Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-34 Urban Runoff H20 PlanRESOLUTION NO. 92-~ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN "URBAN RUNOFF WATER QUALITY PROGILAM PLAN" . RECITALS: A. The State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) has established Total Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDLs) for Bear Creek under ORS 468.735. B. The EQC requires "Jackson County, the incorporated cities, and the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture to submit their program plans before June 1, 1992." THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Exhibit "A" is adopted as the City of Ashland "Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan". The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the 2nd day of June, 1992. N/~~a n ~E'.'-~-F r~a/n~~e c o r d e r SIGNED and APPROVED this ~J/~day of June, 1992. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor R~dy~orm: ~aul Nolte, Ci{y Attorney "EXHIBIT CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS URBAN RUNOFF WATER QUALITY PROGRAM PLAN A Plan For Achieving Total Maximum Daily Loading Goals For Bear Creek, Jackson County I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose Bear Creek, a major tributary to the Rogue River in Jackson County, typically exceeds certain water quality standards relating to nutrients as well as temperature and bacteria. The sources of the contributing contaminants include point sources such as the Ashland Wastewater Treatment Plant and log ponds as well as such non-point sources such as urban and agricultural runoff and failing septic systems. A map of Bear Creek and its watershed is shown in Figure 1. The City of Ashland recognizes its role and involvement in local cooperative efforts to minimize environmental impacts in the Bear Creek Valley. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, following initial water quality monitoring of Bear Creek and its tributaries, has designated Bear Creek as "Water Quality limited" due to excessive nutrient loadings, particularly phosphate (Appendix A). In order to fulfill its obligations to the overall water quality effort, the City of Ashland is prepared to proceed with the completion of this program plan and the initiative of the steps outlined. Notification of this process requirement was received September, 1990 (Appendix A2). The purpose of this plan is to describe the way in which local agencies and individuals will approach the problem of pollutants' contribution to Bear Creek. Included in the plan will be the methodology for the determination of: 1) 2) 3) 4) nature and extent of urban contribution of nutrients, the sources of those contaminants, alternatives available to reduce those sources, and costs and feasibility of selected alternatives. An approach to solve the problems will be formulated for consideration. ,,,% BEAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN EXPLANAi'ION NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM ....... "--- IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ,--,,,,~+ BEAR CREEl( DRAINAGE BASIN 0 .1 2 3 4 MILES I I I I i I i I I I i 0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS FIGURE 1 W017/DEOPLAN. F92 Page 5 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 The urban runoff program plan for the Bear Creek Valley is part of a combined effort to reduce overall pollution in Bear Creek. Successful implementation of each urban runoff program plan, when combined with effective program plans from other sources, should assure that nutrient contributions to Bear Creek will not exceed the limits noted by DEQ as "Total Maximum Daily Loads" (TMDLs). TMDLs are given for subsections of the stream as outlined in the official correspondence from the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). g. Preparation Approach In order to achieve these goals, coordination among the various agencies preparing program plans is essential. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments; (RVCOG) is currently acting as a liaison coordinating local agency response with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) which is the enforcing authority. Every effort will be made to consolidate the program planning process among responsible agencies as much as possible. C, Plan Organization The format of this Program Plan is derived from the document "Guidance for Non-Point Source Watershed Management Plans" prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality in November, 1990 (Appendix A3). The outline,, includes: 1) problem statement 2) control strategy, including a) goals and objectives b) plan of action c) monitoring and evaluation plan d) periodic reviews e) information and education f) budget g) reporting h) agreement Page 6 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 II. PROBLEM STATEMENT A. Physical Setting 1. The Watershed The following physiographic data pertains to the Bear Creek Valley area of Jackson County generally defined by the Rogue River on the north, the Siskiyou mountains on the south, and the coastal and Cascade mountains on either side as shown on Figure 1. Climatic conditions include typical temperature highs from over 100 degrees F in middle to late summer to lows of less than 20 degrees F in winter. The Bear Creek watershed includes 289 square miles. Bear Creek begins at the confluence of Emigrant Creek and Neil Creek south of Ashland and flows northward approximately 25 miles before exiting into the Rogue River north of Kirtland Road. The average rainfall, as measured at the Medford airport by t]he National Weather Service, is 19.84" annually. Figure 2 shows annual rainfall over the past 80 years as measured at the Medford Airport. It is important to note the variation in the annual average calculations done by the National Weather Service (done every ten years and b:ased on the previous 30 years record). Data collection began in our area around 1910, so the first 30 years' record resulted in an 18.05 annual average figure used in the 1940's. Flows in Bear Creek have exceeded 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) during high water as recently as December, 1981 as measured by the USGS Gauging Station in Medford. Conversely, summer flows during late summer in "dry" years have been as low as 5 cfs in July. A record of Bear Creek summer flows charted by the USGS in Medford is shown in Figure 3. Note the impact of stored water enhancing summer volumes. Land uses are composed primarily of agricultural and urban uses as shown in Appendix B. A population of 146,400' resides in Jackson County with approxi~nately 90,000 living in the Bear Creek Valley (RVCOG estimate). Jackson County population growth is expected to approach 180,000 by the year 2000, according to County Planners. The population of the city of Ashland is 17,060, based on Portland State University data. Ashland population is expected to be about 19,000 by the year 2000. Page 7 0 LO CO O4 0 Page 8 'ID C 0 0 © o__ i I I I ---t 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO -d- C'~ page 9 0 ~© 0'~ 0 0 0 o oO Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 2. Sources and Availability of Existing Water a) History A summary of the history of water resource development is included in Appendix C. b) Stored water The Bear Creek watershed has developed through storage projects including Hyatt, Howard Prairie, Reeder, Fish, Four Mile, and Agate Reservoirs. They are managed for domestic, flood control, agricultural, industrial, fish and wildlife, and other beneficial uses by the local irrigation districts and water districts. In some cases the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are also involved. Approximately 50% of Bear Creek flows are imported from the Klamath Basin. Natural stream flows in Bear Creek typically ended in early June. B. Water Quality Problems Water quality standards for Bear Creek is shown in Table 1. Interim nutrient allocations as summarized by Brown & Caldwell in the Ashland Program Plan are shown in Table 2. TABLE 1 Bacteria 1991 fecal coliform after 1991Enterococcus Temperature Suspended Sediment Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen Nutrients <200 colonies/100 mt (log mean average of 5 samples <134 colonies / 100 mt No standard No standard Minimum saturation = 90% 95% in salmonid areas 6.5 - 8.5 see Table 3 for interim levels Page 10 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Table 2 Interim Waste Load Allocations to Bear Creek 1 all flows 100 · 1-October Total P May BOD5 November 1 April 30 CBOD Ammonia Chlorine May 1 - November 15 May 1 - Ail year >30 15; 0 22.5 300 450 600 700 10 161 10 - 15 161 15 - 30 1'61 10 161 10 - 15 161 15 - 30 161 30 161 <10 6.8 10 - 30 6.8 30 - 60 6.8 60 6.8 The water quality problems of Bear Creek and its tributaries include violations of fecal coliform (and enterococci) indicator bacteria temperature, and various contaminants relating to nutrients including phosphates, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen. Fecal coliform levels have decreased dramatically over the past ten years based on data developed by RVCOG and other agencies. However, DEQ data on enter~i (a proposed new health indicator) show continued bacterial violation consistently along Bear Creek. Sediment levels have remained proportional to rainfall and runoff. A summary of the water quality aspects of Bear Creek in general is shown on Appendix C2. A summary of Bear Creek nutrient status is shown in a paper prepared by DEQ in Appendix D. The excessive nutrient levels can adversely impact the beneficial uses of Ikmr Creek by depleting oxygen levels to the point of degrading fish and riparian habitats, promoting excessive moss growth in irrigation water and requiring additional water treatment before municipal use is allowed. Page 11 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Water quality problems of Bear Creek and its tributaries include violations of fecal coliform (and enterococci) indicator bacteria, temperature, and various contaminants relating to nutrients including phosphates, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen. Fecal coliform levels have decreased dramatically over the past ten years based on data developed by RVCOG and other agencies. However, DEQ data on enterococci (a proposed new health indicator) show continued bacterial violation consistently along Bear Creek. Sediment levels have remained proportional to rainfall and runoff. A summary of the water quality aspects of Bear Creelk in general is shown on Appendix C2. A summary of Bear Creek nutrient status is shown in a paper prepared by DEQ in Appendix D. The excessive nutrient levels can adversely impact the beneficial uses of Bear Creek by depleting oxygen levels to the point of degrading fish and riparian habitats, promoting excessive moss growth in irrigation water and requiring additional water treatment before municipal use is allowed. Beneficial uses assigned to Bear Creek by the Oregon Water Resources Commission in the Water Quality Management Plan for the Rogue Basin (1976) are :summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 industrial water supply * livestock watering * resident fish and aquatic life * wildlife, hunting * fishing * water contact * irrigation * anadromous fish passage * salmonid fish rearing * salmonid fish spawning * boating * aesthetics Fish rearing and spawning appear to be the most sensitive beneficial uses now being impaired due to excessive nutrient concentrations, inadequate water quantity (flow) and excessive temperatures. Page 12 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Most of the phosphate loading in the upper Bear Creek has been attributable to the Ashland Wastewater Treatment Plant. However, DEQ has stated that it appears TMDL goals cannot be met in Bear Creek without appropriate reductions from other sources, including agriculture. C. Institutional Infrastructure Several local and state agencies are involved with surface water quality issues in Jackson County. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for enforcing state and national water quality laws and represents the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by agreement in Oregon. The Bureau of Reclamation is involved in the operation of major reservoirs :including Hyatt, Howard Prairie and Emigrant along with many of the irrigation distribution facilities for which bonded indebtedness exists. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is involved in the regulation of discharges from local reservoirs for flood control purposes. Involvement of these agencies may be essential should changes in irrigation be included in alternative reviews. The Oregon Department of Water Resources regulates water rights and can control flows in natural streams and tributaries. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates fish habitat and riparian conditions in waters of the state. Both agencies; are concerned about the amount of water in Bear Creek as well as quality. The state and local law enforcement agencies are also empowered to enforce state and local environmental laws. They include state police, county sheriffs, and city police departments. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments was designated as the "Lead Management Agency" for non-point source water quality planning under Section 208 of tlhe Clean Water Act. Updates of the Act continue to support non-point source water quality efforts and the RVCOG remains the principle planning and coordinating agency in the Bear Creek Valley area. A Water Quality Advisory Committee (WQAC) has been instrumental in guiding the local effort since 1975. A subcommittee of the WQAC was formed to specifically address the need to include every local entity directly affected by the DEQ nutrient issue. A list of the Nutrient Subcommittee members is found in Appendix E. Local agencies involved in point and non-point water issues include the cities along Bear Creek (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, and Central Point), a city on a tributary to Bear Creek (Jacksonville), as well as Jackson County (See Figure 1). Page 13 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 III. The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA) is the special district formed to provide sanitary sewer service to urban and rural areas and transport the sewage to a regional sewage treatment plant operated by the City of Medford to serve those agencies contributing waste water to the system. These agencies presently include Jacksonville, Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, and Jackson County. Other special purpose agencies involved include three irrigation districts: Talent Irrigation District, Medford Irrigation District and Rogue River Valley Irrigation District. The Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District functions as a locally run arm of the Soil Conservation Service and is also the designated Agricultural Water Quality Promotion Agency for the Bear Creek Valley. The Oregon State University Extension Service provides agricultural practices and educational promotion of agricultural "Best Management Practices" (BMP)in cooperation with Jackson County, irrigation districts, and professional and private farmers. CONTROL STRATEGY A. Goals and Objectives The immediate goal is to prepare a workable plan which will describe an approach for identifying and achieving successful reductions of the City of Ashland's share of nutrient contributions to Bear Creek. Where possible, this will be; a coordinated effort similar in all affected urban runoff situations with interagency cooperation. The long term goal is to achieve and protect beneficial uses of water' in Bear Creek. In order to achieve the above goals, the overall effort must determine: 1) the role to which the City of Ashland contributes to violations of the TMDL limit in Bear Creek; 2) the urban practice(s) which contribute to the TMDL and other violations; 3) the alternatives such as public education and adoption of Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs) available to ensure that the city of Ashland's, share of local allocations are not exceeded; 4) the selection of one or more alternatives which achieve water quality goals in the most feasible and cost effective manner; Page 14 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Be 5) an implementation strategy with an appropriate time frame; 6) the effectiveness of the implementation strategy in achieving: the goals. The objectives of the plan include interim objectives as shown below: 1) Interim objective one is the establishment of a water quality monitoring program in 1992 which addresses goal # 1 beginning with conductivity readings followed as needed by certified laboratory analyses of nutrient parameters first for conductivity, then including phosphate, nitrate, BOD, DO, and temperature as needed. Of critical importance is a continued monitoring by DEQ repeating work done August, 1988 and February, 1991 during: a) non-irrigation periods and, b) high runoff water periods. 2) Interim objective two is the determination of the most likely source(s) types of urban runoff which contribute to excessive nutrients (if arty). Completion date will be March 1, 1993. Problems will be priioritized and a coordinated approach will be developed for all cities. The overall objective will be to adopt an appropriate combination of storm drain controls, passive treatment, public education practices, urban BMPs, city ordinances, or other methods to meet the target TMDL limits set by DEQ. Plan of Action The City of Ashland will participate in a cooperative effort of evaluating local sources of nutrients to determine the nature and extent of each nutrient source, including that within the city of Ashland. Once excessive nutrient generation (if any) is verified, the City of Ashland will proceed with the following plan of action beginning with the evaluation of available control options outlined below. 1. Available Control Options The options available to reduce urban nutrient contributions, to Bear Creek and its tributaries include the following: a) an investigation of the design and condition of the sanitary sewer system and storm drain systems to determine the nature and extent of sewage entering natural drainages rather than being transported to the regional treatment plant. Should this be found a problem, the City of Ashland would repair and upgrade the system as needed. Page 15 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 b) c) d) e) g) h) an investigation into the nature of effluent entering the City of Ashland storm drain system (which exits into natural streams) including that from industry and private citizen sources. Should the nature of storm drain usage contribute significant nutrient loadings, the City of Ashland would work with the individual sources to promote appropriate pre-treatment practices. Individual citizens could be encouraged to be more aware of their contributions to nutrient loadings and how to minimize those contributions around the home. recognizing the phosphate soap limitations now in State Law for industry and private citizens applicable to soap products used where runoff could enter the storm drain system including car washes, auto detailing shops and any commercial areas hosing dow:n driveways and parking lots as well as private citizens washing cars. The City of Ashland has adopted an overall phosphate soap ban (Appendix J) to minimize phosphate contributions in sanitary sewers and storm drains. adopting (or refining existing) erosion control ordinances. investigating the benefits of passive treatment facilities below areas of urban nutrient contributions to allow for natural cleaning of runoff including facilities designed to clean "first flush" storm water events and/or all urban runoff. flow augmentation for Bear Creek through agreement ~with local water management agencies arranging for additional flows (when available) in Bear Creek to dilute the concentration of any nutrient contribution to Bear Creek. implement in-stream improvements to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand in the stream and/or restoring oxygen levels in Bear Creek (examples include new riffles and harvesting algae). public awareness promotion to educate citizens on preventing unnecessary nutrient contributions in storm drains and natural channelways. Page 16 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 . ge Process for selecting option(s) The criteria for selecting one or more of the alternatives listed above include: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Will an alternative achieve treatment and/or reduction goals--alone or in concert with other alternatives? Is the alternative technically feasible? Is it legal and likely to remain legal? Does it give the city the control it desires? Is the alternative acceptable to other participating agencies? Does the total cost compare favorably with other alternatives? Other factors. Other factors in evaluation of alternatives include total cost, reliability, flexibility under various conditions/seasons, and environmental impacts. The City of Ashland plans to utilize this criteria to select appropriate interim and/or long term alternative(s) for those pollution sources contributing measurably to the nutrient loading of Bear Creek. Should any passive treatment facility be included in selected, alternatives or pilot studies, water quality nutrient monitoring will determine existing conditions prior to installation of the proposed facility or pilot study. Water quality data will be evaluated annually at the end of the winter season (April 1) if it is determined that the City of Ashland storm drainage system contributes meaningfully to the nutrient loadings of Bear Creek. Interim Activities Representatives of all urban runoff sources met early in 1992 and agreed to continue, refine, or initiate the following nutrient control activities as soon as possible and assess the benefits on an interim basis. a) Administration development and refinement of storm and sewer line and surface water mapping including outfalls to Bear Creek or tributaries Page 17 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 b) c) Facility Review 1. development and refinement of inspection and maintenance program for storm and sewer lines verifying storm and sewer lines are used for their intended purpose and that unnecessary nutrient loadings are not entering the storm drain system completing a "windshield" survey (along the lines of"streamwalk approach" suggested by DEQ) to find likely sources of nutrients entering the storm drain or natural streams in a city (Appendix F) maintaining and enhancing, as needed, the street cleaning program Awareness 1) preparing written information for media (and billing) distribution of e 1 . Public 2) 3) a) the vulnerability of natural streams to pollution via storm drains b) the need to minimize over-watering and chemical use on lawns c) the role of urban citizens can help improve Bear Creek water quality increasing public awareness on leaf pick-up service to minimize time leaves remain in city gutter lines promoting commercial user awareness of the need to clean out storm drain catch basins which only work if properly maintained Should an option require verification of its effectiveness (such as a new passive treatment facility), the city of Ashland will initiate a pilot study within 6 months of selecting that alternative. That evaluation should be studied for 2 full years to verify its effectiveness. Page 18 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Assuming acceptance of this program plan by July 1992, the city of Ashland proposes the following timeline: Completion of a source inventory (including confirmation by DEQ) Selection of interim alternative(s) Initiation of a pilot study (if needed) Completion of pilot study Selection of final options Implementation of approved alternatives Completion of objectives 10/31/92 10/31/93 3/31/94 3/31/96 6/31/96 3/31/97 or 95 3/97 or 3/95 Annual reviews/reports April of each year Every two years - add # years, report to DEQ for 305-6 report 4. Other Controls 5. Responsibility The City of Ashland is responsible for selecting and implementing appropriate options which will achieve stated goals. Because of the limited technical resource staff available, the City of Ashland is requesting that DEQ field and laboratory water quality staff continue the 1988-91 nutrient investigation monitoring if possible. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments will continue to plan coordination among the various cities, Jackson County, industry and agricultural agencies preparing program plans. However, each entity has the final responsibility for the success of their plan within their jurisdictions. 6. Authorities The City of Ashland has the authority to implement those components of the plan within its city limits. State laws covering water quality problems such as "Offensive Littering" (ORS 164.775 et seq.) cover all aspects of water pollution. In addition, the protection of established beneficial uses in Bear Creek provides DEQ with the necessary authority to oversee a basin-wide water quality promotion and enforcement effort outside the city limits of the City of Ashland. No additional authority is expected to be required to implement the strategy. Page 19 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 C. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan The purpose of monitoring will be to have quantitative and/or qualitative measure of conditions and progress toward goals. 1. Parameters The monitoring strategy includes the following components: a) water quality monitoring including determination of present conditions, verification of a nutrient contribution, as well as any specific contributions, by the City of Ashland and determination of progress toward the program goal. Parameters include: Phosphate, Ortho Phosphate, Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and conductivity and temperature. As DEQ recommends, a "Streamwalk" approach will be used to prioritize sites for more detailed monitoring. Conductivity measurements at key urban runoff sites were begun by agricultural entities in September, 1991 and by both agricultural and urban agencies in March, 1992. The former occurred during irrigation season; the latter, prior to the 1992 irrigation season. The results have been sent to DEQ for review. b) plan component monitoring of selected alternative(s) which are chosen to achieve the goal. c) monitoring of changing conditions such as growth or changing land uses within the City of Ashland which could influence the progress toward the goal. d) monitoring of changing conditions in the watershed such as climate, or changing water use patterns by agriculture which could affect the achievement of the TMDL goal in a manner not under the control of the City of Ashland. e) monitoring of maintenance of the effectiveness of the plan in reducing nutrients over the long term. 2. Schedule Phase 1 of monitoring, the determination of present conditions, is already partially completed by DEQ water quality staff. Page 20 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Phase 2 the monitoring of plan components, changing conditions within the City of Ashland, and in the watershed will proceed in conjunction with the plan implementation activities. Phase 3 maintenance of the effectiveness of the plan implementation, will be ongoing and adaptable to verify maintenance of achieved goals as the City of Ashland and watershed conditions change. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments will assist in data gathering from other activities outside the city of Ashland to assure the success of Phases 2 and 3 above. , Monitoring Location(s) The City of Ashland will inventory and monitor, using a conductivity meter (available at Rogue Valley Council of Governments), any likely nutrient sources within their jurisdiction to confirm the nature and extent of these sources. Additional water quality monitoring locations will be selected by the City of Ashland. Preliminary monitoring sites for each small city in the Bear Creek Valley have been established, indicating the interrelationships of the cities and other nutrient activities. D, 4. Types of Analyses (see Section IIIC1) Periodic Reviews Periodic reviews of the plan, its progress and achievement and/or maintenance of its goals will be done every year. The review will focus on: The satisfactory progress in implementing the plan. The results of the monitoring and evaluation element of the plan. A decision to continue as planned or modify the plan to reflect new information concerning the successes and failures thus far in implementation. Participants will include DEQ officials and other nutrient planning agencies as appropriate; coordinated by RVCOG. Page 21 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 Ee Information and Education 1. Education A major component of the nutrient reduction effort is the education of citizens on the nature and extent of the nutrient problem in the Bear Creek Valley and within the City of Ashland. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments already has a strong public awareness effort covering all aspects of water quality in the Bear Creek Valley. The city of Ashland will rely on RVCOG to continue that effort. An example of 1992 water quality handouts distributed by the Medford Water Commission is shown in Appendix H. If specific problems caused by citizen activity in the City of Ashland are found, educational materials will be developed and utilized as needed to enhance our public's awareness of the problem and appropriate solutions. For example, if it is found that citizens dumping yard clippings into backyard stream or changing antifreeze in gutter lines contributes significantly to nutrient loadings, then handouts will be utilized to instruct the public on more proper disposal techniques. The current cooperative efforts of the local media in these matters will continue to be a major public awareness tool. The organization of public awareness materials will generally follow that outlined in the original DEQ Guidance for information and education (I&E) as excerpted from page 8 below: "People that live, work, and recreate in the watershed need to hear about and understand: What the water quality problem is. What they might be doing to cause or compound the problem. What needs to be done to correct the problem and how they play an important role. What they may do to mitigate existing or potential problems. Where they can obtain assistance in correcting their share of the problem What the environmental, health, economic, and social consequences are if the problem is not corrected." The typical population will be the citizens of the City of Ashland. The objective is to clearly define the problem and available solutions in a manner that will convince the well-meaning majority of our citizens to do the right thing. The actual products of the I&E will not be known until a specific need is identified. Page 22 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 2. Public Involvement F, The city of Ashland will include the following public involvement aspects into the development and preparation of the final program plan prior to submittal for DEQ approval: Schedule A properly noticed Public Hearing was held on June 2, 1992 to present the final draft of the plan (including input from the WQAC and the Study Session) to the City Council for adoption by resolution and transmittal to DEQ for approval. IV. The City of Ashland will work with other responsible cities in the Bear Creek Valley to proceed approximately along the following schedule: Staff Review of Draft ProgramPlan ............ March -May ; · Coordination with Other Cities 'P o ram an . Staff Approval of Final Draft U~b~n ~ Pi Council Study Session . . . Council Adoption of Program Pian at Pdbiic fie~ring . DEQReview of ProgramPlan . . DEQValley-wide Nutrient Moni'toring Implementation of Interim Alternatives DEQApproval of ProgramPlan ............ DEQ Valley-wide Nutrient Monitoring Evaluation of Interim Alternatives Per~o}mance Selection of Final Implementation Alternatives Alternative Implementation Evaluation . '92 March '92 - May '92 May '92 June '92 ~Vlay - Aug '92 · July '92 July '92 on September '92 February '93 Spring '93 Sumner '93 Stunner '94 BUDGET A, Be Resources Needed The resources needed to implement the interim alternatives shown in this plan are available with the Street Fund of the City of Ashland. Technical assistance from RVCOG and DEQ will also be available. The costs of activities over and above these interim steps are not known at this time. Funding Sources The sources of funding which are now available to implement the plan include the Street Fund of the city of Ashland and the planning assistance grant to RVCOG from DEQ which is effective through the end of June, 1992. Other possible funding sources could include: Page 23 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 further planning and implementation grants from DEQ (Section 3197) use of the State's existing revolving loan fund for water quality enhancement projects funds from a future storm water utility or other special assessments stream enhancement funds from Oregon Fish and Wildlife, Soil Conservation Service, etc. education funds and resources from Oregon State University Extension Service private (foundation) funds and grants. The funds needed to prepare the program plan for DEQ review and approval are expected to come from a combination of the City of Ashland Street Fund and RVCOG Planning Grant from DEQ. Funds needed to implement the plan will be assessed when the various options are being reviewed for feasibility and cost effectiveness. Ce De Reporting The City of Ashland will report on the progress of this effort annually to DEQ. DEQ will report monitoring results annually to the City of Ashland. . Signed Agreement The signed agreement between the City of Ashland and DEQ covering the implementation of the Watershed Management Plan will utilize the following objectives: reason for agreement definition of lines of authority definition of lines of responsibility description of what is to be accomplished time frame liabilities agreement cancellation clause The format will be guided by that shown in Appendix II of DEQ's Non-Point Source Guidance. Data on land use, watershed and climatic conditions will be furnished to DEQ as part of an annual reporting component of the plans. This information can be used to adjust the implementation strategy of the plan as needed (with the approval of DEQ). Page 24 Urban Runoff Water Quality Program Plan May 1992 APPENDICES URBAN RUNOFF # TOPIC A1 DEQ TMDL DESCRIPTION DEQ TMDL NOTICE TO CITIES B LAND USE C1 HISTORY OF BEAR CREEK WATER DEVELOPMENT C2 BEAR CREEK DESCRIPTION/WATER QUALITY D BEAR CREEK NUTRIENT DETAILS (DEQ) E WQAC NUTRIENT SUBCOMMITYEE F STREAM WALK SUMMARY G CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS H PUBLIC AWARENESS HANDDOUT CITY OF ASHLAND PHOSPHATE ORDINANCE 2623 NOTE: APPENDICES NOT INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKETS. IF YOU WISH COPIES PI,EASE CONTACT RHONDA AT CITY HALL. Page 25 (WQPLAN) URBAN APPENDIX A A1 D~Q TMDL DESCRIPTION Department of Environmental Quality ..... 8~1 SW'SlXTH'AVENUE, PORTLfqND, OREGON' 97204-1390 'pHONE (5~)~-)"22~9~5696 ~ric Dittmer Rouge Valley Council of Governments 155 S. Second Street P.O. Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Eric- August 14, 1989 Enclosed are t~e final report and the rules for Bear Creek as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). These rules will form the basis for establishing a TMDL as required by the Federal Clean Water Act and Oregon Administrative Rule.. The major water quality problems with Bear, Creek are pH, the alkaline-base leveI' of the water, the dissolved oxygen, and the fecal coliform levels. The pH and dissolved oxygen violations affect the ability of Bear creek to support aquatic life. Our study showed that water quality degradation in Bear Creek significantly reduced the diversity and abundance of aquatic life in Bear Creek. The dissolved oxygen standard is aimed at protecting the salmonid (trout ant salmon) in Bear creek. The fecal coliform bacteria violations indicate that the water quality in Bear Creek is not safe for swimming or wading. The Department has not set a TMDL for Fecal coliform in Bear Creek. In a practical sense, the efforts to attain the nutrient TMDL will also be effective in controlling the fecal coliform sources. For example, in urban areas broken or leaking sewer lines have been identified as major sources of both nutrients and fecal coliform. In agricultural areas animal waste is a primary source of both nutrients and fecal coliform. The Department expects that achieving the TMDLs will improve water quality in Bear Creek. To some degree these improvements will be noticeable. In other aspects the improvements will not be readily apparent. However, the response of the stream to improvements may become apparent with time. For example, the maintenance of dissolved oxygen and pH will not be noticeable. However the increased ability of Bear Creek to support aquatic life may be noticeable. Eric Dittmer Page 2 A good example would be an increase in fish production. Similarly, control of nonpoint source pollution, as required by the TMDL, is necessary for achieving water contact recreation in Bear Creek. The TMDLs establish limits for phosphorus and oxygen demand in Bear Creek. These limits affect both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. In all practical purposes the proposed limits will require that the Ashland STP does not discharge to Bear Creek during the critical summer low flow period. Ashland is the ma~or source of nutrients and oxygen demand to Bear Creek during the summer season. PHOSPHORUS TMDL Achieving the phosphorus TMDL will require reducing loads from agricultural and urban nonpoint sources during the summer. Our data show that agriculture loads of phosphorus are variable. Some stream appear to need little reduction of phosphorus, for others the degree of improvement could require reductions greater than 30% of existing loads. One of first steps to control nutrients is identifying specific ~ources. Nutrients could come from animal waste, leaking septic tanks or effluent withdrawn from Bear Creek. ' Urban loads of phosphorus are not well documented. From nationwide studies the level of phosphorus in urban runoff varies from an average of 250 ug/1 to as high as 500 ug/1. Obviously, achieving urban controls to near 80 ug/1 could require significant reductions. However, the TMDL process allows dilution~and attenuation to be used to mitigate the high concentrations. The load allocations we have discussed in. previous meetings proposed phosphorus levels as high as 150 ug/1, 60% of average urban concentrations. This urban level is higher than instream levels and is dependent on available dilution 'left from agricultural and forestry nonpoint sources. Controlling urban loads will require the identification and control of nutrient sources. Some sources include leaking sewage lines. Apparently one has already been discovered. A concerned citizen has suggested that a sewage line across Bear Creek above Ashland may also be a source of nutrients. Other sources would include detergent users or industries connected to storm sewers. Passive treatment systems provides opportunity to limit the amount of nutrients discharging to a Bear Creek and increase the amount of instream attenuation. Both processes act to control urban pollution. Increased attenuation would increase the allocatable load for Bear Creek. There is an existing study describing the potential for passive treatment in the Bear Creek Basin. Eric Dittmer Page 3 BOD TMDL The primary source of BOD in Bear Creek during the summer is the Ashland STP. Another significant source is log pond discharge from MEDCO. Reductions from both.sources will need to be made to achieve the new rules. The Medco discharge will may be eliminated to conform to their existing permit requirements. Ashland may elect to eliminate their discharge during the critical iow flow. There are certainly nonpoint sources of oxygen demand that can and should be controlled. However nonpoint sources of BOD do not appear to be an overriding concern. Efforts to identify and control nonpoint sources of phosphorus may limit the sources of oxygen demand as well. WINTER OXYGEN DEMAND The winter oxygen demand level was established using median conditions. In general this means that typical oxygen demand loads do not result in dissolved oxygen violations in Bear Creek during the winter. During the intensive studies dissolved oxygen violations occurred during the winter under conditions of low flow and high loads. Achieving the winter TMDL will require that point and nonpoint sources of oxygen demand discharge only when sufficient dilution is available.. This requirement may have its greatest effect on the operators of log ponds whose permits allow winter discharge when sufficient flow is available. '[~m'crw PM\WC5342 Sincerely, Robert Baumgartner Planning and Monitoring Section Water Quality Division \ ~'. .'/.. NElL GOLDSCHMIOT GOVERNOR ii - Department of Environmental Quality ............... , 811 SW SIXTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696 DATE: October 15, 1990 TO: Persons Who Attended Bear Creek Hearing or Provided Testimony FROM: Debra Sturdevant SUBJECT: Department's Response to Comments and Proposed Rule Amendment Enclosed is the Staff Report to the Environmental Quality commission on the Bear Creek TMDL rule amendment. The Department's proposal, which was revised in response to the testimony received, is shown in Attachment A. The commission will consider this proposal for adoption on November 2, 1990. The Hearing Officer's Report for the September 24, 1990 public hearing is Attachment F. This report includes a summary of the oral and written testimony received and the Department's responses. Thank you for your interest and participation. OF 18~g · N~,L GOLDSCH~blID I Environmental Quality Commission 811 SW SIXTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97204 PHONE.. (503) 229-5696 1t REQUEST FOR EQC ACTION I! Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Division: Section: November 2, 1990 H Water Quality Standards & Assess. SUBJECT: - Proposed Adoption of Rule Establishing Bear Creek TMDL Time Schedule PURPOSE: The Bear Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ~ule (OAR 340-41-385), adopted in July of 1989, included a timetable, for implementation and compliance. The rule requires the Department of Environmental Quality (Department) to distribute initial load and waste load allocations, and it requires point source dischargers and land management agencies to develop program plans for implementing these allocations. The proposed rule amendment delays the deadlines for the Department to distribute load allocations (LAs) and waste load allocations (WL~s), and for the regulated entities to submit program plans. The delay is requested because the Department did not meet its deadline for establishing the preliminary LAs and WLAs. The sources who were working with the Department had the opportunity to develop program plans based on draft TMDLs, WLAs and LAs, but only the City of Ashland proceeded. The remaining sources have made little' progress. ACTION REQUESTED: Work session Discussion General Program Background Potential Strategy, Policy, or Rules Agenda Item for Current Meeting Other: (specify) Authorize Rulemaking Hearing DEO.46 Meeting Date: November 2, 1990 Agenda Item: H Page 2 X Adopt Rules Proposed Rules Rulemaking Statements Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement Public Notice issue a contested case Order Approve a st°ipulated Order Enter an Order Proposed Order Approve Department Recommendation Variance Request Exception to Rule Informational Report Other: (specify) Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed rule amendment requires the Department to distribute initial load and waste load allocations by September 30, 1990. (The allocations were distributed on September 25, 1990.) The proposed amendment requires industries permitted for log pond discharge to submit program plans.before May 25, 1991 (eight months after the Department distributed the LAs). It requires Jackson County, the incorporated cities, and the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture to submit their program plans before June 1, 1992. The proposed language is shown in Attachment A. The proposal would delay the log pond plan deadline by 10 months, and the nonpoint source plan deadline by 1.7 months, from those in the original rule. The Department is not proposing to extend the December, 1994 final compliance date for achieving the TMDL at this time. Achievement of this deadline will be subject to timely plan submittal, review and .approval by the Department, and implementation by the Designated Management Agencies (DMAs). AUTHORITY/NEED FOR ACTION: Required by Statute: Enactment Date: Statutory Authority: Pursuant to Rule: ORS 468.735 Attachment Attachment Attachment Meeting Date: November 2, 1990 Agenda Item: H Page 3 X Pursuant to Federal Law/Rule: (Public Law 92-500 as amended) Other: Time Constraints: (explain) CWA Sec.303 Attachment Attachment DEVELOPMENTAL BACKGROUND: Advisory Committee Report/Recommendation X Hearing Officer's Report/Recommendations X Response to Testimony/Comments X Prior EQC Agenda Items: July 21, 1989, Agenda Item I Other Related Reports/Rules/Statutes: Supplemental Background Information Attachment Attachment F Attachment F Attachment E Attachment Attachment REGULATED/AFFECTED COMMUNITY CONSTRAINTS/CONSIDERATIONS: The regulated community affected by the proposed ~le amendment includes the point source dischargers, local governments and resource management agencies required to develop program plans by the Bear Creek TMDL rule.. Specifically,.these parties include three industries permitted for log pond discharge, Jackson County, all the incorporated cities in the basin, the Department of Forestry, and ~he Department of Agriculture. The City of Ashland sewerage facility is not affected by the proposed amendment because they have already submitted their program plan. The proposal allows the affected parties additional time to complete their program plans and does not restrict them from submitting the plans early. Therefore, the proposal should provide relief rather than additional burden. The affected parties may have difficulty submitting plans within the timeframe of the original rule due to the delay by the Department in distributing the waste load and load allocations. The purpose of a program plan is to describe the strategy and timeline by which the regulated party will achieve their allocation. The regulated parties .should be allowed a reasonable amount of time following formal notification of their allocation to complete the program plans. Meeting Date: November 2, 1990 Agenda Item: H Page 4 A delay in the completion of program plans will result in less time to implement those plans and achieve final LAs and WLAs by the December, 1994 compliance date. The program plans were intended to provide additiolnal information as to whether the 1994 compliance date is achievable. The Department can not judge at this ~time whether the program plan delays will neCessitate an extension of the compliance date. PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS: The development and distribution of waste loads for Bear Creek were considerably more complex than any other water quality limited receiving stream examined to date. It included multiple parameters in both winter and Summer flow ~ituations. The Bear Creek TMDL added a significant workload to the Department which had to be assumed by existing staff. This situation, along with other Department priorities, caused a delay in the calculation and distribution of the load and waste load allocations. The allocations were distributed by mail on September 25, 1990, however, to all the Designated Management Agencies - all those given a load or waste load allocation and responsible for developing a program plan. The proposed amendment does not change the resource demands on the Department, but corrects for the delay in Department action which has already resulted due to'insufficient resources. It will also spread out the demands on Department staff to assist with plan development, review plans, hold public hearings and request Environmental Quality Commission (commission) approval of the plans. Additional staff were recently hired on a temporary basis to assist with the TMDL workload. Bear Creek is the fourth TMDL to be established. There are ten additional water bodies with TMDL work in progress or scheduled. The work of the Department does not end when the TMDL is established. Therefore, it will become more and more difficult to continue to establish new TMDLs, as well as follow through on load allocations and program plan development and approval, in a timely manner .with existing resources. Environmental Protection Agency resources to support TMDL development will be greatly reduced after September 30, 1990. The Department's proposed Water Program budget includes a Meeting Date: November 2, 1990 Agenda Item: H Page 5 · request for funds to continue the TMDL effort (Decision Package #103). Without this funding, the Department will be severely limited in its ability to comply with the Federal Court Order to complete two TMDLs per year. This situation would also, of course, limit our ability to achieve timely implementation of TMDLs already established. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1· Extend the deadline for distribution of allocations by the Department to September 30, 1990. Establish the following deadlines for the program plans: - May 25, 1991 for log pond permittees (an eight month delay from the original rule), and - June 1, 1992 for the 'nonpoint source plans (a seventeen month delay from the original rule). This alternative is included in response to testimony received on the Department's first proposal. See Attachment D for the proposed amendment circulated for public comment. See Attachment F for the Hearing officer's Report. · Extend the deadline for distribution of allocations by the Department to August 30, 1990. Establish deadlines for program plans as.8 and 14 months from the date the Department distributes allocations. If adopted November 2, 1990, this alternative would delay program plan submittal deadlines over 9 months from those in the original rule. This alternative was the Department's proposed amendment prior to the public hearing. Establish deadlines that allow 10 and 16 months following the distribution of WLAs and LAs to complete program plans. This is the amount of time between allocation distribution and program plan submittal provided in the existing rule. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION, WITH RATIONALE: The Department recommends that the EQC adopt the amendment proposal described in Alternative 1 above and shown in Attachment A. Meeting Date: November 2, 1990 Agenda Item: H Page 6 This alternative provides slightly less time (2 months less) between the allocations distribution and program plan submittal than the original rule for the log pond permittees. Because these parties have known of the requirement since July, 1989 and have been aware of the draft allocations, it is believed that this proposal provides adequate time. The alternative provides more time than the first proposed amendment (shown in Attachment D) or the original rule for the development of nonpoint source plans. The nonpoint source management agencies felt they needed more time to better coordinate their planning efforts with the actions of the Ashland sewage treatment plant, the primary contributor of the phosphorus load. In addition, the Department of - Agriculture felt additional time was necessary to develop a useful, meaningful and implementable program plan. The DEQ expects the specificity and comprehensiveness of the program plans to reflect the additional time allotted for their development. The Department does not want to delay the deadlines any longer than necessary because the later the plans are submitted, the more likely the December, 1994 final compliance date will need to be extended as well. The Department has no reason to believe that the compliance date will not be achievable under this proposal. The program plans will provide the information necessary to make this determination. CONSISTENCY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN, AGENCY POLICY, T~GISLATIVE POLICY: The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the strategic plan, agency policy and legislative policy to the extent that it delays the implementation of pollution prevention practices, and the protection of Bear Creek for beneficial uses. It is uncertain whether the delay in the submittal of program plans will necessitate an extension of the December, 1994 compliance date for the Bear Creek TMDLs., ISSUES FOR COMMISSION TO RESOLVE: le Should a departmental delay cause a potential hardship on the regulated entities, 'or should they be allowed additional time to complete program plans? Meeting Date: November 2, 1990 Agenda Item: H Page 7 INTENDED FOLT~)WUP ACTIONS: - Work with the Designated Management Agencies to assist them in the development of their program plans to the extent that Department resources allow. - Review the program plans following their submittal to the Department, hold a public hearing and bring the plans b~fore the Commission for approval. -Take necessary steps to ensure that new TMDL rules can be met and the need for this type of rule amendment is avoided. Approved: Section: Division: Director: Report Prepared By: Debra Sturdevant Phone: 229-'5289 Date Prepared: October 15, 1990 (DJS:djs) (October 15, 1990) ORE~ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 340-41-385 NOTE: The underlined portions of text represent proposed additions made to the rules. The [h~aeke~ed] portions of text represent proposed deletions made to the rules. Attachment A SPECIAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 3'40-41-385 (1) In order to-improve water quality within the Bear Creek subbasin to meet existing water quality standards for ~issolved oxygen and pH, the following special rules for total maximum daily loads, waste load allocations, load allocations, and program plans are established. (a) After the completion of wastewater control facilities and program plans approved by the Commission under this rule and no later than December 31, 1994, unless otherwise modified by program plans no activities shall be allowed and no wastewater shall be discharged to Bear Creek or its tributaries without the authorization of the Commission that cause the following parameters to be exceeded in Bear Creek: Low-Flow Season Approximately May 1 through.November 30* Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen as N (mg/1) 'Instream Five--Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1)~ Total Phosphorus as P (mg/1) 0.25 3.0 0.08 High Flow Season Approximately December 1 through April 30* Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen as N (mg/1) Instream Five_-Day Biochemical Oxy en Demand (mg/~) § 1.0 2.5 1 As measured at the Valley View Road Sampling Site. For the purposes of waste load allocations, the biochemical oxygen demand is calculated as the ammonia concentration multiplied SA%WH4147A November 2, 1990 A - 1 by 4.35 and added to the measured effluent biochemical oxygen demand. 2 Median value as measured at the Kirtland Road sampling site. * Precise dates for complying with this rule may be conditioned on physical conditions, such as flow and temperature, of the receiving stream and shall be specified in individual permits or memorandums of understanding issued by the Department. (b) The Department shall before September 30, 1990 [wi~him-60-days-of adop~iom-o~-~Nese-~tes] distribute initial waste load and load allocations to point and nonpoint sources in the basin. These loads are interim and may be redistributed upon conclusion of the approved program Plans. (c) Before October 21, 1989 [W{~him-90-~lays-og-adop~iom-og-~hese ~utes], the City of Ashland shall submit to the Department a program plan and ti~e schedule describing how and when they will modify their sewerage facility to comply with this rule and all other applicable rules regulating waste discharges. (d) Before May 25, 1991 [Wi~him-t2-mom~hs-og-adop~iom-o~-~hese-~utes], the industries permitted for log pond discharge, Boise CaScade Corporation, Kogap Manufacturing Company, and Medford Corporation shall submit program plans to the Department describing how and when they will modify their operations to comply with this rule and all other'applicable rules regulating waste discharges. (e) Before June 1. 1992 ~Wi~him-t8-mom~hs-af~e~-~he-adop~i0m-o~-~hese ~tes], Jackson County and the incorporated cities within the Bear Creek subbasin shall submit to the Department a program plan for controlling urban runoff within their respective jurisdictions to comply with these rules. (f) Before June 1, 1992, [Memo~amd,,mm-of-Ag~eemem~-dewetoped-fottowimg adop~iom-of-~his-~te-~e~weem] the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture ~am4-~he-Depa~mem~-of-Emwi~mmem~at-(~uati~y] shall submit to the Department [~equi~e-~ha~] program plans for achieving specified load allocations of state and private forest lands and agricultural lands respectively [~e-4ewetoped-wi~him-tg mon~hs-of-t~tte-adop~ion]. (g) Program plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Ail proposed final program plans sh~ll be subject to public comment and hearing prior to consideration for approval by the Commission. SA~WH4147A November 2, 1990 A - 2 Attachment B STATEMENT OF NEED FOR RULk~IKING Pursuant to ORS 183.335(7), this statement provides information on the Environmental Quality Commission's intended action to adopt and amen¢l rules. 1. Legal Authority ORS 468.735 provides that the Commission may establish by rule standards of quality and purity for waters of the state in accordance with the public policy set forth in ORS 468.710. Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) requires that Total Maximum Daily Loads be established for water quality limited stream segments. · Need for the Rule Amendment Because the Bear Creek TMDL includes five parameters for which interim load and waste load allocations had to be established, and because this workload had to be assumed by existing staff, the Department did not meet the deadline in the original rule (OAR 340-41-385) for distributing the. allocations to the affected parties. A Program plan describes the strategy and timeline by which a regulated party will achieve its load or waste load allocation. Program plans can not be completed without knowledge'of the allocations. The Department feels the proposed rule amendment is needed to allow the regulated parties adequate time to complete their plans. · Principal Documents Relied Upon in this Rulemakinq Clean Water Act as amended in 1977 (Public Law 92-500). Quality Criteria for Water, EPA, 1986. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 130 - Water Quality Planning and Management, 1987. , State/EPA Agreement, July, 1987. Program Document for FY 1988. Staff Report to the EQC, Agenda Item I, Bear Creek - Establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads, July 21, 1989. B - 1 SPECIAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 34b-41-385 1. In order to improve water quality within the Bear Creek subbasin to meet existing water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and pH, the following special rules for total maximum daily loads, waste load allocations, load allocations, and program plans are established. (a) After the completion of wastewater control facilities and program plans approved by the Commission under this rule and no later than December 31, 1994, unless otherwise modified by program plans no activities shall be allowed and no wastewater shall be discharged to Bear Creek or its tributaries without the authorization of the Commission that cause the following parameters to be exceeded in Bear Creek: [Summer, Irrigation, and] Low-Flow Season[s] Approximately [April] May 1 through November 30 Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen as N (mq/1) Instream Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1) 1 Total Phosphorus as P (mg/1) 0.25 3.0 0.08 [Winter] High Flow Season Approximately December 1 through [March]April 31110 Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen as N (mg/1) Instream Five Day Biochemical Oxyg~9~ Demand (mg/!] L~J- 1.0 [7.0]2.5 · 1 As measured at the Valley View Road Sampling Site. For the purposes of waste load allocations, the biochemical oxygen demand is calculated as the ammonia concentration multiplied by 4.35 and added to the measured effluent biochemical oxygen demand. SAkWC6834 E -. 12 2 Median value as measured at the Kirtland Roadsamplinq site * Precise dates for complying with this rule may bo conditioned'on physical conditions, such as flow and temperature, of the receiving stream and shall be specified in individual permits or memorandums of understanding issued by the Department. The Department shall within 60 days of adoption of these rules distribute initial waste load and load allocations (d) (e) to point and nonpoint sources in the basin. These loads are interim and may be redistributed upon conclusion of the approved program plans. Within 90 days of adoption of these rules, the City of Ashland shall submit to the Department a program plan and time schedule describing how and when they will modify their sewerage facility to comply with this rule and all other applicable rules regulating waste discharges. Within [90 days] 12 months of adoption of these rules the industries permitted for log pond discharge, Boise Cascade Corporation, Kogap Manufacturing Company, and Medford Corporation shall submit program plans to the Department describing how and when they will modify their operations to comply with this rule and all other applicable rules regulating waste discharges. Within 18 months after the adoption of these rules Jackson County and the incorporated cities within the Bear Creek subbasin shall submit to the Department a (f) program plan for controlling urban runoff within their respective jurisdictions to comply with these rules. Memorandums of Agreement developed following adoption of this rule between the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and the Department of Environmental Quality shall require that program plans for achieving specified load allocations of state and private forest lands and agricultural lands respectively be developed within 18 months of rule adoption. Program plans shall be reviewed and approyed by the Commission. All proposed final program plans shall be subject to public comment and hearing prior to consideration for approval by the Commission. SAkWC6834 E - 13 STATEMENT OF NEED FOR RULEMAKING Pursuant to ORS 183.335(7), this statement provides information on the Environmental Quality Commission's intended action to adopt and amend rules. (1) Leqal Authority ORS 468~735 provides that the Commission by rule may establish standards of quality and purity for waters of the state in accordance with the public policy set forth in ORS 468.710. ORS 183.545 requires a review every three years of state agency Administrative Rules to minimize the economic effect these rules may have on businesses. ORS 183.550 requires, among other factors, that public comments be considered in the review and evaluation of these rules. The Clean Water Act (Public Law 92- 500, as amended) requires the states to hold public hearings, at least once every three years, to review applicable water quality standards. Section 303 of the Act further requires that Total Maximum Daily Loads be established for water quality limited stream segments. (2) Need for the Rule The Environmental Quality Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 1987, approved the process identified by the Department for establishing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), including the proposed schedule for completing Phase I of the process for ten stream :segments and one lake. To start the pro~ess, the Commission concurred with the Department's intent to place the Tualatiln River TMDLs on 30-day notice for public review and comment, thus initiating the entire TMDL/WLA (Waste Load Allocation) process for Bear Creek. (3) Principal Documents Relied Upon in this Rulemakinq Clean Water Act as amended in 1977. Quality Criteria for water, 1986. EPA. · Code of Federal Regulations, 1987 (40 CFR) Part 130 - Water Quality Planning and Management. State/EPA Agreement, July 1987. Program Document for FY 1988. SAkWC6834 E - 14 Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement Overall Impact Adoption and implementation of the proposed amendments to water quality :standards for the Bear Creek subbasin will result in increased cost for wastewater treatment and control. These increased costs will be limited to Ashland, the only ~ommunity which discharges effluent to Bear Creek. The City of Ashland will receive specified waste load allocations (WLAs), to the extent that these waste load allocations require substantial and expensive improvements to treatment capability, there will be significant fiscal impacts.. Cost associated with achieving the specified WLAs may not however be greater than the costs incurred to achieve existing minimum design criteria for treatment and control of wastes for the Rouge Basin .