if the wellhead is not sealed to prevent flow down the well casing. WETLANDS Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands have one or more of the follow- ing three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the sub- strate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoils and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing seasons each year. ZONING 'lb designate by ordinances areas of land reserved and regulated for different land uses. 268 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 90.70.001 Appendix C. Puget Sound Water Quality Act Chapter 90.70 PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY Sections 90.70.001 Legislative findings Policy. 90.70.005 Definitions. 90.70.011 Puget Sound water quality authority Member- ship-Terms-Vacancies Compensation. 90.70.025 Authority's powers. 90.70.035 Appointment of advisory committees Duties. 90.70.045 Hiring of staff Assignment of government employ- ees to authority. 90.70.055 Water quality management plan Progress re- ports "State of the Sound" report Budget and activities review. 90.70.060 Water quality management plan Requirements- Record of public comments. 90.70.070 Water quality management plan Incorporation by state and local governments Review and report on implementation Deviations from plan. 90.70.080 Adoption of rules, ordinances, and regulations. 90.70.900 Termination of authority Expiration of chapter. 90.70.901 Severability 1985 c 451. 90.70.001 Legislative findings-Policy. The legis- lature finds that Puget Sound and related inland marine waterways of Washington state represent a unique and unparalleled resource. A rich and varied range of marine organisms, composing an interdependent, sensitive com- munal ecosystem reside in these sheltered waters. Resi- dents of this region enjoy a way of life centered around the waters of Puget Sound, featuring accessible recrea- tional opportunities, world-class port facilities and water transportation systems, harvest of marine food resources, shoreline-oriented life styles, water-dependent indus- tries, tourism, irreplaceable aesthetics and other activi- ties, all of which to some degree depend upon a clean and healthy marine resource. The legislature further finds that the consequences of careless husbanding of this resource have been dramati- cally illustrated in inland waterways associated with older and more extensively developed areas of the na- tion. Recent reports concerning degradation of water quality within this region's urban embayments raise alarming possibilities of similar despoliation of Puget Sound and other state waterways. These examples em- phasize that the costs of restoration of aquatic resources, where such restoration is possible, greatly exceed the costs of responsible preservation. The legislature declares that utilization of the Puget Sound resource carries a custodial obligation for pre- serving it. The people of the state have the unique op- portunity to preserve this gift of nature, an understanding of the results of inattentive stewardship, [Title 90 RCW-p 811 269 90.70.00 1 Title 90 RCW: Water Rights-Environment the technical knowledge needed for control of degrada- contracting, coordinating with the governor, the legisla- tion, and the obligation to undertake such control. ture, and other state and local entities, and the delega- The legislature further finds that the large number of tion of responsibilities as deemed appropriate. The salary governmental entities that now affect the water quality of the chair shall be fixed by the governor, subject to of Puget Sound have diverse interests and limited juris- RCW 43.03.040. dictions which cannot adequately address the cumula- (4) The chair shall prepare a budget and a work plan tive, wide-ranging impacts which contribute to the which are subject to review and approval by the author- degradation of Puget Sound. It is therefore the policy of ity. [1985 c 451 � 3.] the state of Washington to create a single entity with adequate resources to develop a comprehensive plan for 90.70.025 Authority's powers. In order to carry out water quality protection in Puget Sound to be imple- its responsibilities under this chapter, the authority may: mented by existing state and local government agencies. (1) Develop interim proposals and recommendations, [1985 c 451 � 1.] before the plan is adopted, concerning the elements identified in RCW 90.70.060; 90.7.00 Defnitons.Unlss te cntex clarlyre- (2) Enter into, amend, and terminate contracts with 90.7.005Defiitios. Ulessthe ontet clarlyre- individuals, corporations, or research institutions for the quires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply purposes of this chapter; throughout this chapter: (3) Receive such gifts, grants, and endowments, in (1) "Authority' means the Puget Sound water quality trust or otherwise, for the use and benefit of the pur- authority. poses of the authority. The authority may expend the (2) 'Chair' means the presiding officer of the Puget same or any income therefrom according to the terms of Sound water quality authority. the gifts, grants, or endowments; (3) 'Plan' means the Puget Sound water quality (4) Conduct studies and research relating to Puget management plan. Sound water quality; (4) 'Puget Sound' means all salt waters of the state (5) Obtain information relating to Puget Sound from of Washington inside the international boundary line other state and local agencies; between the state of Washington and the province of (6) Conduct appropriate public hearings and other- British Columbia, lying east of one hundred twenty- wise