Loading...
Approved Minutes - 1987-07-13 AM I--- ; • Fourth Tualatin River Citizen Advisory 1111 Committee Meeting July 13, 1987 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. Anthony's Restaurant In Beaverton Mayor Cole asked for comments or questions regarding the minutes of the June 8 meeting. Referring to the scheduled presentation on Public Comments on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL's) , Jack Smith asked the committee when it will make a decision on TMDL's. Mayor Cole said the process would begin at this meeting. The members approved minutes from the June 8, 1987 meeting. Committee Members Present: Gary Krahmer Jack Smith Larry Cole Adele Newton Gerd Hoeren John McGhehey Lloyd Baron Jim Fisher Gene Siebel Cal Rrahmer Rosalie Morrison Committee Members Absent: Bonnie Hays (Chair) Bill Young Roy Bowden Frank Deaver Tualatin River Study Status Retort Bob Baumgartner, DEQ Water Quality Specialist, said the summer sampling is continuing. A second algal assay has been completed and confirms the results of the first assay presented at the last committee meeting. Results indicate that total phosphorous concentration below 0.1 mg/1 will limit algal growth. There will be a series of algal assays to determine the concentration of nutrients that will limit algal growth. Water Quality Management Plan Ed Quan, DEQ Senior Water Quality Analyst, summarized water quality standards for the Tualatin River Basin. These standards form the Tualatin Basin water quality plan adopted as part of the Water Quality Management Plan for the Willamette Basin in 1975. Amendments have been made to the plan since 1976. The plan adopted guidelines for nuisance aquatic growth in 1985. Quan sail DEQ will go to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) on July 17 to adopt guidelines for mixing zones and toxic substances. Strategic Water Management Group Neil Mullane, DEQ Planning Manager, said the purpose of the Strategic Water Management Group was to identify and coordinate the activities of various state agencies in the Tualatin Basin. The group will discuss past, current and future situations. At the two meetings so far, the group has reviewed -1- .1 state agency resources that DEO could use in the 'project. A report is due back to the full strategic water management group on July 23. At this time, the group is summarizing activities that have been conducted in the • last two months into a written report. Mullane said that of the state agencies, DEQ, Fish and Wildlife, and Water Resources have been most active in the Basin. Jack Smith asked if the LCDC had any responsibility. Mullane noted that LCDC said all their information was in the comprehensive plan. Point Sources to be Controlled The United Sewerage Agency operates all of the major point sources in the Tualatin Basin. The two major point sources discharging in the summer are the Durham and Rock Creek wastewater treatment plants. Several other treatment plants discharge in the Tualatin Basin only during the winter. These point sources are the Hillsboro Westside, Banks, Gaston, and Forest Grove wastewater treatment plants. Baumgartner told the Committee that DEQ, through summer sampling, is trying to determine the most practical location for background, the level of natural pollution that can not be controlled. River Watch Shirley Kengla, DEO Water Quality Public Affairs Representative, told the Committee that DEQ is encouraging public involvement in the monitoring process through a citizen "river watch." Also, several informal public gatherings, "open houses," are planned for August and September to 1111 discuss DEQ's Tualatin River study. Nonpoint Source Assessment John Jackson, DEQ Nonpoint Specialist, told the Committee of the upcoming nonpoint assessment, why it is being done, and where the Tualatin River fits into the overall assessment. There is a deadline of 18 months to accomplish work outlined in the Water Quality Bill passed by Congress in February, 1287. There is a five-Year implementation plan for nonpoint source management, control, and prevention in the State of Oregon. Two reports, Nonpoint Source Assessment and Nonpoint Source Management Program, are required by Section 319 of the Federal Water Requirements. These reports must position the state at a point so the state is eligible for the nonpoint funding over the next five years. Jackson explained some of each report's major points. The scope of the nonpoint source assessment is identification, location, severity, and probable cause of nonpoint source problems. This involves identifying existing nonpoint problems, by consulting the public and appropriate technical experts. DEQ will take the information and incorporate it into the final report. Other parts of the report include what programs are available to be used in correcting the identified nonnoint source problems. The Nonpoint Source Management Program describes programs which will be used to solve the nonpoint source problems. Correction and prevention is the primary focus of this report. Another focus of the report is4111 -2- I t, priorities and commitments. Once all