HomeMy WebLinkAboutM092607SPH
District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin
County Administrator: John F. Fischbach
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Special Meeting
September 26~ 2007
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W.
Sullivan and Commissioner John Austin.
Continuation of Clean Water District Hearing: Approximately 150 citizens were present
when Chairman Johnson explained that this public hearing is a continuation of the proposed Clean Water
District Ordinance hearing held on September 17,2007. Deputy Director of Public Health Mike McNickle
reviewed the background leading to the creation of a Clean Water District. Environmental Health Supervisor
Neil Harrington explained the goals of the plan as outlined in the draft ordinance.
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Katherine Hendy, Chimacum, stated that she would like the Commissioners to pursue the most complete
stream monitoring program possible to provide specific information about the source of pollution in
Discovery Bay and Mats Mats. She doesn't think cows are responsible for the pollution.
Bob Stevenson, Port Townsend, stated that if the County doesn't act now, water pollution will become a
serious problem.
Jim Storey, Chimacum, stated that the draft ordinance was very hastily written. He would like to know why
the Commissioners are in such a rush to create the Clean Water District. The water quality problem is in
Discovery Bay and he is against creating a district throughout eastern Jefferson County.
Yvonne Rogers, Nordland, stated that she objects to the County enacting regulations that cover the whole
area.
Moe Rogers, Nordland, stated that he thinks the County is blaming the pollution on failing septic systems to
get property owners to pay. There are many sources of fecal coliform. If a septic system is failing, people
know. He doesn't think there are that many failing septic systems in the County.
George Yount, Port Townsend, stated that he feels this is an important health, safety, and welfare issue for
the County. . The County has relatively clean water but shellfish bed closures in Discovery Bay and Hood
Canal should serve as a wake-up call. It takes less money to prevent pollution than to clean it up. A yearly
fee of $18 is not a lot of money. He suggested grants from the Puget Sound Partnership as another funding
Page 1
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
i!J"'" '\
"~-
1\"ItJ!'o"\"
source for the Clean Water District. The County doesn't know if wildlife is the source ofthe fecal coliform
in Discovery Bay. There are 58,000 septic systems in the County that have a useful life and there is a good
business in septic system repair.
Richard Broders, Discovery Bay, read and submitted his comments. (See permanent record.)
Bob Henderson, Quilcene, stated that his property is next to a creek. He is opposed to the $18 per parcel fee
because parcels are not all the same size. He is concerned about future generations having to pay to clean up
the water.
Bud Schindler, Brinnon, read and submitted his comments. (See permanent record.)
Roger Short, Center Road, stated that the Conservation District took an interest in clean water 20 years ago.
They monitored the creeks to identify specific sources of pollution and the farmers worked with them to
improve the water quality. There was a pollution problem in Quilcene that was caused by seals. In creeks
where salmon spawn, animals and birds eat the dead fish and pollute the water. Importing elk will be a
problem because they will destroy fences and pollute the creeks and rivers. DNA testing is necessary to
identify the source of the pollution.
Bill Wheeler, Qui1cene, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Gordon James, Port Hadlock, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Roger Eichman, Nordland, stated that he did this type of water testing in the State of Alaska. When the fish
ran up the streams, the ecoli rate went up. Ecoli grows naturally in swamps. They threw out the ecoli
testing and tested for fecal strep which comes from animals. They also used a detergent test for problem
septic systems which is accurate, inexpensive, and easy to do. Beckett Point is constructing a new septic
system and failing septics in that area could have caused the problem in Discovery Bay. The County may
want to wait until that system is up and running before designating all of eastern Jefferson County as a Clean
Water District. He thinks most of the pollution problem is from natural sources. The County should do a
lot more homework before an entire bureaucracy is set up that will probably be out of control.
Ruth Gordon, Port Townsend, stated that she does not agree with the Port Townsend City Council's
comments that city residents shouldn't pay Clean Water District fees. The quality of water is everyone's
responsibility. Seeking grants allows the County to leverage more money to resolve water quality issues.
She would like to know when the County's grant match has to be available for the grant deadline.
John McDuff, Quilcene, stated that he was at the last hearing. He thinks that public opinion has been
negative because of the way the creation and funding of the Clean Water District was approached. The
people aren't saying they don't want a Clean Water District. They are saying that the County jumped to
conclusions too fast and doesn't know the real source ofthe problem. Everyone wants to protect water
quality, but it can't be based on hunches. We need evidence. There is funding to match the Clean Water
Grant for Discovery Bay. A per parcel tax is not acceptable. Blaming septic systems when the County
Page 2
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
~."""-'
r.....................s
~frlIJ~(:\..'.;.
doesn't know if that is the problem is not acceptable. He would hate to see this Board have a legacy of not
listening to the public.
John Gieser, Port Townsend, stated that he doesn't want to see a Clean Water District fee on parcels. The
County should increase revenue by encouraging economic development and focusing on commercializing
Port Hadlock.
Terry Nomura, Port Hadlock, read and submitted her comments. (See permanent record.)
James Fritz, Port Townsend, stated that the Jefferson County Conservation District does a great job and he is
in favor of expanding their role but this doesn't cost $18 per parcel. It costs $200-$300 to have a septic
system checked and ifthere are repairs it will cost much more. There aren't enough licensed people in the
County who deal with septic systems. This solution to the water quality problem is going too far. There are
many sources of pollution that the County has no control over including wastewater from cities and
chemicals from lawns and gardens. This proposal is not using money wisely.
Peter Downey, stated that he has a large shellfish farm in Discovery Bay just south of Beckett Point and will
soon be expanding to Hood Canal. The State monitoring program protects human health by monitoring
shellfish beds. It doesn't prevent water contamination. There are several bays in other counties where
shellfish beds were destroyed by only 2-3 failing septic systems. His mother fenced a stream on the cattle
ranch where he was raised in California and the water quality improved tremendously. It is important to
work to take care of water resources. The formation of a Clean Water District is a very good goal.
Dennis Shultz, Port Townsend, stated that he is in favor of clean water and water monitoring. He is not in
favor of the formation of a special taxing district because once they are established, they never go away~
The citizens have no control over tax increases. The Clean Water District should be funded out of the
General Fund and it should be up to the Commissioners to cut other programs to make this one work.
Property taxes are already high and the assessed evaluations are continuing to go up. Adding another tax
isn't right. The Commissioners should be concentrating on reducing County expenses, they shouldn't be
adding government functions that aren't necessary. Public Health spent $22,000 on a consultant who
created the Clean Water District proposal and now they want $7,000 more and then they announced they
were going to spend another $10,000 to create another district. The Board signed the Clean Water Program
Grant for Discovery Bay which requires a match of $55,000. The $39,000 could have gone toward the
match. Instead it has been wasted. The Board should be looking out for their constituents' welfare and
well-being instead of raising taxes.
Mary Heinzinger, Marrowstone Island, stated that they have owned their property since 1937 and her
husband grew up in Seattle. They have seen the changes. Now the County is coming up with another new
tax. They have always been good stewards of the land and have done everything to keep the bay clean.
Funding for the Clean Water District should come from another source.
George Forker, Prospect Avenue, stated that he agrees with Jim Fritz and Dennis Shultz. If the County
passes the Clean Water District fee, he will withhold his property tax payments for the next three years.
Page 3
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
~.""""
;.'..:i...S
"."---"",".,.
'11'1f)~l"~
Paul Heinzinger, Nordland, submitted and read his statement. (See permanent record.)
John Ebner, Port Townsend, stated that he lives in Port Townsend and contributes less than minimally to the
degradation of any of the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. He already pays a very high rate for
sewer and stormwater infrastructure and management. He thinks it is unfair for the County to burden him
with an additional assessment. He is not sure if there really is a water quality problem throughout the
County, but everyone needs to pay the fee in order to keep the costs down for the people who live in the
contaminated areas. He doesn't think that the areas that aren't contributing to the pollution should be taxed.
This action should be tabled until all the questions can be answered by quality data. Planning is a key factor
for a proper response and this process seems to be a backward approach. It is throwing a lot of money at a
problem that may not exist. He asked the Board to stop the process and get the data.
Norm McLeod, Sand Road, read and submitted his statement. (See permanent record.)
Jim Hagan, Cape George, read and submitted comments on behalf ofthe Olympic Stewardship Foundation.
(See permanent record.)
John Boulton, Quilcene, read and submitted his statement. (See permanent record.)
Ron Corbin, Chimacum, read and submitted his statement. (See permanent record.)
Jim McRae, Quilcene, stated that currently parcels are assessed a $25 fee and an additional $18 fee would be
a 72% increase. The operations and maintenance costs on septic system inspections would be hundreds of
dollars. A lot of his neighbors are on fixed incomes, The fee could keep increasing over the years, taxing
people off their land. He doesn't think there is a demonstrable problem throughout the County. Right now
the problem is at one monitoring station in Discovery Bay. The RCW gives the County the authority to set
up a Clean Water District, but it doesn't say that the County is required to do so. If any County or State
representative comes on his property to inspect anything, they will be trespassing.
Bill Perka, Cape George Road, stated that clean water is good and he is for it. He is for shellfish beds and
guarding them against pollution. The County needs to find out if the problem is caused by animals, fish, and
birds or septic systems. This is a "rush job" that was developed in haste. Slow down and do it right the first
time. The Board may say they will pass it now and fix it later, but that won't happen. This is a regressive
tax and a per parcel fee isn't fair because the size of the parcel isn't taken into consideration. Find another
funding source. He is against the building of another bureaucracy. Once it is formed, a taxing district will
never go away. Listen to the shellfish farmers because they are the biggest stakeholders. Do a bottoms up
approach. He affirms the testimony from Norm McLeod, Dick Broders, and Dennis Shultz.
Page 4
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
:'!J"'" "\
-~~--'
r\'111".'.....'
Barbara Fisk, Qui1cene, stated that she commented at the public hearing on September 17. She said that a
lot of good comments have been made tonight. Everyone is for clean water, but they don't want to be taxed
for it. She asked the Board to table this, and listen to what their constituents are saying. Don't try to push
this through.
Herb Beck, Quilcene, asked why there is a rush is to adopt a Clean Water District? The proposal is
expensive, wasteful, ineffective, and unfair to the taxpayers of Jefferson County. He owns about 10 parcels.
The Clean Water Grant for Discovery Bay with the State Department of Ecology would make a good pilot
project. He is for clean water, but he isn't for the proposal that is being presented. The Puget Sound
Partnership has funds available to do the work. It is in the best interest of the County to table this and come
up with a better proposal.
Tom Thiersch, stated that RCW 90.72 is referred to in the proposed ordinance. The RCW grants and directs
the County to form a Shellfish Protection District. It doesn't authorize the County to create a Clean Water
District. This proposal is a marketing ploy that was put together by consultants. The formation of a
Shellfish Protection District is to protect the shellfish, it isn't intended to address clean water issues
throughout the eastern Jefferson County. The only deadline to approve the Clean Water District is to get the
parcel fee on the 2008 tax statement. The RCW requires that the County create a Shellfish Protection
District and develop a plan to administer it. It doesn't require that the County fund the district. Shellfish
Protection Districts only apply to those areas where shellfish have been downgraded. The Board of Health
amended the Jefferson County Code regarding on-site septic systems in July, 2007 to have all septic systems
within a designated Shellfish Protection District inspected by a licensed provider every 1-3 years depending
on the type of septic system. This will cost hundreds of dollars per parcel. This is a serious tax burden and
he objects to it.
Renee Bush, Quilcene, stated that she owns 20 acres on the Little Quilcene River. Her first responsibility is
to be a good steward to the land and the river. She is in favor of expanded water quality monitoring because
collected data can improve decision making. The Clean Water District is not really about monitoring. The
permit issued by the County for a septic system on her property requires that she contract with the PUD for
maintenance. This ordinance will put her in violation of the contract she has with the PUD to inspect the
system. She asked the County to find the source of the pollution before the proposed ordinance is approved.
Richard Hild, Cape George Road, stated that in listening to the comments tonight, he has heard 5 "yeses", 1
"maybe" and 25 "nos." That doesn't sound like a good percentage. Instead of investigating septic systems,
the County should be looking at fecal coliform from animals, seals, birds and fish. Sequim has documented
that the fecal coliform in their saltwater comes from Victoria BC on the tidal currents. Why does the County
want to go after innocent homeowners and their septic systems? The Shellfish Protection District proposal
is another attempt by the State to buy off the County. Grant funding comes from taxes that everyone pays so
we are really giving the County that money. He asked the Board to stop this bureaucratic step forward.
Diane Johnson, stated that she has property in Quilcene. She is an environmentalist, a psychologist, a
landowner, a farmer, and a wildlife artist. She has a lot of interest in this issue. She is in favor of clean
Page 5
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
:::,~"''''\,
~,~-
~1"fJ "",''-'
water, but there is already a program in place through the Conservation District. They have been active for
many years in the County. They do great work and she supports them. They need more funding, but not
$500,000 a year. According to Dick Broders, the water in Discovery Bay is no longer contaminated and has
been monitored at pristine levels for quite some time. Does the County really know if it needs to be cleaned
up? A new tax allows the Board to put money back in accounts has already being spent on water monitoring
by Public Health and the Conservation District. It may not be additional money. It seems like too little of
the Clean Water District budget is going for monitoring or actual water programs. It doesn't sound like any
of it is going to fix the problems with the shellfish beds. There are maintenance and operations workshops
for septic systems for homeowners already scheduled around the County. What are people getting for that
money? She doesn't approve of it and would like to see the County table it until the data is in. She asked
the Board to look for another funding mechanism.
Howard Smith, stated that he has dealt with County Environmental Health staff for several years because
heavy metals from the property above his home runs through his property and is contaminating Chimacum
Creek. Nothing has been done because the County tells him that they believe in voluntary compliance.
Mike Belenski, thanked everyone that has spoken in opposition to the Clean Water District. He thinks the
fee may start out at $18 but it will keep going up. The Commissioners waste County resources and the
County makes a habit of going after grant funding. He thinks that County employees like to regulate people
and make things difficult for them. The County Commissioners don't listen. How can the draft ordinance
already list the findings of fact when it hasn't been adopted yet?
Andrew Redding, Port Townsend, thanked the Commissioners for moving to a larger venue. He thanked
them for having the foresight to be concerned about water quality. He doesn't agree with the particulars of
the proposal. The County has to recognize that there is a problem. According to the newspapers, the
problem isn't limited to one station in one bay. The lakes have been closed down in the summer, there has
been paralytic shellfish poisoning along the coast. Right now the County doesn't know the extent or the
source of the problem. More testing needs to be done. He doesn't know how much pollution the City of
Port Townsend contributes. He thinks that the per parcel fee is very regressive and disagrees with it. It
would be better to make it a property tax.
Bill Miller, Port Townsend, read and submitted his statement. (See permanent record.)
Barbara Shultz, Port Townsend, asked the Commissioners to reconsider this proposal, table it, and deliberate
thoughtfully on it.
Tom Seavoy, Nordland, stated that action taken to approve this proposal is based on a flawed premise. The
County thinks there is a problem because of water monitoring in a few areas. The County must designate a
Shellfish Protection District and isn't mandated to create a Clean Water District. He lives on a fixed
income. The Board should reconsider the proposal.
Page 6
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
Charlie Arthur, Port Townsend, stated that he is against the proposal. Most of his concerns have been
brought up already in testimony. However, he is concerned that people on fixed incomes who have multiple
buildable parcels will consolidate their parcels to reduce their total Clean Water District fee. If they want to
sell each parcel separately in the future, they probably won't be able to divide it. This reduces the County's
future taxbase because there will only be one home on property when there could have been several. He
implored the Board to take more time to look at this issue.
George Sickel, Brinnon, stated that one of the biggest assets in the County is the people. A lot of experts
have testified tonight and they have volunteered to help the County put together a plan. He encouraged the
Board to table the Clean Water District and work with these people instead of spending more money on a
consultant. A plan can be created to monitor the water using a rational, planned approach.
Jim Jackson, Port Hadlock, stated that he was a State employee for forty years and wrote and audited RCWs
for Public Health. One of their fears was called "The law of unintended consequences." A well intentioned
RCW may go beyond it's intention and take on a life of its own. He thinks that the testimony tonight is
good counsel and the Board needs to put the brakes on. He asked the Board to work within existing
resources to come up with definitive conclusions for one or two stations at a time and then move forward to
other areas.
Dick Bergeron, Brinnon, asked ifhis comments from the first public hearing on the Clean Water District are
still part ofthe record? The Board replied that they are. He said that he attended several ofthe Clean Water
District Workshops around the County and he thinks that designating a Clean Water District instead of a
Shellfish Protection District is going to extremes. He cautioned the Board to listen to the people. He noted
that there is a referendum signup sheet in the audience if the Board approves this ordinance tonight.
Bob Pontius, stated that he is opposed to any tax increase and that is what this fee seems to be. The County
should wait and find out the facts before they proceed. The $18 per parcel doesn't take into account that
some properties generate revenue and other people are on Social Security and can't afford to pay. What
about the pollution caused by the highways? There are tests to monitor streams near farms. Hiring new
employees to do the monitoring will be a large expense. The WRIA process started with grants and now the
County has to come up with money to keep it going. He urged the Board to find out all the facts and
reconsider this proposal.
Kees Kolff, Port Townsend, thanked the Board for taking the initiative to address this issue. He fully
supports getting more data on water quality. Everything these days costs more money. The County has to
find additional sources of revenue. He isn't in favor of taxes ifthere are other funding mechanisms. He
urged the Board to go after grants. He suggested that the County gather more data to guide decisions and
work with an advisory group. He urged the Board to go forward with some type of district.
David Langun Port Townsend, stated that the proposed funding system is unfair to people in Port Townsend.
It is particularly unfair to people who are connected to the city sewer system, He isn't responsible for septic
problems in rural areas.
Page 7
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
r r~;,.
~
Teren McLeod, Port Townsend, submitted and read her statement. (See permanent record.)
Gary Price, Beaver Valley, said that the information from this meeting shows that no one really knows the
source of the water quality problem. Humans, animals, birds, and fish all create pollution in the streams.
Victoria dumps raw sewage into the Straits that is carried with the tides. Ships dump sewage. He suggested
that the Board utilize the expertise ofthe people and form a citizen's committee to find out the source.
Consultants tell people what they want to hear, especially ifthere is an agenda. He asked the Board to slow
down the process and identify what is causing the problems in a few areas.
Denver Shoop, stated that by law the County cannot raise taxes so they are calling this a fee. Is the County
going to take his property ifhe doesn't pay the fee for 3 years? It's up to the Commissioners to set the
General Fund budget. Not every parcel has a septic system on it. People in Port Townsend shouldn't be
exempt if other people have to pay.
Nora Porter, Port Townsend, stated that when she first heard about the plan, an $18 fee seemed reasonable.
Everyone needs and wants clean water. She thinks that the City of Port Townsend should be included. She
agrees with Terry Nomura and the man who has a shellfish farm in Discovery Bay. However, she thinks a
compromise is necessary to show good faith. It would be a good idea to look at using reserves or banked
capacity and work to find another funding mechanism. The Board can work with local people, experts, the
State, and staff to come to an agreement. She thanked the Board for listening to everyone.
Frank Hoffman, stated that the County should have addressed the clean water issue several years ago. The
proposed plan will provide funding to monitor streams and rivers that currently aren't being monitored and
the County needs to know that the water is healthy. Sources of pollution can be identified and addressed.
Tests should be done to see ifthere are chemicals in the water from runoff. He agrees that reserves should
be used to fund the Clean Water Program Grant for Discovery Bay for 2008.
Jill Silver, Port Townsend, stated that a Clean Water District is a great idea. This is where all other water
issues in the County can come together to be analyzed and coordinated. She is more familiar with fresh
water systems on the West End. When monitoring data is reviewed, it shows that the streams and rivers in
Eastern Jefferson County are not very healthy. Data has been collected on Chimacum Creek for some time
and fecal coliform numbers have gone down. Unfortunately invasive plant species create dissolved oxygen
which reaches lethal levels in the summer. Clean water is priceless. She is willing to pay the fee although
she is concerned about people on fixed incomes who can't pay additional taxes. Everyone needs to be part
of this as partners to make a contribution. She commended the Board for looking at options and thinking
about alternative sources of funding.
Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed Clean Water District Ordinance, the Chair closed
the public hearing.
Page 8
Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: September 26, 2007 Public Hearing
,,~s
~
~\'ffl1'<(' \,-'
Discussion to Take Motion Off Table; Motion Tabled at September 24,2007 Meeting to
Fund Discovery Bay Clean Water Project Grant Match for 2008 from Reserves: Commissioner Sullivan
stated that he thinks it is premature to take the motion to fund the Discovery Bay Clean Water Project Grant
Match for 2008 from reserves off the table. He would like to have further discussions about the proposed
ordinance. This is a public health issue. He said that he needs to be accountable iftaxes are raised or fees
imposed. He is prepared to strike the portions of the ordinance that refer to the funding source.
Commissioner Austin stated that because of the lateness of the hour and the multiplicity of the comments
made tonight, he would be more comfortable taking the motion offthe table at the next meeting.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that he is concerned that if the deliberations on the issue and the agenda items
are postponed to another meeting, a large venue will need to be scheduled again to accommodate the people
who will want to be present. The deadline for putting the fee on the tax statements is October 1. The next
deadline is the formation of some kind of district at Discovery Bay. The timeline for the Clean Water
Grants is the beginning of January. If the County doesn't put the fee on the tax statements, there will be
time to work on the other deadlines. Taking the funding from reserves means it will be competing with
other programs and projects in 2008. Chairman Johnson agreed with Commissioner Sullivan.
Commissioner Sullivan directed staff to schedule another meeting in a large venue for deliberations on the
Clean Water District ordinance and to discuss Commissioner Austin's motion that was tabled on September
24 to fund the Discovery Bay Clean Water Project Grant Match for 2008 from reserves. Chairman Johnson
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the
Commissioners' Special Meeting at 9:33 p.m. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by
a unanimous vote.
.\t':..
'v, \
o
"#
.. 1'"
· :0
. 1'\
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
....40, ·
/' ....,., .
~.:;
SEAL~ "to
'0
aa ,';'
. "
'it, <;
ATTEST:
PhiZlhnS , Chair
. ~7U/
d -- ~/. e;~
Davi W~Member
~
Austin, Member
~71aJ;t/uo feme
t!iulie Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Page 9
P~gl.. 1 t"If 1
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11: 14 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: clean water district- no thanks!
;~ ~ r'~
j ~,C/-/l}
"..I~~. 1 ,
From: Eric Taylor[SMTP:ETAYLOR@OLYPEN.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:12:38 PM
To: Phil Johnson
Subject: clean water district-- no thanks!
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Commissioner Phil Johnson
I am opposed to creating an additional property tax or "parcel fee" as proposed to fund a new clean water
district. As your constituent, I urge you to vote against any such proposal.
Thank you,
Eric Taylor
172 Wycoff Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-765-4397
etaylor@olypen.com
9/19/2007
~C- "l.~D, 's, q J~o fen
~lX':C
l
Page I of I
Leslie Locke
From: Miranda Schryver
Sent: Thursday, September 20,20078:31 AM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Water District Proposal
f.,~.1>"\.,~ R'., 'r)
.ff t . '
'. \J q .
From: Phil Otness [mailto:otness@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:28 AM
To: Miranda Schryver
Subject: Water District Proposal
September 20, 2007
Commissioner Austin
Commissioner Sullivan
Commissioner Johnson
Many of us in Port Ludlow are concerned with your proposal to set up a Water District Plan for all of Jefferson
County and charge every parcel $18.00 per year. We understand the major purpose would be to set up programs
to reduce the agricultural and septic systems runoff into our bays and streams. We share the concern to protect
shell fish and other marine life. However, the residences in Port Ludlow within the MPR who are on a
legal, monitored Sewage Treatment Plant should not be required to share this burden.
We understand this plan started with addressing the problems in Discovery Bay, and then escalated to the entire
County. The burden should be with those that are causing the problem.
Sincerely,
Phil Otness
Port Ludlow
9/20/2007
"" -- 1i' ~'U j '1/:20/0-)
Leslie Locke
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Phil Johnson
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:02 PM
Leslie Locke
FW: $18 and clean water
..,t';~ :0' . f-'"
. ~ J" ~
,\ ...,.' j 1 I
"JId'~'.?.
From: Carrie Rice[SMTP:CARRIERICE@OLYPEN.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:57:35 PM
To: dsullilvan@co.jefferson.wa.us; John Austin; Phil Johnson
Subject: $18 and clean water
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Commissioners,
Before I get to the $18 and clean water I need to comment on how difficult it was to get
your e-addresses. Pulling up the Jefferson County Web, clicking on Commissioners certainly
doesn't do it. That page has topics like: A Rising Tide,.., FTR Download..., and
Conservation Futures. .. but there is no "Contact us" as on many other sites or a list of
your contact information. I finally resorted to asking friends until I found one who had
them. Am I to think you would rather not hear from me?