(OAR 340-41-375). Specific WLAs will be assigned to three industries with permits to discharge log pond effluent to Bear Creek. To the extent that these allocations require significant changes in operation procedures, there may be significant fiscal impacts. The proposed rules will lead to the establishment of nonpoint source load allocations. The load allocations require implementation of management practices, passive treatments, and- nonpoint source controls in urban and agricultural areas in the Bear. Creek subbasin. To the extent that these load allocations require additional management practices and controls, there may be significant fiscal impacts. The actual fiscal impacts to the communities cannot be described at this time becaUse the cost for alternative options are not available. The proposed rule establishes dates for the submittal of program plans. A component of the program plan will be to described how and when various options and associated costs will be analyzed and described. When this information is available the cost effective alternatives can be described. Although cost information is not available, it is pqssible to ascertain who may incur~fiscal impacts, how they may be impacted, and where the impacts may occur. Local governments may be directly impacted. If capitol investment is require, they will have to secure cash from bond sales or from loans. Operating expenses may increase to cover operation and maintenance of new facilities. Sewerage system users may indirectly impacted. Local SA~WC6834 E- 15 governments may have to increase user charges to pay off the bonds and/or loans; system users would have to pay the increased charges. These users include homeowners, small businesses, and large businesses. If business operating expenses increase, the public may be indirectly impacted through increased product prices. Property owners could also be indirectly impacted through ]property tax increases if operating expenses increase for public institutions such as schools. Table 1 presents a summary of possible fiscal and economic impacts which could result from waste load allocation to Bear Creek Basin streams. Once cost information is available, these possible impacts will be evaluated. TABLE 1 SU~4MARY OF POSSIBLE FISCAL IMPACTS--BEAR CREEK BASIN WHO IS iMPACTED? HOW ARE THEY IMPACTED? WHERE ARE THEY IMPACTED? Local Government time Ongoing Bond Sale or Loan-Direct Operating Expenses-Direct Cash Outlay-1 Cash Outlays- General Public Ongoing Ongoing Annual Rate Increases-Indirect Price Increases-Indirect Tax Increases-Indirect Cash Outlays- Cash Outlays- Cash Outlays- Small Businesses Ongoing Ongoing Annual Rate Increases-Indirect Increased Operating Expenses-Indirect Tax Increases-Indirect Cash Outlays- Cash Outlays- Cash Outlays- Large Businesses Ongoing Ongoing Rate Increases-Indirect Increased Operating Expenses-Indirect Tax Increases-Indirect Cash Outlays- Cash Outlays- Cash Outlays- Annual SA~WC6834 E - 16 Probable Community Impacts: Ashland. The City of Ashland's sewage treatment plant is the major source of nutrients and biochemical oxygen demand to Bear Creek. The discharge from Ashland STP is far in excess of the available dilution and assimilation capacity of Bear Creek during low flow conditions. The WLAs to this facility will require substantial facility modifications.. The City is now initiating studies to describe and evaluate potential alternatives. Possible alternatives to meet the WLAs include improved treatment, irrigation, discharge to irrigation canals, discharge to the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, and land disposal. Ashland would be eligible for low interest loans from the State Revolving Fund. Urban Areas. Urban areas within the basin include Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville, Talent, Ashland and unincorporated areas of Jackson County. The proposed rule will require these communities develop appropriate nonpoint source controls to achieve their specified Load Allocations. The Rouge Valley Council of Governments currently has a water quality program in the Bear Creek Basin. Additional costs are expected to achieve the LAs. Agriculture. Agricultural return flows provide a significant load of nutrients and oxygen demand to Bear Creek. The Department of Agriculture is the designated management agency for agriculture nonpoint source control. Achieving the load allocations may require identifying and adopting alternative best management practices. Industry. Log pond discharges provide large loads of oxygen demand to Bear Creek. Three industries hold permits for the discharge of log pond effluent during rainfall events. Modifications to existing practices may be required to achieve specified mass loadings for the permitted log ponds. Pollution Control tax credits may be available to industrial sources to offset costs of additional pollution control facilities. (5) Land Use Consistency The Department has concluded that the proposed rule conforms-with the statewide planning'goals and guidelines. GOAL 6 (Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality): This proposal is designed to improve and maintain water quality in the Bear Creek subbasin by reducing pollutant loadings. SA~WC6834 E- 17 GOAL 11 (Public Facilities): Compliance with the proposed rules would require the City of Ashland to provide program plans describing strategies for achieving pollution limits. Additional sewerage facilities may be required. The proposed rules do not appear to conflict with other goals. Public comment on any land use involved is welcome and may be ~. submitted in the same manner as indicated for testimony in this notice. It is requested that'local, state, and federal agencies review the proposed action and comment on possible conflicts with their program affecting land use. and with statewide planning goals within their expertise and jurisdiction. SA~WC6834 E- 18 Attachment F STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Environmental Quality Commission Debra Sturdevant October 1, 1990 SUBJECT · Agenda Item J, November 2, 1990 EQC Meeting Hearinqs Officer's Report on Bear Creek Program Plan Deadlines A public hearing was held at 7:00 pm on September 24, 1990 to accept testimony on a proposed rule amendment to postpone the deadlines for the submittal of program plans. The program plans describe strategies for the implementation of the.Bear Creek Total Maximum Daily Load policies. Ten people attended, three provided oral testimony. Bob Baumgartner of DEQ's staff was present to answer questions following the hearing. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY Lou Hannum, President of Medford City Council, spoke against the amendment, requesting that the nonpoint source program plans, such as that required of the City of Medford, be due two years before the implementation for Ashland's Water Quality control Plan is scheduled. The implementation date is currently 1994, so the proposal is that the nonpoint source plans be due in 1992. The City of Medford also provided written testimony (attached), which explains their rational for this request. Eric Di'ttmer, of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, had two comments. First, he was glad to hear that the "management letters" (the TMDL and allocation documents) will be mailed Septemb.er 25th and stated that RVCOG is willing to assist in the implementation. Attachment F Second, he requested that DEQ follow up on the intensive monitoring done in August of 1988 with a subsequent set of sampling in November or January/February of this or a following year. The August data was collected during the time of year that Bear Creek is used intensively for irrigation and typically experiences low flows. November sampling would reflect Ithe non-irrigation season before high winter runoff. January/iFebruary would reflect the non-irrigation, rainy season and higher overland runoff. Sampling would be more efficiently and consistently collected by DEQ rather than by various local agencies using private labs. This information should enable us to better differentiate between point sources and nonpoint sources, particularly agriculture. Brad Prior, Jackson County Department of Planning and Development, stated that DEQ staff have said that 75-90% of the total nutrient load to Bear Creek is from the Ashland sewage treatment plant discharge, with the majority of the 10- 25% remaining the result of agricultural practices and particularly irrigation return flows. Therefore, DEQ should target cleanup efforts to working with the Ashland STP and the irrigation districts. The nutrient loads from urban runoff and small hobby farms is such a small volume as compared to the other sources that these can best be handled by voluntary advisory programs rather than enforcement actions or plans that would have to be enforced by the County. Judson Parson, Vice Chairman, Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District, submitted written testimony against the proposed[ amendment. See the attached letter. Michael Wolf, of the Oreqon Department of Aqriculture, submitted written testimony (attached) against the 14 month deadline. The DOA recommends an earliest date of June 1, 1992 for submittal of an agricultural nonpoint source program plan. The DOA believes that 14 months is "inadequate because of the status of other plans, and because of the workload necessary for the gathering of information which is critical for the formulation of a meaningful agricultural plan." The Ashland STP is the main contributor of phosphorus and if their discharge is eliminated, DEQ may reconsider the all~cations to the other management agencies. "The major difficulty with the 14 month time frame for agriculture lies in the time necessary to do the work required for the needs assessment portion of the plan, which is critical for the formulation of a useful, meaningful, and implementable plan..."' F - 2 Attachment F The DOA also recommends that monitoring be conducted in early to mid-November and in mid-winter in order to know what portion of current loads are from agriculture and to prioritize subbasins for needs assessments. This information will allow cleanup efforts to be concentrated where water quality benefits would be the greatest. See the attached letter for additional DOA comments. RESPONSE: TO COMMENTS 1) COMMENT: Because the Ashland STP is the primary source of phosphorus to Bear Creek, the nonpoint plans should be delayed until after a decision on the implementation strategy of the Ashland sTP has been made. The nonpoint plans should be due two years before the final compliance date of December 31., 1994. RESPONSE: While the Ashland STP is the primary source, the nonpoint sources also contribute phosphorus loads to Bear Creek as reflected in the load allocations. The implementation of nonpoint source controls is often a long process. The Department feels that in order to meet the December 31, 1994 compliance date the nonpoint source program plans should be completed in a timely fashion. The delay in completing program plans will reduce the time available for implementation. The Department does agree, however, that more time is appropriate and has changed its proposed date for the nonpoint source program plans to June 1, 1992. The Department does not agree with delaying the program plans until December 1992, two years before the. implementation date. This would eliminate an entire growing and construction season and significantly reduce the time available for the nonpoint sources to achieve compliance. Considerable work has been done in the Bear Creek valley over the last 10 years to identify and correct water quality problems. There is a considerable amount of information available on needed practices. 2) COMMENT: The Department should conduct another intensive water ~]ality data collection effort in November or mid-winter of this or a following year in order to separate irrigation and non-irrigation loads to Bear Creek. RESPONSE: The Department does not currently have the funds to conduct a fall or winter intensive water quality survey this F - Attachment F year. Further discussion is necessary to determine whether this would be the best use of the Department's limited monitoring resources, particularly in light of the fact that the phosphorus load allocations are applicable only during the irrigation season (May 1 - October 1). 3) COM~ENT: -The nutrient loads from urban runoff is such a small volume as compared to other sources that these can best be handled by voluntary advisory programs rather than enforcement actions or plans that would have to be enforced by the County. RESPONSE: The program plans should describe the strategy(ies) the DMAs determine would best address the sources within their jurisdiction. Voluntary educational or incentive-based programs may be proposed as an implementation strategy. The County, together with the cities, has been given an allocation for urban runoff and, while the load from urban runoff may be small as compared to that of the Ashland STP, the program plan is still necessary to desdribe how the urban load allocation will be met. The size and complexity of the program plan may reflect the size and complexity of the problem and proposed control measures it addresses. 4) COMMENT: Knowledge of the allocations as well as placing the program plans into the work plans and budgets of the DMAs are necessary before a time frame can be established. RESPONSE: While the allocations were not yet distributed as of the date of this comment (September 24), they were distributed on September 25th. The Department agrees that knowledge of the allocations is necessary before program plans can be completed and tha~: is why the Department is proposing to delay those deadlines. The Department does not agree that the program planning process must be placed into DMA work plans and budgets before a time line can be established, however. Establishing the time frame should provide an incentive to the DMAs to place this effort into their workplans and budgets and provide adequate time for completion. In addition, the DMAs have known since.the passage of the ]~les in July of 1989 that a program plan would be required in the near future. 5) CO~ENT: The Department of Agriculture felt that 14 months was too short a time to complete the work necessary to develop a useful and implementable agricultural nonpoint source program plan. A due date of June 1, 1992 was requested. F - 4 Attachment F The Department has changed its proposed due date for the nonpoint source plans to June 1, 1992 in response to this request. The Department expects, however, that the additional time will be reflected in the plan's specificity and comprehensiveness. The Department of Agriculture should be advised of another factor that may affect the timeline for their program plan. Applications for Section 319 grant funds for the implementation of nonpoint source efforts during the 1993 federal fiscal year (Oct 92- Sept. 93), will be due during the summer of 1992. In order for the DOA to be in the best position to compete for these funds, they may wish to have an approved[ program plan in place and ready for implementation. DEQ will. need several months to review the program plan, hold a public hearing, and obtain EQC approval. The later the date of program plan submittal, the greater the potential for DOA to miss this funding opportunity. The earlier the submittal, the greater the potential of obtaining these implementation funds in a timely manner. In the final analysis, it may mean having one more growing and construction season in which to implement plans prior to the December 1994 .compliance date. F - 5 CITY COUNCIL September 24, 199© CITY OF: MEDIZORD MEDFORD, OREGON 97,501 Debra Sturdevant Dept. of Environmental Quality water Quality Division 811 S.W. 6Jhh Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Subject: ]Bear Creek Program Plans and Implementation Schedules The City' of Medford has a history of being environmentally concerned and we are pleased to see that an emphasis is being placed on Bear Creek to help ensure a cleaner stream flowing through the middle of our City. We hope, and believe, that a joint effort from all the surrounding land owners and users can bring about an improved water quality in Bear .Creek. We hope that these efforts do not significantly decrease the water volume in the- stream. We would request that non-point sources be given a time schedule that would play off the program plan and implementation s'chedule for Ashland's WQCP. We think that everyone recognizes that what the non-point sources may accomplish would be overshadowed by the I point source impact. Therefore, we request that non-point source s program plans be due two years before implementation is scheduled for Ashland's WQCP. As it presently stands, Ashland's implementation is targeted for 1994 (there is some anticipation that this date will be reset to 1996), so, under our request, non- point source plans would be due in 1992 (1994 if Ashland's date changes). The rational to support this request is as follows' If the plans were due two years prior t~ Ashland's implementation schedule, we would know what they plan to do with their WQCP'. Their decision could effect what plan(s) wouldL be best for the non-point source entities to apply. An expanded time frame would allow for better coordination between the various agencies for a unified plan as well. F-6 DEQ September 24, 1990 Page 2 · Wetland use is often thought of as the most viable non-point source pollution removal technique. At the present, rules and regulations concerning wetlands are cloudy at best. Medford would be very cautious about considering wetland construction until we have a much clearer understanding of the rules. More time should let us know if this tool is available for our use. Implementation time for non-point source activities will be much. shorter, much less complex and, hopefully, less costly than what Ashland appears to be facing. Therefore, we should be able to implement our plans to coincide with Ashland's implementation. Medford has had and will continue a program of both monitoring for and correcting situations that have caused adverse impact on Bear Creek. Through the Association of Oregon Sewer Agencies (AOSA), we are supporting the state wide ban on phosphates in soaps and detergents. We have a storm drain utility that is funded for the express purpose of expanding and maintaining our storm drain systems in a manner consistent with city needs. In short, we think that at the proper time we will be fully prepared to act in a responsible manner to meet our commitment to help make Bear Creek a pleasant community amenity. Sincerely, Lou Hannum, President Medford City Council DW/js c: Mayor and city Council City Manager Public Works Director Planning Director F - ? Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District 1119 El len Av~aue Medford, Oregon 97501 - Phone (503) 776-4267 Septembe'c ;24, 1990 Department o~ Envi;-onmental Quality Water Resource Division 811 SW 6th AveDue Portland, Oregon 97804 Attn: Debca Sturdevant The Jackson Soil ~, Water Conservation District directors, at the regular board meeting September 18, 1990, reviewed the proposed plan deadlines for Bear Creek Total Maximum Daily Loads --. Oregon Administrative Rules 3~A-41-385. Under 1. (b)"...before August 3A,1990" may be incorrect. We are not aware that the distribut, ion of waste load allocations (TMDl's) has been made to. the D~signated Management Agei~cies yet. · ?.. ~'f) we believe the months (time frame) to Un~er' 1 (d),~e), .... prepare a program plans may be too short. Until the load allocations are distributed to the Designated Management Agencies and they are aware of the scope and size of the ~ob, how can they be expected to commit to a time frame? The load allocations should be made to the Designated Management Agencies, then they should be allowed to respond with a time frame needed to prepare a program, plan, along with business, residents, industries, and local, governments in the Bear Creek Basin. Sufficient time will be needed for a good program plan to be written: one which will accomplish the objective of cleaning up Bear Creek. Unless those involved know what portion of the Total Maximum Daily Load is theirs, how can anyone estimate how long it will take to prepare a program plan and the t~me- frame that will be needed to solve the problems? Also, many agencies prepare work plans and buOgets on an annual or biannual basis and will need to set aside muff~cient time and money to do the planning work. As Directors of Jackson SWCD, we feel that knowledge of the allocations is necessary, as well as placing the program plan into the. work plans and budgets of Designated, Management Agencies, before a workable time frame can be established. Yours t'culy, judso;] Parson~ Vice Chairman F- 8 CC~NSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT O,,egon Oepartmen . 'of Agr/cu/ture &35 ¢.~.=,r'"r'~, ,.-~??