Loading...
10-02-84 S&W Comm Minutes4:00 P. M. October 2, 1984 The committee met Committee member DIL. SEWER 6 WATER COMMITTEE in the conference room at City Hall. Present were Chairman Nystul, Springer, Councilmen Palmer and Manning, DPW Hammer and Roger Hopkins, Water Quality Management Seminar C. Nystul referred to the presentation on Ashley Creek and the city plant at this meet- ing in Spokane on September 15th. DPW Hammer stated that EPA personnel examined Ashley below the treatment plant; samples were taken and said to be not very good. He has requested results but has not yet received them. Discharged material exceeds 1 mil/liter of phosphorous, but C. Nystul reports that the cleanliness of the discharged water is helping the creek by diluting other materials by the time it gets to the plant, so the water quality is being helped. DPW will be contacting Lauren Bahls, Water Quality Manager Supervisor, DHES, to gather information and to express disagreement with the statement of the plant/Ashley Creek degradation. Monitors will be checked above and below the plant and Mr. Bahls assist- ance will be requested in getting results of EPA study. C. Palmer felt that so the city can do everything that -can be done, notification should be sent to the County Commissioners of what our quality standards are and our hope that other municipalities would do the same. C. Nystul said he thinks we are taking every step possible. The next plant grant is for removal of phosphorous and ammonia, the only two elements in the discharge capable of causing problems. The only question re ammonia is that it is toxic to fish in . Ashley Creek, but there are not that many fish. DPW Hammer stated that he has received a certified letter from the state on our dis- charge permit. We are in violation and a response must be submitted within 15 days of receipt of letter, giving a detailed description of all proposed modifications and and target date of beginning and end of modifications. Hammer is writing of 9 or 10 measures taken to come into compliance. Filter Media Replacement/Tower Media DPW Hammer reports that we have the gravel and the anthricite should arrive within next 1§ weeks. He and Pic'Olson have compiled a list of what we are doing to hope- fully come into compliance. The State has recommended that not one sequence be done out of order or the entire system might be jeopardized. Regarding media for the ABF tower, Hammer reports that the plastic media has been received. The tower has been lowered and it appears within a week's time that we have the same problem with the plastic media as with redwood. The new blower is in, installation will be made soon. DPW said that we have most of the needed items to upgrade the plant and expects to be on line around the third week of October. Discussion of fencing and a gate across to the new plant. C. Nystul says we have an attractive nuisance and it was decided the city should request the engineers and EPA to address the problems. He expressed concern for access for anyone to climb onto •ABF tower which is unprotected, there is nothing to prevent access to the entire area and mentioned the problem of flaring of excess methane gas. We have to determine the safety problem and then address it. Engineers drawings and plans have been approved. Sewer & Water Committee Page 2 October 2, 1984 Question asked why problems were not observed sooner. DPW Hammer believes that we can make amendments to the grant and receive 75% payment. The Director of Public Works was directed to contact the engineer and E. P. A. DPW Hammer reports that the road will be paved from the old to the new plant, there will also be a walkway. C. Nystul inquired if more personnel will be needed when the plant comes on line. DPW stated that according to Sludge Facility Management Program, 11 more people should be employed. Nothing has been done yet, but discussion of a temporary person and go from there to see if it requires a full time employee. Hammer stated that at the next meeting he will have a report on what will be required regarding personnel. The committee directed DPW Hammer to acquire the necessary people post haste. Water Department The water tower will be painted an aluminum color next spring. Service Line Policy DPW Hammer reports that he and Steve Cox, Acting Water Supt., are working on a policy. A problem with present policy involves the city not working on lines from main to curb stop. He will give a written recommendation on this as soon as possible. Storm Drain Study - Thomas, Dean & Hoskins should have this completed within 11 weeks. Water -Sewer Superintendent DPW states that at this point he is working directly with treatment plant management and it seems to be working well. Steve Cox comes to city hall for about 11 hours in the mornings and for an hour orso later in the day to keep up with paperwork, which is divided with Pic Olson and DPW Hammer. He would like to hold off at least 30 days to see possible reorganization of all other departments and take a good close look at the Water -Sewer Superintendent position. C. Springer cautioned that Hammer was assuming responsibilities that he is not being paid for; DPW asserted that his reasoning is not for budgetary