And again before I get to the $18 and clean water I need to say I only came to the meeting
yesterday because I had been unsuccessful at finding e-address to write you, It was not as
one of you reportedly suggested it was to shut the meeting down, perhaps others, but not
me,
Now the $18 and clean water. Be assured I am totally in favor of clean water and it
judicious use, I am aware how precious potable water is here and in the entire world; it
is not for watering lawns or golf courses but for drinking and growing food. I come down
on the regressiveness of the $18, and its unfairness. And it seems to have been done with
so little consideration.
$18 dollars annually I am sure is nothing to the three of you but I have to say we seniors
on fixed incomes are having more and more difficulty managing. We are personally still ok
but we are finding that compared to 10, or even 5 years ago we don't have the disposable
income we once did. For instance, we find we simply cannot make charitable contributions
we once did or see as many movies, etc. No, our income isn't low enough yet that we
qualify for senior tax breaks but it is headed that way.
Further, the closest water, salt or fresh, to us is more than a mile away and we had our
septic system checked 3 years ago. Are we the problem? Yes, I understand clean water with
salmon in our streams and rivers and oysters in our bays benefits all of us, but ,
And I can't help but wonder, with the increase in property taxes in the last couple of
years bringing added dollars into the county coffers why the $18 had to be imposed at all.
But then why not, you have the power to do it, it's easy --for you.
Carrie and Rex Rice
142 Ash Loop, PT
1
September 19, 2007
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
SUBJECI': Scam.........Clean Water District Hearing
Dear BOCC:
The September 17, 2007, regular Monday meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners was recessed about 9:45 am without a motion and Chairman
Johnson stated that the Commissioners were recessing until 10:00 am and would
meet in Superior Court for the Clean Water District Hearing.
As you are aware, the Board ignored the posted capacity of the Superior Court
and proceeded with the Hearing, but eventually after intervention of the Fire
Chief and Fire Marshall, there were discussions among the Commissioners.
Chairman Johnson said something about October 1, that I could not hear because
as has been complained about in the past, he continues to be indifferent to the
need to speak into the microphone so people can hear him. Several citizens
responded to Chairman Johnson comment by saying either October 1 or hold it at
night so other people could come.
Eventually, Commissioner Sullivan made a motion to adjourn and reconvene
with proper notice at a venue big enough to handle everyone. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Austin. Then Chairman Johnson said we have a
motion to reconvene in a larger venue at a later time. The motion passed
unanimously.
Meetings are adjourned pursuant to RCW 42.30.090 (copy attached).
Public Hearings are continued pursuant to RCW 42.30.100 (copy attached).
The Hearing should have been continued not adjourned. And regardless of
whether it was mistakenly adjourned or properly continued, a notice of
adjournment or a notice of continuance should have been immediately posted
outside the door of Superior Court after the Hearing. This did not occur. The
Commissioners approved the Order of Continuance at about 1:45 pm, more than
three (3) hours after the Hearing concluded. How can the Commissioners post
an Order of Continuance? they adjourned the Hearing, they did not continue it.
Page 1of3
The public left the Hearing thinking the Hearing would resume sometime after
October 1 and then three (3) hours after the Hearing concluded, when no one is
around, the Board posts an Order of Continuance stating the Hearing will resume
September 26, 2007 at 6:30 pm at Fort Warden. The Secrecy continues.
The Board attempts to legitimize this by presenting in the attached Board's
Official Business, dated September 18, 2007, that "The Board directed staff to
reschedule the hearing to a larger venue as soon as a new date and location
could be researched." When did the Board do that? I heard a motion from
Commissioner Sullivan involving proper notice and reconvening at a location
large enough to accommodate everyone. I didn't hear the Board direct staff to
reschedule the hearing to a larger venue as soon as a new date and location could
be researched. That must have happened later when the Board realized that they
would not meet the October 1, 2007 deadline to be able to collect the Clean Water
District fee next year, if they didn't act quickly.
Therefore, since the Hearing was being recorded and pursuant to the public
Records Act RCW 42.56, I request the audio recording containing the audio
where "The Board directed staff to reschedule the hearing to a larger venue as
soon as a new date and location could be researched. "
Additionally, RCW 36.32.120(7) requires a minimum of ten (10) days prior notice
for a hearing involving an Ordinance. Supposedly the notice for the September
26, 2007 Hearing at Fort Warden will be in today's Leader (Sept. 19). That is
only 7 days notice, which violates the mandates of RCW 36.32.120(7) (copy
attached).
Two statutes you need to be aware of are the following:
RCW 42.20.100 (Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor) which states:
Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person
holding any public trust or employment, their wilful neglect to perform such
duty, except where otherwise specially providedfor, shall be a misdemeanor.
Ten (10) days notice for the public hearing on September 26,2007 involving the
Clean Water District Ordinance did not occur. Failure to provide ten (10) days
notice is willful neglect to perlorm a duty imposed on you by state law.
The Official Misconduct statute, RCW QA.80.010 states:
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a
benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
Page20f3
;'
(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by
law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
RCW 36.32.120(7) imposes a duty on you to notice Hearings involving
Ordinances ten (10) days prior to the Hearing date. The intent is to deprive the
public of their lawful right of proper notice and due process, in order to get the
Clean Water District Ordinance adopted before October 1, 2007, so the fee can be
collected next year.
Why the need for speed? Public process involves, among other things, input
from the public and reasoned deliberations. This speedy process involving the
Clean Water District Ordinance has been a scam. The Commissioners findings
have already been determined and included in an Ordinance that is already
written, and the Public Hearing hasn't even occurred yet. How can you
determine findings when the public hasn't even been provided an opportunity to
provide input? This is another example of the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners, having already made up their minds, Oikelyat a meeting not
open to the public), being indifferent to the concerns of the public and then hying
to provide a ceremonial Hearing to try and legitimize their actions. This time you
don't even come close to following the law, with numerous violations of the Open
Public Meetings Act and mandated notice requirements, as well as violations of
each citizens' Constitutional rights of Due Process.
Can you spell RECALL ?
~Y'D 0
~\~
Mike Belenski
P.O. Box 1145
Port Townsend W A 98368
(360) 437-9808
(360) 437-4118 Fax
cc: Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag
Washington State Attorney General Robert McKenna
Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Brasfield
Page 3 of3
:;
RCW 42.30.080
Special meetings.
A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the goveming body of a public
agency or by a majority of the members of the goveming body by delivering written notice personally, by
mail, by fax, or by electronic mail to each member of the goveming body; and to each local newspaper of
general circulation and to each local radio or television station which has on file with the governing body a
written request to be notified of such special meeting or of all special meetings. Such notice must be
delivered personally, by mail, by fax, or by electronic mail at least twenty-four hours before the time of such
meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting
and the business to be transacted. Final disposition shall not be taken on any other matter at such meetings
by the governing body. Such written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the
time the meeting convenes file$ with the clerk or secretary of the goveming body a written waiver of notice.
Such waiver may be given by telegram, by fax, or electronic mail. Such written notice may also be
dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes. The notices
provided in this section may be dispensed with in the event a special meeting is called to deal with an
emergency involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage,
when time requirements of such notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such
injury or damage.
RCW 42.30.090
Adjournments.
The governing body of a public agency may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned
special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjoumment. Less than a quorum may so
adjourn from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting the clerk
or secretary of the governing body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. He shall
cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in RCW 42.30.080 for
special rneetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. Whenever any meeting is
adjourned a copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted immediately after the
time of the adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special or
adjourned special meeting was held. When a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided
in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order
of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be
held at the hour specified for regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaw, or other rule.
RCW 42.30.100
Continuances.
Any hearing being held, noticed, or ordered to be held by a governing body at any meeting may by order or
notice of continuance be continued or recontinued to any subsequent meeting of the governing body in the
same manner and to the same extent set forth in RCW 42.30.090 for the adjournment of meetings
RCW 36.32.120
Powers of legislative authorities.
The legislative authorities of the several counties shall:
(1) Provide for the erection and repairing of court houses, jails, and other necessary public buildings for
the use of the county;
(2) Layout, discontinue, or alter county roads and highways within their respective counties, and do all
other necessary acts relating thereto according to law, except within cities and towns which have jurisdiction
over the roads within their limits;
(3) License and fix the rates of ferriage; grant grocery and other licenses authorized by law to be by them
granted at fees set by the legislative authorities which shall not exceed the costs of administration and
operation of such licensed activities;
(4) Fix the amount of county taxes to be assessed accorcling to the provisions of law, and cause the
same to be collected as prescribed by law;
(5) Allow all accounts legally chargeable against the county not otherwise provided for, and audit the
accounts of all officers having the care, management, collection, or disbursement of any money belonging to
the county or appropriated to its benefit;
(6) Have the care of the county property and the management of the county funds and business and in
the name of the county prosecute and defend all actions for and against the county, and such other powers
as are or may be conferred by law;
(7) Make and enforce, by appropriate resolutions or ordinances, all such police and sanitary
regulations as are not in conflict with state law, and within the unincorporated area of the county
may adopt by reference Washington state statutes and recognized codes and/or compilations
printed in book fonn relating to the construction of buildings, the installation of plumbing, the
installation of electric wiring, health, or other subjects, and may adopt such codes andlor
compilations or portions thereof, together with amendments thereto, or additions thereto:
PROVIDED, That except for Washington state statutes, there shall be filed in the county auditor's
office one copy of such codes and compilations ten days prior to their adoption by reference, and
additional copies may also be filed in library or city offices within the county as deemed necessary
by the county legislative authority: PROVIDED FURTHER, That no such regulation, code,
compilation, and/or statute shall be effective unless before its adoption, a public hearing has been
held thereon by the county legislative authority of which at least ten days' notice has been given.
Any violation of such regulations, ordinances, codes, compilations, and/or statutes or resolutions
shall constitute a misdemeanor or a civil violation subject to a monetary penalty: PROVIDED
FURTHER, That violation of a regulation, ordinance, code, compilation, and/or statute relating to
traffic including parking, standing, stopping, and pedestrian offenses is a traffic infraction, except
that violation of a regulation, ordinance, code, compilation, andlor statute equivalent to those
provisions of Title 46 RCW set forth in RCW 46.63.020 remains a misdemeanor. However, the
punishment for any criminal ordinance shall be the same as the punishment provided in state law for
the same crime and no act that is a state crime may be made a civil violation. The notice must set
out a copy of the proposed regulations or summarize the content of each proposed regulation; or if
a code is adopted by reference the notice shall set forth the full official title and a statement
describing the general purpose of such code. For purposes of this subsection, a summary shall
mean a brief description which succinctly describes the main points of the proposed regulation.
When the county publishes a summary, the publication shall include a statement that the full text of
the proposed regulation will be mailed upon request. An inadvertent mistake or omission in
publishing the text or a summary of the content of a proposed regulation shall not render the
regulation invalid if it is adopted. The notice shall also include the day, hour, and place of hearing
and must be given by publication in the newspaper in which legal notices of the county are printed;
*:>1
13OtM'dJ~<9~ 13~
Highlights from Monday's Commissioner Meeting
September 18,2007
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following
comments were made by citizens. A citizen
gave the Board a letter that he received from
County Code Enforcement Officers
regarding a complaint about his property;
several people commented on the
Washington State Supreme Court decision
on a case in Skagit County that answers
several questions about the Growth
Management Act requirements regarding
critical areas that will help local governments
in drafting critical area regulations; several
people commented that the Clean Water
District Plan doesn't address saltwater
pollution from seals in Hood Canal and
stormwater runoff from waterfront homes
and the City of Port Townsend; the Clean
Water District fees would help pay for stream
monitoring data; two people asked the Board
to continue to support the Puget Sound
Action Area boundaries in their talks with the
Puget Sound Partnership; and a comment
was made about action that the Board took
after an executive session.
CONSENT AGENDA: The agreement for the
Hood Canal Clean Water Project with the
State Department of Ecology was deleted
and the balance of the Consent Agenda was
approved.
HEARING NOTICE: 2008 Jefferson County
Budget; Hearing scheduled for Monday,
October 1, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the
Commissioners Chambers
AGREEMENTS: 1) Discovery Bay Clean
Water Project with the State Department of
Ecology; 2) Amendment to agreement
regarding supported employment for
individuals with developmental disabilities
with Washington Initiative for Supported
Employment; and, 3) Funding for Chemical
Dependency Program with State Office of
Financial Management
CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION:
For moderate risk waste transportation and
disposal services to Philip Services
Corporation
PAYMENT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY
VOUCHERSIWARRANTS: Dated September
10,2007 totaling $581,832.58 and dated
September 12, 2007 totaling $2,628.41
PAYMENT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY
PAYROLL WARRANTS: Dated September 5,
2007 totaling $749,686.22 and AlP warrants
done by Payroll dated September 6, 2007
totaling $591,373.16 and September 11, 2007
totaling $137,497.13
ADVISORY BOARD RESIGNATION: Lewis
P. Hanke from the Jefferson County Ferry
Advisory Committee
,
HEARING: The public hearing on the 'I
proposed Clean Water District Ordinance was
opened in the Superior Courtroom. After
seven citizens spoke, the Board agreed to
postpone the hearing because the room was
over capacity. The Board directed staff to
reschedule the hearing to a larger venue as
soon as a new date and location could be
researched.
LATER IN THE DAY: The Board approved a
HEARING NOTICE to continue the public
hearing for the proposed Clean Water District
Ordinance at Fort Worden Commons,
Company A, on September 26, 2007 at 6:30
p.m. They also approved a NOnCE OF
CONTINUANCE that was posted on the
Superior Courtroom bulletin board.
LETTER OF SUPPORT: The Board approved
a letter to the State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic
Development in support of a joint Jefferson
County/City of Port Townsend GMA planning
grant application to address infrastructure and
transportation issues within both jurisdictions.
~:Sqpp.
From: Gordon James <gjames@cablespeed.com>
Subject: Water District
Date: September 22, 20079:45:50 AM PDT
To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
.'.
~C
".-c, ... .
"'.-,}--~ .-.----
_.-- ~,--, -,
Commissioners Austin, Johnson & Sullivan:
First, let me say that I am in favor of efforts that will effectively clean up the waters of Puget Sound. We do need to begin to restore
and save the waters that make this area a great place to live. However, to do so will take the knowledge and experience to
maximize the benefits gained per dollar expended,
Now let me share my concerns about your desire to rush into a county-wide water district to measure fecal coliform. If you are really
serious about improving the water quality we need to learn how to Identify not only pollution from fecal coliform but, also chemicals
from fertilizers & fungicides and medicinal residues. These all contribute to dangers to fish, shellfish and all forms of sea life
through toxins and increased levels of dissolved oxygen. I do not see where your plan provides for complete analysis, knowledge
of the cost of reclamation or of enforcement. You may have estimates but, they are only guesstimates.
I humbly suggest that you proceed In a prudent business-like manner to establish a pilot project that will enable you to test a
procedure, measure results and accurately establish a cost basis for the future of an effective county-wide water district. With
proven results and identified costs you will provide residents with the data to support the need for their concern and investment in
their county's health. This will also give you time to determine a fair methodology for assessing the costs to your constituents. This
is the approach that businesses would take and that governments should take.
You have the perfect opportunity to proceed with a pilot project. Start with Discovery Bay. You have the grant funds to do so. Prove
the program and measurable results. Make mistakes and corrections while learning at a much more affordable level. Let's run our
county in a prudent business-like manner.
Sincerely,
Gordon James
3447 Oak Bay Road
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
(360) 437-0422
.
."
t)C.,Q) 3
e-HQ 0./2., to,
~oc.(.
cJt
~' .
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
The following comments are submitted on behalf of Olympic Stewardship
Foundation (OSF) and are related to the draft Clean Water District Ordinance as
referenced in the official public notice.
OSF has participated in the discussion of the Clean Water District since it was
presented to the public in August. We have attended every meeting, read the draft
ordinance and all supporting documents, supplied feedback to the county, and even
hosted a public meeting which was attended by more citizens than all the county-
hosted workshops combined. During the limited public review conducted in the rush
to meet a self-imposed deadline, the county has presented its citizens with a proposal
tl11ed with unanswered questions and untested assumptions, at a cost of two and one
half million over five years. This is the kind of policy that has not been subjected to
reality checks and careful deliberations that are the hallmarks of good governance.
Such a cavalier approach that assumes the county cannot afford a CWD but the
taxpayer can, without taking the time to explore other options, is not representative
of the people's interests. For these and the following reasons OSF does not support
establishing a Clean Water district:
EXDensive: Faced with budget shortfalls, the county is proposing a new taxing
district. What exactly are the costs? Who pays? Where will the money go? Will this
"fee" ever go away or will it keep growing and growing?
Ineffective: The county assumes contamination problems are coming from septic
systems, when it could well be from animals. The real source of the problem has yet
to be identified. Shouldn't we know what we're fIXing before we start?
Wasteful: Jefferson County does not have money to waste and neither do its
citizens. Only one dollar out of four actually goes to measuring water quality; the
rest to untested assumptions forming the basis for a new layer of government.
DeceDtive: If this proposed district was really about clean water, the actions taken
would be quite different. Are we protecting the water or propping up the county
budget?
Rushed: What's the hurry? That is the big unanswered question. Our County
Commissioners have already signed a grant agreement to address the only problem
required by law - the Discovery Bay shellfish area. If CWD is so urgent, why has the
county waited this long? Development of a cost-effective clean water strategy takes
time to do right. Right now the concern seems more geared toward meeting a
computer software deadline than carefully determining the health of our water or
consideration of the people.
~..._.. -~ ...
Unfair: The regressive fee they've proposed taxes parcel owners with little regard to
how close they are to stream or shellfish beds, or how large or small their parcel
may be.
The purpose of public process is for constituents to provide guidance to our
representatives on decisions that directly affect our lives. OSF strongly urges the
board of County Commissioners to listen to the voice of the people they ~ and
who have expressed widespread opposition to the formation of a Clean Water
District. In fact, to date we have not heard one voice of support for this outside of
government. The Port Townsend City Council, the County Treasurer, and members
of the County Board of Health have their own concerns. Opposition spans partisan
lines. If the three Commissioners choose to ignore all of us and decide on your own
what's best for us, why ask us in the first place? Please slow down, hold back, and
take the time to this right. The idea of involving a citizen's advisory group to assist
the county on what would work best is something OSF would be eager to participate
in.
l::cetf~.. ub.J~ed,
~~'V'rl f/U/61
m Hagen
President, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
6€f;B6 VM ')j~olpeH lJOd
UO!lepuno:l d!4SpJeM8lS ~!dWAIO
GG~~ XOS 'O"d
r~
.lJoddns Jnol\ JOJ LpnW liJaA nol\ >IUBLLl
"a>lBW nol\ a5pald I\UB pUB d!4SJaqwaw Jnol\ UO aJnlnJ JBaU a4l U! nol\ 4l!M dn MOIIOJ II!M aM
$ l.sweJ6oJd Jno ~oddns oJ a6pald oJ a>t!l no~ PlnoM Junowe leuo!l!ppe JeLlM
"UO!Jepuno.::l d!L1SpJeMaJS ~!dw~IO 84l Ol 81qeAed S)j8848 8)jew 8se81d
'Jea~ S!L1J JOI d!L1sJaqwaw PloLlasnoLl Jno~ lIoJua oJ OO'OZ$ JOI >t~aLl~ Jno~ asol~ua aseald
8U04d
SS8JpPV l!ew3 8u04d 1188
d!Z - 8lelS Al!8
l88JlS
SJaqwaw I\I!WBJ JaLllO JO sawBN
aWBN
~epo.l uOlte:)!Idd" dlllSJaqwall\l JnOA sn puaS aseald
-~
aU!1 S!~I 6uOle In:)
".:_""-~---- ~~----:;~--__,!~(!,,:'-iS:,-:::~'i~_;"~-_~--'l~_
':",'.'.=',,,.
.,~.
'=::!t-~:_---,_::;;;;-;:-;'~",~-:::-,-;,;tf:,~~,
c
o
.-
....
nJ
'a
C
::::I
o
U.
('-.
c
o
+J
CO
N
C
CO
Ol
I-
o
~ Q.
::::I ._
O.c
>(1)
O'a
.... :a
.... ==
C CU
nJ ....
~ U) t
o u 0
Q..- "-
.~ E ~
CU > 0
_ -6..-- _c--,
nJ 0 ..
(I) CU C
C.c rn
0.... .-
.-.... 1:
....... CO
(I) "" c..
CU (I) I
::::1::::1 C
c::r 0
CU.: C
(I) 0 CO
CU ......
.c 0
.... ....
.... ::::I
.... 0
>
CU
....
.-
>
c
~
o !:
!: 0
Q) E
"E E
.5 8 ('-.
Ctl Q) ~
'0 :5 !:
!: I.. ::::l
Ctl ,E E
!: - E
i.j:: !:
Q) Q) 8
.r:. E
~~I:--Q)tt'"
' .....'_. ',' ""J:
Ctl 0 -
.r:. I.. ~
- '> .0
_ I:
C/) Q) '0
C/) Q) ~
!: .r:. Ctl
Q) - .r:.
:> 0) C/)
;> !: Q)
'0 :g .0
::::l Q) '0
o P 0
.r:. _ 0
(f) a. 0)
:t1
Q)
.0
C/) ('-. +'"
Q) '0 !:
'0 Q) '0 ~
O a.!:!:
a. Ctl 0
a. Ctl Q) I..
Q) ~ - >
1ft Ctl,..
VI-c 0)....
~ ! E ~
!: '0 0 .r:.
Ctl !: _ _
_ Ctl '0 '0
_Ctl _ __.0)_1:
~':5 . Q)- ro ,. Ctl ('-.
.~ a. C/)
__ Q) 1..-
001.. Q) 0
Q)~ a.!:!:
~ Q) Q) ~ ~
Q) ..0 '0 Ctl
Q) Q) Q) !: ~
~~ ~ Ctl~
'0 !: '0 t) -
::::l 0 ::::l Q) !:
OC/)O-Q)
.r:. Ctl .r:. 0 .r:.
(f) ~ (f) 0. ~
Ctl !:
~
o 0) C/)
o !: !: I..
+'" 0 'i: Q)
- :;:; ::::l !:
!: 0 0" ~
Q) Q) Q) 0
Eel.. -g
E a.~ Ctl
~ Q),E Q)
0:5 Q) 0)
0) I.. .0 Ctl ('-.
~-~~~ m~g ~
0'0 ro Q) Q)
Q) I.. O. 0
t) Q) 0 -, 0
Q)!: '0 I..
a. Ctl C/) !: a.
~.~ Q) ,~ Ctl !:
_ 0 . 0
Q) Ctl Q) C/) :;:;
:> I.. a. !: ::::l
;>- C/) 0-
C/) ._ 0
32 !: !: t) C/)
::::l oE Ctl 'i: ~
o t(j) Q)
.r:. Q) Q) Q) .r:.
(f) '0 0 I.. _
a. 0 I..
.r:. -::::l
C/) C/) 0
"E Q) ~o
If! >
.- \" :;:; !:
.c: ~ ~ g
C/)~ 0 Ctl
.." ':>..s ':>
1..:'111 L." L.
Ctl '0 Q)
_ !: C/)
. !: Ctl !:
~::::l 0
Illl..J !: 0
_ _o_~ .0
'-'~~OEi-~ i
~ ~, g
id .~. ~
F\ !: ~
o .-i.o
-0 ~. ~
32 ~
::::l a.
...., o. a.
.r:. ::::l
(0., (f) C/)
.c'
S
Q) 0
.0 -
C/)
~ .~
'0 a.
'0 a.
a. Ctl
-
~ ~
::::l -
I Q)
'0 0
!: !:
Ctl Q)
- ,-
:~-_:,:"-:;,,,"!:_~-~(.;-,-'11t:
Ctl If)
.r:.
- 'Ctl ('-.
(j) g C/)
.~ ~ 5
.0 E
Q) '0 '0
~ Q) !:
'0 ~ 8
::::l a. Ctl
~ a. 0
(f) ~ .Q
.::l.
C
'O'l:"~,~,
5 ('-.
o C/)
I.. Q)
0) 0
I I..
Q) ::::l
.r:. 0
+( C/)
g ~
I.. Ctl
Q) I..
.r:. ::::l
t -
::::l Ctl
\po !:
u..
(j)
o
.
.
.
.