seek to broadly disseminate information concerning three degrees, twenty-four minutes west longitude. Puget Sound; 11985 c 451 � 2.] (7) Receive funding from other public agencies; (8) Prepare a biennial budget request for considera- 90.70.011 Puget Sound water quality authority- tion by the governor and the legislature; and Membership-Te irms-Vacancies----Compensa-. (9) Adopt rules under chapter 34.04 RCW as it tion. (1) There is established the Puget Sound water deems necessary for the purposes of this chapter. [1985 quality authority composed of seven members who are c 451 � 5.] appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate. 90 703Aponmtofavsrcmites The governor shall select one of the seven members to D uie.703 ()T eauhrtsalappointmn one adiory mormteesd- act as chair of the authority and be presiding officer of vuiesory1 comttee athorasisty salpointh deeopmnt of moread the authority. In making these appointments, the gover- plan.ry cmakingtteeset appointments the develoriety ofhthe nor shall seek to include representation of the variety of plan. to maincld repesenaino allointerensthed parthoieyshal interested parties concerned about Puget Sound water setoincludineoa goeprnensenvaironmentall anteetd healties qulty. The ecommiyssionervase ofpbicio lndsondothengirec- agencies, tribal organizations, business, labor, citizens' tors of tecoltogiy. shalsre asiex apofinnvting mem-es n groups such as environmental and public interest organ- bers f th authrity Thesix apoined mebers oneizations, agricultural interests, recreational interests, and from each of the six congressional districts surrounding the fisheries and shellfish industries. Puget Sound, shall serve four-year terms. Of the initial (2) The advisory committee or committees shall assist members appointed to the authority, two shall serve for the authority to formulate policy goals and strategies, two years, two shall serve for three years, and two shall review the plan and make recommendations for its serve for four years. Thereafter members shall be ap- amendment to the authority, review the authority's re- pointed to four-year terms. Vacancies shall be filled by ports, and review the authority's budget request propos- appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term of als. [1985 c 451 � 6.1 the position being vacated. The chair of the authority shall serve at the pleasure of the governor. 90.70.045 Hiring of staff-.--Assignment of govern- (2) The voting members, exclusive of the chair, shall ment employees to authority. (1) The chair shall hire be compensated as provided in RCW 43.03.250. The staff for the authority. In so doing, the chair shall rec- voting members shall be reimbursed for travel expenses ognize the many continuing planning and research ac- as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. tivities concerning Puget Sound water quality and shall (3) The chair of the authority shall be a full time em- seek to acquire competent and knowledgeable staff from ployee responsible for the administration of all functions state, federal, and local government agencies that are of the authority, including hiring and terminating staff, currently involved in these activities. [Title 90 RCW-p 82] (1987 Ed.) 270 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 90.70.060 (2) As deemed appropriate, the chair may request the changes necessary to protect and improve Puget Sound state departments of ecology, community development, water quality; and fisheries, *game, agriculture, natural resources, and so- (5) Review the budgets and regulatory and enforce- cial and health services to each assign at least one em- ment activities of state agencies with responsibilities for ployee to the authority. The chair shall enter into an water quality and related resources in Puget Sound. interagency agreement with agencies assigning employ- 11985 c 451 � 4.] ees to the authority. Such agreement shall provide for reimbursement, by the authority to the assigning agency, 90.70.060 Water quality management plan- Re- of all work-related expenditures associated with the as- quirements- Record of public comments. The plan signment of the employees. During the term of their as- adopted by the authority shall be a positive document signment, the chair shall have full authority and prescribing the needed actions for the maintenance and responsibility for the activities of these employees. enhancement of Puget Sound water quality. The plan (3) The chair shall seek assignment of appropriate shall address all the waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of federal and local government employees under available Juan de Fuca, and, to the extent that they affect water means. [1985 c 451 � 7.] quality in Puget Sound, all waters flowing into Puget *Reviser's note: References to the "department of game' mean 'de- Sound, and adjacent lands. The authority may define partment of wildlife." See note following RCW 77.04.020. specific geographic boundaries within which the plan applies. The plan shall coordinate and incorporate exist- 90.70.055 Water quality management plan ing planning and research efforts of state agencies and Progress reports-"State of the Sound" report- local government related to Puget Sound, and shall Budget and activities review. The authority shall: avoid duplication of existing efforts. The plan shall (1) Prepare and adopt a comprehensive Puget Sound include: water quality management plan, as defined in RCW 90- (1) A statement of the goals and objectives for long .70.060. In preparing the plan and any substantial revi- and short-term