purposes. He will have a report on this next month. Miscellaneous Discussion of who is authorized to sign claims on grants. C. Nystul advised that when a letter is received from the engineer requesting progress payment, it can be signed by the DPW or Water Superintendent. Approval cannot be given on retainage release, final acceptance for that type of payment must dome from committee/Council. Greenacres bill was discussed. A sum is being paid, but because of involvement in a lawsuit, the full amount is still not being submitted. C. Springer recommended that C.A. Neier file against Greenacres. A tentative meeting was set for Monday, October 15th for either 4:00 PM or 7:00 PM just prior to the Council Meeting. Members will be advised. Meeting adjourned at 4:50. ms WATER gUALITY OF THE CLARK FORK AND KOOTFNAI RIVERS IN MONTANA1 Water quality managers in Montana are frequently reminded of two things: 1) Montana is large; it is the fourth largest state in the United States. Over 600 road miles separate Alzada in the southeast from Yaak in the northwestf�r Missoula is closer to Seattle than it is to Plentywood in eastern Montana. Within Montana's 16 major river basins there are 20,000 miles of streams and over 4,000 lakes and reservoirs covering an area of 750,000 acres. 2) In climate and geography, Montana is also a state of extremes. Some natural waters in Montana are too soft to pass an electrical current; • others are saltier than sea water. The 20 percent of Montana west of the Continental Divide, a humid area larger than the state of West Virginia, is drained by the Clark Fork and Kootenai rivers. The combined flow of these rivers where they leave the state is half again larger than the combined flow of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers, which drain the much drier 60 percent of Montana on the east slope. There are two sides to water pollution control on this large and varied landscape: restoration and prevention. First restoration. Though remote and at the top of the continent, Montana has not been immune to water pollution. In the free -wheeling days of western settlement, 1This talk repr-sents Montana's perspective, given at a conference titled "Water Quality Management of Watercourses Contiguous with -Western Montana,` Northern Idaho and/or 'Eastern ':Washington," held Sentember 15, 1984 at the Red Lion Inn, Spokane, '.dashington. The writer and speaker is Loren L. Bahls, Slater quality Management Supervisor, ';later Quality Bureau, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, Montana 59620. 1] WATER QUALITY page 2 L. L. Bahls Montana's rich soils and bounty of grasses, minerals and timber practically guaranteed exploitation, despite the state's geographical isolation. At the turn of the century it is estimated that 4,000 miles of rivers and untreated creeks --one fifth of Montana's stream miles --were degraded by,wastewater discharges from towns and factories and by poor forestry, mining and agricultural practices. That backlog of polluted water changed little until 1955, when the Montana Legislature passed the states first com- prehensive water pollution control law. Since then, with help from the Federal .dater pollution Control Act, a rising tide of environmental awareness, and a host of people and agencies engaged in water quality management, Montana's water quality restoration agenda has been whittled down to 70 stream segments totalling 1165 miles.2 (Meanwhile, there have been no significant additions to the list.) These 1984 figures represent the toughest and most persistent of Montana's historic pollution problems, including Silver Bow Creek and the upper Clark Fork River. Restoration of these waters, if practical, will be costly and a long time coming. Restoration priorities are based on available water quality data and on severity assessments made every two years by the Montana Department of Health and Fnvironmental Sciences (MDHES). In the Clark Fork and Kootenai river drainages, the 1984 assessment uncovered 18 stream seg- ments totalling 298 miles in which one or more water uses have been impaired. (see attached List.) The most common sources of pollution are inactive mining, municipal wastewater treatment plants_('WWTP), and `Draft 1984 Montana 305(b) report: "Montana 'dater Quality--1984," Depart- ment of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, Montana 59620. E 7:IAT7R QUALITY page 3 L. L. Bahls agriculture. Inactive mining is the sole or leading cause of pollution in 9 of the 18 segments west of the Divide and in 39 of the 70 impaired segments statewide. Actual restoration of priority :cater quality problems depends on the availability of programs and funds to do the work and, in some cases, on the amount of local interest and involvement. Three examples from the Clark Fork drainage will serve to illustrate the variety of programs and agencies involved in water quality restoration in ;Montana: Silver Bow Creek Silver Bow Creek is the worst water quality problem on :Montana's :nest slope. It ranks 21st on the national Superfund priority list. The • stream is contaminated principally by heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc) leached from residues left in the wake of over 100 years