_,,=_:,- NE, o ,., ...... · ,.,- a, n,---: .:.:,-,,..:.:v,., OA£GON .":J7510-0110 · Deb r-_ Sturdevan: Department of Enviror~ental Qu-~ii:y rater Quality Division 8!1 S~ 6~h Ave. Portland, 0~[ 9720~ The foZ!owin~ are the Department of Agrlcuiuure's written comments on the Department of Environmental .taxi~ ~ . Q ._ ~y . ~ro~osal uo amend Oregon A~mini~:a:ive ~ule Chapter 340, Division ~i~~$5 (1). Specifically, cur commen~s relate ~o the portion of the proposed am~n~J~.ent requiring the Department of Agriculture to submit a ~onpoi~t source program plan for Bear Creek mithir. 14 months of DEQ's distribution of load a!!oca%ions. ~ received the Department of k~riculturg's Load Allocations yesterday, September 25, 19g0. Thc proposal-~ou!d require tkau ~e sub~i~ our ~!an by Novembe~ 25, ~ . The pi~n_~tng proces, for agrlculaura ~ ' . ....... _n tee Bear Creek basin has been ~-~-~--od. From a iogi~ticai ~tandDoint, the process and responsibility for plan No,point Source Pollution program plan ha~ begun, the Department believes that the 14 mo~th time frame for comp!etlon of ~h~ Dl~n is inadequate because of the status of other plan~, and because c~.:he ~orkload necessary for the gathering~ of information ~hich is critical for -~..e formulation of a meaningful agricultural plan. It i~ our ur~derstanding that the current malt contributor of phosphorous ioadin~ into Bear. Creek is the City of A~hland'~ Ya$%~a~er Treatment Plan~, through its affluent di~;¢har~$ ~o A~hland Creek. i: is also our %~%derstanding that if the City of Ash]Land finds an a!terr.~.ative use for its affluent and does not discharge it directly ~o ~he hasin'~ wa~ers, :he Depar~men~ of ~%viro.nmantal Quality will consider ghe r~Rssessment of Load Allocations to th~ other D~{s, including the Dspartment of A~ricuiuure. - _=na~.~_nt ..... ~a~..v ~mc.a-en~ed bv ~ne Ct+.y of The orogr~m fo~ effluent ~ --~ -..:-~- -~1 ~ ' ~ ~ . -' plan ~.egess~ry for ~.h~ creation of a ~e~tnSfui a~rfcu!:ur~l NPS p!gn may be premature ~.~: :his time. On this basle, the Department r~commer, d~ tha~ a program plan uo~ be required ~.~til tvo years prior uo implemenuaulon ~f tk~ City cf a~hland's program Dian. The major d'£frzcu~,~y vi~h the l.'- mcn,:h *-ime frame for ~griculture ~es .n the u!me necessary t¢~ do the work recuired far uh~ n~eds assessment portion cf the implem~tab.~ p;a. ~aich a_ p~s imD~smen~;~d by ~he other Deslgn~te~ '~ ~' '~ould ~el- ~c meet DEQ~s over,fl objec~i-ze of restoring tiaa beneficial uces of 2ear Creek. ara very ,~ '~:~'a~a" and 'eased over !ergs !and meanin~fu! plan. -'-'~., orde: to e££ici~n%iy ~nd ~.:~.Ive ccnduc: ~se~ent, i~ i~ necessary to hav~ ~dsqu~ informs%ion on existin~ the 'interim Load ' ~ DEQ. Th, N~$ plan could then tarter subbas!n~ on a priori%y basis, giving- highe~ 9riority and conc.~ntratinE efforts on those areas would resu!~: in %h~ Er~atest zains ~cward the from which to carry ,~u~ ~e need~ a.~sessmen= portion of th~ . Dian. · ~gricul:%:r~'s ~ffCrt$ in 9L~:~,~n~ ,~ou!d be diffuse. durLn~ ~o ]~eri~ds in =he near fu~ur~. '~e ~irs= ~aried should bs two ~o ~hree flushed .out of the eystem, and before ~he rai:y season begins. L~ .a normal year, %he ~ampllng tim9 in this casa vou!~ be in early :~ mid-November. g~.ined by ~' : , .... ~'~-:~,= ' '- would hel,- agricu'-,'~o to know =ha~ set, ion cf current %omdlnSs are p~tantla.ll7 ccmzng from agricuiuur~, to prioritize g~ins toward the overall cb~c'~-;'9 .3f :...'raasea vator ~uality-~;~ b~ ins The Department =~els that with the addi'~iouai monitoring inform-_tidn and ~ubsequ~t priority ~ettlng, a sial-aura of ~wo '~in~r~ m~y be n~cs~sar/ ~o aompleta th~ n~eds assessment an~ involve the affected public to the ds~rse necessary for-the croat!on cf a m~anin~fu!, imD!emenuable plan. Ye would _.. therefore recommend =- agricui~ural NPS pro,ram pza,.. If resuLus cz additional monitoring ..... ca~e ' ' ~ .. _ r.o._nt_.$ contributor to. phosphorous loading in ~ha~ agr~cu~%ur, may Eric Dlttm~r F- 10 THIS LETTER SENT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL NAMED ON THE ATTACHED LIST. · Department of Environmental Quality NEILGGoOLvfRSNCoHRMIDT 811 SW SIXTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696 A2 DEQ TMDL NOTICE TO CST!ES September 25, 1990 Larry Blanchard Public Works Director City Hall Central ]Point, OR 97502 Re: TMDLs for Bear Creek Dear Mr. Blanchard: As you are aware Bear Creek has been identified as being water quality limited for several pollutant parameters. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that pollution limits known as Total Maximum ]Daily Loads (TMDLs) be developed for streams that violate water quality standards. Special :Policies and Guidelines pertaining to Bear Creek TMDLs are established in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 340-41-385). These rules adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission on July 21, 1989, require several actions and establish compliance dates. The inte:rim TMDLs for Bear Creek are attached. As part of the interim TMDLs, the Department has made load and wasteload allocations (LAs and WLAs) to the sources contributing to the problem. These allocations provide guidance for the development of program plans. The development and application of the allocations are discussed in the attached TMDL documents and technical memoranda. The rules require each city within the Bear Creek Basin, and Jackson county to develop a non-point source program plan. The cities are responsible for the pollution loads generated from within their jurisdictional boundaries. The County is responsible for those areas not covered by the citys' programs or the agriculture and forestry program plans. Individual cities, the County, and the Council of Governments may elect to submit a cooperative program plan. Page 2 A guidance manual for the development.of nonpoint source program plans is attached. The current rules requires that the nonpoint plans be submitted to the Department for review and approval within 18 months of the adoption of the rules by January 21, 1991. However, the Department has proposed a rule amendment which would postpone the deadline to 14 months from the date of this letter November 25, 1991. The Department will hold a hearing on September 24, and the EQC will decide whether to adopt the amendment on November 2, 1990. The Department recognizes that the specific activities for achieving the TMDL and loan allocation (protecting the beneficial uses of iBear Creek) are not currently known. The program plans are intelnded to describe a strategy for developing and implemen'ting a water quality control plan for Bear Creek. The degree of detail presented in the program plans will depend on the information available. Development of program plans will provide additional information which will be used to initiate a cost effective approach for controlling pollution in the basin. The interim allocations may be revie~wed and modified based on information provided in the program iplans. If you have any questions on the development of the total maximum daily loads or the development of nonpoint source program plans please call either Bob Baumgartner (DEQ) at 229-5877 or Roger Wood (DEQ) at 229-6025. NM\crw SA~WC7154 cc: Eric Dittmer Sincerely, Neil Mullane, Manager Standards and Assessments Water Quality Division Rogue Valley Council of Governments P.O. Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Larry Blanchard Public Works Director City Hal:[ Central Point, OR 97502~R Mr. Blancha~d~R AE Steve De]Korte City of Jacksonville P. O. Box 7 Jacksonville, oR 97530^R Mr. DeKorte ~R ^E Jeri Lewis City Recorder City Hall Phoenix, OR 97535AR Ms. Lewis ^R ~E Steve Hall City of ~Ashland 20 E. Main Street AShland, OR 97520^R Mr. Hall^R ^E Don Walker Public Works Director City of Medford 411 West 8th Street Medford, OR 97501~R Mr. Walker~R ^E Tony Paxton Administrator City Hall · Talent, OR 97540^R Mr. Paxton~R ^E Brad Prior Planning Department Jackson County Courthouse Medford, OR 97501~R Mr. Prior~R ^E SA~WC7154. L A3 NEW GUIDANCE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY NONPOINT SOURCE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE The following are the minimum requirements for contents of Watershed Management Plans prepared to address nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution problems in water quality limited streams. Responding to these requirements in a step wise fashion will help the plan developers to build a logical plan of action. The plan of action will provide a mechanism for tracking progress and evaluating success during implementation of the management plan. This prOcess will allow for mid-course corrections as needed if schedules are not being met, if water quality improvements are not occurring as expected, or if other conditions change. Prior to approval, the watershed management plan will be reviewed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for adequacy and completeness with respect to each of the elements discussed below. I. Introduct ion A. Purpose - Explain why the plan was produced. B. Goal(s) - Explain what the plan. is intended to ~J~i~~~ accomplish. This should be a general statement which ~o¢~% describes the desired result when plan implementation is complete. The goal(s) should not prescribe a particular w~W~u~ ~~$ control strategy. The goal statement defines the end point toward which the effort of plan implementation is directed and against which overall success will be measured. Ce Preparation'- It is often useful to include a discussion of the'guiding principles and the mechanism by which the plan was prepared. De Organization - It is useful to provide0a h/lief "road map" which explains the organization of the plan and points out where to find the important elements of the plan. This can be done in the form of a table which lists the major elements and idehtifies the page where a discussion of each element begins. II. The Problem- A. Physical Setting · 2. 3. 4. 5. Boundary - physical area encompassed by the plan. Topography Hydrology Climatic cycles and seasonal runoff Land uses related to the problem B . Water Quality . · · Pollutants - desc__ribe the relevant pollutants & standards. Beneficial uses - explain which uses are being impaired. Sources - provide a discussion of the sources of the pollution with emphasis on the nonpoint sources. Include generation of the pollutant and transport to the water body of concern. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) - discuss the TMDLs and load allocations that have been established. C · Institutional Infrastructure · Responsible Organizations - what federaI, state and local agencies are involved? What is the authority and jurisdiction of each? Are there private organizations involved? What is their responsibility? If there are overlaps or gaps in jurisdictions or responsibilities, explain how the resulting conflicts/problems will be dealt with. III. Control Strategy This is the real meat of the watershed management plan. The section must clearly and specifically describe the process that will be implemented to correct the current water quality problem and prevent future problems. In the event that there is disagreement on the cause of the problem then it must be acknowledged that decisions have already been made which require actions aimed at improving current water quality. Studies or other activities to resolve disagreements can be included in the strategy but there must also be activities to improve water quality. Likewise, if the effectiveness of particular proposed controls is uncertain then the strategy can include investigations to clarify the issue. However, the strategy must describe the concurrent actions that will be taken to improve water quality during the period of refinement of cause or effectiveness. A· Objectives - objectives are concise statements of strategic positions to be attained (or purposes to be achieved) on the way to reaching the overall goal of the plan. Once the plan enters the implementation phase, the objectives provide a means of tracking progress. If objectives are not being achieved on schedule, or if actions are not resulting in expected improvements, then mid-course corrections to plan strategies can be made. Objectives are made up of the following components' 1. Description of what will happen. 2. Date by'~hich it will happen. 3. Description of the measurable result. 4. If appropriate, monetary or other limitations. Example Objective Statement: Install manure handling BMPs [list the specific practices] at 15 farms by July 1, 1995 in order to meet the target instream criteria of 10 micrograms per liter total phosphorus measured at Smith River mile 23 at a cost to the property owner of 50 percent or less of the total BMP cost for each farm. B· Plan of Action - this is the section that describes the specific tasks that will be carried out to attain the objectives which will in turn result in attainment of the overall goal(s) of the plan. This section also explains how and when the actions will'be accomplished. The section should include: 1. A comprehensive discussion of available control options. 2. A description of the process used to select the options (tasks) that will be implemented. 3. A description of the BMPs to be installed including design specs., expected effectiveness, time frame for installation, who will have authority to insure proper installation, who will monitor effectiveness. 4. A discussion of any other controls that will be installed including effectiveness, time frame and monitoring/tracking. 5. A discussion of implementation responsibilities including: a. who has responsibility for overall coordination. b. who has responsibility for implementing each action item. C · Monitoring and Evaluation Plan - this section should describe the kinds of information which will be collected to assess the success (or failure) of the control strategy during and after implementation. The monitoring and evaluation plan should include: 1. Identificati6n of parameters to be monitored. It could include water quality parameters, land conditions, beneficial use support, number of land owners installing BMPs, etc. It should identify if data collected will be quantitative or qualitative. 2. A schedule of when data will be collected, evaluated, and reviewed. Ideally, data collection should begin before implementation of the control strategy so that changes resulting from implementation can be documented. Data analysis and reporting to agencies involved should occur on a pre-set, regular schedule. 3. Explanation of where data will be collected. Will the sampling occur throughout the watershed, or will it occur only at certain sites where activities are taking place? Description of types of analysis that will be done and how the results will be used. D · Period.ic Reviews - this section should describe a ]process for periodically bringing together the agencies .involved to discuss progress. If progress is not being made, or if implementation is not having expected results then this process should result in needed ~modifications to the control strategy. E e Information and Education/Public Involvement - this section should explain how the people living, working, or recreating in the area will be informed about what the problem is, what the causes are, and what needs to be done to correct the problem. This is especially important if the target audience is contributing to the problem. The information and education (I&E) plan should include: 1. Explanation of the objective of the I&E effort. 2. Identification of the target audience. 3. Description of'the tools that will be used/produced. For example: brochures, town meetings, videos, public hearings, school lectures, etc. F . Schedule - identify a time line that will result in achievement of the goal(s) within the time frame allowed by law. Some key dates that should be identified include: 1. Dates data evaluations/reports will be completed. 2. Dates when major objectives will be achieved. 3. Dates for periodic reviews. 4. Date when compliance with water quality standards is expected. IV. Budget ke Resources - identify the resources needed to implement the control strategy described. These can estimates or actual costs. The budget should be as detailed as is practical, i.e. implementing task A of objective 1 will require Sxxxx. Be Funding Sources - identify where the resources will come from and what the process is for obtaining them. It is particularly important to explore local funding options to address local problems. If the plan will rely heavily on grants, loans or matching funds then the specific programs need to be identified. It should be stated wether or not the funds are secured. If they are not then identify how and when a determination will be made. If matching funds are required then the source of the match should be identified. ~y '3-' 0 r"L' ('3 !-! C1 HISTORY OF BEAR CREEK WATER DEVELOPMENT WATER RESOURCES IN JACKSON COUNTY Rainfall, storage wells, springs, irrigation, runoff, evaporation, canals.., these are all terms that can be used in describing the single-most important resource in Jackson County: water. Water is rarely available exactly when and where it is needed. Storage and transportation facilities are common techniques used to meet growiag demands. The highest water demand in Jackson County occurs in the Bear Creek Valley where approximately twenty (20) inches of rain falls annually. This contrasts with the mountains in the northwest part of the County where, according to the National Weather Service, over sixty (60) inches of annual rainfall occurs. Transport and storage are therefore critical aspects to Jackson County's water management. The history of water development provides an example. The Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, according to Manager Dave Smith, first provided water to customers in the Agate Desert area in 1902. Population growth and increasing irrigation activity began to stress available Bear Creek Valley supplies around 1915. Bear Creek began to run dry in the late summers. With assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation, local irrigation districts constructed Hyatt Reservior around 1925 and Howard Prairie Reservoir around 1960. These were the first major storage facilities in Jackson County. Canals carried the water to Emigrant Lake and into th~ Bear Creek Valley. Today, over half of the water in. Bear Creek is imported from the Klamath Basin. Other storage facilities were also built. Ashland constructed Reeder Reservoir, the City's main water supply to this day, in 1928. Then~ later, Lost Creek Lake was built in the north part of the county, in 1978, and Applegate Lake in the west, in 1980. Today, residents in urban areas of the County generally receive their water from surface storage, springs or rivers. Rural residents depend primarily on wells. Agriculture is dependent upon surface storage and canal distribution via irrigation districts. Irrigated agriculture and domestic consumption are the major water uses. Other beneficial uses in Jackson County include that for municipal, industry, power, recreation and wildlife purposes. Most of these users recognize the value of the resource and work to minimize waste. Agricultural users in the Bear Creek Valley are a good example. Irrigation water is reused many times between Emigrant Lake and the Rogue River. In fact, both the Medford and Rogue River Valley Irrigation Districts depend upon the upstream irrigation dis- trict runoff for portions of their water supply. A concern is the increasing parcelization of what was once large commercial farms and ranches into smaller, less efficient five to twenty acre units. Irrigation district managers state they are now providing significantly more water to the same acreage because of the tendency toward using more water per acre on smaller parcels. The concern is not only the increasing demands on water, but also the adverse effects on water quality from increasing runoff and the potential for pollutants through each use. Today there is continuing emphasis on developing new storage to capture more of the winter rains for summer use. Very few potential storage sites remain. Elk ~reek, now under construction, is possibly the last of the major storage sites. The City of Ashland is also considering additional storage in the Ashland Watershed to meet anticipated population growth. What about our ground water? Ground water resources are difficult to access. It is hidden from view and the complicated subsurface geology in Jackson County results in extreme variety in well iproduc~ion. Ground water is dependent on rainfall and surface ]percolation to recharge what is extracted from wells. Recharge areas are generally in surrounding elevated areas that receive more rainfall. There are indications that our ground water.resources are being affected by increasing demands. Well drillers report increasing requests for well deepenin~gs. Observation wells are indicating some lowering of wat~er tables. There is a problem in determining long term trends in iground water due to the lack of adequate and accurate well data. For example, well logs~were not required until 1955 and most well logs do not provide enough information on well location. 