management of the water quality of sions to the plan, the authority shall consult with its Puget Sound; advisory committee or committees and appropriate fed- (2) A resource assessment which identifies critically eral, state, and local agencies. The authority shall also sensitive areas, key characteristics, and other factors solicit extensive participation by the public by whatever which lead to an understanding of Puget Sound as an means it finds appropriate, including public hearings ecosystem; throughout communities bordering or near Puget Sound, (3) Demographic information and assessment as re- dissemination of information through the news media, lates to future water quality impacts on Puget Sound; public notices, and mailing lists, and the organization of (4) An identification and legal analysis of all existing workshops, conferences, and seminars; laws governing actions of government entities which may (2) During the plan's initial development and any affect water quality management of Puget Sound, the subsequent revisions, submit quarterly progress reports interrelationships of those laws, and the effect of those to the governor and the legislature. laws on implementation of the provisions of the plan; (3) Submit the plan to the governor and the legisla- (5) Review and assessment of existing criteria and ture no later than January 1, 1987. The authority shall guidelines for governmental activities affecting Puget review the plan at least every two years and revise the Sound's resources, including shoreline resources, aquatic plan, as deemed appropriate; resources, associated watersheds, recreational resources (4) Prepare a biennial "state of the Sound' report and and commercial resources; submit such report to the governor, the legislature, and (6) Identification of research needs and priorities; the state agencies and local governments identified in (7) Recommendations for guidelines, standards, and the plan. Copies of the report shall be made available to timetables for protection and clean-up activities and the the public. The report shall describe the current condi- establishment of priorities for major clean-up invest- tion of water quality and related resources in Puget ments and nonpoint source management, and the pro- Sound and shall include: jected costs of such priorities; (a) The status and condition of the resources of Puget (8) A procedure assuring local government initiated Sound, including the results of ecological monitoring, planning for Puget Sound water quality protection; including an assessment of the economic value of Puget (9) Ways to better coordinate federal, state, and local Sound; planning and management activities affecting Puget (b) Current and foreseeable trends in water quality of Sound's water quality; Puget Sound and the management of its resources; (10) Public involvement strategies, including house- (c) Review of significant public and private activities hold hazardous waste education, community clean-up affecting Puget Sound and an assessment of whether efforts, and public participation in developing and im- such activities are consistent with the plan; and plementing the plan; (d) Recommendations to the governor, the legislature, (11) Recommendations on protecting, preserving and, and appropriate state and local agencies for actions where possible, restoring wetlands and wildlife habitat needed to remedy any deficiencies in current policies, and shellfish beds throughout Puget Sound; plans, programs, or activities relating to the water qual- (12) Recommendations for a comprehensive water ity of Puget Sound, and recommendations concerning quality and sediment monitoring program; (1987 Ed.) ITitle 90 RCW-p 831 271 90.70.060 Title 90 RCW: Water Rights Environment (13) Analysis of current industrial pretreatment pro- 90.70.080 Adoption of rules, ordinances, and regula- grams for toxic wastes, and procedures and enforcement tions. (1) To implement this chapter, state agencies are measures needed to enhance them; authorized to adopt rules that are applicable to actions (14) Recommendations for a program of dredge spoil and activities on a less than state-wide geographic basis. disposal, including interim measures for disposal and State agencies are encouraged to adopt rules that protect storage of dredge spoil material from or into Puget Puget Sound water quality before the adoption of the Sound; plan by the authority. (15) Definition of major public actions subject to re- (2) To implement this chapter, counties, cities, and view and comment by the authority because of a signifi- towns are authorized to adopt ordinances, rules, and cant impact on Puget Sound water quality and related regulations that are applicable on less than a county- resources, and development of criteria for review thereof; wide, city-wide, or town-wide basis. Counties, cities, (16) Recommendations for implementation mecha- and towns are encouraged to adopt ordinances, rules, nisms to be used by state and local government agencies; and regulations that protect Puget Sound water quality (17) Standards and procedures for reporting progress before the adoption of the plan by the authority. [1985 c by state and local governments in the implementation of 451 � 10.] the plan; Reviser's note: "This act' [1985 c 451] has been changed to "this (19) An analysis of resource requirements and fund- chapter." 