of mining and minerals processing in the Butte Mining District. Over time these ,, residues have been deposited along the upper Clark Pork River, where they have become a secondary source of pollution and a threat to water uses for many additional miles downstream. The Solid ?Taste Management Bureau of the MI11FS has signed a cooperative agreement with the F.nvirermental Protection Agency to take the lead on the Silver Bow Creek Superfund Project. Potentially, millions of dollars could be available from the Superfund for cleaning up Silver Bow Creek and the upper Clark Fork River, if a practical solution can be found. Studies are under way that will clarify the nature, severity and extent of the problem n • WAT^R QUALITY. . . . . page 4 L. L. Bahls A significant source of contamination in Silver Bow Creek is the Colorado Tailings, located just downstream from the City of Butte. The Colorado Tailings is a priority target of the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclamation program of the Montana Department of State Lands (MDSL). This cYc program is.£unded by taxes paid by mining firms doing business i/n� Montana. �.L. /: ��(- r'.aS YfG Eiv s_, GL Sr'._}3 r�.cLT E' C_j�pva cvte�Ti e`n 41(6 n LengreSI to t;Uf fl rn nµ,t `" CC 3 i, G0 tl� ccc -Cc Tuv 0; Y2Gi[lvn0_f loYt cf� %z. Cc toYa4 , TG"I I, pia s . s4 15 C,rtq dYn^//F P_e<.- rcY AADvcv.g..j b✓ tCi.t N^rt C'-f. L,"v�0.C` tw'YiI;. Ca,i '.^ lC.. :`>F•L: '. i.( /1gyp SfCl'e. r.L Gi' Fv:^_.v(0.I �l cf2Vl C(eS Ashley Creek rmeAis�. A recent intensive survey on Ashley Creek indicated that dissolved oxygen values do not meet Montana water quality standards for the marginal propagation of a salmon -id fishery. For these and other reasons, to be discussed shortly, the City of Kalispell has been assigned a high priority by the MDHES for receiving federal cost -share funds through the state -administered Construction Grants. Program for upgrading its WWTP. The state's system for ranking municipal UWTP construction projects gives the most points to existing wastewater treatment systems that 1)pose a public health problem, 2) violate water qu lity standards, and 3) exceed the limits of their wastewater discharGe permit, in des- cending orrer of points awarded, nefore/after studies on Ashley Creek • and below other plants scheduled for upgrading will document some of the water quality benefits gained from the Construction Grants Program. 0 0 • WATER QtiALITY. . . . . page 5 L. L. Eahls cultural Droblems Several tributaries of the Flathead. River in the Flathead Valley have been degraded over the years by poor agricultural practices. among them are Ashley, Spring,'Mission, Post and Crow creeks and the Stillwater and Whitefish rivers. Montana's statewide non -point source water quality management plan, prepared under authority of Section 208 of the federal Clear. dater :let, gives local Soil and hater Conservation Districts the responsibility to administer non -regulatory agricultural pollution con- trol programs on lands under their jurisdiction. However, these local districts do not have the resources for major restoration projects. For some years the Flathead had an areawide 208 program, but the program was discontinued in 1982 when federal 208 funds ran out and local interest waned. The responsibility for s2a pollution control in the lower Flathead Valley is further clouded by the presence of the Flathead Indian Reservation Fontana Indians are Cw=00A on tribal lands. For the most part, though, the serious agricul- tural problems in the Flathead remain unresolved. Prevention is the other side of a balanced water quality management program. There are many ways to prevent pollution. The following are some examples from western Montana. Clark Fork River , In April 1984 the M.DHE.S issued a modified discharr7e hermit to the Champion International kraft parer mill at Prenchtown. The pt:rmit allowed :'AT R QUALITY • page 6 L. L. Bahls the firm to discharge treated wastewater year-round, instead of just during spring runoff, and to increase its annual load of suspended solids to the river. Champion asked for the modified permit because its rapid infiltration ponds were becoming plugged. The Department's decision to issue the modified permit was extremely controversial and was met with a cacophony of objections. That decision was probably responsible for this Conference here today. Although the decision was based on scientific evidence that year-round discharge would have no measureable effect on the river, many people thought the Depart- ment had gone too far with too little information. Timid this ground swell of public concern, the Department designated the river as a priority water body and began a quarter -million -dollar water quality study on the lower Clark Fork. This was in addition to the monthly monitoring at seven stations that the Department was already doing on the upper river. It also agreed to prepare an environmental impact statement on its forthcoming decision in 1986 whether to reissue the modified permit. And, the company began to look into alternative methods for treatment and disposal of its wastewater. These steps will guarantee that the Clark Fork River will receive all of the protection to