'The complicated geology in Jackson County makes it difficult to predict ground water availability, let alone trends. Adjacent wells can have widely differing static water levels and 600 foot dry holes occur near 100 foot wells with' good production. Ground water is a fragile resource that needs to be protected. Once contaminated, it is virtually impossible to cleanse. Well water quality is becoming increasingly important in Jackson County. More people are having their water tested rather than assuming it is good. There are. areas 'of high fluoride, arsenic, hardness~ boron, iron and other water problems that occur in Jackson County. Inadequate well construction can allow surface pollutants to contaminate not only the well, but also the fresh water bearing layers. Some people haul their own drinking water due to water quantity or quality problems. The general perspective for water resources show urban area supplies adequate well into the future. Ground water resources are less definite, but current data is not adequate for accurate assessments. Demands exceed supply for agricultural surface water users. The cost of developing new storage and transportation facilities is so high that water conservation will be increasingly important. Conversion to sprinkler and drip irrigation, for example, can conserve water and increase agricultural productivity. The "best management practice" also has the side benefit of less runoff and therefore less potential for water pollution. There are irrigation districts that meter water, seal canals and even invest in pipe conveyance improvements to better control evaporation and excess use. Water conservation will likely become increasingly important in the home as well. How often do we let the cold water run until it's hot? It is so easy to take our water resources for granted when it 'is there at the turn o~ a tap. · iPerhaps an emphasis on water conservation will allow for additional beneficial uses not available now. Certainly more land can be irrigated. And what about additional flows in our stream for fish and wildlife enlhancement? Fish are returning to Bear Creek and other spawning areas. These streams would benefit from additional flows. Decisions on use of water resources are difficult and have always been controversial. Still, these decisions will continue to be critical as Oregon and Jackson County grow. The current succession of dry water years only serves to illustrate our depen- dance upon water and the kind of problems that occur when expected supplies dwindle. The future for water resources everywhere lies in the knowledge that surface and ground water supplies are not infinite. Conservation and protection of the resource critical~ in assuring future viability Sept 1987 (WQ-5) H20-RESOURCES D STATE OF OREGON BEAR CREEK NUTRIENT DETAILS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTEROFFICE MEMO~UM TO' FROM: DATE: March 19, l~~(~~~ :Bob Baumgartner O DEQ ~..) ~~ .... ' 'Your Request - Information of Winter Conditions in iBear Creek :Eric Dittmer--- RVCOG Hello Eric. Attached are previous memorandums describing the data collected on Bear Creek during winter months. I believe you have copies of these memorandums already. These memorandums do not appear to explain your questions. Therefore I assume your question is much more direct, and deserves a much more direct answer. To paraphrase what I assume your question to be: What does the information mean toward the development of program plans - or what does the information tell us regarding Ashland's program plan alternatives? Unfortunately, There is no clear answer. The main reason for this is that Ashland has received an extension in their time for implementing alternatives. The main reason for this time frame extension was to obtain additional data on flow and the potential effects of alternative flow conditions on the fisheries resource. This extension for the facilities plan causes confusion for the nonpoint source plans. The NPS plans should be received prior to the extended time frame. Those decisions influencing nonpoint source alternatives that are dependent on'the actions undertaken by Ashland need to be described in the NPS plans. The Department is open to and encourages this more wholestic approach to resource management. Although it is reasonable to evaluate and weigh alternatives on how they affect water quality and fisheries resources it does require data and information. The Department believes that Ashland provided a reasonable request to determine flow conditions and potential effects of loss of flow on the fisheries resource. The Winter data does provide information that tells us the problems that Ashland will have to face to discharge into Bear Creek. The limited flow information indicates that Ashland will have to request an exemption from DEQs dilution rule. To do this it must be determined that discharge either protects or enhances the beneficial uses of the receiving streams. Attachment C FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT The delay of the deadline for submitting program plans proposed in the rule amendment is not expected to increase the cost of plan development. There could potentially be fiscal or economic impacts resulting from the fact that a delay in plan completion would leave less time for implementation. Th~ regulated parties must implement their plans and achieve their load and waste load allocations by December,, 1994. If the amendment is adopted on. November 2nd, the deadlines would be delayed 10 to 18 months, leaving two and one- half to over 3 years for implementation. I~ is not yet possible to describe the potential impacts of the delay on implementation costs because the program plans will describe the strategies and timeline proposed to achieve the allocations. In addition, the TMDL rule states that the December 1994 compliance date can be modified if deemed necessary by the EQC following review of the program plans. . C - 1 Attachment D Oregon LPePartment of Environmental Quality A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON .'.. PROGRAM PLAN DEADLINES FOR BEAR CREEK TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS Notice Issued: 8-17-90 Public Hearing Scheduled: 9-24-90 Comments Due: 9-26-90 WHO IS AFFECTED: WHAT IS PROPOSED: Ail businesses, residents, industries, and local governments within the Bear Creek basin. The Department proposes to amend Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 41-385 (1). This rule establishes instream phosphorous, ammonia and oxygen demand criteria, or total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), for Bear Creek and defines the time period for when the criteria will apply. The proposed amendment would delay the deadlines established in the rule as followes: The Department will be required to distribute load and wasteload allocations by August 30,.1990. Industries permitted for log pond discharges will be required to submit a program plan describing how and when they will modify their operations to achieve the specified waste load allocations within 8 months of the date the Department distributes allocations. Jackson County and the incorporated cities within the Bear Creek basin will be required to submit a program plan for controlling urban runoff within 14 months of the date the Department distributes allocations. The Departments of Forestry and Agriculture-will be required to submit program plans for achieving specified load allocations from stat~ and private forest lands and agricultural lands within 14 months of the date the Department distributes allocations. 811 S.W. 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97Cq4 11/1/86 D - 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact the person or division identified in the public notice by calling 229-,5696 in the Portland area. To avoid long distance charges from other parts of the state, call 1-800-452-4011. Attachment D WHAT ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS: HOW TO COMMENT: Based on the-criteria established in the above mentioned rule, the Department was required to determine Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Load Allocations and Waste Load Allocations. for specific sources of pollutants in the basin. Point source dischargers, local governments and land management agencies are' then required to develop program plans to describe strategies and a timeline for achieving their allocations. The Department is requesting to delay the deadlines for the program plans because the distribution of load and waste load allocations by the Department was delayed. The program plans can not be completed until the allocations are distributed. The Department will accept public comment on the proposed amendment to OAR 340-41-385 (attached). A Public Hearing to receive comments on the amendment is .scheduled as follows: WHEN: Monday, September 24, 1990 7:00 pm WHERE: Jackson County Courthouse Auditorium 10 S. Oakdale (at 8th) Medford, Oregon The Department will accept written comments received by 5:00 pm on September 26, 1990. Comments should be sent to: Attn.: Debra Sturdevant Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 811 SW 6th Ave. Portland, Oregon 97204 sA\wcs794 (8/ 6/90) D - 2 Attachment D OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 340-41-385 -. NOTE' The underlined portions of text represent proposed additions made to the rules. The ~b~aeke~ed] portions of text represent proposed deletions made to the rules. SPECIAL POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 340-41-385 (1) In order to improve water quality within the Bear Creek subbasin to meet existing water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and pH, the following special rules for total maximum daily loads, waste load allocations, load allocations, and program plans are established. (a) After the completion of wastewater control facilities and program plans approve~ by the Commission under this rule and no later than December 31, 1994,.unless otherwise modified by program plans no activities shall be allowed and no wastewa~er shall be discharged to Bear Creek or its tributaries without the authorization of the Commission that cause the following parameters to be exceeded in Bear Creek: Low-Flow Sea. on Approximately Hay 1 throu~ November. 30* Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen as N (mg/1) Instream Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (rog/l) l Total Phosphorus as P (rog/l) 0.25 3.0 0.08 High Flow Season Approximately December 1 through April 30* Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrogen as N (rog/l) Instream Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1)] 1.0 2.5 ! As measured a~ the Valley View Road Sampling Site. For ~he purposes of Waste load a!locanions, the biochemical oxygen demand is calculaned as the ammonia concentrazion multiplied SAkW~ala7 D- 3 Attachment D by 4.35 and added to the measured effluent biochemical oxygen demand. 2 Median value as measured at the Kirtland Road sampling site. * Precise dates for complying with this rule may be conditioned on physical conditions, such as flow and temperature, of the receiving stream and shall be specified in individual permits or memorandums of understanding issued by. the Department. (b) The Department shall before August 30, 1990 ~wi~him-&0-days-of · adop~iom-~f-Ehese-~tes] distribute initial waste load and load allocations to point and nonpoint sources in the basin. These loads are interim and may be redistributed upon conclusion of the approved program plans. (c) Before October 21, 1989 ~Ui~him-90-gays-~f-adop~iom-~f-~hese Z=~LteS], the City of Ashland shall submit to the Department a program plan and time schedule describing how and when they will modify their sewerage facili~/ to comply with this rule and all other applicable rules regulating waste discharges. (d) W~thin ~t2] ~ months of the date the Department distributes allocations under section (b) of this rule ~tes], the industries permitted for log pond discharge, Boise Cascade Corporation, Kogap Manufacturing Company, and Medford Corporation shall submit program plans to the Department describing how and when they will modify their operations to comply with this rule and all other applicable rules regulating waste discharges. (e) Within ~tg] 14months of the da_re the Department distributes allocations under section (b) of this rule ~af~e~-~he-adep~iem-ef ~hese-~Ltes], Jackson County and ~he incorporated cities within the Bear Creek subbasin shall submit to the Department a program plan for conurolling urban runoff within their respective jurisdictions to comply with these rules. (f) Memorandums of Agreement developed following adoption of this rule between the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and the Department of Environmengal Quality shall require thau program plans for achieving specified load allocations of state and private forest lands and agricultural lands respectively be developed within ~tg] 1~ months of the date the Department distributes allocations under section (b) of this rule ~te adoption]. ' (g) Program plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Ail proposed final program plans shall be subject to public comment and hearing prior to consideration for approval by the Commission. SAkWH4147 D - 4 l NElL GOLDSCHMIDT GOVERNOR Environmental Quality Commission 811 SW SIXTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97204 PHONE (503) 229-5696 Attachment E JJ REQUEST FOR EQC ACTION JJ Meeting Date: July 21, 1989 Agenda Item: I Division: Water Quality Section: Planninq/Monitorinq SUBJECT :: Bear Creek - Establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads PURPOSE :: Water Quality standards are violated in Bear Creek basin for pH, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia toxicity standards. The proposed criteria will provide the basis for developing and allocating the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for nutrients and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in Bear Creek, a 'tributary to the Rogue River. The TMDLs are required to ac]hieve dissolved oxygen, pH, and ammonia toxicity standards. Ac!hieving water quality standards is required to protect the recognized beneficial uses of fish and aquatic life, salmonid spawning and rearing, anadromous fish passage, fishing, and aesthetic quality. ACTION REQUESTED: WorkSess'ion Discussion General Program Background Potential strategy, Policy, or Rules Agenda Item for Current Meeting Other: (specify) Authorize Rulemaking Hearing X Adopt Rules Proposed Rules Rulemaking Statements Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement Public Notice Hearing Officer's Report Written Comments Response to Comments Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G SAkWC6834 E - 1 DEQ-46 Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Page 2 July 21, 1989 I Issue a Contested Cape Order Approve a Stipulated Order Enter an Order Proposed Order Attachment Approve Department Recommendation Variance Request Exception to Rule Informational Report Other: (specify) Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment DESCRIPT][ON OF REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed rule would: Identify the assimilative capacity of Bear Creek for nutrients and biochemical oxygen demand'by season. · Define the time frame for the Department to publish interim waste load and load allocations based on the proposed criteria established in the rule. Interim allocations will be used to develop and review program plans. · Require the point sources which discharge to Bear Creek to develop and submit to the Department a program plan which describes strategies, options, and costs for achieving specified allocations. · Require that nonpoint source program plans which describe strategies and options for achieving load allocations be submitted to the Department by Jackson County and the incorporated cities within the Bear Creek basin. 5. Require that memorandums of agreement between DEQ and the Departments of Agriculture and Forestry include program plans for agricultural and forested nonpoint sources, respectively. · AUTHORITY/NEED FOR ACTION: X Required by Statute: ORS 468.735 Enactment Date: Statutory Authority: Pursuant to Rule: Pursuant to Federal Law/Rule: Attachment B Attachment Attachment Attachment SA~WC6834 E - 2 Meeting [)ate: Agenda Item' Page 3 July 21, 1989 I X Other: Implement Public Law 92-500 as Attachment B amended, specifically Section 303. X Time Constraints: The Department is required under a Federal District Court Consent Decree to establish TMDLs for identified water quality limited streams at the rate of 20 percent annually, but in no event less than two streams annually. Allocations must be established for Bear Creek to comply with the requirements stated in the consent decree. Oregon's failure to establish allocations will require the Environmental Protection Agency to notice in the Federal Register proposed action within 90 days after the deadline. DEVELOPMENTAL BACKGROUND: Advisory Committee Report/Recommendation X Hearing officer's Report/Recommendations X Response to Testimony/Comments X Prior EQC Agenda Items: (list) March 13, 1987, Agenda Item O (Not Attached) Other Related Reports/Rules/Statutes: Supplementa~ Background Information Attachment Attachment E Attachment G Attachment Attachment Attachment REGULATED/AFFECTED COMMUNITY CONSTRAINTS/CONSIDERATIONS: le The city of Ashland operates the Ashland Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). The Ashland STP is the major source of nutrients and biochemical oxygen demand to Bear Creek. Bear Creek does not have enough flow to assimilate the waste from the Ashland STP. Inadequate dilution is most apparent in the late summer - fall when flows are routinely below 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) . Effluent limitations based on Bear Creek's assimilative capacity would require significant load reductions from the Ashland STP during the summer through late fall. Load reductions could occur through alternative disposal or improved treatment. Either option would be expected to increase cost of treatment for the City of Ashland. The proposed rule will define a final compliance date and require a program plan which describes strategies and time frames for achieving the waste load allocations (WLAs). Several additional localized water quality SA~WC6834 E - 3 Meeting ]Date: Agenda Item: Page 4 July 21, 1989 I issues and concerns, such as chlorine toxicity, are discussed in this staff report. The Department expects these local issues to be addressed prior to the compliance date. Achieving water quality standards will require modifying existing treatment facilities. The Ashland STP will be required to achieve the minimum design requirements already described in OAR 340-41-375(1) for the basin, unless exempted from these rules by the Commission, as well as waste load allocations. ~ Industries with discharging log ponds currently have either a General permit or a site specific National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Achieving proposed winter WLAs may require additional controls. Those industries will be required to submit program plans to the Department describing strategies and time frames for achieving the WLAs. · Nonpoint source controls from urban and agricultural areas will be required to achieve the proposed TMDLs. Increased cost may be associated with achieving the load allocations (LAs). Program plans identifying strategies and options for achieving the nonpoint source load allocations will be required from designated agriculture and forestry management agencies, as well as from Jackson County and the incorporated cities within the Bear Creek Basin. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments currently coordinates a water quality program'and may provide assistance and coordination of program plans within the basin. The Department of Agriculture has been identified as the lead agency for agricultural nonpoint sources. The State Department of Forestry is the lead agency for state and private forest lands. Memorandums of Agreement between the DEQ and these Departments will describe appropriate program plans. PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS: New tasks established by this rule will have to be assumed by existing staff. The added workload of this TMDL is significant. New tasks include development of interim SA~WC6834 E - 4 Meeting Date: July 21, 1989 Agenda Item: I Page 5 ~. allocations; program plan reviews; holding public hearings on program plans; report to EQC; continuing proactive involvement with communities in the Bear Creek Basin; increased monitoring requirements; and issuance of modified permits which incorporate compliance conditions, schedules and permit limitations based on wasteload allocations. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Several alternatives to the proposed rule were submitted during the public hearing or recommended during review and discussion with Environmental Protection Agency staff. le Summer limits of 100 micrograms per liter (~g/1) total phosphorus based on the EPA suggested criteria. Alternative phosphorus levels were discussed in the original staff.report. Several commenters suggested that 100 ~g/1 total phosphorus be adopted, primarily for consistency with EPA recommended criteria. One individual supported the 80 ~g/1 phosphorus criteria so that pollutant levels would be reduced ~o the greatest extent possible. · Alternative time frames for the definition of "summer low flow" period were proposed by several commentators. In su~nary, the request involved the deleti0n of the months of April, May, and November from the definition of low flow season. · Most commentators requested that the final compliance date be extended to the winter of 1996, based on the program plans adopted by Ashland. In effect, nutrient reductions would not be expected to occur until the summer of 1997. · During review of the proposed criteria, suggestions were made to refine the winter BOD criteria to be defined as the instream BOD5 as measured at Kirtland Road. This alternative would provide the primary advantage of measuring BOD5 during ambient surveys and focusing in the area of winter dissolved oxygen violations. This alternative would not,change the waste load allocations for Ashland, however. SA~WC6834 E - 5 Meeting [)ate: Ag~.nda Item: Page 6 July 21, 1989 I DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION, WITH RATIONALE: le The Department recommends that the Commission adopt the 80 ~g/1 total phosphorus as proposed. .The Department believes that site specific data justifies a lower phosphorus value than national criteria suggested by EPA. The EPA recommends that site specific data be used where available. e The Department recommends that the Commission adopt the modified language in the rule that defines the summer low flow period as approximately May through November. April is characteristically a winter-high flow period and should not be included in the summer low flow definition. The existing definition of low flow as outlined in OAR 340- 41-.006(15) states that ". . . the low flow period has been 'approximated by the inclusive months. Where applicable in a waste discharge permit, the low flow period may be further defined." The existing low flow period in the Rogue Basin Plaln is defined as approximately from May through October (O~R 340-41-375). In Bear Creek, critical low flows have routinely been observed to persist through November. Therefore, the Department recommends that November be included in the proposed rule.. The diurnal pattern of pH violations in-Bear Creek has been observed during May at Kirtland Road. The Department recognizes that high f~ow conditions can be expected to persist through May in some years. However, the Department believes it is appropriate to retain the month of May in the definition of low flow period and provide appropriate refinements to the definition in permits, if warranted. The Department therefore recommends that the Commission not remove the month of May from the low flow period definition. 3. Final compliance date: The Department recommends that the Commission retain the proposed five year compliance deadline. The proposed rule requires that all program plans be subject to public comment. No comments were proposed suggesting eliminating this requirement from the proposed rule. The program plan submitted by Ashland provides an alternative final date, time schedule., and justification for the alternative date. The SAkWC6834 E - 6 Meeting [)ate: Agenda Item: Page 7 July 21, 1989 I · Department has not fully reviewed Ashland's program plan or accepted public comment on the plan. Until this step in the process is complete, approximately 180 days following adoption, the DePartment can not support the alternative date suggested in the program plan. Similar to other concerns discussed in the Hearing Officer's report, the Department recognizes that all the answers are not yet known. The program plans are expected to provide a rational strategy and time frame for achieving the TMDL. Public comment on strategies for attaining the beneficial uses of Bear Creek is an important aspect of the Department's review process. The Department does not want to supersede the public review process and recommends that the proposed final compliance date be retained until the review process is completed. Additional language is included in the proposed rule that would allow modifications to the final compliance date as program plans are approved. Measurement of BOD at Kirtland Road during the winter: Biochemical oxygen demand has several components, including the five-day demand (BOD5), .the nitrogenous demand, and the ultimate demand. The BOD5 test is measured during the ambient surveys. The other components are calculated from instream data or by long-term laboratory tests. The BOD5 offers the advantage of being directly measured in the field. As such, it offers a readily available measurement to determine the effectiveness of the TMDL. Observed BOD5 values in Bear Creek are higher below Ashland's discharge than at Kirtland Road. There is also greater assimilative capacity for oxygen ~emand in the upper portions of Bear Creek than in the lower sections. Due to greater assimilative capacity, higher BOD levels could exist without leading to a violation of water quality standards. It is important to define where the BOD levels are to be measured. The originally proposed levels represented the maximum level of BOD that could exist below Ashland STP. These levels are greater than those observed at Kirtland Road. Dilution and instream attenuation reduce the BOD concentrations between Ashland and Kirtland Road. EPA felt that the proposed levels implied a TMDL which was much higher than existing loads. SAkWC6834 E - 7 Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Page 8 July 21, 1989 I Measuring the BOD5 level at Kirtland Road provides a longer historical record for evaluation. Measurement at Kirtland Road will also allow the load to the Rogue to be directly interpreted. Using the measured BOD5 allows for direct comparison of the ambient data to the criterion. Therefore, the Department suggest that the criterion be 2.5 mg/1 BOD5 as measured at Kirtland Road. cONSISTENCY WIT~ STRATEGIC PLAN, AGENCY POLICY, LEGISLATIVE POLICY: The proposed rule is consistent with the approach for establishing TMDLs on water quality limited stream segments identified in EQC Agenda Item O, March 13, 1987. The establishment of phosphorus and oxygen demand Criteria are necessary to protect the recognized beneficial uses of Bear Creek. The Federal Clean Water Act, under Section 303, requires that pollution limits, termed Total Maximum Daily Loads, be established in waters that do not meet standards, in either numerical or narrative form, even after technology-based limitations have been applied. In December 1986, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) filed suit in Federal District Court against the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that total maximum daily loads would be established and implemented for waters in Oregon identified as being water quality limited. On June 3, 1987, Federal Judge James Burns signed a consent decree between NEDC and EPA describing a schedule for establishing TMDLs in Oregon. Bear Creek was one of the streams identified in the consent decree. ISSUES FOR COMMISSION TO RESOLVE: · The proposed rule will require Ashland to modify treatment plant operation. This modification will require that the treatment plant be upgraded to meet existing b~sin treatment plant design requirements as discussed in the staff report. The Commission may allow exemption from th~ dilution rule in the basin-wide design criteria. The Commission has been asked to provide this exemption for Ashland. SA~WC6834 E - 8 Meeting Date: Agenda I~tem: Page 9 July 21, 1989 I · The Department does not view the establishment of a TMDL as superceding existing basin requirements. Achieving the TMDL requirements will protect the beneficial uses of Bear Creek. Achieving the TMDL may provid~ technical justification for exempting Ashland from the dilution rule. No economic information has been presented that would justify exempting Ashland from the dilution rule. Prior to allowing an exemption, Ashland needs to demonstrate that the costs of complying with the rule are unreasonable. The Department recommends that the 'Commission not exempt Ashland from the dilution rule at this time. Options for complying with the TMDL and the basin requirements should be reviewed. The decision to exempt Ashland from the basin treatment criteria will depend in part on information generated during the review of options. The Commission has been asked to retain the concept of using tributary streams as conduits for waste to Bear Creek. This concern applies primarilY to log ponds which discharge to tributary streams. RecQgnizing tributary streams as conduits for waste would be ec~[ivalent to identifying the tributary as the mixing zone for the discharge. The Department may suspend standards or set less restrictive standards in defined mixing zones as long as several specific conditions are met. OAR 340-41- 365(4) (A) states that the mixing zone shall be free from: o o Materials that will cause acute toxicity; Materials that will settle to form objectional deposits; and Floating debris, oil, or scum. One of the major concerns with wastewater discharge to a tributary is the lack of dilution. Log pond dischargers question i'f the 50:1 dilution required in general permits for log pond discharge exist in the tributaries. However, attenuation of pollutants may occur in the tributaries which would result in less direct load to Bear Creek. Beneficial uses of the tributaries are defined in the Rogue Basin Plan. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has stated that fish do not utilize the two creeks that receive direct di~scharge from log ponds. SA~WC6834 E - 9 Meeting Date: Agenda I~em: Page 10 July 21, 1989 I · The Department recommends that the Commission reject the concept of tributary streams as conduits for log pond waste. If 'this concept is accepted, it would indicate that less restrictive standards apply in small streams and that beneficial uses are not expected to be attained. The Department expects that the program plans submitted by the log pond dischargers will evaluate the effect of discharge on the receiving waters' beneficial uses. This evaluation will be used to determine if an appropriately sized mixing zone can be defined for the discharge 6f log pond effluent. Permits will be modified to include the TMDL requirements including any modifications to the mixing zone definition. Program plans may be opened to public comment. This process will allow direct public input on what are the appropriate uses of the tributary streams. The Commission has been asked to direct the Department to include instream attenuation in the initial load and waste load allocations. Instream attenuation is the process which removes phosphorus or other pollutants from the water. As described in the Response to Testimony, the allocation process includes attenuation as a negative load allodation. The net load allocations for a jurisdiction would not change by defining the amount of attenuation that will occur. However, the distributable load will depend to some degree on the amount of attenuation that will occur. The preliminary load allocations discussed to date do not include attenuation. The load allocations discussed to date define the net allocation required to achieve the instream criteria. The proposed rule will require the Department to establish within sixty days interim allocations for the development of program plans. The Department is working with the local advisory group to develop the interim allocations. The advisory group provides an appropriate forum for'the discussion of advantages and disadvantages of estimating attenuation in the allocation procedure'. The Department recommends that the Commission take no action at this time as to whether an estimate of attenuation should be included in the interim allocations. SAkWC6834 E - 10 Meeting ]Date: July 21, 1989 Agenda I'tem: I Page 11 INTENDED FOLLOWUP ACTIONS: o File Adopted Rules with the Secretary of State. o Establish Interim Allocations. o Evaluate, hold Public Hearings, and respond to Program Plans. Approved: Section: Division: Director: Report Prepared By: Robert Baumgartner Phone: 229-5877 Date Prepared: June 28, 1989 BB: kj c: crw SA~WC6834 July 16, 1990 SA~WC6834 E - 11 Memo to: iEric Dittmer~ March 19, 1992 Page 2 TMDLS were set for ammonia toxicity and BOD in Bear Creek. Data indicates that an instream concentration ofil.0 mg/1 of ammonia or less is needed to achieve chronic ammonia toxicity standards. Ashland will have to provide nitrified effluent to discharge to Bear creek, however this could be accomplished with an advanced sewage treatment plant. The BOD levels~were set at the long term average instream BOD. These guidelines were established because we lacked winter data to evaluate the cause of the observed DO violations in Bear Creek at iKirtland Road. The January 1990 data indicates that Ashland did not cause DO violations except due to mixing below the STP. Under the effluent quality required to achieve ammonia toxicity standards the BOD levels or instream DO levels should be achievable. AREAS OF CONCERN pH - Nutrients - Algal Growth The productivity of algae in Bear creek under.winter conditions and low flows generated daily maximum pH values above a pH of 8.5. Elevated ph values were not as extream (high) or for long duration as the summer conditions. The Department has not evaluated the need for winter nutrient controls. The Department has not evaluated the potential for residual effects, i.e could the nutrient discharged in the winter support higher levels of algal growth that would extend through the summer. However, the current TMDLs would not preclude winter discharge of nutrients. From the January data groundwater flow apparently increased nutrient concentrations below river mile 10, near Medford. Substantial loss of nutrients below the STP discharge was likely due to periphyton uptake. Bacteria The Department, as well as the EPA have switched to a enterococci bacteria criteria. The RVCOG has made significant efforts toward removing bacteria loads. The new criteria indicates that we have a ways to go. The bacterial problems appear to. be primarily non point source related. TEMPERATURE: Under the observed low flow conditions the Ashland discharge violated oregon's standard for increase in temperature from a single source. Memo to: Eric Dittmer March 19, 1992 Page 3 IN PRACTICAL TERMS WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN The Department has not precluded a winter discharge for Ashland. The hurdles facing Ashland are daunting. To discharge Ashland will need to achieve two conditions, 1) a well treated effluent, and 2) provide the Department information that the additional flows help to support beneficial uses. At this time we certainly do not want to preclude options for winter discharge, especially if these options help to maintain flow in Bear Creek. Exchanging of effluent flow for irrigation flow was an appealing option that has been discussed. continued review of instream conditions and alternatives will be a necessary part of'the efforts to achieve water quality standards in Bear Creek. Such a Concept should appear in the program plans. In fact this rational is not dissimilar to my understanding of some of your efforts at bacterial control in Bear Creek. Ashland is the primary source of nutrients. The Winter data indicates that ground water provides nutrients to Bear Creek as well. Under winter conditions, when critical low flows occur, algal productivity increase pH above 8.5. Benthic uptake appears to remove significant amounts of the instre~m nutrients below Ashland. All this makes it difficult to estimate the effect-resulting nutrient and pH levels, in Bear Creek following the removal of Ashland's discharge from Bear Creek. As noted in the TMDL staff report, removal of the major source may not create nutrient limitation. It will be necessary to review conditions following such activity to ,ascertain further non point source control requirements. Continued efforts will be necessary to achieve the bacterial levels necessary for contact recreation in Bear Creek. Efforts' to protect beneficial uses by improving water quality through nutrient, bacteria and temperature reduction ( as suggested by fish and wildlife), and maintaining sediment reductions will require nonpoint source pollution control efforts. Efforts at developing a program plan should help address these continuing water quality problems in Bear Creek. I hope this addresses your concerns. If it does not I will have to admit uncertainty in my understanding of what response from DEQ you need. In such a case I suggest that we convene a work group of interested parties and we define how DEQ can help. It would be easier for me to come down in the near future than latter, please let me know. Bob. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Dittmer.~. RVCOG DATE: December 9, 1991 FROM: Bob Baumgartner ODEQ SUIk/ECT: Bear Creek Monitoring Data Thank you for the reminder of your need for additional information and support from the Department on your efforts to complete'program planning for Bear Creek. I understand Mitch WolgamO~t of our office has sent you a letter discussing the Departments approach for addressing nonpoint source problems in the Basin. In our discussions you requested a review of the additional monitoring' conducted since the Departments intensive monitoring in January'. I believe your still have memorandums discussing the results'of the intensive monitoring and data analysis, if not please let me know. Attached are figures that present monitoring' condUcted by the Department in recent years, primarily since 1986, rather than just the results of monitoring' last winter. I felt that this information would give a better comparison of the intensive surveys in January. The remainder of this memo will briefly describe these figures. As you are aware the Departments TMDL concerns in the Winter were related primarily to ammonia toxicity and dissolved oxygen. The Departments historical monitoring location was at Kirtland Road, routine monitoring has expanded since 1986. 1) Ammonia. (NH3-N)collected during the winter (December-April) is illustrated. Locations at River Mile (RM) 20, 14; and 12 are routinely above the TMDL criteria of 1.0 mg/i'NH3-N. Ammonia concentrations during January at River Mile 20 were between 4 nd 5 mg/1, due to extremely low dilution of the Ashland STP effluent. 2) Ammonia toxicity varies due to the influence of pH and Temperature. This figure illustrates the calculated level at which NH3 is chronically toxic (long term exposure effects are observed) for cold water fishes In Bear Creek. Oregon's water quality standards require no chronic toxicity outside of an assigned mixing zone. The EPA recommends that chronic toxicity levels do not be exceeded as a three day average more than once every three years. The TMDL criteria of 1.0 mg/1 was calculated for conditions at RM 20. Memo to: Eric Dittmer~ December 9, 1991 Page 2 3) The discharge of Ashland above RM 20 appears to add additional buffer to Bear Creek, and the pH variation is less that other sections. Bear Creek at other locations (22,14,13) appear to be more sensitive. 4) The observed level of NH3 divided by the calculated chronic level for conditions of pH and Temperature when the sample was collected illustrates the relationship to chronic standards. Chronic levels of ammonia are occasionally exceed, S 50% of the time, for observations at RM 20, 14, and 11. The January sampling resulted in the criteria at ~ 5 times chronic levels. No observations resulted in exceedance of acute criteria. 5) The water quality standard for dissolved oxygen in Bear Creek is 95% of saturation. The observed oxygen levels (dotted line is all data) falls below the standard as monthly median values during the winter (diamond shapes).. No violations have been observed during the intensive January surveys or since the additional winter monitoring in the winter since 1989. Unfortunately we do not know what is the causing the substandard DO in Winter. 6) THe EPA recommends numerical criteria for dissolved oxygen. During the Winter Bear Creek at Kirtland Rd. has occasionally fallen below the level identified as No production Impairment and infrequently (2) fallen below the SLight Production Impairment levels. National criterion recommend a 7-day average of 9.5 mg/1 for early life stages. 7) Figure 7 illustrates the longitudinal distribution of BOD5 in Bear Creek. The influence of Ashland STP on BOD5 is obvious at RM 20. The intensive efforts during January showed that at least during low flow conditions the quality of water at Kirtland Rd. (below RM 12) was greatly influenced by groundwater flow to Bear Creek. The observed levels of BOD5 at Kirtland RD. are influenced by both groundwater quality and stream quality. 8) The historical trend in Winter BOD5 concentration appears to ba increasing. The TMDL level as measured at Kirtland RD is a median of 2.5 mg/1. This level was established on the long term median. The primary purpose was to help provide assurance that actions taken to address summer water quality problems did not exacerbate the winter concerns. 9) Total phosphorus concentrations at River mile 20 are largely influenced by the amount of dilution of waste discharged from Ashland's STP. Levels of ~ 1.0 mg/1 observed during the January intensive surveys are higher than those typically Memo to: Eric Dittmer December 9, 1991 Page 3 observed. The january monitoring shoed a loss of phosphorus likely due to benthal uptake. During the january surveys, the phosphorus concentrations below River mile 11, especially the data at Kirtland Rd. was largely influenced by groundwater flows to Bear Creek. 10) The Ortho to total phosphorus (OP/TP) ratios in part .reflect the sources of phosphorus to the system. Than Ashland STP, having a higher op/tp ration the Bear Creek, significantly changes the observed ration. The OP component of TP is usually the most readily available form of phosphorus. 