'This act' consists of the enactment of RCW 90.70.001, 90- ing mechanisms for updating of the plan and plan im- .70.005, 90.70.011, 90.70.025, 90.70.035, 90.70.045, 90.70.055, 90.70- plementation; and .060, 90.70.070, 90.70.080, 90.70.901, the 1985 c 451 amendment to '(20) Legislation needed to assure pln RCW 90.70.900, and the repeal of RCW 90.70.010, 90.70.020, 90.70- (20) Legislation needed to assure plan .030, 90.70.040, and 90.70.050. implementation. The authority shall circulate and receive comments on 90.70.900 Termination of authority-Expiration drafts of the plan mandated herein, and keep a record of of chapter. The Puget Sound water quality authority all relevant comments made at public hearings and in shall cease to exist and this chapter shall expire on June writing. These records should be made easily available to 30, 1991. [1985 c 451 � 11; 1983 c 243 � 6.] interested persons. [1985 c 451 � 8.] Reviser's note: Subsection (18) of this section was vetoed. 90.70.901 Severability- 1985 c 451. If any provi- sion of this act or its application to any person or cir- 90.70.070 Water quality management plan In- cumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or corporation by state and local governments-Review the application of the provision to other persons or cir- and report on implementation-Deviations from plan. cumstances is not affected. [1985 c 451 � 14.] (1) In conducting planning, regulatory, and appeals ac- tions, the state agencies and local governments identified in the plan must evaluate, and incorporate as applicable, Chapter 90.72 the provisions of the plan, including any guidelines, SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICTS standards, and timetables contained in the plan. (2) The authority shall review the progress of state Sections agencies and local governments regarding the timely im- 90.72.010 Legislative encouragement. plementation of the plan. Where prescribed actions have 90.72.020 Shellfish tidelands. not been accomplished in accordance with the plan, the 90.72.030 Shellfish protection districts Establishment- responsible state agencies and local governments shall, at Governing body-Programs. 90.72.040 Shellfish protection districts-Creation Bounda- the request of the authority, submit written explanations ries-Abolition. for the shortfalls, together with their proposed remedies, 90.72.050 Coordination of plans and programs. to the authority. 90.72.060 Decisions addressing conflicting uses Integration of The results of the review and a description of the ac- the state environmental policy act and county ordi- nances and resolutions with programs. tions necessary to comply with the plan shall be included 90.72.070 Program financing. in the biennial state of the Sound report. 90.72.900 Certain authority of counties not affected by chapter. (3) The state agencies and local governments identi- fied in the plan shall review their activities biennially 90.72.010 Legislative encouragement. In recognition and document their consistency with the plan. They shall of the fact that tidelands historically used for shellfish submit written reports or updates of their findings to the farming are threatened by nonpoint pollution sources authority. that have been identified as resulting from agricultural (4) The authority shall review the major actions af- grazing practices, failing septic drainfield systems, and fected by the plan being considered by the state agencies stormwater runoff; in recognition of the fact that some and local governments and shall comment in a timely of the historical and productive shellfish areas within the manner regarding consistency with the plan and may state already have been contaminated by these pollution participate in administrative and subsequent judicial sources and as a result may not be used for shellfish proceedings with respect to such actions. Any deviations farming; and in recognition of the fact that shellfish from the plan, identified by the authority, shall be harvesting both commercially and for home consumption transmitted in writing by the authority to the responsible is a way of life in many areas of the state, particularly in state agency or local government. [1985 c 451 � 9.] the Hood Canal, southern Puget Sound, and Willapa [Title 90 RCW-p 841 (1987 Ed.) 272 Appendix D. Summary of Chapter 400-12 WAC Local Planning and Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution INTRODUCTION source pollution or associated with nonpoint pollution sources) are included on the committee or on an advisory The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, in coopera- committee. tion with the Department of Ecology, has adopted a rule Watershed Ranking Process to provide direction for local watershed planning and management. Watershed planning is an important com- The ranking committee defines watershed and subwater- ponent of the Nonpoint Source Pollution program in the shed boundaries. Using criteria in the Puget Sound plan Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Under and the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study,56 the program, committees in each of the 12 Puget Sound the committee obtains information on water quality, counties are identifying and ranking local watersheds. beneficial uses, and biological condition of the county's Watershed management committees will develop action watersheds. plans to prevent and reduce nonpoint source pollution in The committee develops a proposed watershed ranking top-ranked watersheds. Sources addressed may include based on the criteria and/or comment at public meetings stormwater runoff, on-site sewage disposal (septic) sys- or workshops and holds a public hearing on the proposed tems, agricultural practices, and other sources. ranking. The lead agency submits the final ranking to Additional information and copies of the full text of Ecology. As funding from the Centennial Clean Water the rule (Chapter 400-12 WAC, Local Planning and Fund (cigarette tax) becomes available, action plans will Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution) may be ob- be developed for watersheds in the order in which they tained by calling the Authority office at (206) 464-7320 or are ranked locally. 