which it is entitled under the law. Flathead Lake Flathead Lake is the lar.,est natural freshwater lake in the western U. S. In the summer of 1985 there was a very extensive algae bloom in the-, • lake. To those who have been following the fortunes of Flathead Lake • WATER (,QUALITY. . . . . page 7 L. L. Bahls over the years, this was a clear sign that the condition of the lake was deteriorating and that something had to be done. Studies by Dr. Jack Stanford and his colleagues at the University of Montana established that phosphorus was the element responsible for the recent algae bloom. To prevent further degradation and perhaps to allow the lake to rebound somewhat, the MDHES designated Flathead Lake as a priority water body and prepared a six -point strategy for controlling phosphorus inputs to the lake. The cornerstone of this strategy was to impose a 1.0 mg/l effluent limit for phosphorus on all discharge permits in the Flathead Basin above the lake. The four municipalities with ,.r.4TP1s-- Kalispell, B.igfork, Whitefish and Columbia Falls --were notified that nutrient removal -could be required. In addition, the MDHHS has made monitoring funds available to the University of Montana group at yellow Bay to determine the effectiveness of the phosphorus control strategy. Large uardrock Minas Large new hardrock mining developments in western Montana usually require special use permits frcm the Forest Service, an operating permit from the T4DSL, and a wastewater discharge permit frcm the MDHES. All annlicants for federal permits are required to obtain state certification that such development will not violate state water quality standards. Hence the agencies work together closely on such projects, as they will on AISARCC's proposed silver mine on Rock Creek near Noxon. • ';'here are many more examnies rori western E ntana of development categories that pose significant threats to water duality: • WA 4 ULLITY. . . . page 8 L. L. Bahls Logging and road building Small hydropower development Lakeshore suodivisions Commercial nlacer mines Recreational suction dredge mining Cperation of large dams Constr•,:ction in the rirarian zone ,agricultural dewatering Feedlots Proposed Cabin Creek Coal `dine (B.C.) Time allows only their mention here. 7ach is addressed by a particular set of laws, regulations and guidelines and each requires the attention of one or more responsible agencies from local, state and federal govern- ment. The M➢H5S plays central roles in water quality monitoring, planning, permitting and enforcement, protection of public water supplies, con- struction grants administration, the setting of water quality standards, statewide water quality assessment, subdivision review, and the training and certification of water and wastewater treatment plant operators. These programs are located :within the seven sections of the Water !',reality Bureau. The fact that the pro=ram staff are all located within the same office facilitates frequent rommun.ication and close coordination of programs. Within the ':•later !uality Bureau, the water quality management (read 9 decision-making) process goes something like this: A) Water Quality Standards ar r I The Montana Water Quality Act requires that all water be classified in accordance with their present and future most beneficial use and that standards of water purity according to that beneficial use be formulated. also requires that, at intervals of not more than 3 years, the standards be reviewed. Water Quality Standards were first adopted in 1960 and have been reviewed and revised numerous times since. These standards serve as the basis of nearly all of our water quality programs and are under nearly constant review as they are applied to programs.- Revision of the standards is normally initiated by staff members in the special studies and support section. They will review, with staff from each of the other sections, to It determine what impact the proposed revisions may have on each program or what further revisions should be considered. If, during the review process, it becomes apparent that additional water quality information is required, arrangements are made through the water quality management section to collect the data. 'The proposed revisions are then reviewed by the Water Pollution Control Advisory Council. Public review and comment is then provided in accordance with the Montana Administrative Procedures Act. At a public hearing held by the Board of Health and Environmental Sciences, individuals, agencies, and organizations are afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions. The Board may adopt the proposed revisions to the hearing or at a subsequent meeting if they feel additional information is required from the Department. Once adopted, the revised standards are filed with the Secretary of State and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. If approved by that agency, the changes are applied to permits upon reissuance and to the construction grant priority list when next revised. -10- B) Water Quality Monitoring & Surveilance --[ • As..one-would-expect,+monitoring and surveilance play a significant role in our water pollution control program. Monitoring ranges from traditional ambient