.-
CU
==
6Jo.pJeMa~S~IO.MMM
68886 \1M '~~olpeH :wod
GG ~ ~ x08 'O"d
uO!lepuno.:l d!L1SpJeM8lS ~!dw^IO
c:;: - - -- -I
III ~ .-+ rJl () I
:l :r c: -i I
0" a. .-+ III "C
:r :r
0 CD .-+ "C CD < ,..,. I
-. 0 CD
-< :l 3 CD 0 N
c: 3 ., 0 ...... CD
~ 3 :l rJl 0 0 .-+ C') 0
-. 0 CD CD - :l "C rJl Ql "0 :J
....., c: '< ...... :J
-0 "2, :J CD a. a. :r III 3 -. 0 .., en
Q) a. .-+ :J .., 0 en
0 (') III CD 0 III "C .., CD ,..,. ~
:4- :::l '< 0 0 rJl ., rJl 0 ~ < :; :r
(j) Q. rJl 0 0 ,..,. Ql -. "0
Z ::0 III :l N :; CD
I -0 - ." m 0 en :l III III co CD 3 :; :J C. -. Ql D)
0 Q) CD ~ r- CD CD D) C ., rJl 0" (J) -. CD .., .., .,
c.. 0 :E ::r -. Q. ." 0" 0" CD .-+ -. .-+ C') C. :J ,..,. CD
'< .... ee 'C n ., CD III 0 :l CD CD co
0 Q) CD C co :l ~ :; 3 Ql C') Q.
en -. 0 ., -. 0 c: III CD :J
n OJ a. :::lee CD - C" en a. " a. a. III ,..,. :J C
r0o+- ?\" 0 -. n rJl ,..,. < Ql
CD .... en CD CD c: III rJl < ., :; :; c. - OJ
>< en :::l D) .... D) a. Ql
~ :r 3 "C .-+ c: III CD .., :::l CD ~
~ ...lo. :::r CD .... D) CD D) .... :r 0 ., a. :l rJl 0 Ql .., CD
...lo.-c' (") CD .... CD 0 0 ., c: :r '< Ql
Q) .... :J CD D) :l '< CD a. :J co < '<
I\.) CD CD CD ., :l III "C ..,
I\.) .... - rJl 0 CD - 3 CD CD CD CD
..., co ." en CD '< c:
-tt .-+ 0 ..... < .., ,..,.
C- oo 0 en ., ..... rJl rJl 'TI CD 3 '< :; -tt
W Q) .... III ~ 3 CD .-+ CD 0 CD C') 0
C .-+ 0 CD :J CD
0 W :J ~ 0 CD :r "C c: 0" Ql
co CD .-+ ~ III :l ,..,. :::l en
ca a. a. 0 "C CD "0 CD
:l :l < III a. ,..,.
Dl CD CD ., "C III en Ql
~ .-+ :l a. ., .-+ ,..,. 0" ~
0 :r :l CD rJl 0
CD .-+ III 0 - :;
:J rJl :r CD
.-+ -, 0 :l 0
0 rJl "C :r
!:II ='1:'", "" "','"..,. ."""...'.'.....""......""...,., ._....,,_.,.~~ "'""""""""""-"~''''ilW\'",p.w,''""'..""~""",,,...,'tt!;.''.",,._.;=,"'~.','- - --- y;,";;;j<.""",,,., ~,~.,._.-:-'-"...,.,.,-...~.,:_."..~- .""."",.,(,~-""'-
~",""'l!;_J;j",""!7;j;;".:'."!.
,...,. rt -
rt
-:l r- ~ :r Cfl'"
QI )> CD
0. )> 0
n Q) -< 0 ::r CD :J
,...,. ,...,. 3 0 :J 0
""""",")I :1 "C ... rt
0 <:: ~ 0' < ~
:J CD C. Ul cr ..,
- rT tD 0 :r
QI '< (I)
~ .... :J CD
0 -. OJ (I) .... 3 rt
"0 ., tD :r
-:l n 0..
"""S ~ 1Il .., CD CD
C ::T
-:l (D CD -0' .... :J ..,
QI tV) ::r rt ~
:1 ...
CD 6' OJ CD
"""S 0' c: cr
<:: <:: CD :J ." ~ C
0.. "'0
QI OJ ~ rt
~" rT ..,
,""""""'" :J ~ ., o' ::r 0
c U) :J tD rt
(l) ''\J 0 CD
Cfl ~ n
rt
~~) q/L"U1
CA ..)
BoCC - Public testimony - CWD, 9/26/07 ;' ." ...'........ 'I.. ~ ~
~~~~q~~~&~~~~ rW7~
At present, the county finds itself involved with the CAO update, the Shoreline Master
Program, the Stormwater Manual regs, the WRIA-17 DIP, the ISF/WM rule-making
process, and now, the proposed CWD. Many of these initiatives are in the formative
stag/cfn'tth4Iffir water quality monitoring as a basic ingredient for good decision-
~ ~\"'M'i~
making.-:Commiss-loners - if you wish to be proactive on addressing clean water, why not
start with what is already in process and build on the good works of organizations Iije
the Conservation District, who have pro~en themselves to be a vallfgub..le artne~r. We
have some good things going on. t,0hl;(:;, ~ ~Ji. k~ vJ ~ ~F ~p j Vt I
~ ,~.;:::. .
In that regard, whatever funds or programs we come up with to satisfy the immediate
concern on the 50 acres in Discovery Bay should actually address the problem there.
What is the source of the fecal coliform in the areas of concern? And why is it not
imminent that we know - before committing funds to a solution that may miss the mark.
last I heard, we don't have funds to waste. Is there somethinK we don't know? ~~
o <&$- Oft' rY\...AA 1\ ~. - ~~ - "/..I/~ Wk:s. - $~l ne+ ~Ak ~ ~ ,c. of" .
I'd like to give you a working example of how, at18 or 4- dollars per parcel, the approach
~_~.. ~n th~-Eroposed p!an is faulty -
\ _~ A recent real estate inquiry revealed a combination of multiple lots and wetlands. 16S~'
fY' lots comprise one ~e building site after you take the buffers into consideration. As
you know, the question of wetland buffers in rural Jefferson County is being considered.
Under your plan,that landowner would be paying 16 times that of a larger parcel, and
still has no absolute assurance of being able to build anything there. That's $288 dollars
a year -
~
In order to make a difference, we need data that illuminates where the problems are - t.t
then an open process to engage the landowners in helping to correct the problem~~~~
th~ through stewardship efforts. In Delaware, Tributary Action Teams are organized in a
~ voluntee~roughoutthe state. The program is growing all the time, and the
V data frolll.yea~s o~~i~~JJ~~ try,~$round, sourcing and truthing the daily loads has
~ created a benchmarkLfrom =h-lo gauge the health of the waterway now and into the
;:/ future, and give the people an opportunity to be a part of the solution in a meaningful
way. S~~ v~Cf.j IS; 5~le4. ~^-,orh~ c0
~O~ - M,.d. Ch~ fi5.?-~h' -"fot.f?e ~-h~...Je Yv+.
-f~~ ,+,~.
Teren Macleod
24-1 Sand Road, Port Townsend
.,j,.,;
!l3 QpllJ1
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1120
Port Townsend, WA 98368
September 25,2007
Proposed Clean Water District
I am writing this letter in supplement to my September 17, 2007 written public
testimony in support of an expanded and comprehensive water quality monitoring
program for Jefferson County. I remain in opposition to the current proposal for a Clean
Water District (CWD) that covers the eastern portion of Jefferson County, and would like
to present additional material for the record.
I continue to believe that public policy made in haste results poor policy.
Therefore, I generally support your September 17, 2007 signing of the Centennial
Clean Water Fund grant with the Department of Ecology, although there are some
provisions of the grant conditions that need some additional consideration as the county
moves forward with it. (Those discussions are outside of the context of this
supplemental testimony, and will be brought forward separately.)
Now that the county is moving forward on the Discovery Bay issue through
funding provided through the grant, the need for urgency on the formation of a more
comprehensive clean water program has been removed, and the need to use the
regressive per-parcel fee funding approach has likewise been removed as an essential
option.
The following funding mechanisms, among others, need to be uppermost in your
consideration going forward:
. Commissioner Austin's motion to take Year One matching funding for the
Discovery Bay Centennial Clean Water Fund grant is the best choice,
given the current funding options.
. The county should formally and vigorously work with the Legislature and
other groups supporting Senator Sheldon's proposed legislation to return
a portion of sales tax revenues to counties for funding clean water
districts.
. If Senator Sheldon's proposed legislation is not enacted, then the BoCC
should consider the use of banked capacity and other options for ongoing
funding of a clean water program.
Passing the proposed clean water district ordinance now, using any funding
mechanism other than the one-time tapping of reserves for covering the program's first
year, will very likely damage the chances of Senator Sheldon's legislation passing
through the Legislature. Enacting the ordinance with the per-parcel fee, regardless of
the fee amount, will provide ammunition to opponents of the Senator's legislation. It
would not be a wise course of action to provide a precedent for opponents to point to
and say, "See? Jefferson County has already solved the problem by assessing a fee to
pay for its clean water district. Do we need this legislation?"
Because the urgency for forming a clean water district has been removed as a
result of the Centennial Clean Water Fund grant for resolving the Discovery Bay issues,
I recommend:
. Table the clean water district ordinance.
. Form a working group fully open to public participation, comprised of staff
and interested citizens, to develop a recommendation for a
comprehensive clean water program that covers a broad range of county
programs needing monitoring information.
. Work in support of Senator Sheldon's legislation at all levels, including
NGOs and individual citizens in that work.
. Develop a less regressive funding mechanism for the program that
emerges once the working group's task is completed.
I would also like to provide some additional information in support of the need for
accomplishing source tracking for any and all fecal coliform spikes observed in our
waters. I have been noting that research in Maryland has demonstrated that, even in
their more intensively developed region, the majority contributors to fecal coliform in
streams is otten found to be wildlife.
Percentage 01 bacteria from __ sources
PIts Livestock Humans WlIdI1fe
AnIcostIIRMr 19.. u~
PGtomaGIMr 14.7, ...._
IIodCleek lU 11\;<:_
Note: PerctntIges IIIIIY _ Add ., to 100 PtfCIfIt ___ trf 1'OUIIding.
55.8%
50.3
Source - Dr. Charles Hagedom, Virginia Tech
There reason to believe that source tracking in our watersheds would reveal
wildlife contributions as high as, or significantly higher than, those found in the far more
densely populated Washington, DC area and its surrounding region.
Such information is essential to determining what solutions you apply to fecal
coliform challenges in our waterways when we are working with finite financial
resources.
Finally, I suggest that the ass program be separated from the clean water
program. The information I'm finding indicates that there are some very significant
barriers to the formation and operation of an ass program that includes mandatory
ass inspections. These barriers are nearly insurmountable in terms of forming an
effective and acceptable program in the near term, and will require considerable and
focused attention to resolve. If the ass program is included as a function of a clean
water district or program, there is far too great a chance that resources needed for other
essential monitoring would end up being diverted to trying to fix the ass program's
challenges.
Thank you very much for your time and kind consideration of my testimony on
this occasion.
~/
Norman Macleod
241 Sand Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
~~ )qj2.'r
r ~cx.6 .)
~j
Proposes Water District Fact Sheet
'~.-.,-
.-, .::
1. The proposed 18 dollar fee on tax parcels in East Jefferson Co. would
bring in over 500,000 dollars in revenue. This would be used as matching
funds to bring in at least as much in grants.
2. The proposed clean water district would require all 13000 septic systems
to be brought up to current code. Risers would have to be put in to make
future inspections easier. All systems would have to be checked.
Conventional gravity systems would be checked every 3 years. Moqnd and
other engineered systems would be checked every year. It would cost 2 or 3
hundred dollars to have your septic system checked and probably 400 dollars
to put in a riser for inspection.
Even if a septic system is working fine and doesn't meet current code, it will
have to be brought up to current code. The cost of replacing a septic system
would be in the range of 4,000 to 30.000 dollars.
3. The State of Washington does not require that septic systems be checked
or brought up to current code. It only requires that each county has a septic
system management plan.
4. The total cost of the Clean Water District would be more than 2 million
dollars per year. That would include 500,000 in fees collected each year.
500,000 or more in matching funds and at least 100 dollars per year for each
of the 13,000' septic systems which would be 1.3 million dollars. Even if the
18 dollar fee was dropped to 4 dollars, the big expense is the checking of the
septic systems. Home owners can be trained to check their own systems, but
not in a shellfish protection zone. This is at least a 10 million dollar project
over 5 years.
5. Residents of Discovery Bay believe that the fecal colifonn is from ducks,
geese, seals and other wildlife that feed on outflow of Salmon and Snow
creek. No genetic stud.ies have been done to determine if the fecal colifonn
bacteria is from human, domestic animals, wild animals .or birds.
I
6. A study along a 20 mile section of Hood Canal showed no leaking septic
systems. It did show several areas that had elevated fecal coliform due to
wildlife. Another study determined that only 3 %, of the nutrients going into
Hood Canal came from septic systems. With the exception of Beckett Point
which is being fixed, septic systems do not appear to be a prqblem.
7. I have no idea why the BOCC is obsessed with flXing a problem that
doesn't exist. Not counting the cost of bringing septic systems up to current
code, we are looking at spending a total of more than 10 million dollars over
5 years. '
8. I would be in favor or increasing the Jefferson Co. Conservation District
budget by 125,000 dollars and hiring another water sample technipian.
Studies are only as good as the samples taken.
9. There are pollution problems that need to be addressed in Jefferson Co,
Runoff from highways and parking lots carry oil and metals and other toxic
substances. Runoff from yards and gardens and golf courses carry fertilizers
and herbicides. Weed and Feed type chemicals ~t are used on lawns are
extremely toxic, In cities fertilizers and toxic substances go down the storm
drains and out into the Sound.
My point is that Jefferson Co. has a lot of pollution problems and we heed to
spend our money wisely.. , Why waste it on a non problem?
~. Si C:~',P~
James Fritz
385 4876
..
. J.
--
ova
;- S '11~1P.
To: Jefferson County BoCC
P.O. Box 1120
Port Townsend
From: Bud Schindler
270 Rhododendron Lane
Brinnon, W A 98320
Subject: Proposed Clean Water District (CWD)
I am writing this to express my concern for the proposed Clean Water District proposal. I
can best express my concern by relating it to my past experience working for The Boeing
Company where I retired after 27 years.
As you may know we at Boeing had many years of financial difficulties brought on by
competition with Airbus (a European Consortium). This competition made it necessary
to find new ways of doing business to reduce our costs (or what we called "the red ink").
We had a saying then that "Fat cats don't hunt" which is to mean that until you are in
financial trouble with to much red ink and not enough black ink, you have little incentive
to resolve financial difficulties. We at Boeing were skinny cats for many years while our
competitors seem to be able to call on the European governments to help finance their
efforts. This allowed them to become fatter than we and not rely on good decisions and
good judgment. However, we at Boeing relied on making good decisions based on facts
and data. This called for using tools such as due diligence, perseverance and good
leadership. In this way we became a skinny cat on the hunt. And it worked!
In this same way, the Jefferson County BoCC should not rely on a regressive form of
taxation to make you a fatter cat, but you should work with the public to come up with
creative solutions to the water quality problems. In fact, a partnership with public can
help to resolve many other problems faced by the county. A partnership approach such
as this is recognizes as a quasi-stewardship approach that allows the public to take some
ownership in the decision process. Practice this partnership with the public and you will
also become a skinny cat on the hunt much in the same way Being did.. And it will work
for you as well!
------
Q~
Bud Schindler
lX...O
EH03 q f2;J (01
~(.L
LIt
FAIR LEA TREE FARM
September 26, 2007
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.G. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The following comments are submitted as part ofthe public hearing being conducted as part of the
consideration of a proposal to establish a Jefferson County Clean Water District.
Before this night is over you will undoubtedly hear from many citizens that the proposed Clean Water
District was developed in haste and with far too little thought as to what is involved. My comments tonight
deal specifically with the portion of the Plan that concerns the required inspection of septic systems under
state law. It is a prime example of what happens when county government fails to pay attention to business
and tries to play catch up at the last minute.
I'm holding th~ On Site Septic System Operations and Maintenance Plan for Clallam County. They began
developing ther6!plan with a working group of citizens and knowledgeable individuals in October of last
year. At the same time that some of us were working of Jefferson Counties Critical Areas Ordinance they
were essentially putting the same effort into their OSS O&M Plan. The result is detailed, well reasoned and
I suggest it as required reading for our Health Department leadership. I attended a meeting of their
working group Monday night and this is what I found out at that meeting. There are some things that will
astound and amaze you I'm sure.
1. The professional inspectors aren't there to support inspections of all septic systems and won't be
for several years.
2. There are no standards for training or certitying septic inspectors at the state level and no
guidelines for doing it at the county level. Right now the only people who could conduct such
inspections other than government employees are basically trained engineers, licensed septic
designers (also engineers).
3. The bonding and insurance requirements for anyone doing such inspections would probably keep
out anyone other than full time professionals out of the business, Mr. MacNickles suggestion that
this might become a cottage industry, is simply wishful thinking.
4. The criteria that JCPH put in their recent call for bids in an attempt to create a single contractor
that homeowners could turn to similar to what's been done with the PUD is unlikely to draw any
qualified bids from reputable companies because the requirements ofthe bid are both irrelevant in
places and impossible to meet in others.
This is a rush job, it needs careful development before it can come anywhere close to meeting the needs of
the county. I urge you to reject the Clean Water District on that basis, sit back take a deep breath and do it
right. If you do I'm sure that there are a number of us who will be willing to work with you to make it
happen, ifnot I'm afraid there will be a lot of money and citizens goodwill flushed down the toilet.
Respectfully submitted,
tV~C pj~.
William A. Wheeler
222 BIG LEAF LANE. QUILCENE, WA . 98376
PHONE: (360)774-1861. E-MAIL: FAIRLEAFARMS@HOTMAIL COM
~.
'tXA:) 3
e.HD q 12.-'jo,
9:>(.<..-
elf
September 26, 2007
Water District
l
1: Prevention is alwavs less expensive then thin!! the dama!!e. Just like in human health,
if one can prevent getting sick- it is far cheaper to pay for prevention, than the fix the
damage once it has occurred. Last night I listened to Dr. Tom Locke, the Health Officer
of Jefferson County and Clallam Counties Health Departments give this specific message
as it relates to healthy water. He had an example of shellfish contamination in Clallam
County as a reference. Relatively speaking, we have cleaner and more plentiful water
than some other areas in western North America. If we can PREVENT having
contaminated water, it will be less expensive than waiting until it IS contaminated,
proving that, and then CLEANING UP our mess. Ka-ching.
2. We need better data. Though we do have data on some of our waters, we do not have
data on all of our watersheds. It would be good to have that data. Even the Board .
members of the Olympic Stewardship Foundation think that we need more and better
data too, at least they have wanted that for the Critical Areas Ordinance.
3. We do not have a Watershed Taxin!! District. We have a fire district, school district,
port commissioner district etc. We do not have a watershed taxing district. There is no
easy way for the Treasurer to tax just the people of Discovery Bay. .. and then to tax the
people of Mats Mats, when that area fails the shellfish test, etc. Why do everything
piecemeal anyway?
4. Whose money? The State of Washington has offered us a grant where they would pay
75% of the money needed to collect that data. Jefferson County would need to come up
with the balance- or 25%. Should we figure out a way to make use of that grant, or wait
until we have no access to that money and have to come up with 100%. 25% or 100%-
that is not too difficult, IF we can figure out a way to make it work.
5. Do humans have an impact on our waters? How many people live in the Puget Sound
Region now, and how many lived here in 1900? More, right? Many more. With failing
septic systems, car and truck fuel pollutants, fertilizers, impacts from development etc
etc- we have impacted Puget Sound. Can we get Puget Sound waters back to what they
were in 1900? Not likely, however, we can do what we can to stem the most polluted
state possible. Should we leave it up to people to voluntarily decide not to pollute or
impact our environment negatively? Probably not, because that is why we are even at this
crossroads right now.
6. Is the Board of Commissioners actin!! in the best interest ofthe people of Jefferson
County? I believe yes. It is a complex situation. Weare dealing with the health of the
people, the environment, the ecology of our county. Clean water is an essential
component. I want clean water to drink, to bathe in, to have the seafood that I eat to swim
in- don't you? I encourage you to support the commissioners to make the best decision on tJ!..f.
our behalf: "x.hltJ.Arc.o
Teri Nomura
-----t" ,,1
/1/LA" f.-J~
3~ 0 [,. f12>Or-L Sf-
pJ. HAd {DelL (;vft
1'<r33/
.' '/
I. 1)0 ~. c.. ~~j ~.e-J I~ZUj\J' I
Ai' 1M -t\ ~ rl:';tcfc I s-'&fh ~_ s-)s-tc'1~~
'J U -f' " "A1IV~
< . -,..I-.,.. (VtrVJ tet/" t'__ pcv'V 0 CV'.-
(]..,-v... \ V\.8~V ~'- I), I
CA-ft. fttf-:'O fW-/r>h' c. ~.~ls-k'v"'-"t~ ~ H} fei J V'.
S~ ~J --tv be. ~- r/L~..c~~ I I a,v,--,-- A r-e~0-
.//JiaX<. (;04 ~ I b&&"g/v-( --n._uX- 'S-t-t';fl _(
~J~ ~t~V'L, to\. L~~S fL-y~ I rV\ $s<--r:f '7 c..
rvuu~' tJLJ.. refa..( r' c(/\i~ C;t1lA. VvLiG'}, l7T
~vtrW iivvt-: 1:- ~'~~. ~,~i\ "1 L V'-L-YV'uo.ft\0iy)
~. t-v..Y~ t'~ #O.~ ~ "JrJ-~
DcA)
~HD ?q {z1f1
$)CL- ~
C/f.
CLEAN WATER DISTRICT
Your proposal for a clean water district sounds very similar to what the
county did years ago on Mystery Bay. At that time Mystery Bay was
declared endangered (shellfish contamination) due to live-aboards and too
many boats moored in the bay. So the county embarked upon a program to
reduce the probability of a shellfish closure. They instituted a buoy permit
process which saw the price of the fee grow several times and the advent of
hidden costs much like what you are proposing now. First, one had to hire a
marine certified diver to ensure that there was no eel grass where you placed
your anchor. Second you had to put in a special anchor that required a
marine diver to screw it into the bottom of the bay. Third you had to install a
special under water buoy that kept your chain from dragging on the bottom.
These last two items were to ensure you didn't disturb the eel grass that you
had already established didn't exist at your anchor location.
Over a number of years it became evident that many unpermitted buoys
were going in. In 2000 the county inventoried all buoys in the bay and at
this time closed the bay to any new buoys. A recent informal count of buoys
in the bay found there to be a minimum of a 50% increase in buoys over the
2000 inventory. This spring alone I have seen 5 new buoys placed in the
bay.
Your present proposal has a fee that can easily be increased and hidden costs
like annual inspection on engineered septic systems and 3 year inspections
on gravity septic systems at a cost to the landowner of $200-$300. When
you establish a group chartered to find problems you can be sure they will.
Who is going to pay for these problems? Why is the county funding WSU
to perform tasks they are already chartered to do?
Now you are asking us to support this proposal. Mystery Bay history shows
the county's inability to perform this type of task. You couldn't do it the
first time, what makes you think you can do it the second time?
Paul Heinzinger POB 213 Nordland, WA 98358 3603850772
~
~
-
M
j
gCl0\(:
o fu&o
..
I'll
~
~
o
....
I'll
I'll
';
U
j
o
U
=
o
f
~
IU
'"""
. .
~
l:'
o
o
N
..0-
N
~
..0
S
IU
P..
IU
c:n
rn
~:s
.......J::
~.~
;S-a
; s
> 0
- u
"S ~
c:n 0
~ ......
~ ~
.9 ~
~ .!::l
.... Cd
s~
s Cd
00
U =
o I'll
- Cd
~ ~
~ x
.~ .s
"'0 ~
= 0
....
_ IU
..~
IU_
= IU
IU U
~ a
;:s Q..
OIU
.5 ~
:s! G)
~ ~
..:5
.E ~
.~ .5
~]
~
e
~ e
;~
IU....
- "'0
U Cd
IU"'O
;s Cd
=.J::
o IU
"0 ~
Cd<+--
.J:: ....
IU .
~~
000
= IU
.... ..0
l)
IU~
S ....
~ s
~ ~
;SOIl
<~
o~
~.J::
00......
01 "'0
- IU
~ "0
"'0 . U
"O~
Cd ...,
~1
0_
~ ~
I'll 0
..... Q..
;s 0
~
a:)Q..
u IU
a.i::
Q..~
~e
Q..IU
0......
~~
00 ......
--s
~..8
-( Cd
.IU
IU ~
S 0
_ S
~"'O
Q..IU
.5 ~
I'll IU
..... -
=
o
"E f
~~
~~
............