1-800-54-SOUND. The lead agency will convene a ranking committee every five years to revise the ranking based on new information. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WATERSHED ACTION PLAN PROCESS The public involvement provisions of the rule require meaningful and substantive participation by the general Watershed management committees will be formed in public and affected parties. The rule requires adequate priority watersheds to prepare coordinated action plans to opportunities for public comment throughout the water- prevent and abate nonpoint sources of pollution. The shed ranking and action planning processes. This in- management committee will have 18 months to prepare cludes public meetings, consultations with interested and an action plan after the schedule and work plan are deter- affected parties, and other means of soliciting public con- mined (up to 24 months in large or complex watersheds). ment. Watershed Management Committee Formation WATERSHED RANKING PROCESS The lead agency (initially the county unless the water- sheds are entirely within city or tribal boundaries) invites A watershed ranking committee has been formed in local governments, conservation districts, and tribes to ap- A watershed ranking committee has been formed in point representatives to form an initial committee. The each county, in accordance with the Puget Sound plan and point representatives to form an initial committee The lead agency and invited entities consult with affected par- the nonpoint rule, to establish a priority order of the lead agency and invited entities consult with affected par- ties in determining the size and structure of the full com- county's watersheds that most need preventive and/or cor- ties in determining the size and structure of the full com- mittee. rective actions to manage nonpoint source pollution. Representatives of planning and implementing entities Watershed Ranking Committee Formation are included on the committee, and representatives of the general public and affected parties are included on the The lead agency (usually a county) invites other local general public an affected parties ar e included on the committee or on an advisory committee. The lead agency government entities, special purpose districts, and tribes the committee and the committee determines a to apoit reresntatvesto he rnkig comitee.convenes the committee and the committee determines a to appoint representatives to the ranking committee. schedule and work plan within 90 days of the effective Representatives of the general public and "affected par- date of its Ecology grant agreement. ties" (those who are either negatively affected by nonpoint 56 This is a team of technical assistance staff from the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Washington Department of Fisheries. 273 Phase 1: Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution Agricultural Practices Problems and Action Plan Policies Problems and Action Plan Policies Use of best management practices (BMPs) in approved The committee conducts a water quality assessment and farm plans (such as "208" water quality management a characterization of the watershed. The purpose of these plans) is the recommended approach. Programs will also two tasks is to identify nonpoint sources and evaluate include education, incentives, and a compliance element. water quality, beneficial uses, land use patterns, and the Regulations may be considered when the severity of physical and biological conditions in the watershed. problems and the number of individual sources make it in- The committee identifies the categories of nonpoint effective to rely on voluntary programs alone. (Farms im- source pollution and develops a statement of goals and ob- plementing approved farm plans are exempt from further jectives for preventing and correcting nonpoint sources. regulations unless water quality violations occur.) Phase 2: Draft Plan Development On-Site Sewage Disposal The committee develops source control programs for Control programs should focus on areas with the the nonpoint source problems it has identified and greatest potential for on-site system failure, although prepares an implementation plan for the proposed source areas of low or moderate risk must also be identified. control programs (see descriptions of source control Provisions for regular maintenance of on-site systems in programs below). all high-risk areas are required. Phase 3: Adoption of Action Plan Education programs will be designed for users and ser- vicers of on-site systems about proper siting, operation, The watershed management committee forwards the and maintenance. Remedial programs may require draft action plan and accompanying documentation to the repair, replacement, and the use of alternative systems lead agency. Entities involved in developing and im- such as mounds and sand filters. plementing the action plan and Ecology review the draft Stormwater and Erosion action plan. The committee revises the action plan after considering comments from reviewers and holds a joint Emphasis is on controlling stormwater quality and quan- public hearing with implementing entities. tity at the source before it is discharged