# Presentation: 211721

## Washington StateTMDL Implementation

- Washington StateTMDL Implementation

- 1998-2003

**Notes:**
Our program focus the previous 10 years has been on TMDL production; in the coming decade, our focus will expand to include TMDL implementation.  How well is our program working?  Will our nations waters meet water quality standards?

## Is the TMDL Program Effective?

- Five year Review (1999-2003):
- Are Washington TMDLs being implemented?
- What are the indicators of an effective TMDL program?
- No national measures
- Program evaluations aren’t happening
- What Next?

## Why Look at Implementation in Washington?

- 1998 Settlement agreement established 15 year TMDL schedule
- MOA with WA Ecology:
- Examine TMDL implementation in 2003, 2008, 2013

## Slide 4

**Notes:**
42% of Washington land is owned by federal or state gvt (Forest Service, Park Service).  Note the Cascade range, Columbia Plateau (agriculture), and urban corridor.  39 Tribal governments.

## Washington Implementation Plans Required by Settlement Agreement:

- Timeframe for meeting interim targets and water quality standards
- Many Washington TMDLs have 5, 10, 15 and 20 year targets
- Detailed plan to meet non-point source load allocations
- Detailed monitoring plan

## Washington Impairments – 1998 list

- Bacteria (26%) – 572 listings
- Temperature (21%) – 458 listings
- Dissolved Oxygen (10%)– 229 listings

**Notes:**
Most of our water quality problems are directly related to non-point source pollution, although 50% of our TMDLs do have a point source component.

## How will we evaluate TMDL implementation? 

- Have implementation plans been written?
- Have WLA been incorporated into NPDES permits?
- What non-point source implementation activities have taken place?
- Is water quality improving?
- Are these the right questions to be asking? How do EPA and States want to track TMDL success?

**Notes:**
Implementation plans written for 18 of 28 project areas.

## The Results:  Have WLA been incorporated into NPDES permits?

- 	 308 TMDLs contained WLAs for
- 29 municipal or industrial dischargers
- 9MS4 permit areas (phase 1 & 2)
- CAFOs
- Reviewed 29 NPDES permits
- WLA incorporated into 24 NPDES permits
- Success – even though no formal TMDL NPDES coordination

**Notes:**
We were pleasantly surprised to find that, despite the complete absence of a State tracking system and no formal communication between the NPDES & TMDL staff, 24 WLA had been incorporated into NPDES permits.  
No MS4 permits have been written.  There are at least two NPDES permit writers who decided not to incorporate the WLA because they wanted to give the facility more time and/or because they did a “reasonable potential” analysis on the WLA, and decided the facility didn’t need the limit.

## The Results:  What non-point source activities have taken place?

- No formal tracking of non-point source implementation activities (who, what & where?)
- Interviewed 20 state staff in 5 different offices
- State is not doing implementation work; most non-point leads are CDs, municipalities, County Health Districts, watershed groups, NGOs

**Notes:**
Again, this data is not being tracked by anyone at the State.  Information was obtained through interviews with the 20 state staff, in 5 different offices, who have the lead on implementation.  In situations where state staff have changed jobs, the information wasn’t readily available.

## The Results:  Non-point Source implementation activities that are actually happening

- Dairy Farms – fencing, riparian buffers, waste management
- Grazing lands – fencing, off-stream watering
- Agriculture – piping irrigation ditches, conversion from rill to sprinkler irrigation
- Semi-urban Areas – pet waste stations, land-use planning changes, septic inspections
- No cost information.  No associated effectiveness monitoring data.

**Notes:**
So we know that work is being done.  
Here’s what we didn’t find:  cost information.  Effectiveness monitoring data.  

## The Results:  Is water quality improving?

- Here’s what we found:
- Monitoring data available for 18 of the 28 project areas
- Water quality improvement in 13 projects

**Notes:**
State has a TMDL “effectiveness monitoring program, but the two staff people working on this program don’t have *any* analytical funding

## The Results:  Is water quality improving?

- Here’s what we didn’t find
- The right kind of data
- Ambient monitoring is not the same as TMDL effectiveness monitoring
- Absence of monitoring data for many projects
- No attempt to compile the data in one location
- Integrated Report not set-up to track water quality improvements

## What are the barriers to TMDL implementation tracking?

- Universal focus on TMDL production (“how many?!”)

**Notes:**
Our FTE, our performance measures, our budget dollars and our reporting systems are all focused on TMDL production.  Given our schedules, we can’t divert resources from TMDL production.