stations to intensive site -specific biological evaluations. The data collected provides the basis for reports on water quality such as the 305(b) report which is used as a major planning tool. Every program within the water -pollution -control effort is dependent, in some manner, on monitoring -as shown below. Monitoring results are used to determine the impact of existing wastewater treatment facilities on instream water quality in order to establish proper priority ranking. With the current emphasis on direct water quality benefits, monitoring becomes even more important. We are currently expanding the use of monitoring in this program to provide 0 background quality information prior to wastewater treatment plant improvements to be followed by after construction monitoring to accurately document the extent of water quality improvements. As -explained previously -in -this document,\%vaste discharge permits are based on water quality standards. Many of the quality limits established in the water quality standards are based on an increase above naturally occurring conditions. The only way that this type of information can be obtained is through instream monitoring. The results are then used by the technical people drafting the effluent limits for each permit. Monitoring is also used to determine if existing effluent limits are providing adequate protection to instream quality. Biological monitoring • • has been proven to be an effective monitoring technique for this situation. -11- Successful enforcement can only be accomplished when violations of water • quality standards can be documented through monitoring and surveilance. Montana communities which utilize surface water for domestic supply are finding more and more problems with taste and odor. Through monitoring and surveilance we are able to identify taste and odor causing organisms in time that a management plan can be implemented to deal with the problem. C) Waste Discharge Permits Point source discharges to surface waters in Montana are controlled by permits issued in accordance with the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Rule. Such permits are also in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program under the Federal Clean Water Act which was delegated to the State in 1974. The purpose of a waste discharge permit is to control the type and amount of waste being discharged into surface waters. The permit also establishes monitoring requirements which allow us to review compliance with the permit. The effluent limits are established based on natural instream conditions and appropriate water quality standards. In some cases the permittee is unable to meet the final effluent limits of the permit at the time of issuance. In such instances interim limits are established and the permittee is required to submit an approvable schedule which will lead to full compliance with the permit. This is especially true with municipal facilities. Nearly all municipalities who are faced with a need to upgrade their existing wastewater treatment facility will seek the financial assistance available through the construction grant program. This • then requires close coordination between the two programs to ensure that the compliance schedule approved for the permit and a reasonable schedule for L construction under the grant program are compatable. • Once a permit is issued, the agency will review the self -monitoring information being submitted and conduct independent monitoring of the facility to determine compliance. While each permit is evaluated with respect to conformance with water quality standards, situations may arise where several discharges may occur in the same area and the impacts are somewhat overlapping. When the cumulative impact in a given stream segment results in a violation, either real or -gotential,--of water quality standards fog-on.ore-genameters,it may be necessary to conduct a waste load allocation study. Such study would be- conducted by -water quality management and technical studies sections staff and -would serve as a basis for revision to the effluent limits of appropriate permits. D) Construction Grants Management • The Federal Clean Water Act establishes a program to provide financial assistance to governmental subdivisions in need of constructing new or expanded wastewater systems. The law also includes provisions whereby states may be delegated program responsibility and receive funding for program administration. Montana has received such delegation and currently handles all aspects of the program that can be delegated. Current emphasis in this program is to ensure that the financial assistance is provided to the community creating the most serious water quality problems. The need for common criteria with which to compare water quality impacts as well as the fact that project needs exceed available funds has necessitated the development of a priority ranking system. The system currently utilized by the Water Quality Bureau includes a wide range of criteria which can be used to determine the severity of a problem in relation • to other needs around the state. The information is used to establish a -13- priority list of sewerage needs in Montana. Both the priority