the nonpoint source problems in the state are identified, the problems will be placed in priority order. The 4111 criteria used to determine priority will be developed through input of the public and professional technical experts. Sources of state and local funding will be split by the federal government providing 50 percent and the state/local government providing 40 percent. The attorney general certification is a step requiring the state to ask if there is existing legal authority within the state programs to implement the nonpoint source control program. Federal Programs Review is a process the state will use to review all federal programs to determine their ability to prevent and control nonpoint source problems. The state can suggest ways to improve federal programs to correct a nonpoint source problem. Mayor Cole commented that committee needs to know exactly what the sources of funding will be. Mullane said the amount of funds would depend on how much is allocated by the federal government. There is a specific section that allocates additional funds for groundwater cleanup. Nonpoint Source Assessment for the Tualatin River 111 Nick Pearson of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Soil and Conservation Service (SCS) of Washington County, presented a slide show to the Committee • on nonpoint source problems in the Tualatin. The problem may be broken down into urban and agricultural sections. Pearson said sediment flooding wetlands or low areas can be a problem. Wetlands serve as a natural filter, removing pesticides and nutrients before they reach the river. Soil erosion is dependent on slope, soil types and the intensity and 11 rainfall intensity. Pearson said about 38,000 tons of soil enters the upper Tualatin every year in the Gaston-Cherry Grove stretch. The Soil Conservation Service would like to begin a large siltation project on the river. Gene Seibel asked about the cost of the programs needed to correct the problems. Seibel said that it is important for the Committee to get an idea of the dollar amount. Public Forum Ken Fink, a member of the Lower Tualatin Valley CPO, commends the Washington County Soil and Conservation Service for their work. Roy Sampsel, affiliated with the Portland State University Water Policy group, said he had conducted a survey of Tualatin-area residents to get a perception of the public's concerns on the Tualatin River. A copy of the survey results will be sent to the Committee. Jack Churchill, of the Tualatin Riverkeeper Association, spoke of the group goals, objectives and general information. The group's primary objective, is to provide opportunities for Tualatin area residents to work together 4111 on behalf of the public interest of the Tualatin River. -3- Detailed Discussion of Phosphate and Ammonia Loads to the Tualatin Neil Mullane told the Committee that DEQ staff has been examining the • comments received in response to the TMDL Public Notice issued in March. Bob Baumgartner explained the difference between concentration and load. To determine a pollutant load, the concentration must be known, usually in milligrams per liter. Baumgartner said most waste load allocation methods on the list initially given to the Committee do not apply to the Tualatin' s problems. Some practical allocation methods adaptable to the Tualatin are: o Equal effluent concentration, This method defines the amount of pollutant that can be in water discharged to the river. The standard would be expressed in a numerical concentration for each pollutant (mg/1) . All discharges would be required to meet the same standard. o Equal ambient and ambient monitoring in the river, This method would base the WLA on the amount of a pollutant that may exist in the river. An example of this method is the target level used to propose the phosphorus TMDL. The WLA under this method would allow a pollutant to he discharged to the river up to the target level. o Equal percent removal based not a numerical limit but a percent limit, The goal of this method is to have all discharges use the same 4 amount of effort to remove a pollutant. The amount of effort is defined by the percent of pollutant removed by a treatment plant. o Cost effectiveness. This method would set limits based on how much it costs to remove a pollutant. Limits would be based on the most economical method, as long as the TMDL for that pollutant is not exceeded. o Equal effort. This method is a "catchall" that describes the goal of all WLA methods. As described, the method does not define how limits are based. Cal Krahmer asked if the study will determine solutions and the costs involved. The Committee was told the first step is to determine waste load allocation. The Committee discussed a tour of Hagg Lake and Scoggins Dam. Since a tour of sewage treatment plants by the group was already planned for the morning of August 7, the Committee decided to combine beth tours on the same day. Committee members will receive notices on the arrangements. The next meeting will be on Monday, August 10, 7:30 a.m. , at Rose' s Restaurant, 11995 SW Beaverton Highway in Beaverton. FY5539 410 -4-