.E ~
1'Il~
..... <+--
o 0
=......
o I'll
..... e
~
~.s
IU IU
I'll "'0
= ::s
0_
U u
1U.5
;s 0
=......
0"'0
IU
I'll "'0
~ a
-~
"'0 IU
a IU
..0
~~
o Cd
U IU
="'0
~g
~ u
~ ~
~ ~
= 01)
..... e
.J::Q..
I'll
.~ I'll
:;~
a .
!i ~ gf
Cd 6h:.g
~ 0 I'll
= ~ Cd
0:$ Q.. IU
IU 01) a
Q.5 ;:s
01)...... 0
= I'll
..... .s >-.
~et;;
.J:: IU 0
~l'Ilu
oe~
~ Q........
01U<+--
>.J:: 0
4'5!-=
= "'0 0
.... .s ..:::
.J::.Eu
g..:::~
S ~ Cd
....
OIU~
IU ~ >..
> = ~.
S Q) ;:s
Cd~ 0
_...u
"'0
a
S
-
.....
Cd
~
S
IU
-
I'll
>-.
c:n
u
.....
......
go
c:n
Cd
I'll
.....
e
IU
;s
<+--
....
~
o
]
-
-
....
~
~
e
c2
e
.s
~
~ ~
I'll 0
.-
.s~
- IU
"a~
-'c
I'll Q..
.s 0
o ~
-Q..
"Og.
-8 IU
~~
I'll 0
.... -
'0"';
.... Q..
t: IU
I'll 0
....
o;s
-
= Cd
o IU
..::: ~
Cd IU
~;s
1'Ilt::
= IU
0_
U Cd
~!
~
-~-~~_._----"-----_._--~-~~-~~
1~
1'Il.J::
IU-
~ IU
~ =
N 8
-
a.S
-SO
I'll =
1'Il.-
Q) OIl
- =
1'Il.-
..... -
IU IU
= IU
o S
"'O~
;;s
I'll Q)
-u'
IU="'O
~.- .s
Cd c:n =
Q.. . ~
= ~ IU
1U+:i~
> Q..
IU ?:-. I'll
-t::Cd
IU IU _
IU Q.......
~O"O
~... ~ ~
.J:: Q.. ~
-eo;~
~~~
~~~
~9u
>-.OIU
~.9~
~
I'll
t+::
I'll
......
U
~
('\S
.J::
u
.....
~
"0
IU
-
I'll
IU
-
.~ IU
~..o
IU"'O
~-
~ 5
- u
->-.
Cd_
l'Ile
IU Q)
~ a
Q..
~ g.
0......
-,;:: ...-4
~~
.J::
E-
IU =
I'll 0
IU.....
~~
Q..u
.. t+::
I'll....
.~ t::
e IU
;:s ~
0"0
(.) IU
~;s
-OIl
"0 =
IU.-
_ I'll
s-g
o U
~ IU
Q..s
..QIU
E;S
IU IU
au.
Q..=IU
Q....... 01)
('\S1'Il"'O
_ IU
.....1'Il-
<<SIU~
C:Q - 0
o~12
IU - >-.
> (.) ~
O.J:: ~
U 01) 0
.~ ;:s -
o 0 IU
<+-- = =
o IU 0
="'0
= IU =
o IU .n
.-..0 ,...
t::Q)j5
0>_
Q.. Cd ..
('\S.J:: ~
<+--1U('\S
O~.J::
=~ ~
0_....
..::: "'0 ~
Cde:::_
~t1:l;:S
._ 1U..o
t::~"O
IU _ IU
1'Il1'llt+::
IU IU.....
"'O.J::t::
IU - Q)
.,d >-. u
~..oe
~
<+-- IU
~ 0 "'0
e tn ~
000 0 ~
(.) IU
a ~;s
I'll - =
:a .J:: .....
_ .t::....
"0 ~~
= Q.. Q)
cE ;:s :-'
o Q.. I'll
- Q)~
~ ~ ~
I'll 0 =
I'll - IU
IU OIl IU
g .5 (5 i-
;. :i B 13 09~
1U1U.J::..o
6 g.~ ~ ~
8 Q.. "'0 "0 0
"'08IUCdf
~1U~e~
('\S c ~ ;:s e+::<
e = ~ ~~
g g eo; ~ .5
..... (.) IU - 01)
IU ~.... . e:::
;s c2 co ~ .-
IU I'll o::r: E
e~9~~
~~0c:n8
.9nu-(o
0.5 6 ~ ~
=Sf[:5~
a e ~ 00 'S:
~ 01) IU c:n :.=
~e~~E
OIl Q...- ~ IU
"'O.J::1'Il (.)
;:s-~ IU
~~soo~
. ....J:: a IU
~"O~~~
-;"'O~E
]01);00
......=I'Il~-
"'O'S: .... Eo-< I'll
IU:.= ~ -( .....
~ C+-< ~ ~ .t::
.~ 0 0 ~ .::::
]tn]2;g
.- 0 ('\S .. ~
1U(.)-"'Ot.i-4
> 01)""" IU.....
i:l:S=i:l:SIU"'O
.J:: .u ;s = ~
f~;:s09
IU 0=-
= j5 >-. 0 tn
.9 _ = "0 ::s
~ :;:: .s IU.;::
..... ~ Q) ~ ;:s
8 >-.8"0 0
~~~a~
u - - 01)'-
a)-e:::o
IU g a:).- Q..
~ ern ~ :E ~
-.
~
-
-
Cd
=
o
.-
-
:e
"'0
('\S
I'll
:s
"'0
~
~
t.i-4
Cd
-
o
~
U
I'll
....
IU
~
Q..
X
('\S
-
a)
~
"'0
s::
Cd
-
a)
~
a)
~
Cd
~
"'0
s::
('\S
a)
~
('\S
...J
....
a)
~
(,)
o
....
U
s::
(!)
(!)
~
....-
(!)
..0
-
o
-
>-
~
::c
I::
o
I'll
E
ro
~
I::
o
-
:i
o
CO
C+-<
o
....
(!)
I::
~
o
d
o
-
:i
o
CO"T
s::0I
...c:M
OC"(
-. V)
>-.\0
..ol:'
"'0 X
(!) ro
t::~
'6 ad
..0_
:::l (!)
rfJE--
--~- --
-
-
('\S
..
.
.-
-
o
U
~
I'll
IU
"0
.-
I'll
a)
..0
C
.-
"0
.-
of
~
"'0
a
5
01)
g
"0
~
-
o
I'll
I'll
.....
o
~
.-
"'0
::s
-
u
=
.-
I'll
-
I'll
a)
-
C+-<
o
C
IU
.~
>
Cd
o
"'0
.s
IU
-
~
Q)
..0
-
-
.~
a)
~
t):J\.')
eHQ
\2Pc. <...
CIJr
3 q l'2-1 101
To the county commissioners,
9/26/2007
I am here to ask that you refuse to set up another county element. The scope of the clean
water district proposed is or will be covered by at least one of the state and federal
projects already started; PSP, the Puget Sound Partnership, the HCCC, Hood Canal
something or other, The nearshore project, the endangered species act, etc.
I am asking you to find ways to reduce the county expenditures. I know that you look at
this as a wonderful way to get extra matching grant monies to spend as you please, but
please stop doing t~t. The federal government is all ready spending more money than
they have. Our countY has to sell over 2 billion dollars worth of note a day just to keep
going. So please back off.
Ron Corbin
~ ~ \1'\ 'pl
~c..L
Cf\
I
I
But I didn't
dooooooooooooo it!
Let's find out more about the actual sources of fecal
colliform bacteria in our waters.
~rNfAch
~
.'
./
{)VO '5
~ q)Ll/01
CPt
26 September 2007
Subject: Proposed Water Quality Improvement Plan for a Jefferson County
"Clean Water District"
The subject plan was developed to present a responsible program, designed to
satisfy State and Local legislation requirements, for addressing health and safety
through identifying and providing timely warnings of harmful pollutants affecting
the water, beaches and economically valuable shellfish resources of our county.
1) We ought to be very grateful that the Department of Public Health and our
Board of County Commissioners recognize that that the health of the citizens of
Jefferson County is important.
2) We ought to thank these officials for initiating a plan to begin collecting the
data and information necessary to determine the extent and locations, if any, of
harmful pollutants.
3) We owe thanks to the citizens of Jefferson County who attended and asked
thoughtful questions at the six public meetings held during the month of August.
4) There seems to be significant understanding in our county that programs to
monitor and analyze water quality characteristics are, in fact, useful as a means
for establishing an underlying scientific basis for protecting our general health.
5) Without knowing the "quality" of our water we cannot responsibly alert our
local shellfish businesses of potential danger and damage to their products.
6) Measures to overcome the constraints on how our county can most
economically support the program are being seriously investigated.
(Coordinating this program with other organizations and existing efforts (e.g. Mr.
Gately) is just one of them.)
7) I believe this is an issue that affects us as a community and therefore we
need to determine and agree on a way to pay for it as a community.
Finally, Of course, any program for systematically collecting and analyzing the
data from another 48 marine locations and 88 stream locations will be expensive
- however, clean water and a healthy environment are priceless.
Bill Miller
2023 E. Sims Way #360
Port Townsend, WA 98368
~ Ze~
~RuQ
Q~~~~~
~, ~~u~>
L-.,;,,, > r T '1 <
,Oe,: ~
o ~
C> < ~ I Q
Q~ Od
~ ~ : ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~o:::oo~
~
- ''1l
~
~
-
~
--
",
~.
.~1,
tI
~
o
t.C)
cD
,
~8'
.~ ~r\
<;J ') ~
> \..p!~
~~
~11
'?-\f>
~~
~ ~-
~..-
f
'. ., .
e
J
(ly
Jj
1J
J'5)
1
elm
.~
~
S)
.~
r
~
}
~
e
.
CD
'CH~"O BAooeu
18C:o".-." 8~'r"
J: h 4. '.Ie 0..
f
; r\;.evc.d
Ol'..S-f-- ."C+ ..
V 1:4 ted
,
;~. .' tkc:'
p),OptlSe4 C\e...., W'Lfet"
i 11 -J-11e: s hff:. I J j=.'S ~
/ co of. or + hI:
DlS Cove,,) B 4.'1
v +.'/.' i::~ ~ r
Q. t1d T q, 1.$0
I.
4""
a.ru:l
b 11 $.Sit, ~s.s
r4 J1-rn
/.,
y-e oS +..,'c.. +0:1
ar-&4.
+ h 11.:+
/..3
c:t e i "c I I)'
s h.. II ';=>'61,
Cc::n"",, e t-C,'4 J
+he
PD,.f.
~ -fl'/.?:cJ
r4,...,., / 00 --1.
tD f CO" ce,.",
BA.' -(-h4+
.
,-S'
of
Q. ". e.....
;.,
10 """s et1cl
ror
Co-mW'1. )"C,'4/
s hellfJ".s J, .
/ 'he -rc HD s -TA -fe..s -1-11 e ~
Aye 13 C f)"''''' f~ a. )-e~s ~ h.~
C t) wU'n-c.rc:..'../ .s he: II ;host, "a I- Yes -f,'I1a. /s
S2. t+ ~r f' "'I!> ;, i kif eel J y t!:.s T'" lc. -fe eI ...J
-I-h r-64fIC ren e.cI 0 J- ~ rf! C1 ","&a...s of
CD 1?(;C"''' .
So
of
SO~;'IJ...s 104 ~
w e.. JI1 e ttt..d
mpn")' f-D
....J... ?
I I .
~
dD e oS nl-f
TD
r~)(
.s1'&~cI Q... /.-1-
/0 t:J~,,1 of- We?
We/~ No.' 4r~ha.-t WdS
h "y S4&vc::.,.4. -I- t C:: S f' i J7 1-0
+nt!2if. ~ ~ e~Jt:l. ro.,.. 0\.
J' 11-5 f
~v.rh
cwD1
.
~
"'e
JJ
1]
J'~
1
lID.
>,... .
.... .
~
~
.5
1
J
~
· ,J
~~,
~."~,,
@
~." s~e., +he fl"ok;li-ted a.}-e.~S
a. Y"e, ACTv..lly s14'C.. + (J fo.. i 'y P "0 h, Jo,' tcJ
a re4..s VI .e.4... w\ <<..r \ Y\ as. -r- h e ~
a......eH,(..J,.l. c..~J L u dl f)~J f leAl S.4 + {-{4,""" b oJ.-
~1\ d. 2 i,", (J D"'+ --ro w\'t ~ el\ J ·
O+her ~re<.s or eene."."" GlY"e
lJ\ Hoed Caf/4.1 ~ a.-I- -f-he DIJc-~t1../,II.s1;
a f) d Db S e "cJ 4/'-1'-S F I do. +$ J f.A"I h if: I'e
m.~i tie. WLA.mm It Is hl4 v~
i m f 1 \ C-A., tceJ
h " Cf ~
1o-.e.e.'1
YG<.JillfS.
,
I ~
Flc
M"'--t-.s M 4. r-s h A~
h,'3 h y~Jnla-s 0..+
s-rfC..f"'h'oJ\ (If l he
VYl411't ~\ te..S + I:)
+h-e.~e..
E h f orc-ce.. vn .11-1- 0 r
c::> r1 Ii ve- a .bDA,.d..s
S+A..ft: 4n cl C .,~" +.,
a.. t1- e>1P d /' Jell.. ..
h~J. Som~
O)1e f-cs-f
DN R I e4lSc.S
-fi'e. - u f bo...:ts
.f2..yf oS i,.. n 8- r '"'/"C. S
h'l + he
weJulJ. ~
I
e
~
'6
JJ
Jj
$(5
1
elm
.~
fX]
s
.~
1
~
}
a
e
(j)
rr.-Y1d Sier:rfii:. 0 &. ,M
SoW\~ VV\..ee.~4'tsm t'e.l~teJ
d. \ 'r-aC,,+ l1 +0 w hb h a....s
$) S1-eW\S..
v r "'-
W\OY'e
-I- hose
cLef, l\ i t€ Iy
m on-e)' +b
S+~te Hea(-f~
~ooJ Jo b of
Tes+;n~ - T cHD
tD do a.n~ 0 F +h4.-f.
AY\d. TC r+D
d beS ",'i- n e.e..d
b~~ '" boQ.+-
does 0.... Ve.'r''}
coVeHn~ m~..i n-e
d 0 -e 51 n-t V\-e eel
ONE" '--AST --rHING:
!V1/Cl"D "Iq,J $b v"ce - r i-. cr"'n a. -
i J.f\t"f~\Y't1 IA..I hc'cb s rc,'(!!.'s -f- he
Cal/t~,.tYJ C (J Hl..e..s fErDrn- I ~~"~Irl-
-fIJ/JS m/~lt.j. be ~ ve"/I VS~ FuJ
";-'~t:J J iJ C) f-m y . I.' it!: rtt -fc., t' ~ S e4. re J,
S ~ 0 w <i4 rra,... ~ff ~"h" g. ; lie ep. y
m:.eAfIJ/ n,. fi./I re.$vli.s -- ffJ i I),. 0 Y1S
" ~ d lh i ~/tt?'1..$tlJ r c1t:-) I ~r s ..' ;:; IJ v I c:I
no lie.. f'o b.-e. a IJo C4t fed if' vs-I-
-ft:)ri-~" t - . a /1 d .2. v.e.., + hen
f../tlfd it~+ta. ~~ /,.1/. I,! b=
ineof)(..;/CJsille t f /)t:;+ svsp-tPa..+'
.
t
"'&
JJ
I]
J'~
1
.m
.~
~
~
.~
t
~
~
.~
a
.
a~/ll.9'-t!J de c fL)m~lIt-
I CR.OSIA~ sO u Rce: T R A-CJ'. \Nb
A.QuA-TIle E="CoS'fS re="'s"
C(tttlJ~
I'll.+-ercs -!;Y/,. a'l d
-f-o a/.,),.. oS/' -III ~ -t I ' 0 IJ
,e S/J'ec-/-S J I'd to -J.' C v I d I- ~
,'" SS' tle.s,
~
(?~~e 5 ilJ
"
~ESeARC;.J ?JeD"J"l?CT
On j\/1 S T
ft1anas<j uai?
t? ;Vi!; r Es f va 1'1'"
..
.. :'.
~~
SUMMARY OF SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
WATER QUALITY STUDY RESULTS
Growing Area: DISCOVERY SAY
Sampling Station Number: 48
Classification: Restricted
c.'::"""u'"~..:':._''''''.'"",:::.-,,::,,_'''''
Sample Date Sample Time Tide Fcoli/1 COml Temperature Salinity
08/0612002 09:24 Flood 110 16 22
10/1712002 09:17 Flood 7.8 10 30
12/18/2002 09:16 Ebb 4.5 8 22
02/1912003 10:21 Ebb 22 5 30
0412212003 09:07 Ebb 33 9 6
08/10/2003 09:18 Flood 110 14 28
08/06/2003 09:14 Flood 4.5 17 30
10/22/2003 09:13 Flood 79 11 12
12/17/2003 09:27 Flood 1.7 6 28
02/17/2004 09:30 Flood 1.7 6 28
04115/2004 08:41 Ebb 1.7 10 30
06/1012004 09:06 Flood 17 14 21
0812512004 09:22 Flood 7.8 15 30
10128/2004 09:16 Ebb 2 9 30
12107/2004 09:31 Flood 1.7 7 29
02124/2005 09:22 Ebb 1.7 6 25
04106/2005 09:47 Flood 1.7 8 30
08108/2005 08:57 Ebb 23 14 15
08/25/2005 11:20 Ebb 1.7 15 32
10/12/2005 10:05 Flood 4.5 10 32
12107/2005 11:42 Ebb 1.7 7 30
01/11/2006 10:02 Flood 1.7 6 29
03/2312006 09:51 Ebb 2 8 30
05/17/2006 09:25 Ebb 2 14 29
07/1112006 10:09 Ebb 49 17 24
09/1312006 11:43 Ebb 1.7 15 30
10130/2006 14:23 Ebb 1.7 8 33
03/07/2007 10:27 Ebb 1.7 7 28
05/2312007 08:55 Flood 1.7 12 28
06/21/2007 10:35 Ebb 1.7 15 30
- .- /,,,.:,.~. .'- '; ',,"c;.-c' ,,---- Range: 1.7 -110
Number of Samples:
Geometric Mean: 5.0 Estimated 90th Percentile: 31
t All samples have been verified.
-
I
SUMMARY OF MARINE WATER DATA (SRS)
DISCOVERY SAY
Growing Area:
Restricted
Classification:
From 0810612002 To 06121/2007
FECAL COLIFORM ORGANISMSI100 ML
Station Classification Range Geometric Est. 90th Meets Std.
Number of Samples Mean Percentile
48 -...............-.....'..',......,...".".....,-..-- 30 1.7 -110.0
Restricted 5.0 31.0 Yes
All tides information is presented
The standard for approved shellfish growing waters is fecal coliform geometric mean not
greater than 14 organisms/100 ml and an estimate ofthe 90th percentile not greater
than 43 organisms/100 ml. The above table shows bacteriological results in relation to
program standards.
t All samples have been verified.
Water Quality Screening Report
Water Quality Implementation Grant 06-02-IM-01
Puget Sound Grant 06-02-PS-01
CREP Grant 06-02-CR-01
July 2005 - June 2007
July 31, 2007
Prepared by
Glenn Gately
Luke Cherney
AI Latham
Jefferson County Conservation District
205 W. Patison St.
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
For
Washington State Conservation Commission
Olympia, Washington
station PUIO.O on Putaansuu Creek (Figure 22). This same station had the highest TSS
measurements in 2003-04 (Gately 2005). As is usually the case, TSS levels generally
mi d the turbidity levels.
basicity (pH > 7).
represents a 10-fold
pH
pH is a me re of the water's acidity (pH<7), neutrality (pH = 7),
The scale of easurement is logarithmic. Thus, a 1-unit diffe
change; a 2-un
The state standard r Jefferson County waters require at the pH be within the range
of 6.5 to 8.5. As in 2 3-04 all stations in the Chim m Watershed were within this
range (Figure 23). Mo measurements were b n 7.0 and 8.0.
Conductivity
nee (e.g., water) to conduct an electric
ductivity is the mho, which is the reciprocal of
sistanee (i.e., mho=1/ohm). The more dissolved
ctivity will be. Because an increase in
temperature of 250 C. The conductivity
Conductivity in 2 06 ranged between 78 J.1mhoJ and 342 J.UOho/cm in the
Chimacum Cre Watershed (Figure 23). This range s similar to the 75-325
fJlTIho/cm ran of 2003-04 (Gately 2005). In Chimacum reek, East Chimacum Creek,
and Nayl reek conductivity increased from upstream to ownstream, whereas
upstream nd downstream measurements for Putaansuu Cre were similar.
Other Eastern Jefferson County Watersheds
Fecal Coliform
When all 12 months were combined, fecal coliform GMVs met the standard at all
stations on Salmon Creek, Snow Creek, and Tarboo Creek, but not on downstream
station DVIO.4 on Donovan Creek (Figure 24). The GMV at this station was 56 FC/1oo
mL. GMVs for all other stations were similar to what they were in 2003-04 and still
considerably less than what they were in the late 1980s. Dry-month GMVs were
considerably higher than wet-month GMVs at 8 of the 9 stations monitored (Figure 25).
Table 2 shows how eadl of the stations on the four streams fared when compared to
Parts 1 and 2 of the fecal coliform standard. As usual, more failures occurred during the
dry months than during the wet months, and more failures were due to Part 2 of the
C' ~ +:........4 ... p. .s 0 ~
45
-
standard rather than Part 1. T arboo Creek was the only stream that passed both parts
of the standard.
Average fecal coliform loadings for the 2005-06 water-year are compared to those in
prior water-years in Figure 26. In the 2005-06 water-year, Snow Creek had the highest
loading (43 billion FC/day), followed by Salmon Creek (13), Tarboo creek (10.3), and
Donovan Creek (8.9). Chimacum Creek's average loading was 22 billion FC/day in the
2005-06 water-year (Figure 14). Salmon Creek's loading in 2005-06 was similar to that
of 2003-04, whereas loadings for the other three streams were considerably higher in
the 2005-06 water-year.
In December 2006, Washington Department of Health (DOH) recommended a
downgrade in classification from Approved to Restricted of approximately 50 acres in
the southwestem part of Discovery Bay (Sargeant 2006). This was due to high fecal
coliform levels at marine station 48, monitored by DOH. The 30 samples collected at
this station from November 2001 to September 2006 had a geometric mean value
(GMV) of 6.2 FC/100mL and an estimated 90th percentile of 46 FC/1oo mL (Sargeant
2006). . The standard for marine water states that the GMV should not exceed 14
FC/100 mL and that the estimated 90th percentile should not exceed 43 FC/100mL.
Thus. station 48 failed Part 2 of the marine fecal coliform standard.
Snow Creek and Salmon Creek are implicated for the high fecal coliform levels at
station 48 for two reasons. First. station 48 is located at the downstream end of the
combined Salmon/Snow tidal channel. Second. the highest fecal coliform levels for
station 48 occurred during the summer months when fecal coliform levels for Snow
Creek and Salmon Creek were also highest (Sargeant 20(6).
In the 2005-06 water-year, fecal coliform concentrations at downstream Salmon Creek
station SAJO.15 exceeded 50 FC/1oo mL in October. April, May, June. and September
(Figure 27). At Snow Creek's downstream station SNIO.2, concentrations were highest
in October, November, June, August, and September. Loadings for Salmon and Snow
creeks were highest in January, February, April, and June.
A possible cause for higher fecal coliform levels at stations SAlO.15, SAlO.5, and SAlO.7
in September and October was the presence of large numbers of birds and animals
coming to feed on the thousands of returning chum salmon. In recent years (2002-06 ),
5000-6000 summer chum have retumed to spawn in the lower mile of Salmon Creek
from late August thru September (see Project Summary, pages 103-107). During this
time, large numbers of birds including crows, seagulls, turXey wltures, and eagles have
been observed in the area feeding on the salmon carcasses. Bear and raccoon sign
have also been observed. In October 2004, 2005, and 2006, an additional station,
SAl1.5, was sampled in October. Station SAl1.5 is upstream of a natural barrier to the
chum so that the salmon-eating birds and animals would not be drawn to this station.
During three years of monitoring this station in October, fecal coliform concentrations
ranged from 4-10 FC/100 mL compared to a range of 39-41 FC/100 mL at station
SAlO.? 71-197 FC/100 mL at SAlO.5, and 42-231 FC/100 mL at SAlO.15 (Figure 28).
CO\l)"'ti "\led .'" f"~ S'1
50
. .
Fecal coliform concentrations may be higher at the two downstream stations (SA/O.15
and SAIO.5) compared to station SAIO.7 because station SA/O.7 is in a forested area
and the two downstream stations are in more open areas. Seagulls and turkey wltures
seem to prefer the more open areas. Numerous seagulls and turkey wltures have
been observed at stations SAIO.15 and SAIO.5, but not upstream from station SAlO.7.