ranking system • and the priority list are the subject of public hearings prior to revision. Following public input the priority list is finalized and forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Once -approved., -grants -can -be made -to -projects -on the list beginning with the most serious projectatthe-- 4ep o-f-the list and --funding as many projects.as_available funds will allow. -As-preciously-stated, the current emphasis is on utilizing construction grant funding in areas where the greatest improvement in water quality will occur. It is therefore very important that we have accurate knowledge of the water quality conditions surrounding the projects. TEti"nformat.ion is - provided -through coordination with other programs within the Bureau. Information on the quality of wastewater being discharged is provided by compliance monitoring and self -monitoring information from the waste discharge permit section while instream water quality is provided by the rwater quality management section. The Water Quality Bureau has recently initiated an effort to document actual improvements in stream quality by monitoring stream conditions before and after completion of the wastewater treatment facility modifications. Such monitoring by the Bureau's water quality management section has already documented significant improvement in instream water quality at one location. Close coordination between this program and the waste discharge permit program is essential and is accomplished in several ways. If the review of compliance monitoring or self -monitoring data indicates that a facility is not in compliance with permit conditions, the community will be so notified. They will also be notified of the financial assistance available through the construction grant program. The community will be asked to submit a - • compliance schedule which is reviewed by the staff of both the construction -14- grant and permit sections. Daily communication between staff members of the • programs ensures coordination of program efforts. V Cooperative Agreements - Interagency Coordination To carry out its obligations under the Montana Water Quality Act, the Water Quality Bureau coordinates with and utilizes the services of other local, state, and federal agencies. In some cases, the cooperation is provided by specific agreement or memorandum of understanding while in other cases it is accomplished on an informal basis. The following agreements have been formalized and are attached to this document: 1) Cooperative Agreement to Implement the 208 Program on the National Forests in the State of Montana. 2) Memorandum of Understanding between Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management and State of Montana, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Water Quality Bureau. 3) Supplement to Memorandum of Understanding Between Conservation Districts and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 4) A Cooperative Agreement Between the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks For Coordination of Water Pollution Control Activities in Montana. Informal coordination occurs on a frequent basis with the Montana Department of State Lands, Montana Department of Natural Resources, and other agencies regarding issues of common interest. We also utilize the County Health Departments throughout the state to assist in complaint investigations - . and other matters that demand prompt attention. -15- .IATFH QIIALITY page 9 L. L. Bahls U] plater Quality Standards (Begin reading at the top of page 10 of the CPP document.) To capsulize, water quality r..ana ement in western Montana has two aides: restoration and prevention. There are many streams to clean up and many threats to the existing high quality waters. The IMHFS plays central roles in a number of key water quality management areas. But even in these areas, XDHFS does not do the job alone. Management priorities, the decision -making process, and specific responsibilities are spelled out in a variety of public documents and interagency agree- ments. The most signi`_'icant of these are the river basin 'dater 'Quality Inventory and Management Plans completed in the mid-197013, the Montana Statewide 208 ';later Quality Management Plan, the state's Continuous Planning Process (CPP) document, the biennial 305(b) reports, and the ,annual Montana/Environmental Protection Fpncy agreements. 0 0 MONTANA PRIORITY WATER BODIES--1984 (West of the Divide) ',Dater Quality Restoration Mike Horse Creek Silver Bow Creek Spring Creek below Ronan Snowshoe Creek Ashley Creek Hot Springs Creek Douglas Creek Clark Fork River (5 segments) Mission Creek Post Creek Elk Creek Crow Creek Whitefish River Stillwater River Water pollution Prevention Flathead Lake Clark Fork River LOREN L. BAHLS, SUPERVISOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SECTION WATER QUALITY BUREAU !ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES ROOM A206 (tributary of . . .) Blackfoot River Clark Fork River Crow Creek/Flathead River Big Cherry Creek/Yootenai River Flathead River Little Bitterroot River Flint Creek Pend Oreille River Flathead River Mission Creek/Flathead River Blackfoot River Flathead River_ Flathead River Flathead River