## What are the barriers to TMDL implementation tracking?

-  What does success look like?
- Compliance with water quality standards?
- Interim targets?
- Miles of fencing?
- Reissuance of NPDES permits?
- We need agreement so that Regions & States have legitimately invest resource in tracking implementation

## 

    What does success look like for temperature & sediment TMDLs?

458            temp. listings in Wash (21% of 1998 list)

-     What does success look like for temperature & sediment TMDLs?
- 458            temp. listings in Wash (21% of 1998 list)

**Notes:**
As an example of the ambiguity of “success,” we have 458 temperature listings in Washington, and TMDLs implementation plans that require 80 years of riparian growth before water quality standards will be met. Our number of temperature listings will double in 2006.  How do we measure success here?

## Why is it hard to track TMDL implementation?

- Reason #5: We don’t have a tracking mechanism
- NTTS
- Integrated Report
- Oregon attempting to develop a database
- We need a database that is easy to use, accessible to the agencies & watershed groups who are doing implementation (not just EPA & states)

**Notes:**
Once we decide what success look likes, how will we track it?

## Why is it hard to track TMDL implementation?

- Reason #4:  Implementation Monitoring
- Money
- States don’t have enough money for adequate ambient monitoring programs
- Strategy
- How do we modify an ambient monitoring program to look at TMDL implementation?
- We need an effectiveness monitoring strategy
- We need data that link BMPs to water quality

**Notes:**
Where is the monitoring money?

## How do we keep track of all implementation activities?

- Federal Agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service (USFS), US Army Corps of
- Engineers (USACE), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
- State Agencies: Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF),
- Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
- Local Government –
- Counties: Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Washington, Yamhill
- Cities: Adair Village, Albany, Amity*, Aumsville, Aurora*, Banks*, Barlow*, Beaverton*, Brownsville,
- Canby*, Carlton*, Cornelius*, Coburg, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Dallas, Dayton*,
- Detroit, Donald*, Dundee, Durham, Estacada, Eugene, Fairview, Falls City, Forest Grove*,
- Gaston*, Gates, Gervais*, Gladstone, Gresham, Halsey, Happy Valley, Harrisburg, Hillsboro*,
- Hubbard*, Idanha, Independence, Jefferson, Johnson City, Junction City, Keizer, King City,
- Lafayette*, Lake Oswego*, Lebanon, Lowell, Lyons, Maywood Park, McMinnville*, Mill City,
- Millersburg, Milwaukie, Molalla*, Monmouth, Monroe, Mt. Angel*, Newberg, North Plains*,
- Oakridge, Oregon City, Philomath, Portland, Rivergrove, Salem, Sandy, Scotts Mills*, Scio,
- Sheridan*, Sherwood*, Silverton*, Sodaville, Springfield, Stayton, Sublimity, Sweet Home, St.
- Paul, Tangent, Tigard*, Troutdale, Tualatin*, Turner, Veneta, Waterloo, West Linn*, Westfir,
- Willamina*, Wilsonville, Woodburn*, Wood Village, Yamhill*
- Other: Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), Portland General Electric (PGE), Metro (Portland Area
- Metropolitan Government)

**Notes:**
Willamette, OR TMDL will be implemented by 92 cities, 8 counties, 2 PUDs, 4 federal agencies (not counting EPA), 4 state agencies and over 40 watershed groups.  150 TMDLs.  11,000 square mile watershed.  
Multiple implementation activities will be required to attain a single LA.  How will we track these activities?

## Why is it hard to track TMDL implementation?

- 	If States and EPA want information on implementation activities, people have to want to give it to us:
- 		farmers
- 		ranchers
- 		private forest lands

**Notes:**
EPA and States don’t have TMDL implementation information.

## Why is it hard to track TMDL implementation?

- Tracking implementation has the potential to drain our resources without giving us any useful information
- We need to decide what information we want, and how to get it effectively.

- TMDLs don’t clean up the water.
- 	Actions Do.
- Who is tracking the actions?