11-14) These graphs illustrate the longitudinal variation if bacterial quality of BeRr Creek. The RVCOG has noted improvement in bacterial concentrations in Bear Creek. According to the DEQ monitoring data, there is still need for continued efforts at controlling bacterial pollution to Bear Creek. SUMMARY · The data sets evaluated include the historical data as well as ~the intensive data at the routine sampling sites from January. There is a difference in the frequency of monitoring efforts, however graphical display of this data is useful. The January intensive surveys were conducted during low flow conditions. This data set showed ammonia toxicity problems, mass loss of nutrients likely due to benthic algae uptake, and a significant groundwater influence. No Do violations were observed. The historical data set comparison would indicate that the ammonia toxicity observed was not an anomaly, that more information will be needed to understand the historically observed occurrence of DO violations. Changes in point source loads of ammonia and BOD5 are necessary to and likely will.be able to achieve the TMDL criteria. However, water quality at Kirtland Rd. will continue to be influenced by groundwater and nonpoint sources. It is not apparent that these controls will significantly influence the dissolved oxygen levels in Bear Creek. Ammon!a (m9/I) ,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,I,,,i,,,I,,,I,,, m mm mm m mm m m - _ - ~F'f i i I t ! I I I I f I I I t I i-ri i'D X CS)* CTJ. pH 1111111111111 Iii11111111111 - I - t m m m . ~mm ~m m ~m~ m ,mm m ~m~ m ~m ~m · m m NH~t/Chronic Criteria i ,! 0 '~ X · -- Il) 0 ~- DO , I mm m mm mm mira mm mm mm mm m mm m liiliillliilliilllilllllllllliiliiillilllllllli m m tttllttl · · m m m m m m mm m m _ I ~ -- ~0 - F I-"1 tlt,tltltlttllllllltlltttl~ttl~tt · · · · · · · i i I ..... .-.-o~ ===================== o ~;) -- m 0 ~ - -+, Z -- ~) O0 I-- -- 0~ ~ CO ~ _ m 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' i ' ! ; ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ! Ie -i:i)~ ! I I ! i m m OP/TP Ra{~o · · · · · i i I I I I i I i i I I i I i t t I t t ~ I f t t I t t t -Om -o L. I~1 i'1-1 iilll~l I I L IIII I I ! I I IIII I I I · i i i Im 00T/Nd14 Jllil I 1 I III I I I ! F~ MPN/100 mi I I I I1~ I $ t I ~ I I I III i I 1 I ! ! I I!~ · I j · 1 1 i 1 1 I · ! ! I I I Iii i ! 'I rD oJ "I I1) ' %.,,~ m FC MPN/100 ML (?,8, t & I ====' - ! ~c- - -;::.?:: m tOF i "'= ''% ..... ~ 0 0') - --4-:----- ~- ...... ~---:.:= -- - '"l---.,e / : o :::a - ,,ii, ... ................. I ~ ~ ~ ,i. ............ - _ ............ ~ ., .... ~.-~.:.:-:.,~.~>_ ='"" =_T'~_ ' ........... ~--z.-.-.-:.-.--.,,..- ' 1 I · '''.% ._ "'. .... ..... -'-'-', .... i .....~"%' """'"~, ----= -. -~: · ! ! ---. ....... :.---- ............... .... ......:=:=-[ ..... -,-;'-'-1 . '" ~ ;I:~.-.-:.- :i'.:~.' .... ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ,~,: ~. .... : ......... ~ ~ -~ z _ ii I ~_=.- -'.~'..~ .... _- ~-::,;':-:::'-F'~==~;--. , ...~:~._....=. .......... ,~ rC_ -i i ~ I '~-J-'"&~*' ~ Il= . ,, ........ : .............. .aJ. .... ~ ...... -'~="~ .... fjQ ................................ -.~,~.~,,=.. .'~-~.;_..~,. OJ '-~ ; '-- (23 ! I ! ! IIlll I I I I lllll t ! ! lllll ! I ! ! lllll I I I ~ Illll · · · i · '3 -I BEAR CREEK A COMMUNITY RESOURCE C2 BEAR CREEK DESCRIPTION WATER QUALITY ii ,, WHY IS BEAR CREEK IMPORTANT TO US? · The creek acts as a NATURAL FLOODWAY that must have the ability to carry over 10,000 cubic feet of water per second (4,500,000 gallons per minute) in order to prevent flooding in the valley. · It is a CHANNEL for transporting irrigation water necessary for maintaining high agricultural productivity. Farm products comprise a major economic resource in our valley. · It is a NATURAL STREAM CORRIDOR and HABITAT for over 150 species of birds, 15 species of fish, 20 species of reptiles, and 40 species of mammals. · It is a RECREATIONAL GREENWAY CORRIDOR into which we may escape from the urban environment on foot, bicycle, or horseback. WHAT WAS THE CREEK LIKE IN THE PAST? · DRY! Prior to the development of water storage for farm irrigation' in the 1920s, Bear Creek was often dry and stagnant in the summer. · A SEWER! Before cities developed sewage treatment facilities, Bear Creek received untreated waste water and was highly polluted. WHY IS THE POLLUTION OF BEAR CREEK A SERIOUS CONCERN? · About 90,000 valley residents are affected by the pollution of Bear Creek, directly or indirectly. · Talent residents depend on treated water from Bear Creek for their domestic uses. · The creek is a natural channel that is open to pollution from a wide variety of rural and urban sources. · The quality of local agriculture depends in part on the quality of the water in the Bear Creek system. · The fish and wildlife depend on the water for their survival. HOW POLLUTED IS BEAR CREEK? 1. Human and/or animal wastes and the potential for disease averages between 2 and 3 times the State standard for water contact activities Harmful bacteria can enter the water from any of the following: · Natural waste from wild animals. · Agricultural water runoff carrying farm animal wastes. · Failing septic systems that allow waste to enter the water system. · Urban storm drains that can contain waste from leaking sewers. (ROGU£ VALLEY COUNCIL OF ~NM~NTS) continued ...... 2. High nutrient levels (nitrates, phosphates etc.) causing nuisance algae growth and low dissolved oxygen hindering fish returns. Sources include treatment plant, urban and agricultural runoff. 3. High sediment levels can exceed 900 parts per million (ppm) during high winter flows. A persistent component is very fine clays that do not settle out even at low flows. This "turbidity" results in the cloudy brownish coloring of the water during low-flow periods of the summer and fall. Sediment sources include: o Natural weathering and erosion of exposed soils. o Man's activities, such as mining, logging, farming, and development, particularly on steep slopes and easily eroded soils. 4. Accidents: Bear Creek and its tributaries are vulnerable to accidental spills of toxic materials or chemicals on the I-5.Freeway, Highway 99, or the railroad. WHAT IS BEING DONE TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY? Jackson County, Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, the Soil and Water Conservation District, oOSU Extension Service, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and private organizations have joined the Rogue Valley Council.of Governments in a coordinated water, quality improvement effort. Theprogram includes: o MONITORING of the water quality in Bear Creek and its tributaries and annual reports of the results and progress. o The constrUction of a sediment pond reducing the sediment impacts to Bear creek from the sluicing of Reeder.Reservoir in Ashland. o An emergency clean-up response plan for hazardous and toxic spills. o PASSIVE TREATMENT - An investigation of ways to divert water through tx)nds providing low-cost water purification through natural processe~. o Detailed investigations of selected Bear Creek tributaries to locate and eliminate sources of pollution. o A public awareness effort to provide information on the nature of the problem and to report progress toward solutions. o A study of ways torreduce~-nutrients"by~DEQ. · IS BEAR CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVING? YES'! Bacteria Counts have decreased over 80% and fish are returning! Problem tributaries have been cleaned, agriculture has reduced runoff, local cities have.repaired broken sewer lines and industries have worked to reduce outfall pollution. HOW CAN I I{ELP? BE CONCERNED! BE INFORMED! SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES! Learn ~) recognize and respect the valuable natural resource qualities of the Bear Creek environment. Then call for free information on how you or your group or organization can participate in water quality project or activity. For more information, contact the Rogue Valley Council of Governments pag~ I of I Larry Blanchard Public WOrks Director City Hall Cenlxal Point, OR 97502 Don Walker City Engineer City of Medford 411 West Eighth St. Medford, OR 97501 Larry Gill Plant Engineer P.O.. Box 550 Medford, OR 97501 Doris Ct°foot City' Recorder P.O. Box 7 laekr, onville, OR 97530 Gary Grimes DEQ · 201 West Main St. Medford, OR 97501 Bill Caldwell Meqford, Irrigation Dist. 1340 Myers Lane MlXlford, OR 97501 Bob. Morris Boi,,~ Cascade P.O. Box 100 Medford, OR 97501 Jim Hutchins 4015 Stage Road So. Medford, OR 97501 WQAC NUTRIENT STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES Jerry MacLeod Fish & Wildlife 5286 Table Rock Rd. Central Point, OR 97502 Brad Prior Jackson County Planning Jackson County Courthouse Medford, OR 97501 Bob Baumgartner DEQ 811 S.W. Sixth Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Ron Mobley OSU Extension Service 1301 Maple Grove Dr. Medford, OR 97501 Chuck Root, Manager BCVSA 3915 So. Pacific Hwy. Medford, OR 97501 Chuck Heffner KOGAP P.O. Box 1608 Medford, OR 97501 Doyle Barlow Timber Products 25 E. McAndrews Medford, OR 97501 Dan Thorpe Oregon State Forestry 5286 Table Rock Rd. Central Point, OR 97502 REVISED 2~92 E WQAC. NUTRIENT · SUBCOMMITTEE Dave Smith RRVID 3139 Merriman Rd. Medford. OR 97501 Steve Hall City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Steve KrUgel Brown & Caldwell P.O. Box 11680 Eugene, OR 97440 Brian Lanning JSWCD 1110 Ellen Avenue Medford, OR 97501 Hollie Cannon Talent Irr/gation District P.O. Box 467 Talent, OR 97540 Tony Paxton, Administrator Talent City Hall Talent, OR 97535 Mike Wolf Dept. of Agriculture 635 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310 Otto Castor, Mayor City Hall P.O. Box 666 Phoenix, OR 97535 (MAILING LISTS #1) WQACNUT.WQ F sTREAM WALK SUMMARY Welcome to Streamwalk . · At ~ For your field sampru~g pleasure3 we have completed Streamwalkl Strsamwalk ~s a stream corridor survey memoo designed for volunteers. It requires limited training and produces data useful at all levels, local to national. Streamwalk was inspired by several citizens who asked our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 office to create a standard[zed, easy to use screening tool that would focus not on the wa~r column, but on the stream corridor. We responded by forming a workgmup composed of several volunteers and agency · representatives to develop such a methodology. Our objectives in developing Streamwalk were to: o encourage citizen comment to protecting streams · o educate people ~ the relationship between streams and watersheds -o develop a screening tool lo Id~ potential problem areas o provide a sfandar~_ed data collec~on method so regional and ~end comparisons can be made o focus ~' limited resources on suspected problem areas ~walk is designed to be promoted and used by volunteers. EPA's role is limited. We will collect survey data, enter it into a computer and provide this information to any interested person. We also vall update Streamwalk based on feedback from users. · We I~ave attached a package of information on streamwalk: 1) the Strearnwalk manual and checklist, 2) examples of completed cheddist forms and' data summaries, and 3) results of a Streamalk project in the City of Femdale in Washington. We' hope that this information package will inspire you to start your own Streamwalks. Share it with anyone you think vall find it of interest. If you have any questions, please call Gretchen Hayslip (206/442-1685) or Sally Uarquis (206/442-2116). Enjoy! CONDUCTIVITY RESULTs Z Z LI.I · ::.. ~'~...:',: :? ':.-: ' .. ~-... ~.:-'..:: ..:-:-~::~.:-:-.~ '-. o ~'"C~ ':'::-:'::::':':':::::::'::':':: ::" ;. :f;:.:i'i:::::.ii::.;.:i:;i~!:::;::iii::::::;i;;:.i =================================:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~::::!:::.~.~: ..'::'. '.:...'-:-'.:-:o...-" '.'° '."~-~-.-.'.-.v.-.-.-.'.'.'.'.'.,,f-,i '-_"2 ......... ~ ..... .-.....-.-.--.-... ....... ..:.:..: ............. .:: .:- ..... ~-~..f..~ .......... ~..~.. ~.. ~ ...............- ...... - .v..-.. :-:::::.::.;..:....'.-.::.:.-...::-.....i,,.~ .-,~ ............ I,=e'" ..... ' '.'.'e.~.'.;,,~'.'.'.',~.;,'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'..'.'.'.' :!:~!!~;i:::;::~i-:; ~ .f;ih i;~:'~.~.: :':~ :-:-'~'-:-.-:.-:--':~:-:-.~-'.."0.:-'.;~:-.~.:-::'~-:-;,~,.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:-:-:.-:.: : J iii i:!:i i:i ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::ii .).-_ .'~.-.~..- ~1-. ........ :.:::;:'.':-.:.:-:"- .... ,,,,i ~ ......... ~ .... ~.. ~..,.,,e ..~.. ,--..".'.'... ".'..'.'.'.'.'.' ............. ......... . · ...:.:.;..:..... ......... ~ ...................... ~ ................... : :.:.::.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.::.:.:.:.::.:...:...:.: ..... c~.. 0 ......~...~-.-..~v. ~v.-.;;~.v.~..-. ,~ v.v...-.., v..-..v-... =================================== .. {,,)...~.,~ ....... ~...~,,=~ ......... ~,~.....-.--..-.-.-.-.-...-.-.. ': .:' ....................... ":: '.'--' o'-'.' ='-'~.'-'-'-~-'-.~....,~.. 0-....o.-.:2.-.>..-...-.-.-.-...-...-...-.-.....-. ...-.-.v.-...-...-.....:.:.:.:.:: ....:. 4: ".'. '"1,~" :::::::.::.' ................... - .................. -J3 .? .--~---~.~ °'-'-'0"'"" ~--'-"~'~"o ~ ~'.' 0'-?''~''''''''''''''''''''''''''''':''.':.''-'.'-'.'.'.'-'-'''.'.'.' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........ ..... i.i:!'!:i:E'i:i:i:i:;~'ei:!:Z ?:.:'i: '..'.'.~'. ~' ',,.~.-.v.....-.v.,~-.-.-.~ v.',,, ,..-.~,,~.,v.'...-. ~ v.v.v.v.-., v.. v.-.--. 0 : ~:i i~uu~i~ ~;~:~:: ~: i .... .~..-~ -~-. ::~: :~::.~.':i:a::::~:':~':':'.:'~-':':':':':':':':':':':': :':':':':'- :.:.; :.:.:.:.:-:.:.:- :..:.: ..:.-.:: .... r~ ...... ~ ............. ' ...... .'.'. '.'.'~,~.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.'..'.'. ...................... I=~ ............... .: .-.-...~....-.~-..,,.......o.....~v..o..~,....13:l..-...o-.-..~......-.....-...........-......... :.:.:.:.~.:...~ :.:.:~ :.:... ,,~;.:.~.:.:~ ............................. ';::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~,&-~~o i::::iiii::iii::ii?:ili!i~:::::;::i;;:::;: .:.:.o:...'.'.'.'.:.:-~.:-:.~.'-:-:.: :.:.:.:.:...".' :.- :.. i:i ~:i:i:!:;:i:?~:i:i.. '..::~Ji'i' ::::"?! .... v.v.-:.:-:~j-; ~-',,~;.:-: ~'::-:-'.7.:-:-: '. :';;"-':7.;. ===================== :!:~ %; :'- :..-. I::I v. o. ~..~ ;-:-:. ~'-;-:;~).v.;.v;.:..,~-;-:-~.; .,-~'-:.~.:.:-:.;-..;vXv:-:.:.:.:-:.; .- ' '-':':: :...: ================================: ' '.'-'.- .:'. -° --'.'.'-' 0.'-' ~'-'-',,~'.'-'.'.'-'-'.'-~ '-'-.' '.'.'.'~_.'.'' '.' '.'.'.'.'.'.'.' '.'.'.v. :i;'i:::}::!i:i:::!i!i~(ll~ ! :ii::'::: ' !:: '--'--.,.-:':v.-.~:~ C.) :':..: .:: ::.:-::..~,~.:::.'-:...:..: .v.. ~v.. ~.....~.v.--,~¥.- · r,..~-...*,~ .'.'t'~l.'. ,~,-,,'.'.'.I,.,'.'.L~.'.' v v.v..v v.v."v. :'- ":. :'.:: ?~':'::i:! .'-::. '.. · .v ~-~Z:-'I~' ~ v.- -.~.-...~-~-.v ;~ v. ~,...'~.- ~-..T~ v.v.- v v -. ..... .- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :3:3 -'. v..~..v ~ .-.~,,-~ .. ~1.-.'.0~ '..,~,,u.. ~.....,~..,;,1~ '. :~'.;-):.; .-..7 '.; ";v..-. '..i.':Z.!.2; .:'l~:-:m4' :: ' · .'.~-'.'~" I~.'-'-'-~ '.'-~..'- ~-' '~" ~' ": - :,,-,,..v.-;...v..-. v..v. .:.: .:.:::::.:..:.~,.: :..:........~..~.. ~,~. ~. ~ ..~,%v.~. . .., ~,,~..OV-~,.,).v.-..v.....v.- .. :'i..':.:i:.::ii~:i:..:..".'~-->4."'-' -l::z,, "~ ."'~ ~. ~ ..o;"~ .? ...... :; i::.?!;i.!;;.... ~,~=,,! (:-i: i:'. '.;~-:-:,,~: .. = '-:.:-:' '~.-: o'-:':~- '"'0.:.:~ 7o ..:~: ~.:.:.: :.'. :...- : :': ;:;:: :i :f-~ ?.i :': ': ':.'~-:.',-,.'.: _(::2 ':':' o:.'. c~-:-,~-:-: i,~-:.: .= :-; ~,.-:-:.'~:-:~-:-:-..'.: :.:.:...:.. ::i'i~::.. ~.~.:" -': '. ~. '~":.,-~-:..r.,0"o...:o.-' = ";;,~.':'.o:',:-%.-:-~':':'.':-:':- ::'-" ."::::'~::'~::~'.::'(; .::'~::~'~'~:::. '::~::?t 'o::;~ ======================= '.: '?::~?~?:; ::i.::~:::.:. i..'. :'{ i ::":'-':':i:'.' :'-i'::: i:':' :-:,{4 i :.:.:.::..¢::::~' '.~:::'i:i:i {:::i-:~:i::i:}:ii:!:! ':': :. :~':.'"' '."-'.r;~ ,.12~.-Y1:1.'.. ..v.-.r.v....-.;,~... ~l-..v ......~,~.-.-.~,r~.... : i-~i: ~!: r~-i L.i.i .:::.!:: ..... '...:.:-:.:-: ~ ~.:.;. ~-.-:. :- :-. :-:-~.-:-~.:-: :.. · v~...:...:-....:.:.;.:.:.:~ :.~.:...: ..... · : l,,,i-li: ".' .... L,:,:.'.o- '".'.: "..-". ...... '. --,'.'.' ~",..,~ .'".'.'.'."~,'.'-'~'.'.'. : ::-..:::~. ~ ..... .. o.->~-~ ~- ".-.,u..~ "~: ou.:':.:.:.::o.:~'..:: ~' ":"::: ': :!:: L.TJ;:i: ~. :......:.. ~.:.;~..:.'= ..:.~.....;...' :-:-:-:.o-:.:~:.:-.~ :.: o.-:-:-:-:..-:.:-:-:~-:..-.-...-:-:.'.. ."::::.:'.:.:~--"~:.:::.... ". '.'. '.'.~:~' "; ,., '.'.". .' v.'. (,) .-,~'."~' I~.'.'v.v.".,--,,v.'e,,F.'.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::- ':::.:.¢4': =============================== ~:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:~ ;i:::: ;:; m~!: ii::::".::.: "-: :'¢j':':~ .'. ~-70..' .-:-';-.-;..~-:-;.~-:. O:'. '~-:-:':';':':':"-:'..'.':':-: O':-:-.'. -..':::::-::.:::':': :::.: :::' .ii... ' '. -' ~ ....... - .:. ~ :.' .v.'.~.,)'.'..'.'. :.' '...'.'. '~I" :'"" "' '~:.~.,'.v.' · :.:.: "4.:. '::...:.: : '.'¢: ' t~".'~-".,-'"; ~';O'"~. ~ '.: ;.:.:-:-:-: :.O:-:v. . ..: :-: ;-: -: . · ~ '-,-, ',,,., ' ;,,, '.' ,~,,.. o,.., ' ¢~ -' .~ . ~ '. ~. ~... ;~ ~...... -.~. · · - ~ .-.v.v.v.-. ~..~.-.v.. · - ' ..:.'.';>;.'.~'.: ¢3 .~..:.:.;~:-:...~"-::"o ,L~ :.: :-;-: :.'.:- ~..-)~.:.;.:-. ...:....~.,.~:.:.:..:.....-... ..: · ::i:i:!:i:!O:.:: ~ .':: ::::' :' i:: ::::j ~;~i' i_:i!O: ::.:. ~i: .i:i::::. .........~ .~ ~--.... ... .... ~ · ~.:. ... .... ..... ·: :.: :::::5 {~:-:.:.~ · · ~ ..... ' :: ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:..::. :: ~ :-: :. :::.: ::: ::::::::::::::::~,: ~::. ?~::: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :':.::?;::?;:: ~.: ============================= Average Water Depth in Cans (Inches) After 15 Minutes ROGUE VALLEY Number of Minutes to Water Twice Weekly Spring 57 38 28 23 19 14 11 9 7 5 4 Surrm~r 115 77 57 46 38 28 23 19 14 11 9 Fall 42 28 21 17 14 10 8 7 5 4 3 ORDINANCE NO. APPENDIX J AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ~4.09 TO THE ASHLA/~D MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CLEANING AGENTS CONTAINING PHOSPHORUS WITHIN THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S CITY LIMITS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A new Chapter 14.09 shall be added to the Ashland Municipal Code and shall read as follows: -- "Chapter 14.09 SEWER SYSTEM--REGULATIONS 14.09.010 A. Phosphate Ban: The Council recognizes its authority and responsibility to plan and provide for control of sewerage, surface water, and water supply. The Council hereby finds that phosphorus loading of surface waters is currently a serious pollution problem affecting water quality in the Bear Creek Subbasin and threatens future water quality in other surface waters of the region. Phosphate detergents contribute significant phosphorus loading to the treated wastewater released to surface water into Bear Creek. Phosphorous loading has become a pollution problem, and state standards will require additional wastewater treatment facilities at public expense beyond primary and secondary treatment facilities. This Ordinance is enacted to reduce phosphorus pOllution at its source to maintain existing water quality and to enhance cost-effective wastewater treatment where phosphorus pollution has been identified as a serious pollution problem by the State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. B. Definitions: (a) "Cleaning agent" means any product, including but not limited to soaps and detergents, containing a surfactant as a wetting or dirt emulsifying agent and used primarily for domestic or commerCial cleaning purposes, including, but not limited to the cleansing of fabrics, dishes, food utensils, and household and commercial premises. Cleaning agent shall not mean foods, drugs, cosmetics, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, or cleaning agents exempt from this Ordinance. (b) "Phosphorus" means elemental phosphorus. (c) "Person" means any person, firm, partnership or corporation. C. Prohibition: No person may sell or distribute for sale within the City of Ashland City Limits, any cleaning'agents containing more than 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight except cleaning agents used in automatic dishwashing 'machines shall not exceed 8.7 percent phosphorus by weight. D. Exemptions: This Ordinance shall not apply to any cleaning agent: (a) Used in dairy, beverage, or food processing equipment. (b) Used as an industrial sanitizer, brightener, acid cleaner, or metal conditioner, including phosphoric acid products or trisodium phosphate. J-1 (c) Used in hospitals, veterinary hospitals or clinics, or health care facilities. (d) Used in agricultural production and the production of electronic components. (e) Used in a commercial laundry for laundry services provided to a hospital or health care facility or for a veterinary h~ospital or clinic. (f) Used by industry for metal cleaning or conditioning. (g) Used in any laboratory, including a biological laboratory, research facility, chemical, electronics or engineering laboratory. (h) Used for cleaning hard surfaces, including household cleansers for windows, sinks, counters, stoves, tubs or other food preparation surfaces, and plumbing fixtures. (i) Used as a water softening chemical, antiscale chemical or corrosion inhibitor intended for use in closed systems, such as boilers, air conditioners, cooling towers or hot water systems. (j) For which the Council determines that imposition of this Ordinance will either: (1) create a significant hardship on the user; or (2) be unreasonable because of the lack of an adequate substitute cleaning agent. E. Severability: The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of this Ordinance which can be given without the invalid provision or application. F. Penalty: Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter is, upon conviction there of, punishable as described in Section 1.08. 020. SECTION 2. 1991." Effective Date: This Ordinance shall be effective July 1, The foregoing ordinance was first read on the /~day of 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~f~ day Of ~_, 1991. Nan E. F~anklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ ~/ day of ? Catherine M. Golden Mayor