Because of the shellfish classification downgrade, JCCD conducted additional
monitoring in the Salmon Creek and Snow Creek Watersheds from February to June
2007 (Gately and Latham 2007). In this 5-month study, Salmon Creek and Snow Creek
tributary streams and ditches were monitored as well as some additional stations on
their mainstems. Results of this study are summarized in Figure 29. Of the 13 stations
monitored, Uncas Valley Ditch (UVDIO.O) had the highest GMV (60 FC/1oo ml) and
Houck Creek (HOIO.O) had the second highest GMV (24 FC/1oo ml). It is notable that
station UVDIO.O barely had enough water to sample on the June sampling date and that
Tucker Ditch (TUDIO.O) was completely dry in June. These ditches are typically dry
throughout the summer. Average loading for Snow Creek was about 3 times greater
than it was for Salmon Creek for the February to June monitoring period (Figure 29) as
it was for the 2005-06 water-year (Figure 26).
The table below shows the results of Spearman rank correlation analysis in which the
fecal coliform concentration at marine station 48 was compared to marine water
temperature, salinity, and 13 freshwater parameters. Marine water temperature and
salinity were measured at the same time the fecal coliform sample was collected. The
freshwater parameters, including fecal coliform concentration, were taken during the
same month as the marine sample, but not on the same day. Data for the analysis
came from JCCD and DOH databases. A rank of "+1" indicates a perfect positive
correlation, a "_1" indicates a perfect negative correlation, and "0. indicates no
correlation. The lower the p-value is, the lower the probability is that the ranking was
due only to chance (see page18 in Methods section for a fuller explanation of Spearman
Rank Correlation).
54
.'" p. ..s b.
None of the correlations were particularly strong. The ones that came to the top of the
list were marine water temperature (0.3979), salinity (-0.3393), Salmon Creek fecal
coliform loading (0.3212), and Salmon Creek fecal coliform concentration (0.3032).
That salinity had a negative relationship indicates that the fecal coliform concentration at
Station 48 was highest when salinity was lowest. This association tends to indicate that
the fecal coliform bacteria at Station 48 were associated with freshwater. This, plus the
correlations with Salmon Creek fecal coliform loading and Salmon Creek fecal coliform
concentration, tends to implicate Salmon Creek as a contributor to the fecal coliform
bacteria occurring at Station 48.
Because station 48 is located in the combined Salmon/Snow aeek tidal channel and
because of the correlation with freshwater (low salinity), one might have expected "total
fecal coliform loading" to have ranked higher than "Salmon Creek fecal coliform loading"
alone. "Total fecal coliform loading" combined loadings from Salmon Creek and Snow
Creek.
The analysis would have been better if the freshwater and marine samples were
collected on the same day instead of merely in the same month. In the future JCPH
and JCCD will team-up and collect freshwater and marine samples on the same day.
It is noteworthy in the analysis that marine water temperature ranked highest (0.3979).
JCCD has long suspected that fecal coliform bacteria reproduce in the stream
environment (water and/or sediment) and that this reproduction contributes to the higher
summer concentrations observed in eastern Jefferson County streams. The possibility
of bacteria reproduction was touched upon at the 2007 BacterialMiaobe EPA Region
10 Conference held in Tacoma, Washington in May 2007. Participants at the
conference encouraged Ecology to conduct research to determine if temperature
contributes to the higher fecal coliform concentrations observed during summer months.
Within the past year, several BMPs have been implemented on Salmon and Snow
Creeks (see Project Summaries, pages 95-102).
Nltrate-Nllrogen
-
Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in samples collected from Snow Creek, Salmon Creek,
Tarboo Creek, and Donovan Creek were generally slightly less than they were in 2003-
04. Concentrations in 2005-06 ranged from 0 to 1.6 mg/L with median levels between
0.2 mg/L and 0.6 mglL (Figure 30). In 2003-04 concentrations ranged from 0.0 to 2.0
mg/L with median levels between 0.3 mglL to 0.7 mg/L (Gately 2005). As in 2003-04,
median nitrate-nitrogen levels in Donovan Creek exhibited a decreasing pattern from
upstream to downstream. Whereas, median levels in Salmon Creek, Snow Creek, and
Tarboo Creek were about the same at upstream and downstream stations. The highest
nitrate-nitrogen levels observed occurred in January and February in the 2005-06 water-
year compared to October in the 2003-04 water-year. Nitrate-nitrogen loadings ranged
from 0.00 pounds/day for station DV/0.4 to 895 pounds/day for station SN/0.2 (Figure
31). The highest loadings occurred in January and February when flows were highest.
56
Division of Science, Research and Technology
Research Project Summary
June, 2005
Microbial Source Tracking in the Manasquan River Estuary
Michael A. Palladino. Ph.D. and John A. Tiedemannf
Thomas B. Atherholt, Ph.D.2
Abstract
Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) analysis, one of several new tests developed within the past decade, was
used in an attempt to identify the sources of fecal pollution in the Manasquan River estuary. The estuary is vital
for recreational activities and as a shellfish resource. The test identifies fecal-derived, human- and animal-
specific Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria through host-influenced differences in antibiotic resistance. The
estuary contains multiple sources of fecal pollution. At many sites there appears to be an abundance of inputs
from wild animals. This is an ongoing study. The work to date is best viewed as a .pilot project,. providing a tool
to begin to identify sources of E. coli in the estuary. Due to the current limitations of the MAR technology and
the lack of unambiguous source apportionment at most sites, the best use of the data may be to rule out
potential sources of pollution.
Introduction
The Manasquan River estuary Is an important shellfish
resource in New Jersey. Since 1996 the waters in the
estuary, west of the Route 70 bridge (see Figure 1),
have been closed to harvesting due to high levels of
coliform bacteria (an indicator of fecal contamination).
The waters east of Route 70 are only slightly better,
listed as Special Restricted (waters condemned
except for harvesting for further processing under
special permit). The estuary is also an important
resource for primary contact recreational activities
such as swimming and water-skiing.
Human illness can occur if water that contains fecal
wastes from humans or animals is ingested. Illness
can also occur if shellfish harvested from such waters
are consumed. Shellfish are filter-feeders and they
concentrate waterborne microbes from the surrounding
waters. Fecal pollution sources may include agricul-
tural runoff, leachate from landfills and hazardous
waste sites, runoff from roads and other developed
areas, marinas, boating activity, siltation from
streambank modification and erosion, and natural
sources such as waterfowl and other bird species.
In addition to cross-species pathogens, human fecal
waste may contain pathogens that are human-specific
and human-adapted (e.g., Vibrio cholera, Shigella
spp., and many viral pathogens). Thus, human fecal
pollution in water is more hazardous to humans than
fecal pollution from animals (AWNA, 1999). In recent
years there have also been many documented human
disease outbreaks due to pathogens from domestic
animals, but far fewer outbreaks due to pathogens
from indigenous (wild) animals (Craun et al. 2004).
Hence, it is generally accepted that the comparative
human health risk of these fecal sources is (high to
low): human> domestic animal> wild animal. There-
fore it is important to detect and quantify fecal waste
contamination if present and, if possible, determine the
specific source( s).
OVer the last decade new methods collectively called
microbial source tracking (MST) tests, also known as
bacterial source tracking (BST) tests, have been
developed. These tests have demonstrated value for
discriminating sources of fecal bacteria in waterbodies.
These tests rely on the premise that humans and
animals are hosts to some host-specific or host-
adapted strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli or EC) or
other target bacteria. This project employed a MST
technology, called multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR)
testing to try to determine the sources of EC in the
Manasquan River estuary.
Design and Methods
Many EC were isolated from multiple samples of feces
from humans (sewage influent samples) and various
animals. Each isolated EC was grown, individually, in
the presence of 12 different antibiotics. Agrowth or
no-growth pattern or antibiotic resistance (AR) profile
was obtained for each EC as shown in Table 1. A
Table 1. MulipleAntlbiolic Resistance CMAR) patterns of Eo coli bacteria
isoIaled from feces of the indicated animals.
MARPalIem I~
DonIelItk; Cats
Pen-Van 71.2 0.17
f'en.Slr-Van 28.8 0.25
TaIIIlNI.... . 113
DIItrwd....... 2
AlIJ.__.o.19
Humans
Amp-Amx-Nal-Olc-Pen-SuI-an 41.7 0.583
Amp-Amx-NaJ.Otc..Pen-Slr-8uJ.Van 12.5 0.667
~uJ.Van 4.17 0.667
Amp-Amx-<<an-NaJ.Otc..Pen-$uJ. ~.Van 1.39 0.75
Amp-Amx.ctc-NaI-OIc-Pen-Str-Su1-Van 37.5 0.75
Amp-Amx-Clc-Nal-Ofc.Pen-Str-$uJ.Tet-Van 1.39 0.833
Amp-Amx.ctc-Kan-NaJ.Oll>.PeItoSlr-SuJ.Van 1.39 0.833
Amp-Amx.ctc-Kan-NaJ.Neo.Ok>.PeIJoS1r-SuJ.TBl.Van 1.39 1
TDIII.........n
DIIInnl....... J; .
Avg.__=U7
_.....-._.12.
Table 1. Antibiotic resistance profiles of E. coR iaofates from
domestic cats and humans in the Ma".squan River estuBty
watershed (from Palladino and TIedemann. 2004). Retlhltance
to an antibiotk: is shown by a ~Ietter abbreviation for that
antibiotk:. Amp = ampicitlin (40 p.gImQ. Amx = amoxlclllin (15
p.gImQ. ate = chlortetracycline (26 p.gIml). Kan = kanamycin (25
}1gfml). Nal = "./adlxic acid (25 p.gIml). Neo = neomycin (60 p.g'
mI). Ote = oxytetracycline (25 J.19'mI). Pen = peniciJin (75 UI
mQ. SIr = streptomycin sulfate (15 p.gImQ. Sui = sulfathiazole
(760 p.gImQ. Tef = t<<recycIine (26 p.gImQ. Van = vancomycin (10
}1gfmQ. MAR Index = number of antlblotic8 resistant / the
number of antiblotica tested.
database or "library" of AR profiles was compiled from
4,279 EC isolated from feces of humans and 16 other
animal sources. For several reasons fecal sampling
from some types of animals was limited. Therefore. the
AR profiles in the fecal source library were grouped
into 5 categories; humans (15 sewage samples; 475
EC isolates), pets (house cats [6] and dogs [12]; 7'Z2.
EC isolates), domestic animals (horses [12]. cattle
[7], pigs [2], and chickens [5]; 1215 EC isolates),
avian wild animals (Canada geese [13], gulls [12],
Mallard ducks [5]. Black ducks [5], and pigeons [3];
1331 EC isolates), and non-avian wild animals (stray
cats [5], raccoons [3], opossum [2], rat [1], and deer
[5]; 536 EC isolates).
The AR profile of each isolate in the fecal source
library was tested as an "unknown" against the entire
database to determine an "average rate of correct
classification" (ARCC) for each ofthe 5 groups. If
each isolate was correctly assigned to its source
group by random chance, the ARCC for each group
would be 20%. The ARCC for the 5 groups were:
human. 93%; pets, 65%; farm animals, 81%; avian
wild animals, 74%; and non-avian wild animals. 79%.
The ARCCs are less than 1000ib due to AR profile
overlaps among the 5 groups. The high ARCC values
demonstrate a significant degree of EC source speci-
ficity. However, the relevance of library ARCCs with
respect to the environmental EC population is unclear
(Gordon,2OO2; Mclellan, 2004).
N
A
Monitoring Sites
'" Boat
Boat (NJDEP Site)
" Shore
Roads (Major)
Figure 1. The Manasquan River estuary showing the sampling locations.
2
o
2 Mil..
Between May 2002 and December 2003, 14 in-water
(boat) sites and 28 shoreline sites shown in Figure 1
were alternately sampled on a once-per-month basis.
EC were Isolated from 50-ml water samples and the
AR profile of each established. The AR profiles were
compared to the AR profiles in the fecal source library
using discriminant analysis (W1991ns at a/. 2003). The
pattern-matching algorithm assigned each environmen-
tal EC isolate to its probable source group based on
AR profile matches, as illustrated in the cartoon in
Figure 2. Some AR profiles were common to several
fecal sources, so they were assigned to more than
one group. other AR profiles did not match any AA
profile in the source library, so the source of these
strains is unknown. The relative contribution of each
source group to the total EC population at each site
was then calculated.
was high. This large "profile overlap' confounded
efforts to apportion sources at most of the sites. An
extreme example ofthese 2 problems was observed at
site '85-7" where just 10 EC were isolated (Figure
3C). IU. 88-7, theAR profiles of8 of the 10 EC
matched profiles in the human source library. How-
ever, 8 of the 10 profiles also matched profiles in the
non-avian wild animal group, and all 1 0 matched
profiles in the avian wild animal group. Therefore, the
amount of fecal pollution at 85-7 from each of the
sources is not known, Removing EC isolates with
overlapping AR profiles from the analysis resulted in an
unsatisfactory increase in the number of undassifiable
EC. Even when overlapping profiles are included in the
analysis, high rates of unclassifiable EC were ob-
served at a few sites (Figure 3E, 88-1 for example).
E. coli Strain Source Library
-t--
- ..
- -
-
- -
_ 0
:.c('"" -"
-. . ,--)
C' _
_ <,',':1
- - -
-n-
- -
- ..
_ '3>
--:
.. *~ -
Figure 2. Cartoon illustrating the microbial source tracking method.
Antibiotic resistance (AR) profiles of E. coli (ovals) isolated from
environmental sites (# I, #2, and #3) were compared to the AR profiles
of E. coli isolated from the feces of targeted animals to determine their
likely host of origin. Some AR profiles are unique to certain hosts (colors)
while others (grey) are common to multiple hosts (assigned to more than one
host group). Some E. coli from the environment have profiles (white) that
do not match any in the "fecal source library" (their host group origin is unknown).
Resul1s
Aggregated data is shown in Figure 3. Fewer than 10
EC were isolated from 7 of the 42 sites (data not
shovvn). This made inter-site source comparisons
difficult or impossible in some cases. Also, the
number of EC strains from a given site with an AR
profile that matched a profile in multiple source groups
This indicates that either the library (source coverage)
is not adequate or that there are a high percentage of
non-fecal EC atthose sites (McLellan, 2004).
Most sites show a combination of possible sources.
At many of the sites there appears to be an abun-
dance of inpuls from wild animals.
3
I OJ
OJ 0Jl
81 .Hun""" t 0Jl
0., 1
Ii'll .Pets ~j ...
..... u
c_ CFarm AnImals !'l;
~i ... c" ...
[]WIld (BIifIluno) ~J
il OA .s
.Wld(..... il OA
&!j '.3 =::l,ed
'l; &!] lI.3
~ 'l; ..
a.
$. '.1
.....1181 ....'(10) .....(211) S&ID (0) -(ZII
Surveylllte (lof_e)
Lower Estuary. ShoreHne Surveys
i Dot
81 ...
.-
OJ
<'1; .-
i.. 1.1
'li 0__
~,! ...
n IA
&0 lI.3
..
'5 0.2
'!!. 0.1
S8-IP4I SMlUl Ss.1%pII SI-14pIJ s&.1IIGII-CIII -1I%l -(11)
_oySlbl(,ar_1)
Figure 3A.
Lower Estuary - Boat Surveys
I
8)
"'S
i..
"'il
~;2
II
ij
'S
3!.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o
. Humans
.PeIS
o Farm Animals
oWld (...fauna)
.Wid (non-elifama)
lJunclassifiod
60-1 (51) GG-2 (45) GG-3 (54) 1304A
(35)
SUrvey SiIe (I of l&olatee}
Figure 38.
Middle Estuary - Shoreline Surveys
Figure 3C.
Middle Estuary - Boat Surveys
1
:0.9
10.8
llj
c'l; 0.7
'hOB
, .
.I> 1l 0.5
<0-
11004
1110.3
<<j 0.2
'l;
~ 0.1
o
..........
.Pets
OFerm_
OWild CeWfau1a)
.w..--.)
OUod855iled
1308 (341 C.1 (40) C.:l (40) 1308 (62) 1309-8
(51)
Survey SiIe (I of 1ao1ala5)
Figure 3D.
Upper Estuary - Shoreline Surveys
.. os
I ...
~j 01 .-
-8'5 .Pets
c" D'
,- FIlIIl_
d OJ
n IA WId (daonI)
D.J .WId(11OlI-
&!] =..
'0 0.2
It D.l
Sl-l(51) SS-2ll4l ss.31111 Sl-4lZ4)IIS-1D(71) S8-17(11lIl-1tl42l SWlI")
s..w..ySfta (II of_oj
Figure 3E.
Upper Estuary - Boat Surveys
...........
. Pels
o Farm A.t'im8s
OWiOl (lNiula)
.WlId.......
=~
lRo1(51t 131D-A~ 1.R-l(121) 1314-AC""" lR3(135)
SUlV8ySiIe (I of ....latesl
Figure 3F.
4
, .
Discussion
Despite a number of successful applications, MST
techniques are still under development, so the results
of any MST project need to be analyzed carefully. For
a summary discussion of the limitations of current
library-based MST methods, see Atherholt (2004).
This study is best viewed as a "pilot project, - providing
a tool to begin to identify sources of EC in the
estuary. Several methodological problems were
encountered. Some ofthese problems have since
been overcome. For example, a more discriminating
EC growth medium (mTEC) is now being used and
EC are now being recovered from sediment samples
(no EC could be recovered from sediment samples in
this stucJy).
One significant limitation is that almost all MST
methods and MAR methods, in particular, are subject
to a significant amount of "false positives." That is,
they identify pollution sources that are not present.
Also, these tests have "false-negative- results in that
they do not always Identify sources when present.
When sources are apportioned, there are no error
bars or confidence intervals provided to assist the
reader in determining the uncertainty in the values.
The uncertainty can be considerable. Asource may
have to contribUte more than 25% of the total amount
to be considered a real source and not a possible
misclassiflC8tion error (Wiggins et at. 2003). The
financial implications of incorrectly identifying the
presence of fecal sources and taking management
actions in response can be serious.
Forthis and other reasons the best use of the data
generated in this study may be to rule out potential
sources of pollution.
When the Manasquan River estuary project work is
completed a peer-reviewed publication is anticipated.
Funding
NJDEP/DSRT contract SR02-027 to the NJ Marine
Sciences Consortium. Fort Hancock, NJ 07732.
Funding for field sampling between May 2003 and
December 2003 was provided by the NJ Sea Grant
College Program.
References
Atherholt, T.B. 2004. Microbial Source Tracking:
Library-based Methods. A Critique. Division of Sci-
ence, Research, and Technology. NJ Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
WWN.state, nj. usldep/dsr
AWWA. 1999. Waterborne Pathogens; Manual M48.
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Craun, G.F. et a/. 2004. Waterborne outbreaks
caused by zoonotic pathogens in the USA. p. 120-
135. In J.A. Cotruvo, A. Dufour, G Rees, J. Bartrum.
R. Carr, D.O. Cliver, GF. Craun. R. Fayer, and v.P.J.
Gannon (eds.), Waterborne zoonoses: identification.
causes and control. World Health Organization. IWA
Publishing, London. UK.
Gordon, D.M. et a/. 2002. The genetic structure of
Escherichia coli populations in primary and secondary
habitats. Microbiology 148: 1513-1522.
McLellan, S.L. 2004. Genetic diversity of Escheri-
chia coli isolated from urban rivers and beach water.
Appl Environ Microbiol70: 4656-4665.
Palladino, MA., and J.A. Tiedemann. June 23.
2004. Differential identification of Escherichia coli (E.
coil) in the Manasquan River estuary by multiple
antibiotic resistance testing and DNA fingerprinting
analysis. Final Report, Contract SR02-027, Division of
Science, Research and Technology, NJ Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Wiggins, BA. et aI. 2003. Use of antibiotic
resistance analysis for representativeness testing of
multiwatershed libraries. Appl Environ Microbiol69:
3399-3405.
1Principallnvestigators
Michael A Palladino, Ph.D. and John A Tiedemann
Biology Department, Monmouth University, West Long
Branch, NJ 07764
2Prepared By
Thomas B. Atherholt, Ph.D.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Science, Research and Technology
5
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Richard J. Codey, Acting Governor
Department of Environmental Protection
Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner
Division of Science, Research & Technology
Dr. Eileen Murphy, Director
J .w,.a:.......4-5'1(".....,.~,~N..-,.f#v~.,
.-:'~~,~~.n;.I.~~~.
Please send comments or requests to:
Division of Science, Research and Technology
P.O.Box 409, Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609 984-6070
Visit the DSRT web site @ www.s1ate.nj.us/dep/dsr
RESEARCH PROJECT SUMMARY
.
NJDEP
Microbial Source Tracking in Aquatic Ecosystems:
The State of the Science and an Assessment of Needs
NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series No. 7
and Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series Report
Workshop Proceedings
Council Chambers, Toronto Metro Hall
55 John Street, Toronto, Ontario
March 7-8, 2005
Editors of the Workshop Proceedings:
Tom Edge - National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada
Karl Schaefer - Science and Technology liaison Division, Environment Canada
Workshop Speakers/Panelists:
Nick Ashbolt - The University of New South Wales
Ted Bowering - City of Toronto
Renee Bowler - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Roland Brousseau - National Research Council of Canada
Tom Edge - Environment Canada-NWRI
Vic Gannon - Public Health Agency of Canada
John Griffith - Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Charles Hagedorn - Virginia Tech
Valerie J. Harwood - University of South Florida
Todd Howell - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Mike Jenkins - U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jim Maguire - Environment Canada-NWRI
Jiri Marsalek - Environment Canada-NWRI
Katrin Nagelschmitz - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Norm Neumann - Provincial Laboratory for Public Health, Alberta
Pierre Payment - Institut national de la recherche scientifique
Will Robertson - Health Canada
Paul Rochelle - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Don Stoeckel - U.S. Geological Survey
Stewart Sweeney - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ed Topp - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Tim Van Seters - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Workshop Sponsors
Environment Canada - National Water Research Institute & Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Environmental Sciences and Standards Division
City of Toronto - Water and Wastewater Services Division
Workshop Organizing Committee
Tom Edge - National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada
Karl Schaefer - Science and Technology liaison Division, Environment Canada
Todd Howell - Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Patrick Olessie - Water and Wastewater Services Division, Gty of Toronto
Sandra Kok - Great Lakes Sustainability Fund. Environment Canada
Will Robertson - Water Quality and Health Bureau, Health Canada
Diane Medeiros - Water Quality and Health Bureau, Health Canada
Vie Gannon - Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada
Ed Topp - Soil and Environmental Sciences, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
@ Minister of Pub/ic Works and Government Services Canada 2006
To obtain additional copies:
or
Tom Edge
Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Research Division
Water Science & Technology Directorate
Science & Technology Branch
Environment Canada
867 Lakeshore Road, P.O. Box 5050
Burlington. Ontario l7R 4A6
tom.edge@ec.gc.ca
Science & Technology Uaison Division
Science & Technology Strategies Directorate
Science & Technology Branch
Environment Canada
867 Lakeshore Road, P.O. Box 5050
Burlington, Ontario l7R 4A6
S& TUaison@ec.gc.ca
To view an html version or download a copy in pdf format visit the NWRI website:
http://www.nwri.ca
Library and Archives Canada, Cataloguing in Pubiication
Microbial source tracking in aquatic ecosystems : the state of the science and an assessment of needs.
(NWRI scientific assessment report series ; no. 7)
UUnking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series Report".
"Editors of the Workshop proceedings: Tom Edge ... Karl Schaefer".
Issued also in French under titre: le depistage des sources de pollution microbienne
dans les ecosystemes aquatiques, etat de la science et evaluation des besoins.
Available also on the Internet.
Includes blbliographical references.
ISBN 0-662-42946-X
Cat no.: En13-217-2006E
1. Water-Po/lution-Point source identification-Congresses. 2. Water quality biological assess-
ment-Methodology-Congresses. 3. Organic water pollutants-Congresses. 4. Bacterial pollution
of water-Congresses. 5. Water quality management-Canada-Congresses. I. Edge. Thomas A,
1960- /I. Schaefer, Karl Alfred, 1963- 1/1. National Water Research Institute (Canada) IV. Series.
TD424.4.C3M522oo6
628,1'61
C2006-980054-5
NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series: http://www.nwri.ca/publications/sars-e.html
Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series: http://www.nwri.ca/sdencepolicy/canework-
shop-e.html
This report may be cited as follows:
Edge, lA. and K.A. Schaefer (ed.). 2006. Microbial Source Tracking in Aquatic Ecosystems:
The State of the Science and an Assessment of Needs. National Water Research Institute. Burlington.