**Notes:**
Sockeye salmon

## Success Story #1: Yakima River DDT TMDL (1998)

- 303(d) listing for DDT based on fish tissue
- 100 tons sediment / acre
- 19,000 acres of farm land
- 5, 10, 15 and 20 year targets

**Notes:**
Strong link between sediment and pesticide levels.  5 year target has been met.

## Yakima TMDL – Sulphur Creek

**Notes:**
Note the obvious sediment plume in the “before” photo.

## Success Story #1: Yakima River DDT TMDL (1998)

- On-farm turbidity targets
- Irrigation Board can reduce water supply if targets aren’t met
- $10 million SRF loan for conversion from furrow irrigation to sprinkler & drip

## Success Story #2:  Nooksack TMDL200 dairy farms – 69,000 cows

**Notes:**
Fecal coliform TMDL where dairy farms are the primary source of pollution

## Nooksack TMDL

- Ecology issued 75 violation notices, imposed $200,000 fines
- Fecal levels decreased 21%
- 75% of the Lummi shellfish beds closed in 1996 reopened in 2003
- 2005:  decreased inspections; increasing bacteria levels

**Notes:**
CAFO inspections moved from Dpt of Ecology to State Dpt of Agriculture – there used to be 2 inspectors for this county; now there are 2 inspectors for Western Washington (2 FTE to about 0.2 FTE)

## Bellingham Bay – toxic sediment TMDL (2001)

**Notes:**
Bellingham (population 62,000) with Mt. Baker in the background (and 30 miles inland)

## Slide 28

**Notes:**
Harris shipyard – bellingham bay.  This toxic sediment TMDL is an example of a TMDL that may not have been the best tool for the job.  Ongoing sources have already been eliminated; the clean-up is in the hands of the state sediment cleanup program.

## Quincy Irrigation Drain (1998)

- NPDES permit as TMDL
- Ammonia Nitrogen, BOD, fecal coliform
- Industrial wastewater treatment facility
- vegetable processor
- Submitted UAA that proposes to remove all aquatic uses (1999)
- 7 years later:  Upgraded facility still can’t meet ammonia limits; no ambient water quality data.

**Notes:**
City of Quincy has 3700 people.  Facility discharges to an irrigation drain.

## Forest Service Land in PNW – Implementation w/o TMDLs

**Notes:**
Forest Service owns 21% of the land in WA and OR.  6 National forests in WA (13 in Oregon).  Colville NF is about 30 -50 miles long. There are 4300 miles of Road in Colville National Forest (in comparison, there are 8200 miles of roads in the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest).  90% of the roads miles are at “low risk “for water quality impacts, meaning that the roads are either stable or are located outside of riparian areas.  Six years ago the FS was maintaining 30-40% of their roads; but their budget now allows for maintaining 10% of roads annually.

## Slide 31

**Notes:**
Forest service example (not done as part of TMDL); $700,000 remediation project.  Mass wasting site adjacent to the road.  90% of the bed load in Le Clerc creek was coming from this mass wasting site.  Every year, tons of sediment would come down onto the road from this site, and the sediment would be pushed down into the creek in order to clear the road.
Notice the large boulders placed at the toe of the site to stabilize it. The upper parts of the mass wasting site were pinned with 4 inch stakes to help stabilize the slope. Veg plantings have been done on the upper slope.  20,000 willow / cotton wood cuttings were planted in the spring of 2004.  

The controls for this site were designed by John McCullah (an erosion control specialist

## Slide 32

**Notes:**
The road crossed the river at this location; 3 culverts were removed (two 5-foot culverts and one 4-foot culvert).  $700,000 project that decomissioned or moved 2 1⁄2 miles of road, reconstructed 300 feet of channel and removed 3 culverts
In the past, culverts were designed to optimize water passage - and because water moved so fast through the culvert, the high velocity and turbulence created by the culvert became a “barrier” to fish passage.

98% of FS culverts don’t pass minimum culvert size for fish passage.

## Slide 33

**Notes:**
Forest Service example #2 (grazing land): This “worm fence” is easy to maintain and costs $15,000/mile.  The Forest Service is finding it hard to obtain grant funds to do more of this kind of work (federal agencies are not eligible to receive Washington state 319 funds).

## Slide 34

**Notes:**
Geoweb placed at the cattle crossing to keep the cattle from destroying the stream bed and turning the crossing location into a mud hole.  Fencing to completely eliminate cattle access to streams is not possible in some areas because of checkerboard ownership (e.g. if private timber lands won’t fence their streams, then cattle grazing on federal lands will wander to private lands).

Interesting side issue:  under Fish & Forest, this type of crossing couldn’t be developed - but it can be developed under Infish.

This portion of the creek is populated with Brook trout, and the Bull Trout can’t access the stream because of a downstream culvert.  Shortly before removing the downstream culvert the state is going to use Antimycin to kill all the Brook trout.