into public Each implementing entity submits a statement to the drainage systems or natural water bodies. Control watershed management committee indicating its intent to strategies will evaluate existing efforts at controlling implement the plan, or a statement of nonconcurrence stormwater, identify significant stormwater and erosion that recommends revisions to the plan. The committee at- problems, and identify monitoring needs. Corrective and tempts to resolve statements of nonconcurrence, prepares preventive measures should be planned, including public final revisions to the action plan, and approves it. education, training of field staff, maintenance of The final revised action plan is forwarded to the lead stormwater systems, and use of best management prac- agency for review and submittal to Ecology. The lead tices for stormwater and erosion control. agency proposes solutions to unresolved statements of nonconcurrence and submits them to Ecology as part of nonconcurrence and submits them to Ecology as part of Forest Practices--Coordination with Timber/Fish/Wildlife the final action plan. Ecology notifies the lead agency of Watershed action plans should be coordinated with the its decision on final approval of the action plan, and the T/F/W process where forest practice activities affect water lead agency notifies all appropriate federal and state agen- quality. Procedures must be developed for all jurisdic- cies, planning and implementing entities, and affected par- tions to exercise their authorities under the state Forest ties of Ecology's decision. Practices Program in a consistent fashion. The lead implementing agency coordinates implement- ing entities and provides regular progress reports on im- Marinas and Boats--Coordination with State Program plementation to Ecology. Ecology conducts an ongoing The watershed management committee will develop a review of compliance with the action plan to ensure con- source control program for marinas and boats in coordina- sistent and adequate implementation. tion with the State Parks and Recreation Commission and Department of Social and Health Services. Education SOURCE CONTROLS programs will be developed informing marina operators and the boating public about pollution from boating ac- Watershed management committees are to develop tivities and ways to prevent it. The watershed manage- source control programs for significant and/or potential ment committee may require shoreside sewage disposal sources of nonpoint pollution. The goal of source control facilities at marinas and facilities for disposal of boating- programs is to minimize water pollution, protect benefi- related fuels, paints, and solvents. cial uses, and enhance water quality in the watershed. If Other Sources the watershed management committee determines that a particular source is not significant (or potentially sig- Watershed action plans should also address correction nificant), no source control program is required. or prevention of pollution from other sources such as pes- ticides, landfills, mines, sand/gravel pits, septage, and con- taminated sites. 274 ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption for (check appropriate box): -DNS x EIS -Other Description of current proposal: The Authority proposes to revise the 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, adopted December 17, 1986, by amending the language of the existing Plan programs and by the addition of the following expanded programs: Research; Monitoring; and Education and Public Involvement. The Authority proposes to amend the plan by updating cost estimates for the 1990-91 biennium and calling for a study of financing options [the Estimated Cost and Financing program] and the addition of the element PDI-01, Long Term Puget Sound Institutional Structure. The Authority may decide to adopt the proposed language or a revised alternative. The Authority is scheduled to make a decision on this proposal on October 19, 1988. Proponent: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Location of current DroDosal: Puget Sound basin Title of document being adopted: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Preferred Plan for the 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, and 1987 Draft Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Aaencv that prepared document beina adopted: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Date adopted document was prepared: Published September 17, 1986 (dEIS) and December 10, 1986 (fEIS). Description of document (or portion) being adopted: The documents describe the draft and revised preferred versions of a comprehensive Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan together with potential environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and alternatives. If the document being adopted has been challenged (197-11-630). please describe: No challenge. The document is available to read at (place/time): Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 217 Pine Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98101 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will 275 accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of acrencv adortina document: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Contact person, if other than responsible official: Ms. Kirvil Skinnarland, (206) 464-7320 or (toll-free) 1-800-54-SOUND Responsible official: Katherine Fletcher, Chair Address: 217 Pine Street, Suite 1100, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 464-7320 Date: October 7, 1988 Signature: </ /-'Y--- - [Form per WAC 197-11-965] 276