ER - Going forward: Primary dioxin focus shifts to 2008 303(D) listing process

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff member Bruce Gyynne, right, talks with an attendee at a Water Board hearing at the Wharfinger Building on Jan. 4 to discuss the Clean Water Act 303(d) listing process for 2006. Katie O’Neill/The Eureka Reporter

Going forward: Primary dioxin focus shifts to 2008 303(D) listing process
by Nathan Rushton, 1/20/2007

The widely criticized Clean Water Act 303(d) listing process for identifying contaminated waters in the U.S., which tagged Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin, is undergoing some significant changes this year.

Those changes could prevent the communication disconnect between the State Water Resources Control Board and its daughter agency, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, that is partly being blamed for why Humboldt Bay ended up on the list as impaired for dioxin in the first place.

For the 2008 list update, data and information regarding impaired waters will be submitted to nine regional water boards, which will then compile and approve their own regional list that would be combined and considered for adoption by the state. It would ultimately be forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to comply with the federal Clean Water Act.

While the 2004 303(d) listing process ended only three months ago, the deadline for submitting documents for the 2008 listing process will close Feb. 28.

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and Humboldt County officials are still trying to get the state to reverse its decision to list Humboldt Bay and have made some headway in getting the State Water Board to discuss the matter at its February meeting.

Others who have a stake in the matter are focusing their efforts on the 2008 cycle in hopes of getting the Regional Water Board to analyze the vast pool of information already collected, which they hope would provide a basis for delisting Humboldt Bay for dioxin.

In an outreach effort aimed at beginning a “dialogue” with the North Coast in the aftermath of the 303(d) listing its own staff said caught them off guard, the Regional Water Board held a public meeting at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka on Jan. 4 to answer questions and solicit data for the next listing period.

Catherine Kuhlman, executive officer for the Regional Water Board, indicated her agency was equally surprised by the State Water Board’s reversal, but said the issue isn’t worth debating with the state and energy should now be focused on the 2008 listing phase.

Most of the approximately 40 attendees at the meeting, comprised of government officials, resource managers, scientists and interested residents, complained about the completed 303(d) listing process they said was botched.




Regional Water Board staff offered their support and commitment to work with the community so nobody was surprised again.

While the Regional Water Board hasn’t yet received any new data as of Thursday, Kuhlman said she doesn’t expect anything until the last minute of the submission deadline in February.

In the meantime, Kuhlman said her staff is in the process of identifying and sorting through all of the “reams” of documents one member of her staff said they already have.

Harbor District Chief Executive Officer David Hull said he was pleased with Regional Water Board’s outreach effort to initiate the process for the 2008 listing cycle and wants to work cooperatively, but added that was the approach that should have taken place last year.

Hull described the 2006 303(d) process as part of a “disturbing cycle” that he said has underfunded regulatory agencies “shooting from the hip” in making decisions, which leaves them vulnerable to lawsuits.

The Harbor District, which has been among the most active local agencies lobbying the state to revisit the matter, approved in a 4-1 closed session vote at a meeting last Thursday to send another letter to the State Water Board formally requesting the 303(d) listing matter be placed on its agenda for reconsideration as soon as possible.

Despite its initial position not to revisit the matter on any technical or procedural grounds, the State Water Board announced Thursday that it arranged the matter to be discussed at its February meeting and also opened the door for a potential March action item.

While he was optimistic about the opportunity to comment to the State Water Board about the listing matter, Hull said litigation has been discussed by the Harbor District’s Board of Commissioners and hasn’t been ruled out as an option.

“Bottom line is we think there are a lot of technical and procedural issues we can’t justify and they can’t make clear,” Hull said.

Whether the State Water Board considers trying to undo its decision or delists Humboldt Bay as impaired for dioxin in 2008, there is concern among many that the bay will be under the stigma of a toxic chemical for at least two more years.

Compared to Humboldt Baykeeper, which has pending lawsuits against two Eureka Waterfront properties for Clean Water Act violations, almost every agency official agrees that the 303(d) listing process is not the best way to deal with the contaminated sites they say are already known and are being targeted for cleanup.

But Humboldt Baykeeper Program Director Pete Nichols said getting the bay listed for dioxin as part of the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list is the only way to kick start the cleanup process he said hasn’t yet been adequately addressed and is evident by the many test results that show dioxin present at high levels.

“Few of the old mill sites around Humboldt Bay have been characterized for dioxin contamination,” Nichols said. “Baykeeper environmental consultants found dioxin at Superfund levels in a Humboldt Bay drainage ditch at Del Norte Street fishing pier. This ditch is adjacent to a known pentachlorophenol site, but had never been sampled for dioxin.”

From the Regional Water Board’s perspective, Kuhlman disagrees that nothing is being done to address the contamination issues around Humboldt Bay and said the Regional Water Board has identified the most contaminated site in and around the bay.

“We are chasing the last bit of dioxin, but there has been a tremendous effort and success in reducing it in the environment,” Kuhlman said.

But whether or not it has been done fast enough, that is a concern Kuhlman can appreciate.

Kuhlman admits her staff is too small and already burdened with tackling many other cleanup plans, or total maximum daily load actions, for high-profile and higher priority waters, such as the Klamath River.

“A TMDL, which takes a lot of time and money and would reach the same conclusion, I don’t think is the best tool to deal with the (dioxin) problem,” Kuhlman said.

Kuhlman said the good thing to come out of the recent 303(d) listing is the board can identify any remaining sources that can be removed.

“That, to me, is a good thing,” Kuhlman said.

Humboldt County 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist, a former environmental compliance analyst for the city of Arcata, is familiar with regulatory process and water quality issues.

During discussions at Board of Supervisors meetings regarding the surprise 303(d) dioxin listing, Geist raised concerns about the economic impacts to the county as a result of the listing that include costly soils analysis testing for development permits and restoration activities for wetland and marsh habitats.

Geist, who said she believes Humboldt Baykeeper “jumped the gun” by lobbying heavily for the 303(d) listing, questions why the environmental groups didn’t try and pull in the stakeholders to work toward a cleanup together.

The process is creating divisions and making it less likely that people will work together to resolve the issue in the bay, Geist said.

Geist said it is imperative that agencies have mutual trust in working to clean up dioxin, not just in Humboldt County, but in communities that are dealing with similar issues all across the U.S.

“Stakeholders were not given an option,” Geist said. “And there is a willingness to step forward and work together.”

As the largest commercial producer of oysters operating in Humboldt Bay, clean water and a healthy bay is an important concern to Coast Seafood Inc.

Coast Seafood General Manager Greg Dale, who has battled for nearly a decade against a sea of regulatory process and costly studies to secure permits that allowed his company to continue growing shellfish in Humboldt Bay, is frustrated by the 303(d) process he said was done quickly and with no transparency.

Dale said the unwarranted listing mucks the important work already done by numerous proactive agencies, as well as the Regional Water Board, in their efforts to clean the bay.

In 2002, Coast Seafood spearheaded an industry-initiated study to sample bay shellfish for toxic contamination, which showed dioxin was prevalent, but significantly below the thresholds for health risks.

“I feel confident about our products,” Dale said. “Yes, there are dioxins, but they are not at levels that are a human health hazard.”

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.