Ontario. NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series No. 7 and Unking Water Science to Policy
Workshop Series. 23 p.
Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Unda Gysbers and Jenn Dykeman, National Water Research
Institute. and the City of Toronto for assisting with Workshop organization, Leah Brannen and Kristin
May for editing previous drafts, and to Grazyna Modzynski for layout and design.
Photo Credits: Photo.com, Tom Edge, Rob Phillips, Quintin Rochfort and Robert Kent
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Workshop Summary
State of the Science .......................................................... p.1
MST Needs and Drivers/Policy and Program Relevance ...............................
1. Introduction
Wprkshop Objectives ..............................................
Workshop Organization ............................................
2. Microbial Source Tracking Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Library-Dependent MST Methods ....................,................
Library-Independent MST Methods ................................,..,
Other Source Tracking Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Microbial Source Tracking Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canada .....................................................,...
United States ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Microbial Source Tracking Science Assessment ..................................
Existing MST Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Emerging MST Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MST Case Studies .................................................
5. Microbial Source Tracking Needs Assessment ...................................
Municipal Effluents. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wildlife.......................... ...............................
p.1
p.2
p.3
p.3
p.4
p.4
p.5
p.6
p.6
p.6
p.6
p.7
p.8
p.8
p.9
p.10
p.11
p.12
p.12
p.13
p.14
6. MST "Drivers" in Canad~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p.14
7. Conclusions.............................................................. p.16
8. Key References ........................................................... p.18
Appendix A . Workshop Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. p.20
Appendix B . List of Workshop Participants ....................................... p.22
III
NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series
The National Water Research Institute
The National Water Research Institute (NWRI) is Canada's largest freshwater research
facility, with five locations across the country: at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters,
Burlington, Ontario and the National Hydrology Research Centre, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan; and in Gatineau, Quebec; Fredericton, New Brunswick; and Victoria,
British Columbia. From these locations, NWRI leads initiatives in all regions of Canada
and internationally to protect and sustain the quality and quantity of Canadian waters.
NWRI Sdentific Assessment Report Series
On behalf of the Canadian government, NWRlleads and publishes scientific assessments
of priority freshwater issues in Canada. Typically, these assessment reports are written
by experts from NWRI, government, universities, and industry, and they encapsulate
current scientific knowledge, trends, and information and program needs. As authoritative
documents, they are intended to assist water science decision-makers, resource managers,
and the research community in setting research priorities and in developing sound man-
agement policies and practices.
This report and previous ones in the series are available at www.nwri.ca
No.1 - Threats to Sources of Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Health in Canada (2001)
No.2 - National Assessment of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Data (2003)
No.3 - Threats to Water Availability in Canada (2004)
NO.4 - A Decade of Research on the Environmental Impacts of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents in
Canada (1992-2002) (2004)
No.5 - National Assessment of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Data: Findings
from Cycles 1 through 3 (2005)
No. 6 - Research into Action to Benefit Canadians (2005)
Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series Reports
These workshops have drawn together many of Canada's key people in the areas of
water research, knowledge development, policy development and program delivery,
and are designed to provide a forum for leading scientists to present the latest research
to policy makers, to help identify research priorities, and to explore ways of sustaining
dialogue between these two groups.
For information on previous workshop themes, visit: http://www.nwri.ca/sciencepolicy/
ccmeworkshop-e.html
Workshop Summary
Fecal pollution of aquatic ecosystems is a significant problem in many areas across
Canada. This pollution can come from diverse sources such as municipal wastewater
effluents, failing on-site sewage systems, livestock manure and wildlife droppings. Its
impacts on human health, aquatic ecosystems and local economies can be significant
through waterborne disease outbreaks, boil water advisories, contamination of irrigation
waters, and beach and shellfish closures.
There is a growing need for a science-based approach to determine the source of fecal
pollution in aquatic ecosystems. Identifying the correct fecal pollution source could help
mediate conflicts between stakeholders in communities, and help target appropriate,
cost-effective, corrective actions to prevent future pollution. Microbial source tracking
(MSD is an emerging field that offers considerable promise for determining the source
of fecal pollution contaminating aquatic ecosystems. In general, the MST approach is
based on comparing the similarity of microorganisms collected from aquatic ecosystems
to microorganisms collected from nearby fecal pollution sources in order to make infer-
ences about the likely source of fecal contamination. However, the field is still under
development There are no standardized methods and there have been few field studies
to test the reliability and accuracy of MST techniques. Nevertheless, there is consider-
able interest in this field of research, along with high expectations for tools to help
resolve fecal pollution problems.
Consequently, a MST workshop was held March 7-8, 2005, in Toronto, Ontario, to
review the state of MST science and its readiness for widespread application and to
assess the fecal pollution source tracking needs in communities across Canada. The
workshop was hosted by Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute and
Ontario Region, the City of Toronto, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Health
Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Seventy participants attended from
federal, provincial and municipal government agendes, non-government organizations,
and from universities in Canada, the United States and Australia. Participants represented
the scientific research community, and the water policy and program management per-
spectives relevant to MST in Canada. The workshop is another in the Linking Water
Science to Policy Workshop Series (http://www.nwri.ca/sciencepolicy/ccmeworkshop-
e.html) that brings together leading researchers with policy analysts and program man-
agers to communicate recent science and to solicit feedback on research drivers and
needs. The report is also another in the NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series
(http://www.nwri.ca/publications/sars-e.html) that publishes national scientific assess-
ments of priority freshwater issues in Canada, serving as an authoritative review of cur-
rent scientific knowledge, trends, and information and program needs to assist water
science decision-makers, resource managers, and the research community in setting
research priorities and in developing sound management policies and practices.
State of the Science
Presentations provided an overview of the state of MST science based upon recent
scientific publications and case studies. Early MST studies in the late 1990s raised con-
siderable expectations for MST tools to resolve problems in fecal pollution source tracking.
More recent scientific publications have pointed to limitations in MST methods, particu-
larly for studies of large watersheds with complex sources of fecal contamination.
library-based methods, such as those based upon E. coli, were seen to suffer from high
misclassification rates and the need to have increasingly larger libraries to represent the
diversity of potential E. coli isolates from fecal sources. Non-library-based methods,
such as those based upon Bacteroides sp" require additional host-specificity evaluation
and remain to be well tested in field studies.
While some of these recent MST studies were perceived to have placed a "wet blanket"
on the field, cases of successful applications of MST in field studies continue to occur.
In some cases, MST methods have identified unexpected fecal pollution sources, and
were instrumental in leading to effective remedial clean-up actions. In other cases,
results from MST field studies have been consistent with other lines of evidence in iden-
tifying predominant fecal pollution sources. Additional presentations at the workshop
showed that the field of MST is still evolving. Novel tools such as DNA microarrays and
protozoan genotyping methods could help enlarge the existing MST toolbox. Other
tools based on chemical tracers (e.g., coprostanol) or DNA markers for host animal cells
sloughed off in feces may also prove useful for fecal pollution source tracking.
The Workshop recognized that while many methods exist in the current MST toolbox,
there is no "silver bullet, II universally accepted best method. While some methods have
achieved a level of maturity where they could be considered for standardization, others
are still experimental or research-grade tools. Additional research is required to under-
stand more fully the advantages and limitations of microbial source tracking methods,
and wider application of the tools will require standard methods and careful considera-
tion of appropriate experimental designs. library-dependent MST methods require a
library of an appropriate size and representation, which still remains to be determined.
Library-independent MST methods require validation of host-specific markers in field
studies. The Workshop placed emphasis on applying MST methods as part of multiple
lines of evidence to resolve fecal pollution source tracking problems. While MST tools
can be relevant to tackle such problems, it will be important to ensure there are realistic
expectations among the end-user communities for MST studies in the near future.
MST Needs and Drivers/Policy and Program Relevance
With aging municipal wastewater infrastructure, urbanization and increasingly intensive
livestock production capacity across Canada, the need for science-based tools like MST
methods to resolve existing fecal pollution problems and prevent future ones can be
anticipated to grow. Microbial source tracking has been slower to develop in Canada
than in the United States. The U.S. Clean Water Act requirements for calculating Total
Maximum Daily Loads for fecal contaminants in watersheds have been driving much of
the application of MST studies in the United States. Canada does not have equivalent
legislation, and applications of MST have been driven more by a "bottom-up" approach
from local community concerns for beach and shellfish closures. MST studies may prove
useful in helping to meet federal, provincial, territorial or municipal microbial water quality
guidelines, objectives and regulations. In particular, identifying the source of fecal pol-
lution is invaluable at better targeting cost-effective abatement options. Other drivers
for conducting MST studies include the need to provide guidance for development of
source water protection plans and to help target microbial pollution education and
awareness initiatives at local levels. Ongoing MST research activities, including the Health
Canada-Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada MST study under Canada's Agricultural
Policy Framework, will help raise awareness of the advantages and limitations of MST
methods for water programs across Canada.
2
1. Introduction
Fecal pollution of aquatic ecosystems is a significant problem in many areas across
Canada. This pollution can come from diverse sources such as municipal wastewater
effluents, livestock manure and wildlife droppings. Its impacts on human health and
local economies can be significant through waterborne disease outbreaks, boil water
advisories, contamination of irrigation waters, and beach and shellfish closures.
There is a growing need for a science-
based approach to determine the source
of fecal pollution in aquatic ecosystems.
Identifying the correct fecal pollution
source could help mediate conflicts
between stakeholders in communities,
and lead towards appropriate, cost-effective
corrective actions to prevent future pollu-
tion. Microbial source tracking (MSD is
an emerging field that offers considerable
promise for determining the source of fecal
pollution contaminating aquatic ecosystems.
However, the field is still under development
There are no standardjzed methods, and
there have been few field studies to test the
reliability and accuracy of MST techniques.
Although MST is still evolving, the potential benefits are significant enough for a
national discussion on the state of the MST science and fecal pollution source tracking
needs across Canada. With this in mind, a Microbial Source Tracking Workshop was
held March 7-8,2005, in Toronto, Ontario. The impetus for this workshop arose from
a desire to clarify the state of MST readiness for practical application. On the one
hand, there has been heightened interest in MST by policy and program managers at
all levels of government to determine sources of fecal contamination in diverse aquatic
ecosystems across Canada. On the other hand, while some practical MST case studies
exist, the field is still largely under development and recent scientific publications evalu-
ating MST methods have pointed to some limitations of the field (Griffith et al. 2003;
stoeckel et at. 2004). The timing seemed optimal to bring researchers together with
policy and program managers to develop a realistic assessment of the state of the sci-
ence, and get practical feedback from practitioners on their needs related to tracking
sources of fecal contamination.
Workshop Objectives
Workshop objectives were to strengthen the linkage between Canadian water policy
and program decision makers and MST research experts by providing:
1. MST Science Assessment to help municipal, provincial, federal and other decision
makers obtain sufficient scientific knowledge about MST to shape their program, policy
and regulatory needs. The science assessment would assess the state of MST science
and its readiness for widespread application across Canada.
2. MST Needs Assessment to help the MST science and research community better
understand Canadian water policy and program needs pertaining to fecal pollution.
The needs assessment would characterize fecal pollution challenges across Canada.
3. Identification of MST Research Priorities in Canada.
4. MST Networking Forum to exchange MST information, network, make contacts,
and identify opportunities to sustain dialogue between water policy decision makers
and MST research experts.
3
Workshop Organization
The workshop was sponsored by Environment Canada's National Water Research
Institute and Ontario Region (Great lakes Sustainability Fund), the Ontario Ministry
of the Environment and the City of Toronto, with organizational participation from
Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
The Workshop was organized by a planning committee of the following individuals:
Dr. Tom Edge - National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada
Karl Schaefer - Science and Technology Uaison Division, Environment Canada
Dr. Todd Howell - Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of
the Environment
Patrick Chessie - Water and Wastewater Services Division, City of Toronto
Will Robertson and Diane Medeiros - Water Quality and Health Bureau, Health Canada
Dr. Vic Gannon - Laboratory for Foodbome Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada
Dr. Ed Topp - Soil and Environmental Sciences, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
The Workshop was held March 7-8, 2005, at the City of Toronto's Metro Hall, 55 John
Street, Toronto, Ontario. It consisted of invited presentations with opportunities for
questions, and a plenary discussion of MST drivers and needs (see Agenda in Appendix A).
Participants were invited from the MST research community, water and wastewater
managers in municipal/regional governments, point and non-point source pollution
experts in watershed-based organizations {such as conservation authorities in Ontario},
water regulatory officials and program/policy managers in provincial, territorial and federal
governments, and in related water quality professional associations and organizations.
Over 70 people participated in the Workshop (see List of Participants in Appendix B).
2. Microbial Source Tracking Overview
Microbial source tracking {MSD is an emerging field that seeks to identify the source
of microbial contamination in the environment. The field has been developing rapidly
to address growing needs to find the source of fecal pollution contaminating sources
of drinking, shellfish and recreational waters. The general approach is based on com-
paring the similarity of microorganisms collected from aquatic ecosystems to microor-
ganisms collected from known fecal pollution sources in order to make inferences about
the likely source of fecal contamination.
Various methods have been developed for microbial source tracking (Simpson et a!. 2002;
Scott et a!. 2002; U.S. EPA 2(05). Since the field of MST is evolving rapidly, many new
methods are also under investigation. The collection of methods for microbial source
tracking has often been referred to as a toolbox, with some methods being more rele-
vant to use than others in certain circumstances. This section provides an overview of
some of the more commonly used MST methods.
MST methods can be classified as library-dependent methods or library-independent meth-
ods. To date, library-dependent methods have been more widely used in MST studies,
although it can be very labour intensive and time consuming to develop the library for
these methods. library-independent methods are increasingly under investigation.
4
J
Ubrary-Dependent MST Methods
Library-dependent methods are based upon choosing a fecal indicator microorganism
(e.g., Escherichia coli) and establishing a reference library of characteristics of individual
isolates of the selected microorganism obtained from known fecal pollution sources.
For example, a library could be a database of DNA fingerprints of E. coli isolates
obtained from f~al pollution sources such as animal feces, septic tanks or municipal
wastewater effluents. The DNA fingerprints of E. coli isolates obtained from aquatic
ecosystems ("unknowns") can then be compared to the DNA fingerprints in the library
("knowns") to make inferences about the source of the waterborne E. coli isolates.
Sound taxonomic identification of the fecal and waterborne isolates is necessary to
ensure similarity comparisons are warranted. A minimum size has not yet been estab-
lished for libraries, although they need to be sufficiently large to refl~t the diversity of
isolates in the environment. A targeted sampling approach may be useful for focusing
MST efforts (Kuntz et al. 2003).
The most common fecal indicator microorganisms used in library-dependent methods
to date have been Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. These bacteria are common
inhabitants of warm-blooded animal guts, are relatively easy to isolate and culture in
the lab, and are widely used by water quality monitoring programs. The similarity
between isolates of a fecal indicator microorganism can be measured by either pheno-
typic profiling or genotypic fingerprinting methods.
Phenotypic methods use cellular or physio-
logical comparisons between the isolates
based on features such as antibiotic resist-
ance (Wiggins 1996; Hagedorn et al. 1999;
Harwood et al. 2000) or carbon utilization
(Hagedorn et aI. 2003). Antibiotic resistance
profiling has been the most commonly
used phenotypic method to date. For this
method, bacterial isolates can be inoculated
onto the surface of many agar plates, with
each plate containing a different antibiotic
mixed into the agar. The isolates are incu-
bated overnight on the agar plates, and their
growth is compared to their growth on a
control plate (Le., the same agar without
antibiotics). How well each isolate grows
on many different agar plates is used to develop a profile of its antibiotic resistance.
An antibiotic resistance approach to MST is based on the assumption that bacteria in
human and domestic animal guts are exposed to different antibiotics in medical and vet-
erinary treatments, and that these gut bacteria will develop different resistance profiles.
Since wildlife species do not receive direct antibiotic treatments, their gut bacteria are
typically less resistant to antibiotics.
Genotypic methods use DNA sequence comparisons between the isolates based on
approaches like DNA fingerprinting using rep-PCR (Dombek et al. 2000; Johnson et
aI. 2004), ribotyping (Carson et at. 2001), and amplified fragment length polymorphism
(AFLP) (Guan et al. 2002; Leung et at. 2004). In these DNA fingerprinting methods,
DNA is extracted from cells of an isolate and different DNA cutting or amplifying
techniques can be used to obtain DNA fragments of different sizes. The different sized
DNA fragments can then be separated on an electrophoresis gel into a ladder-like pattern
of DNA bands that can be visualized and statistically analyzed as a unique DNA finger-
print. Ribotyping and rep-PCR have been the most commonly used DNA fingerprinting
techniques to date.
s
library-Independent MST Methods
Library-independent methods are based upon detecting host-specific markers to indicate
the presence of fecal contamination from a specific human or animal host in the water:
Most library-independent methods rely on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect
host-specific markers. These methods do not generally require a cultivation step, although
in some cases this is necessary to increase the numbers of microorganisms carrying a
host-specific marker gene. For example, cultivation-based methods have been proposed
for human-specific markers in Enterococcus (Scott et al. 2(05), and cattle and swine
markers in E. coli (Khatib et aI. 2002, 2(03).
Some of the most promising results to date for developing host-specific markers for fecal
pollution source tracking involve 16S rDNA markers within the Bacteroidetes family.
These anaerobic bacteria comprise a very large portion of the fecal flora in warmblooded
animals. Bernhard and Field (2000a) found host-specific 16S rDNA sequences in
Bacteroides sp. bacteria in human and CCHI fecal samples and used a method to track
these sequences in coastal waters. Bernhard and Field (2oo0b) then developed
Bacteroides 16S rDNA PCR assays specific to ruminants and humans as culture-inde-
pendent MST methods. There is now an active research effort to validate and find
new Bacteroides sp. host-specific markers (Field 2004). Additional host-specific markers
have been proposed based on bacteriophages (Payan et aI. 2(05) and pathogenic
microorganisms such as enteric viruses (Fong et at. 2005) and protozoa like
Cryptosporidium sp. Uiang et at. 2005).
Other Source Tracking Methods
While the field of microbial source tracking is growing rapidly, it should be noted that
other methods can also be used to track fecal contamination in aquatic ecosystems.
For example, chemical tracers have been used, most commonly to detect chemicals
associated with human wastes. As the highest concentration of these chemicals is
typically found in wastewater treatment plants, they have been proposed for tracking
human fecal waste pollution. For example, fecal sterols and stanols, caffeine, deter-
gents, laundry brighteners, fragrance materials and pharmaceuticals are among chemi-
cals proposed as markers of fecal pollution (Elhmmali et at. 2002; Roser et al. 2003;
Glassmeyer et at. 2005). Eukaryotic mitochondrial DNA markers have also been used to
discriminate between fecal pollution sources in surface waters (Martellini et al. 2(05) as
outlined later in this Workshop Report.
3. Microbial Source Tracking Activities
Canada
This Toronto microbial source tracking workshop evolved from recent scientific publica-
tions and from a variety of microbial source tracking activities initiated across Canada in
recent years. Dr. Tom Edge, Environment Canada, identified other MST workshops that
have been held across Canada in response to concerns about the need to identify fecal
pollution sources responsible for contaminating agricultural watersheds, and closing
shellfish areas and beaches. A workshop sponsored by Health Canada and Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada was held June 19-20, 2003, in Ottawa, Ontario, to help design
a large MST project under the Agricultural Policy Framework (Health Canada and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2(04). Another MST workshop was held April 5-6,
2004, in Guelph, Ontario (Goss and Dunfield 2004). Environment Canada, the
National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from
Land-based Activities (NPA), Acadia University and the Clean Annapolis River Project
(CARP) supported an MST workshop April 14-15, 2004, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia
(Sullivan 2004).
6
Microbial source tracking activities have
been growing at a number of university,
government and private-sector laboratories
across Canada. Laboratory-based MST
research programs were identified at insti-
tutions including the University of Victoria,
Victoria, B.C. (Drs. Azit Mazumder and
Rick Nordin); Environment Canada's Pacific
Environmental Science Centre, Vancouver,
B.C. (Heather Osachoff); Public Health
Agency of Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta
(Dr. Vic Gannon); Lakehead University,
Thunder Bay, Ontario (Dr. Kam Leung);
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
London, Ontario (Dr. Ed Topp); GAP
Services Inc., London, Ontario (Gary
Palmateer); the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario (Drs. Carleton Gyles, Shu Chen
and Michael Goss); Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute, Burlington,
Ontario (Dr. Tom Edge); the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario
(Dr. Susan Weir); and Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia (Dr. Greg Bezanson).
It is likely that other laboratories across Canada are also conducting MST studies.
Under Canada's Agricultural Policy Framework, Health Canada and Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada established the National Water Quality Surveillance Program.
Dr. Ed lopp, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, described this program as aimed at
gaining a snapshot of water quality on a small number of representative watersheds
across Canada that vary in their land use. At the same time, a wide variety of biological
and chemical endpoints are being evaluated with a view to testing and validating micro-
bial source tracking technologies in the Canadian context. This presentation highlighted
some of the research objectives of this federal initiative.
United States
An overview of microbial source tracking activities in the United States was presented
by Dr. Valerie J. Harwood, University of South Florida (Dr. Jorge Santo Domingo, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, was unable to attend). Protection from fecal microbial
contamination is one of the most important goals listed in section 303(c) of the U.S.
Clean Water Act for waters designated for recreation (primary and secondary contact),
public water supplies and propagation of fish and shellfish. Detection of fecal bacteria
and pathogens and tracking them to their sources are topics of intense interest in the
United States in view of the current requirements for calculating Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). States, territories and tribes must comply with TMDL requirements
within the next five to ten years.
A number of microbial source tracking methods are currently used in the United States
to determine the origin of fecal pollution affecting natural water systems. MST is based
on the assumption that, given the appropriate method and indicator organism, the source
of microbial pollution can be identified. Many MST studies in the United States have
relied on matching genomic "fingerprints" from bacterial strains isolated from a water
system with those isolated from different hosts (e.g., humans, domesticated animals,
wildlife). To successfully identify fecal sources, the most often used approaches rely on
the development of comprehensive libraries (i.e., culture collections) of indicator bacteria
(Le., E. coli and fecal enterococci). While there are several laboratory studies supporting
the use of library-dependent approaches for MST, their accuracy in field study situations
has been questioned due to a number of problems associated with the target organisms,
the level of complexity introduced by spatial and temporal vectors, the stability of the
markers used, and poor sampling protocols. As a consequence, severallibrary-inde-
pendent approaches based on phylogenetic markers and virulence factors have been
/
developed recently to circumvent the limitations of culture-dependent approaches.
However, a systematic evaluation of the latter methods against real world samples has
not been conducted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently completed a
scientific review of MST methods, and has developed a guide to assist water quality
decision makers contemplating microbial source tracking studies (U.S. EPA 2005).
International
An overview of international MST activities was provided by Dr. Nicholas Ashbolt,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Managing the safety of drinking
water systems has undergone a paradigm shift in the last few years. During the review
and publication in 2004 of the WHO and Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, water
agencies have been rethinking how to apply the proactive Water Safety Plan (WSP)
approach rather than simply meeting end-of-pipe compliance levels for microbial indica-
tors. A central theme within WSP is equivalent to the food industry's hazard analysis
critical control point (HACCP) risk management approach. For water supplies, this
means getting to know your key fecal sources and events that may lead to pathogen
contamination of drinking waters - and fecal source tracking, along with sanitary surveys
are pivotal tools to this end.
A range of microbial source tracking tools has been assessed during a recent EU project,
with sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria, PCR identification of bifidobacteria, and phages
infecting Bacteroides tethaiotaomicron being the most successful when applied to
watershed samples. Yet, genotype II of F-specific RNA bacteriophages, and the ratio
of coprostanol to coprostanol + epicoprostanol provided greater discriminating power
with fecal samples, but low water concentrations limited their application with field
samples. Recent Australian work utilizing a greater range of fecal sterols (8), however,
has shown that via improved sample concentration and data analysis, and analyzing
stanol/sterol and microbial ratios, the latter parameters can provide fecal source load
estimations, currently not possible with most MST tools. A decision support system to
aid in data analysis, called 'Faecal Print' (Roser et al. 2003) has been prototyped and
results were presented.
4. Microbial Source Tracking Science Assessment
The Workshop addressed the state of MST science through presentations and discussion
about existing MST methods, emerging MST methods, and case studies of the application
of MST methods to fecal pollution problems. Two recently published studies were pre-
sented at the Workshop as a basis for discussing the limitations of existing MST methods
(Griffith et aI. 2003; Stoeckel et aI. 2004). Workshop discussion suggested that these
two publications had placed a "wet blanket" over the field of MST. Library-based
methods, such as those based upon E. coli, were seen to suffer from high misclassification
rates and the need to have increasingly larger libraries to represent the diversity of
potential E. coli isolates from fecal sources. Non-library-based methods, such as those
based upon Bacteroides sp., require additional host-specificity evaluation and remain to
be well tested in field studies. There was a growing recognition of the limitations of
existing MST methods, and that initial optimistic expectations in the early days of MST
needed to be tempered. This message also arose at a WERF MST workshop held
February 16-18, 2005, in San Antonio, Texas. However, the Toronto Workshop also
identified some promising new methods emerging in the MST toolbox, and case studies
were presented showing that appropriately designed MST studies can be applied suc-
cessfully to identify and resolve fecal pollution problems. Workshop discussion identified
the need for further research to test and validate existing MST methods in field studies,
and to continue to search for new host-specific fecal pollution markers.
8
Existing MST Methods
Dr. John Griffith, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster,
California, presented results from a recent comparative assessment of MST methods
(Griffith et al. 2003). In this study, 22 researchers employing twelve different methods
were provided sets of identically prepared blind water samples. Each sample contained
one to three of five possible fecal sources (human, dog, cattle, seagull or sewage).
Researchers were also provided portions of the fecal material used to inoculate the blind
water samples for their use as library material. No MST method predicted the source
material in the blind samples perfectly. Host-specific PCR performed best at differentiating
between human and non-human sources, but primers are not yet available for differen-
tiating among the non-human sources. Virus and F+ coliphage methods reliably identi-
fied sewage, but were not able to identify fecal contamination from individual humans.
Library-based isolate methods were able to identify the dominant source in most samples,
but had difficulty with false positives, identifying the presence of fecal sources that were
not in the samples. Among the library-based methods, genotypic methods generally
performed better than phenotypic methods.
Dr. Don Stoeckel, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio, presented results from another
recent comparative assessment of MST methods (Stoeckel et aI. 2004). In this study,
seven protocols for microbial source tracking by typing E. coli, including two approaches
for assigning E. coli to hosts, were evaluated. No tested protocol correctly assigned the
majority of challenge isolates to the correct host of origin-those that attempted classi-
fication for only a few isolates tended to have high rates of correct classification, while
those that attempted classification for most isolates had high rates of incorrect classifi-
cation. Study results indicate that a library size of 1000 isolates was insufficient to
conduct MST in the partial-county study area. The study area was on the order of 100
square miles (about 300 square kilometres). MST includes host specificity of fecal markers
as its central hypothesis. Library-dependent MST requires either a limited number of
host-specific types per source or within-host relatedness among the many types.
Existence of cosmopolitan subtypes, high subtype diversity, and lack of relatedness
among subtypes from the same host contributed to lack of accuracy in the study.
Dr. Paul Rochelle, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, La Verne, California,
provided an overview of results from a workshop on microbial source tracking, spon-
sored by the Water Environment Research Foundation and the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, in San Antonio, Texas, in February 2005. The overarching
objective for this workshop was to identify knowledge gaps and research needs for the
application of microbial source tracking technologies by the wastewater and drinking
water industries. It was generally agreed that there is a future for source tracking but
more comparison and evaluation studies need to be conducted. There needs to be more
interlaboratory comparisons of methods, adherence to standardized procedures, greater
inclusion of OA/OC aspects into studies, and more thorough documentation of all
study aspects in publications. It was recognized that some methods have achieved a
level of maturity where they can be considered for standardization, whereas others are
still experimental or research-grade tools. Analysis cost was a recurring theme and there
was some debate of pragmatism (limited funding and timeline, human versus non-human
discrimination) versus idealism (more isolates, bigger libraries, methods with increasing
complexity, increased certainty, increased resolution). While there has been considerable
debate in the past over which method is "the best," a consensus was reached at this
workshop that there is unlikely to be a single "silver bullet." Rather, MST practitioners
should utilize a toolbox approach, the individual components of which will vary depending
on the type of watershed, potential sources of contamination, funding and time avail-
able, and the level of resolution required, among other considerations. Future compari-
son studies should evaluate different suites of methods to determine those that best
meet accuracy, sensitivity and reproducibility criteria.
9
l
Emerging MST Methods
Dr. Roland Brousseau, Biotechnology Research Institute, National Research Council of
Canada, Montreal, Quebec, provided a presentation on the application of DNA
microarray technology to microbial source tracking. The parallel processing power of
DNA microarrays, where hundreds of probes can be tested simultaneously by hybridization,
makes them a logical tool to approach the difficult problem of MST. However, the
sensitivity of microarrays is rather limited at the present time. Depending on methods
and circumstance, a given bacterial species may have to be in excess of five percent of
a complex mixture before its presence can
be detected by direct hybridization of total
labeled DNA from an environmental sample.
This limit can be brought down by an
amplification step such as PCR before
hybridization, at the expense of unknown
and variable amplification bias. Despite
these problems, microarray hybridization
patterns from amplified DNA can be
obtained that discriminate between differ-
ent types of fecal matter. An alternative
approach, using DNA extracted from iso-
lated colonies, is currently being explored
for Escherichia coli to ascertain whether the
fine mapping of virulence and antibiotic
resistance genes is amenable to MST.
Dr. Norman Neumann, Provincial Laboratory for Public Health (Microbiology), Calgary,
Alberta, provided a presentation on the application of protozoan genotyping for micro-
bial source tracking. Until recently it was assumed that both Cryptosporidium parvum
and Giardia lamblis were capable of parasitizing a wide range of different mammalian
hosts. However, recent data on the molecular epidemiology of these parasites suggests
that different species and/or genotypes of Cryptosporidium and Giardia display host
specificity, and this is changing perceptions regarding the zoonotic potential of these
parasites and the waterborne risks they pose to humans. In studies assessing source
water protection in two different watersheds (2003 and 2004), molecular forensic tools
were applied to intensively study host-fecal sources impacting the South Nation River in
Ontario and the Oldman River in Alberta. Sites within these watersheds were monitored
weekly for Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Forensic profiling of Cryptosporidium parasites
revealed a variety of host fecal impacts coming from wildlife (deer, fox, birds, skunks),
agriculture and/or human sewage. This was based on the detection of Cryptosporidium
oocysts that had molecular DNA sequence similarities to Cryptosporidium fox genotype
(foxes), Cryptosporidium cervine genotype (deer), Cryptosporidium baileyi (birds),
Cryptosporidium skunk genotype, Clyptosporidium andersoni (cattle), and Cryptosporidium
parvum bovine genotype (cattle, ungulates and/or humans). In addition, at least three
other unidentified genotypes of Cryptosporidium were detected, the host sources of
which are unknown, but probably wildlife in origin. During a period of heavy precipitation
within the South Nation River Cryptosporidium andersoni (host = cattle) was detected
in a significant number of sites along the river, suggesting that an influx of agriculturally
derived fecal material entered the river during this time period. Interestingly, wildlife
genotypes were commonly detected throughout the studies, suggesting that wildlife
accessing the river through their use of the riparian zone can significantly contribute to
parasite contamination within the watershed. Molecular genotype analysis of water-
borne parasites may be useful as a tool for microbial source-tracking, and for effective
watershed and public health protection.
Dr. Pierre Payment, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS), Laval, Quebec,
presented results on a new molecular method developed to detect DNA from animal
cells sloughed off into the intestine with feces (Martellini et a!. 2005). It is based on
--:::-
10
detection of mitochondrial DNA from various animal species to track the origin of sur-
face water pollution, and to differentiate human and animal sources. Mitochondrial
DNA sequences were used to design PCR primers specific for human, bovine, ovine and
porcine DNA using single, multiplex and nested PCR protocols. The primers were tested
with DNA extracted from untreated domestic sewage, agricultural soil runoff, swine farm
effluents and water from two rivers with known pollution sources. At least one of the
four species was detected in most of these samples. The limit of detection in wastewater
was 103 to 104 cells per litre with a multiplex PCR protocol. This is the first report of a
method using eul<aryotic genetic DNA to detect and differentiate animal DNA from fecal
sources in water. This innovative method is simple and could be used to differentiate
sources of pollution in a watershed quickly.
MST Case Studies
Dr. Chuck Hagedorn, Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, presented several case studies to demonstrate how microbial
source tracking methods can be employed at the watershed level. Profiles have been
developed over the past ten years on thousands of Enterococcus and E. coli isolates
from known sources based on pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, carbon-source utilization
(with the semi-automated Bialog system) and antibiotic resistance analysis. Based on
these profiles, it is possible to accurately and reliably separate Enterococcus and E. coli
from human, avian, companion animals, domestic animals and wildlife sources, and
then compare the profiles of isolates from environmental samples (unknown origin) to
determine the sources of these isolates. Case studies in a variety of watersheds have
demonstrated how well the application of Enterococcus and E. coli in MST appears to
work, especially with regards to results from method comparison studies published
recently. The Hagedorn lab approach is based on conducting thorough OA/OC on
host origin libraries, and using multiple MST methods plus an alternative tracer. A novel
approach involving detectiOn of optical brighteners in detergents as a means of identifying
human-derived sources of fecal pollution was also discussed.
Dr. Tom Edge, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario, and Ted Bowering, City of Toronto, presented a case study on the application
of MST to investigate the source of fecal contamination at two urban Toronto beaches
on Lake Ontario. The study has used multiple lines of evidence for determining the
source of fecal contamination at these beaches. Antibiotic resistance analysis and
rep-PCR DNA fingerprinting were investigated in parallel using an E. coli library-based
approach. Over 6000 E. co/iwere collected from beach waters, sand and nearby urban
fecal pollution sources (e.g., wastewater, birds, pets). The MST results identified bird
feces as an important source of fecal contamination at the beaches. These results were
consistent with local knowledge of fecal pollution sources and observations of many
gulls and geese (and their droppings) on the beaches. Results to date from multiple
lines of evidence suggest bird droppings (gull and Canada geese) can be the prominent
source of fecal pollution at times at these beaches.
Dr. Todd Howell, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, described
fecal pollution problems at beaches along the Lake Huron shoreline (OMOE 20(5).
The southeast shoreline of Lake Huron, extending from the Ausable River to Point
Clark, is the focus of a study of sources and pathways of fecal pollution. Recreational
beaches are periodically posted as unsafe for swimming because of adverse water quality.
Water quality appears to be highly variable among the beach areas monitored by the
local Health Unit The investigation of microbial pollution in this area extends back over
20 years. Land use in the tributary watersheds is dominated by agriculture with limited
forest area and urban development. Elevated levels of fecal pollution indicators, namely
E. coli and fecal coliforms, have been reported in numerous studies of tributary water
quality. Previous studies have focussed on agriculture, faulty septic systems and sewage
treatment plants as possible fecal pollution sources. Most of the tributaries that drain to
the shoreline are small creeks that extend <10 km from the shoreline and are less than
11
5 km2 in area. In contrast, there are a few large river systems that represent over 80%
of the watershed area draining to the shoreline. The largest of these is the Maitland
River which extends approximately 85 km from the shoreline and has a drainage area
of almost 2600 km2. Despite the undoubted importance of tributaries as sources of
pollutants to the lake, there is limited understanding of the spatial extent or temporal
frequency of the effects of these loadings on the occurrence of fecal pollution indicators
in the nearshore. Seasonal and permanent homes relying on septic systems for waste
disposal dot the shoreline of the lake in many areas. There has been limited investiga-
tion of the extent to which fecal pollution sources adjacent to shoreline beaches may be
contributing to water quality problems. Wildlife, notably gulls and geese that occasionally
frequent some beaches, has received little attention as a potential source in previous
studies. Uncertainty remains as to the sources of fecal pollution to the lake that drive
the adverse levels of fecal indictors periodically detected in the shoreline waters at these
recreational beaches.
Dr. Vic Gannon, Laboratory for foodbome Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada,
Lethbridge, Alberta, provided an MST case study for the Oldman River Basin in southern
Alberta which is home to approximately 1.1 million head of cattle. The Little Bow River
that runs through this basin is located 40 km downstream of the city of Lethbridge and
passes through an area with many feedlots and high cattle density, where irrigation is
used for field crops. This study sought to determine if there was a correlation between
human and ruminant Bacteroides-Prevotella molecular markers and the presence of
E. coli0157:H7 and Salmonella in the Little Bow River. Water samples from different
sites were collected weekly through the summer months of 2002 and 2003 in the
waters of the Little Bow River. The samples were cultured for Salmonella and E. coli
0157:H7 and DNA extracted from sample filters was tested by PCR using the rumi-
nant- and human-specific Baderoides-Prevotella primer sets. The proportion of E. coli
0157:H7 positive samples that tested positive for the ruminant markers was 90.9%
(95% CI from 0.739 to 1.079, SE = 0.0867). In contrast, 44.8% (95% CI from 0.320
to 0.576, SE = 0.00426) of Salmonella positive samples tested positive for the ruminant
markers. The odds of detecting the Baderoides-Prevotella ruminant fecal markers when
E. coli0157:H7 was present were 10 to 1 but was only 0.8 to 1 when Salmonella was
present. The odds of detecting the human Baderoides-Prevotella fecal markers when
E. coli0157:H7 was present were 0 to 1 and 0.036 to 1 when Salmonella was present.
Cattle and other ruminants are known to be reservoirs for E. coli0157:H7. As would
be expected, the odds of detecting the ruminant marker when E. coli 0157:H7 was
present were high. In contrast, the Bacteroides-Prevotella host-specific markers used in
the study did not predict the presence of Salmonella. This suggests a great diversity
of host species sources for this pathogen in river water, e.g., many of the Salmonella
serovars recovered suggest an avian origin and avian markers would have been missed
using ruminant- and human-specific Bacteroides-Prevotella PCR assays.
5. Microbial Source Tracking Needs Assessment
Fecal contamination of aquatic ecosystems has resulted in adverse public health and
economic consequences for many communities across Canada. This fecal contamination
can originate from many possible sources, although municipal effluents, agricultural
practices and wildlife populations represent the more common sources in many areas
across Canada.
Municipal Effluents
Communities need to be able to track sources of municipal wastewater, combined sewer
overflows and stormwater contamination quickly because of the relatively higher poten-
tial for the occurrence of waterborne pathogens of human health concern. This fecal
pollution can come from inadequately treated effluents from sewage treatment plants,
12
or sewage treatment plant bypasses, and from stormwater and combined sewer over-
flows. leaking septic tanks, and shipboard wastes or U grey water" can be other
sources of human fecal contamination in aquatic ecosystems. One complication for
microbial source tracking is that municipal wastewater may not contain microbial con-
taminants exclusively of human origin. Municipal wastewater can also contain fecal con-
tamination from food processing activities, and from urban runoff sources like pets and
urban wildlife.
Dr. Jiri Marsa1ek, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario, provided a presentation on fecal pollution challenges in urban environments.
Fecal contamination occurs frequently in urban waters as a result of discharges of various
municipal effluents, among which wet-weather flows, stormwater and combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) are particularly important. Both stormwater and CSO discharges can
be highly contaminated with fecal bacteria and widely distributed throughout urban
areas. As such, they need to be addressed in planning the protection of recreational
waters. Stormwater characterization data indicate concentrations of E. coli or fecal
coliforms in the range from 103 to 105 units per 100 mL. Such concentrations may be
attenuated prior to discharge into open waters by storm water management measures,
or exceptionally by disinfection. The levels of indicator bacteria in CSOs are much higher
than in stormwater, and can be as high as 1()6 E. coli per 100 mL. Consequently, the
abatement of fecal contamination of CSOs is now considered in the design of CSO
control and treatment, as stipulated in the Ontario Interim Directive F-5-5 for CSO
abatement. In some cases (e.g., the Toronto Waterfront), the abatement of fecal
contamination of receiving waters is among the primary drivers behind the often costly
CSO abatement programs. CSO abatement options comprise combinations of storage
and treatment, in which the CSO treabnent train generally includes disinfection, partiQJlarly
where CSO outfalls are located upstream of recreational waters. Indicator bacteria data
from studies in the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels (Ontario) were used to
demonstrate fecal contamination impacts of wet-weather flows.
Agriculture
While it is possible to treat livestock fecal wastes effectively, and apply manure to
agricultural lands safely, poor farming practices, or storms and surface water runoff can
result in fluxes of fecal pollution downstream into aquatic ecosystems. Communities
need to be able to track sources of livestock fecal pollution quickly to prevent contami-
nation of source waters used for drinking water, irrigation or recreation. Increasingly
intensive rearing practices for livestock animals like cattle, hogs and poultry will present
significant animal waste management challenges in the future, Management of aquatic
ecosystems in agricultural watersheds will need to consider potential livestock fecal
pollution sources (e.g., droppings on pastures, manure lagoons) and the timing of
events like manure spreading when investigating potential fecal pollution sources.
Katrin Nagelschmitz, Strategic Policy Branch,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, provided
a presentation outlining the diversity and
numbers of livestock in agricultural areas
across Canada. Livestock numbers have
increased in Canada over the last decades.
However, the impact of this trend differs
across the country. The change in livestock
densities and in manure production varies
among regions. Technological and, structural
changes in the livestock sector are causes
of the development. The trend is towards
specialized larger farms employing a smaller
immediate land base.
13
Wildlife
Wildlife can present an unpredictable and difficult fecal source tracking challenge, that
is not so amenable to control and familiar waste treatment practices. Notable are the
growing numbers of birds such as gulls and Canada geese in many areas across Canada.
Where aquatic ecosystems occur near large wildlife populations (e.g., bird colonies),
consideration needs to be given to monitoring wildlife populations, their fecal droppings,
and their seasonal migrations or behaviour characteristics that could contribute to fecal
contamination .
Dr. Tom Edge, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario, provided a substitute presentation on wildlife fecal contamination sources.
Fecal pollution from wildlife species has been shown to contribute to impairment of
recreational waters in areas across Canada. For example, fecal droppings from birds
along beaches or from birds roosting under bridges can lead to significant increases
in waterborne fecal indicator bacteria. In some areas, efforts to enhance biodiversity
habitat and establish buffer sbips along streams may also facilitate increased loadings of
fecal pollution from wildlife. MST studies need to evaluate wildlife species as possible
sources of fecal pollution, and to consider the significance of local wildlife populations
such as aquatic mammals or birds (e.g., gulls and geese), and the timing of wildlife
movements and migrations.
6. MST "Drivers" in Canada
Microbial source tracking has been slower to develop in Canada than in the United
States. The U.S. Clean Water Act requirements for calculating Total Maximum Daily
Loads for fecal contaminants in watersheds (specifying that waters be "swimmable"
and "fishable") have been driving much of the application of MST methods in the
United States, and have forced a "top-down" drive to perform MST studies. Similarly,
risk-based initiatives in the European Union and in Australia provide much of the impetus
for MST research. However, Canada does not have equivalent legislation or initiatives,
and applications of MST have been driven more by a "bottom-up" approach stemming
from local community concerns for fecal pollution problems like beach and shellfish
closures. It is these types of environmental-related issues that provide the opportunity
to further refine the science in Canada while meeting specific user needs. With aging
municipal wastewater infrastructure and increasingly intensive urbanization and livestock
production capacity across Canada, needs will grow for tools to prevent and resolve
fecal pollution problems.
~-
A major objective of the workshop was to
get feedback from practitioners (policy and
program managers) on their needs related
to tracking sources of fecal contamination.
Consequently, a group of potential MST
"users" from all sectors formed a panel
invited to offer their opinions on the rele-
vance of MST. They were asked to outline
their current issues, challenges and needs
with respect to waterborne pathogen risk
in their jurisdiction and the utility of MST.
The comments below are a synthesis of
key observations from panelists and the
general discussion that followed among
all workshop participants.
'I
J
14
Implementation of Microbial Water Quality Guidelines, Objectives and Regulations
In Canada, all levels of government playa role to make sure water supplies are safe.
Provincial and territorial governments are in charge of setting and enforcing standards
to ensure drinking water safety. Local health authorities also monitor water quality, such
as at public beaches. At. the federal level, Health Canada works with other provincial
and territorial agencies to develop and publish national guidelines such as the
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality and the Guidelines for Canadian
Recreational Water Quality. These Guidelines are used by provinces and territories to
help set safe microbial water quality standards to ensure that drinking and recreational
waters do not present unacceptable health risks to the public. For example, the Guidelines
for Canadian Recreational Water Quality recommend conducting an environmental
health assessment or sanitary survey at the beginning of each bathing season, paying
special attention to aspects like fecal pollution. In addition, Environment Canada works
with other government agencies to implement the microbial water quality surveillance
of the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program. In order to meet federal, provincial, terri-
torial and municipal microbial water quality guidelines. objectives and regulations, MST
studies may be required to help resolve specific fecal pollution problems,
Agricultural Policy Framework
Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working with the agriculture
and agri-food industry since 2001 to help strengthen and revitalize the sector through
a new Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) for Canada. The APF is targeted at making
Canada the world leader in food safety, innovation and environmentally responsible
production. As part of the APF, a multi-year water quality surveillance initiative is being
led by Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to develop a better
understanding of the impact of agriculture on the prevalence. levels and sources of
microbiological (fecal) contamination at drinking water supply intake points and recre-
ational beaches at selected sites across Canada. This initiative involves a large multi-year
study evaluating different MST methods in agricultural watersheds across Canada, and
was described earlier in the workshop by Dr. Ed Topp. Environment Canada and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are also working under the APF to establish standards
for the occurrence of waterborne pathogens in agricultural watersheds under the National
Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI).
Canada-wide Municipal Wastewater Strategy
Under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, provinces, territories and
the federal government are currently developing a Canada-wide Strategy for the
Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. In addition to harmonizing the regulatory
framework and developing risk management models. the Strategy wiD help co-ordinate
the relevant science and research agenda. On this last item, the Strategy will review the
state of knowledge on science and technology, assess the need for action on emerging
issues and recommend approaches to fiR information gaps. This initiative may provide
some opportunity to elevate the issue and importance of microbial source tracking to
help target the cost-effective abatement of fecal pollution from municipal wastewaters.
Local Community Management and Abatement of Fecal Pollution
Workshop panelists and participants suggested that perhaps the most compelling utility
for MST is to target management and abatement options more effectively. For example,
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement identifies Areas of Concern and calls on
agencies to develop remedial action plans and contribute to delisting beneficial use
impairments for aspects such as beach closures. For most municipalities there is simply
insufficient funding for widespread abatement of fecal contamination problems on pop-
ular beaches. Major investments in wastewater and storm water infrastructure are often
predicated on their ability to reduce the number of summer beach closures, although in
15
~
practice this has not always happened. Clearly the management response could be swifter
and the potential financial savings greater if one has a clearer picture of whether fecal
contamination at a given beach originated in an upstream agricultural area, from
municipal point sources, or from wildlife like gulls or geese on the beach. For many
municipalities, simply knowing whether or not the source of fecal pollution is human or
non-human can provide useful guidance. Similarly, conservation authorities in Ontario,
for example, could better target agricultural non-point source abatement if they knew
which animals were the primary source of a given fecal pollution problem. Although
we may not yet be at the stage where MST can provide a reliable and practical "off-
the-shelf" tool for broad application, it can be useful on a local basis for helping to tar-
get a fecal pollution management response, prioritize abatement options, and guide
needs for any infrastructure investment.
MST Education and Awareness
MST is thought to have a role to play in helping educate citizens on the hazards of
microbial pollution. This is often the case where source tracking data can be useful to
help convince doubtful contributors of their role in fecal pollution. As noted above,
MST can then help provide contributors with an indication of the tangible benefits of
microbial hazard reduction associated with a range of best management practices.
More broadly, MST can inform the discussion of new shoreline projects where habitat
rehabilitation and bird re-colonization is planned in areas of high human beach use.
Guidance on Source Water Protection Planning
To help protect drinking water, many provincial governments are pursuing legislation
and/or guidance on developing watershed-based source water protection plans. Many
of these plans suggest that m4nicipal source waters should be characterized microbio-
logically, in some cases delineating pathogen risk zones, in addition to specifying ways
that BMPs can be used to reduce loading of pathogens. In the case of the Province of
Ontario, it is anticipated that i~ue-specific guidance material would be provided to help
municipalities develop these pI/ins, and it is possible that MST studies could be a com-
ponent of a pathogen-based g~ide document.
7. Conclusions
Early microbial source tracking studies in the late 1990s raised considerable expectations
for MST tools to resolve complex fecal pollution source tracking problems. More recent
laboratory studies, with carefully controlled experimental designs, have pointed to limi-
tations in existing MST methods (Griffith et at. 2003; Stoeckel et aI. 2004). These recent
studies were perceived to have placed a "wet blanket" on microbial source tracking,
particularly for studies of large watersheds with complex sources of fecal contamina-
tion. However, the field of microbial source tracking is evolving, and novel MST
tools resulting from scientific advances in areas like genomics (e.g., DNA microar-
rays) may enlarge the MST toolbox in the future. In addition, cases where MST meth-
ods have been applied successfully on a local basis continue, and they were instrumen-
tal in leading to effective remedial clean-up actions. For example, a case study was
presented at the workshop where antibiotic resistance analysis (ARA) found an unex-
pected human fecal pollution source, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) confirmed
it, and fluorometry tracked it to its source.
The Workshop recognized that while many methods exist in the current MST toolbox,
there is no usilver bullet," universally accepted best method. While some methods
have achieved a level of maturity where they could be considered for standardization,
others are still experimental or research-grade tools. Additional research is required to
understand better the advantages and limitations of microbial source tracking methods,
16
and wider application of the tools will
require standard methods and careful con-
sideration of appropriate experimental
designs. Library-dependent MST methods
require a library of an appropriate size
and representation, which still remains to
be determined. Library-independent MST
methods require validation of host-specific
markers in field studies.
Applications of MST in Canada have been
driven more by a "bottom-up" approach
from local community concerns for beach
and shellfish closures, than by "top-down"
regulatory needs such as in the United
States. Although we are not yet at the
stage where there is an "off-the-shelf" MST tool for broad application, MST methods
have been shown to be useful on a local basis for helping to target management
responses, prioritize abatement options and guide investment. The Workshop placed
emphasis on applying MST methods as part of multiple lines of evidence to resolve fecal
pollution source tracking problems. While MST tools can be useful for addressing fecal
pollution source tracking problems, it will be important to ensure realistic expectations
among the end-user communities for MST studies in the near future.
17
8. Key References
Bernhard, A.E. and K.G. field. 2oo0a. Identification of nonpoint sources of fecal pollution in
coastal waters by using host-specific 16S ribosomal DNA genetic markers from fecal anaerobes.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 1587-1594.
Bernhard, A.E. and K.G. Field. 2oo0b. PCR assay to discriminate human and ruminant feces on
the basis of host differences in Bacteroides-Prevotella genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 66: 4571-4574.
Carson, CA., B.L. Shear, M.R. Ellersieck and A. Asfaw. 2001. Identification of fecal Escherichia coli
from humans and animals by ribotyping. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67: 1503-1507.
Dombek, P.E., l.K. Johnson, S.T. Zimmerley and M.J. Sadowsky. 2000. Use of repetitive DNA
sequences and the PCR to differentiate Escherichia roli isolates from human and animal sources.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 2572-2577.
Elhmmali, M., D. Robers and R. Evershed. 2002. Combined analysis of bile acids and
sterols/stanols from riverine particulates to assess sewage discharges and other fecal sources.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 39-46.
field, K.G. 2004. Faecal source identification, chapter 22, p. 349-366. In JA Cotruvo, A. Dufour,
G. Rees, J. Bartram, R. Carr, D.O. Cliver, G.F. Craun, R. Fayer and V.P.J. Gannon (ed.), Waterborne
zoonoses: identification, causes and control. World Health Organization, IWA Publishing,
london, UK
Fong, T.T., O.W. Griffin and E.K. lipp. 2005. Molecular assays for targeting human and bovine
enteric viruses in coastal waters and their application for library-independent source tracking.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 2070-2078.
Glassmeyer, S.T., E.! Furlong, OW. Kolpin, J.D. Cahill, S.D. Zaugg, S.L Werner, M.T. Meyer and
D.O. Kryak. 2005. Transport of chemical and microbial compounds from known wastewater dis-
charges: potential for use as indicators of human fecal contamination. Environ. Sci. Techno!.
39(14): 5157-5169.
Goss, M. and K.E. Dunfield. 2004. Tracking sources of microbial impairment to water quality in
rural Ontario. Report on the Workshop held at the University of Guelph, Arboretum Centre, 5-6
April, 2004.
Griffith, J.F., S.B. Weisburg and CD. McGee. 2003. Evaluation of microbial source tracking
methods using mixed fecal sources in aqueous test samples. J. Water Health 1: 141-151.
Guan, S., R. Xu, S. Chen, 1. Odumeru and C Gyles. 2002. Development of a procedure for dis-
criminating among Escherichia coli isolates from animal and human sources. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 68: 2690-2698.
Hagedorn, C, J.B. Crozier. K.A. Mentz, A.M. Booth, A.K. Graves, N.J. Nelson and R.B. Reneau.
2003. Carbon source utilization profiles as a method to identify sources of faecal pollution in
water. J. Appl. Microbiol. 94: 792-799.
Hagedorn, CS., S.L Robinson, J.R. Filtz, S.M. Grubbs, T.A. Angier and R.B. Reneau. 1999. Using
antibiotic resistance patterns in the fecal streptococci to determine sources of fecal pollution in a
rurat Virginia watershed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65: 5522-5531.
Harwood, V.J., J. Whitlock and V. Withington. 2000. Classification of antibiotic resistance pat-
terns of indicator bacteria by discriminant analysis: use in predicting the source of fecal contami-
nation in subtropical waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 3698-3704.
Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2004. A pilot project to study the impact
of agriculture on the prevalence, levels and sources of microbiological (fecal) contamination at
drinking water supply intake points and recreational beaches at selected sites across Canada.
Microbial Source Tracking Workshop: Summary of Proceedings. Water Quality and Health
Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Safe Environments Programme,
Health Canada and Potato Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
June 19-202003, Ottawa, Ontario. 30 p.
Jiang, J., KA Alderisio and L Xiao. 2005. Distribution of Cryptosporidium genotypes in storm
event water samples from three watersheds in New York. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 4446-
4454.
18
Johnson, l.K., M.B. Brown, EA Carruthers, J.A. Ferguson, P.E. Dombek and M.J. Sadowsky. 2004.
Sample size, library composition, and genotypic diversity among natural populations of
Escherichia coli from different animals influence accuracy of determining sources of fecal pollu-
tion. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70: 4478-4485.
Khatib, l.A., Y.L Tsai and B.H. Olson. 2002. A biomarker for the identification of cattle fecal pol,
lutian in water using the LTlla toxin gene from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotech. 59: 97-1 04.
Khatib, L.A., Y.L. Tsai and B.H. Olson. 2003. A biomarker for the identification of swine fecal pol-
lution in water, using the STII toxin gene from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotech. 63: 231-238.
Kuntz, R.L.. P.G. Hartel, D.G. Godfrey, n. McDonald, K.W. Gates and W.1. Segars. 2003.
Targeted sampling protocol with Enterococcus faecalis for bacterial source tracking. 1 Environ.
Qual. 32: 2311-2318.
leung, K.1., R. Mackereth. Y.-C. Tien and E. Topp. 2004. A comparison of AFLP and ERIC-PeR
analyses for discriminating Escherichia coli from cattle, pig and human sources. FEMS Microbiol.
Eco!. 47: 111-119.
Martellini, A., P. Payment and R. Villemur. 2005. Use of eukaryotic mitochondrial DNA to differ-
entiate human, bovine, porcine and ovine sources in fecally contaminated surface water. Water
Res. 39: 541-548.
OMOE. 2005. Sources and mechanisms of delivery of E. coli (bacteria) pollution to the Lake
Huron shoreline of Huron County. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 265 p.
Payan, A., J. Ebdon, H. Taylor, C. Gantzer, J. Ottoson, G.T. Papageorgiou, A.R. Blanch, F. Lucena,
J. Jofre and M. Muniesa. 2005. Method for isolation of Bacteroides bacteriophage host strains
suitable for tracking sources of fecal pollution in water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 5659-5662.
Roser, OJ., NJ. Ashbolt, R. Leeming, R. Kagi and 1.D. Waite. 2003. Fingerprinting using sterols
and partide size analyses and the management of faecal pollution and turbidity, p. 355-362, Vol.
2. In MJ. Boyd, J.E. Ball, M.K. Babister and 1 Green (ed.), 28th International Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium. Institution of Engineers, Australia.
Scott, 1.M., 1.M. Jenkins, J. Lukasik and J.B. Rose. 2005. Potential use of a host associated
molecular marker in Enterococcus faeciumas an index of human fecal pollution. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 39: 283-287.
Scott, T.M., lB. Rose, 1.M. Jenkins, S.R. Farrah and J. Lukasik. 2002. Microbial source tracking:
current methodology and future directions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68: 5796-5803.
Simpson, J.M., J.W. Santo Domingo and OJ. Reasoner. 2002. Microbial source tracking: state of
the science. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 36: 5279-5288.
Stoeckel, D.M., M.V. Mathes, K.E. Hyer, C. Hagedom, H. Kator, J. Lukasik, T.L. O'Brien, T.W. Fenger,
M. Samadpour, K.M. Strickler and B.A. Wiggins. 2004. Comparison of seven protocols to identi-
fy fecal contamination sources using Escherichia coli. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38: 6109-6117.
Sullivan, D. 2004. Microbial source tracking (MST): towards effective identification of fecal pol-
lution sources. MST Applications Workshop Final Report. Clean Annapolis River Project. April
14-15,2004, Wolfville. Nova Scotia. Cat. No. En4-45/2004E. 44 p.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Microbial source tracking guide. Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPN600-R-05-D64. 150 p.
Wiggins, B.A. 1996. Discriminant analysis of antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci, a
method to differentiate human and animal sources of fecal pollution in natural waters. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 62: 3997-4002.
FI
.
DAY 2 - "MST Needs Assessment"
Summary of the State of the Science
8:30 Short summary of the state of the science (based on Day 1)
9:00 Results from the WERF MST workshop February 16-18, 2005
Dr. Paul Rochelle, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, La Verne, California
Plenary discussion of the state of MST science
10:00 Coffee
Fecal Pollution Source Tracking Needs Assessment (trends, challenges, mitigation)
10:30 Assessment of urban wet-weather flow sources of fecal contamination: stormwater and
combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
Dr. Jiri Marsalek, Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Ontario
Distribution and Population Trends of Canadian Livestock
Katrin Nagelschmitz, Strategic Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Wildlife source assessment - (TBG
Lunch
11:00
11:30
12:00
13:00
Panel on MST Water Quality -Drivers- in Canada
Short (5 minute) presentations & discussion on fecal pollution source tracking needs, pres
sures, regulatory "drivers" and/or research needs from the municipal, conservation authority,
provincial and federal government perspectives.
Panel Partidpants
Will Robertson - Water Quality and Health Bureau, Health Canada
TBC - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
TBC - Environment Canada
Renee Bowler - Drinking Water Management Division, OMOE
Norm Neumann - Provincial Lab, Alberta
Michael D'Andrea - Toronto Water, City of Toronto
Tim Van Seters - Water Quality and Monitoring, TRCA
Next Steps
14:30 Workshop summary and identification of next steps
15:00 Workshop wrap-up
21
Appendix B - list of Workshop Participants
* indicates speaker/panelist; ** workshop organizing committee; *** workshop sponsor
Provinces
Kevin Rieberger, B.C. Min. of Water, Land & Air Protection
Norm Neumann *, Provo (Alberta) Lab. for Public Health
Wendy Railey, Manitoba Water Stewardship
John Lynch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Susan Weir. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Todd Howell * ** ***, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Brian Whitehead, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Ted Briggs, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Renee Bowler *, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Cecily Flemming, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Ann Marie Weselan, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Stewart Sweeney *, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food
John Drage, Nova Scotia Environment & Labour
Martin Goebel, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation
Ontario Conservation Authorities
Mari Veliz, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority
Karen Maaskant, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority
Tim Van Seters *, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
Municipal/Regional Governments
Pat Chessie ** ***, City of Toronto
Ilze Andzans, City of Toronto
Ted Bowering *, City of Toronto
William Snodgrass, City of Toronto
Peter Gauthier, City of Toronto
Mahesh Patel, City of Toronto
Janis Cumin, City of Owen Sound
Jason Culp, Gty of St. Catharines
Federal Departments
Teresa Brooks, Health Canada
Will Robertson * **, Health Canada
Vic Gannon * **, Public Health Agency of Canada
Ed Topp * **, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Katrin Nagelschmitz *, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Roland Brousseau *, National Research Council of Canada
Tom Edge * ** ***, Environment Canada-NWRI
Karl Schaefer **, Environment Canada-S&T Liaison Division
Rob Phillips, Environment Canada-NWRI
Jim Maguire, Environment Canada-NWRI
Jiri Marsalek *, Environment Canada-NWRI
22
Allan Crowe, Environment Canada-NWRI
Jim Sherry, Environment Canada-NWRI
Heather Osachoff, Environment Canada-PVR
M.T. Grant, Environment Canada-AR
Sandra Kok ** ***, Environment Canada-OR-GLSF
Thomas Tseng, Environment Canada-OR
Janette Anderson, Environment Canada-OR
Lorraine Standing, Environment Canada-EPS
Elaine McKnight, Environment Canada-EPS
Professional Associations
Catherine Jefferson, Canadian Water & Wastewater Association
Cindy Toth, Water Environment Association of Ontario & Town of Oakville
Ian Mcilwham, Water Environment Association of Ontario & Region of Durham
Mary Jane Conboy, Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Sarah Winterton, Environmental Defence
Jeff Ridal, St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences
Keith Sherman, Severn Sound Environmental Association
Academics
Greg Bezanson, Acadia University
Pierre Payment *, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)
Corinne Ong, University of British Columbia
Richard Nordin, University of Victoria
Shu Chen. University of Guelph
Kan Dunfield, University of Guelph
Michele Van Dyke, University of Waterloo
International
Don Stoeckel *, U.S. Geological Survey
John Griffith *, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Mike Jenkins *. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cindy Nakatsu, Purdue University
Valerie J. Harwood *, University of South Florida
Charles Hagedorn *. Virginia Tech
Paul Rochelle *, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Nick Ashbolt *, The University of New South Wales
Ll
cc....EH? q,~J -01
D(.D J
Page 1 of I
Leslie Locke
From:
Phil Johnson
Sent: Thursday, September 20,20075:41 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Comments on the proposed ordinance for a Clean Water District
Attachments: comments _re _ clean_water _ district_ -_final. doc
From: RICHARD TALBOT[SMTP:KOSTELEC@Q.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:38:32 PM
To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin
Subject: Comments on the proposed ordinance for a Clean Water District
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Commissioners,
We respectfully submit the attached comments for the record on the proposed ordinance to establish a 'Clean
Water District', in anticipation of the continuation hearing on September 26,2007.
Richard Talbot
Colette Kostelec
PO Box 1868
Port Townsend, WA 98368
.------'
9/2112007
September 20,2007
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
From: Richard Talbot and Colette Kostelec
P.O. Box 1868
Port Townsend, W A 98368
RE: Comments in opposition to the Proposed Ordinance to Establish the
Jefferson County "Clean Water District"
We support the continuation of the shellfish farming and harvesting industry in
Jefferson County, and existing regional programs focused on water quality
monitoring in the waters of Puget Sound. The proposed ordinance indicates that
W A Dept. of Health has made findings that continuation of shellfish farming is
threatened in four specific areas of Jefferson County due to low water quality
(Findings of Fact 02.1,02.2,02.3,02.4, and 02.5), and that non-point water
pollution sources include agricultural surface water runoff and failing on-site septic
systems (Findings of Fact 02.9).
Our comments on the proposed ordinance are as follows:
1. The proposed ordinance does not comply with state law.
a. The statutory authority which the County is citing, RCW 90.72,
authorizes the creation of "a shellfish protection district to include areas
in which non-point pollution threatens the water quality upon which the
continuation or restoration of shellfish farming or harvesting is
dependent" (RCW 90.72.030) - not a county-wide "clean water district."
The County's use of the term "clean water district" is, by its own
admission, intended to deceive citizens.
b. State law (RCW 90.72.040(1)) also requires counties to coordinate and
cooperate with cities within their boundaries in establishing shellfish
protection districts and, if a proposed "shellfish protection district"
includes an incorporated area, "the county shall develop procedures for
the participation of the city or town in the determination of the
boundaries of the district and the administration of the district, including
funding of the district's programs." The City of Port Townsend is
mentioned only in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance, purportedly
including the city within the boundaries of the proposed district. There
is no proposed mechanism for the city's participation in the
development, administration and funding of the proposed district's
programs. The proposed ordinance therefore does not comply with the
statutory requirements.
J ~ ..
2. Existing County code provides adequate authority to investigate and
remediate the two identified primary sources of water contamination in
shellfish areas (failing septic systems and agricultural runoff).
a. Jefferson County On-Site Sewage Code (Chapter 8.15) prohibits the
discharge of any effluent from an on-site septic system ("OSS") "directly
or indirectly to surface water or upon the surface of the ground." JCC
8.15.070. Owners of septic systems are required to "use, operate, and
maintain the system to eliminate the risk to the public associated with
improperly treated sewage." JCC 8.15.150. The code requires regular
inspection of septic systems (at least every 3 years for conventional
systems and annually for alternative systems). JCC 8.15 Table 1.
Inspectors are required to notify the County of failing systems within 24
hours. JCC 8.15.140(5). The County Health Officer is authorized to
enforce this code and penalize (with civil and criminal penalties) owners
who fail to comply with these provisions.
Why isn't this code adequate to deal with this problem? Shouldn't
property owners of failing systems be held accountable? Port Townsend
residents currently pay a minimum of $43.17 per month to responsibly
deal with their sewage (they also currently pay $6 per month for
stormwater). It is only reasonable to expect owners of septic systems to
be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining proper disposal
of their sewage. The County should charge all septic system owners an
annual fee to adequately fund enforcement of existing law ("Element 3"
of the proposed Water Quality Improvement Plan).
b. Jefferson County Unified Development Code addresses best management
practices for agriculture - the expectation is that agricultural activities
will "be conducted in a manner that protects against harm or degradation
to the existing functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat in and
adjacent to streams and wetlands through the implementation of
agricultural BMPs." JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(iii). The Conservation District is
also empowered to work with property owners and aid in finding other
funds that are available to assist with improvements that may be needed
to meet BMPs. JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(iii)(A). Although many agricultural
BMPs are voluntary, the code provides that if the county finds that
voluntary implementation of agricultural BMPs is failing to protect
wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impact related to
agriculture in any specific areas within a given watershed, the
exemptions from buffer requirements will be modified or eliminated for
those particular sites within that watershed. JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(ii)(D).
c. If the County is not using its existing enforcement authority (Findings of
Fact 02.6) to deal with failing septic systems and contaminating
agricultural practices, why should we expect that it will do so under a
new taxing district?
3. We support the designation of "shellfish protection districts" as a means for
the County to obtain additional state money.
If by designating "shellfish protection districts" the county becomes eligible for
additional money from the state, we certainly support this. However, such districts
should be designated to encompass the areas where the problems exist so that a
focused approach can be taken both to the investigation and remediation of the
problem. To that end, the County should designate "shellfish protection districts"
(not a "clean water district") to include the specific watersheds contributing ground
and surface water to the shellfish beds at issue. The County should then use
newly-available state money as needed for education and monitoring; meanwhile
have property owners rightfully bear the costs of fixing their failing systems and
agricultural practices.
4. The ordinance proposes a program that is too permanent, too broad in scope,
and too open-ended.
As noted above, we support a limited and targeted approach to designation and
remediation of water quality in "shellfish protection areas." The ordinance, as
currently written, suggests an opposite approach, as demonstrated in Findings of
Fact 02.12,02.16,02.17. For instance, the program will not be re-evaluated until
2012 (5 years) and the fee until 2010 (3 years). Findings of Fact 02.9. This is not
responsive either to solving the problems or to the taxpayers. As indicated in
Comment 3 above the "shellfish protection district" program should be very task-
and budget-specific to the at-risk shellfish locations and should be re-evaluated
through quarterly and annual reports, appropriate for the urgency of the matter.
Respectfully submitted
By email 9/20/2007
Q.
-ILl... . L 1(
P 1-1.
(/1 I ). ( / lr]
/~
/i)'
" l
,1", ;:J [:;) r')
September 20, 2007
Commissioner John Austin
Commissioner David Sullivan
Commissioner Phil Johnson
Jefferson County Courthouse
P. O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Commissioners:
I have been following the clean water district fee plan with great interest. I am puzzled
by why folks in Port Ludlow should participate in the fee since we are on sewers and
have a sewage treatment plant that we pay dearly for. My wife and I pay an average of
$444 per year for the privilege of a sewer. That figure does not include our water fee.
We own a single family home. When we built our home our sewage hook up fee was
$8,000 which now is $10,000. We are not the ones polluting our waters; it is the folks
with faulty septic tanks. My property taxes are approximately $10,000 per year which is
outrageous. People in Port Ludlow pay 1.13% for Public Utility District # 1. We receive
absolutely no benefit from this PUD. We are paying taxes for this PUD that do not help
us in any way whatsoever yet you want to add another $18.00 to my property taxes. 1bis
is outrageous and I want a written response as to why you want to add additional taxes to
my property taxes that are already so far out of line it is pathetic.
Tax the folks in Discovery Bay and adjacent areas that are polluting the waters. You
need to enforce existing codes that deal with faulty septic tanks. Do not force me to pay
for someone else's problem while I already pay to keep Port Ludlow waters clean. I
await your response.
Sincerely,
~~
Tom Callahan
142 Skiff Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
(360) 437-7775
" . ))
cc: ~D) 'lld'-\/m
Miranda Schryver
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gordon James [gjames@cablespeed.com]
Saturday, September 22,20079:46 AM
Miranda Schryver
Water District
~,
,"'" ~"n' '
': ldl
. ; ,.. ..
,"GI;' '
Commissioners Austin, Johnson & Sullivan:
First, let me say that I am in favor of efforts that will effectively clean up the waters
of Puget Sound. We do need to begin to restore and save the waters that make this area a
great place to live.
However, to do so will take the knowledge and experience to maximize the benefits gained
per dollar expended.
Now let me share my concerns about your desire to rush into a county- wide water district
to measure fecal coliform. If you are really serious about improving the water quality we
need to learn how to identify not only pollution from fecal coliform but, also chemicals
from fertilizers & fungicides and medicinal residues. These all contribute to dangers to
fish, shellfish and all forms of sea life through toxins and increased levels of dissolved
oxygen. I do not see where your plan provides for complete analysis, knowledge of the cost
of reclamation or of enforcement. You may have estimates but, they are only guesstimates.
I humbly suggest that you proceed in a prudent business-like manner to establish a pilot
project that will enable you to test a procedure, measure results and accurately establish
a cost basis for the future of an effective county-wide water district. With proven
results and identified costs you will provide residents with the data
to support the need for their concern and investment in their
county's health. This will also give you time to determine a fair methodology for
assessing the costs to your constituents. This is the approach that businesses would take
and that governments should take.
You have the perfect opportunity to proceed with a pilot project.
Start with Discovery Bay. You have the grant funds to do so. Prove the program and
measurable results. Make mistakes and corrections while learning at a much more affordable
level. Let's run our county in a prudent business-like manner.
Sincerely,
Gordon James
3447 Oak Bay Road
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
(360) 437-0422
1
Leslie Locke
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Phil Johnson
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:27 PM
Leslie Locke
FW: Jefferson County Water Quality Improvement Plan: puget Sound Partnership Informal
Support Statement
Importance:
High
; ~.
'_;i,
'! ' .",\."" D~)
;.,~ iJ~ i
J \_ " ,
<lV,: I . "o'
li
-------------------------------------------
From: Mike McNickle
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:26:50 PM
To: John Fischbach
Cc: Jean Baldwin; David sullivan; Phil Johnson; John Austin
Subject: FW: Jefferson County Water Quality Improvement Plan: puget Sound Partnership
Informal Support Statement
Importance: High
Auto forwarded by a Rule
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Cambalik, John [mailto:john.cambalik@psp.wa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:07 PM
To: Mike McNickle (E-mail)
Cc: Neil Harrington; Daniel Nidzgorski
Subject: Jefferson County Water Quality Improvement Plan: puget Sound Partnership Informal
Support Statement
Importance: High
Mike,
I would like to offer my support for the Water Quality Improvement Plan, creation of the
Clean Water District, and the overall goals of the program, including a permanent and
stable funding source to address nonpoint pollution problems within the county. A stable
funding source is needed to effectively and consistently accomplish the four-major
eiements of the program.
Creation of a Clean Water District for Jefferson County and implementation of the Water
Quality Improvement Plan, as proposed, will help to advance the puget Sound Partnership's
goals and objectives, particularly the objective to reduce pollution from human and animal
waste and other sources of pathogens and nutrients.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to make tonight's public hearing. In my absence, please
enter the above statement of support into the public record at tonight'S public hearing on
the issue.
Thank you.
Please note that my email address and our website have changed. See below.
John Cambalik, Regional Liaison
Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap, and Hood Canal in Mason puget Sound Partnership - State of
washington PO Box 3622 Sequim, Washington 98382
Phone: 360-582-9132
Fax: 360-582-9132 (please call first)
Email: john.cambalik@psp.wa.gov
Website: www.psp.wa.gov
1