HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-1997 City Council agenda-Supplemental1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
This transcript was prepared as a guide to the location of information on
the videotape of the meeting made by KSAR. The videotape is available
to the public at the Saratoga Library.
10 Minute Recess
Gillian Moran
I'd like to call the meeting back to order. The next item on our agenda is a report from
Dr. Rhea Williamson on Saratoga Creek coliform investigation. And I was hoping I could turn
to our Public Works Director, Larry Perlin, and ask you to set the stage a little bit for this and to
introduce Dr. Williamson so that she can give us a report. And then we have an opportunity to
ask you questions from counsel and an opportunity for the public to ask questions of you.
Larry Perlin
Certainly. Madame Mayor and members of the Council, I am pleased tonight to
introduce to you again, and to the members of the public who might be watching for the first
time, Dr. Rhea Williamson. Dr. Williamson is an associate professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering and Applied Mechanics at San Jose State University and Dr. Williamson, is, I think
a recognized expert in the field of water quality and water chemistry and some of these
environmental sciences. Approximately a year ago, almost to the day, the City Council
authorized and approved an agreement with Dr. Williamson to look into some of the
environmental characteristics of Saratoga Creek, water quality issues and to prepare a report that
addressed certain questions that the City had about conditions relating to the Creek and over the
course of the past year Dr. Williamson and some of her graduate students have been working on
that. Her final report was provided to the City Council, I believe, in December, and she has been
scheduled to essentially provide a presentation on her report and summarize her findings to the
City Council and to the members of the public this evening. So, Dr. Williamson, if you'd like to
proceed with the presentation....
Dr. Williamson:
Great, thank you for having me here, I really appreciate the time. I've actually prepared a
few overheads so if that works I'd like to just start off with those. As a part of the Saratoga Creek
study, I was asked to review the existing data for Saratoga Creek, identify contaminants and
sources, analyze the impact of dry weather storm drain flows, review coliform levels and water
T
1 Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 2 of 21
34 bodies, review health based coliform levels and then prepare this report. And what I've done is to
35 prepare a few slides that basically summarize the results of each of these tasks.
36
37 In reviewing the existing data, a database was -generated that covered, it's about a 26 page
38 long appendix in the document that looked at coliform levels throughout the San Francisco Bay
39 Area, and basically the total and fecal coliform levels that are monitored and being measured in
40 Saratoga Creek are, fall within the ranges of those that are being monitored and measured in a
41 wide variety of creeks and storm drains and channels throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. It
42 includes San Francisco County, Alameda County, there are some sampling stations throughout
43 San Jose, Santa Cruz. In addition we've had numerous conversations with persons with
44 Environmental Health and Safety, Department of Health Services and others, that are responsible
45 for creeks within their districts that also indicate that the levels that they monitor in creeks within
46 their regions and districts are similar to the ranges that are being measured in Saratoga Creek. So
47 the data indicate that total and fecal coliforms, during wet weather flows are not unusual relative
48 to other creeks, other storm drains located in the San Francisco Bay Area. Now I can add to that
49 that what we did with our database was to try to focus on urban creeks located within the Bay
50 Area so that we could eliminate any differences in climate, differences in slopes of the land,
51 difference types of land uses - we focused on urban creeks. But, I've recently completed three
52 sanitary surveys that are required by the surface water treatment rule in national parks. Two of
53 the surveys were in Yosemite National Park, one was in Lassen Volcanic National Park. In all of
54 - excuse me, I should back up. The two parts in Yosemite, we measured total coliform levels
55 that were in excess of federal, limits and federal levels for a water contact sport, or water contact
56 beneficial use. Sometimes we had coliform levels exceeding 240,000 mpn per 100 /mis, which is
57 a way of assessing a coliform density. So there are examples of very, what we would consider
58 very pristine areas that have elevated coliform levels.
59
60 In terms of identifying potential contaminants in the sources, we looked at a wide variety
61 of potential sources. We used the EPA guidelines which are provided in the document and in
62 general, most of the sources in the Saratoga Creek watershed are associated, we believe with
63 residential uses and urban runoff. Now, the urban runoff can include a wide variety of
64 contaminant sources, The listing in this overhead is inclusive of what could be, not necessarily
65 what is, in Saratoga. For, specific to Saratoga Creek the second bullet, in looking at land use
66 trends we feel that the sources are likely attributed to storm water, containing, during wet
67 weather events, sanitary source overflows, and urban runoff for wet weather inputs. This is not
68 uncommon. We don't have data to support that there were ever overflows, it's just that this is
69 something that is, can occur nationwide.
70
71 The urban runoff can include a wide variety of sources, domestic animals, wildlife,
72 putrescible vegetation, so if there's grease that is being collected in the storm drains which we
73 observed in some of our site reconnaissance, material that from lawns, lawn trimmings, and what
74 not, that end up in the creek, and there have been incidences documented in the report,
75 historically, that indicate that this has been a problem in the past, you can see elevations of
76 coliforms in the Creek. A wide variety of potential sources, and this is what makes it a real
77 problem for regulation. This is why, in many of the monitorings throughout San Francisco Bay,
78 the Regional Water Quality Control Board project managers basically don't consider, as a routine
79 monitoring, the inclusion of total and fecal coliform numbers because there is no one point
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 3 of 21
source. It comes from a wide variety of sources so it makes it extremely difficult to pin point
where the problem lies. I know I myself have seen many many times where people were walking
their dogs, they pick up the waste that their dog leaves, like a good citizen, but the minute they
get to the curb, they throw it into the storm drain. It's in a little bag, but it's still in the storm
drain. So there's an enormous problem here in terms of trying to pinpoint a source when you
have multiple sources.
In :terms of dry:,weather flows, there is extremely limited _data available in dry weather
flows within Saratoga creek There wer�e;two;potnt sources identified. This was to the outfall
but;those sources wereNactualy monitoredrand wept not found _to contain 'coliforms. There are
flows to the storm drain that are coliform free which means that those flows could transport
deposited material into the storm drain but ends up in the storm drain just during when people
water their yards or wash their cars. What ends up in the storm drain as a result of poor
restaurant management, those sorts of materials could be flushed with these dry weather flows
into and out of the storm drain and into the Creek. But there really aren't data available
throughout our histoncal data; ttv.iew and;throughout the review of other storm drains in the area
that really con'tai h ;dray weather i1b data. l(t's very luruted: sot`§ hard: to make ,the comparison
In terms of the health -based levels, we had a, the ... Methods for the Analysis of Water
and Waste Water and I brought the document here because it provides a lot of base line
information about what is allowable in a designated beach area. The EPA has published
guidelines, the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the state of California has guidelines,
the Department of Health Service. But basically, if you look at the storm water pollution
prevention plans, which are routinely called SWPS, throughout the state, these were required a
few years ago by, for monitoring run off from a number of different types of sites including bus
depots and industrial complexes and communities. The monitoring does not include fecal and
total coliform, because again of this problem with a point source versus a non -point source.
Santa Clara +bounty Publiciealthepaitrlent,doesn't :track occurrerices of illnesses f rom water
contact' in the :reek.'There aren't anyistattstics available for any associated illnesses. It's
basically for Santa Clara Ualley� creeks. aze. not c4nstdered bathing ;waters so they're not
monitored on a routine basis. Part of the problem is, that if you do get, let's say, as an example,
an incidence where some people get sick and they were playing in the Creek or working in the
Creek three days ago, there's no way to know that whether or not they got sick as a result of
playing in the Creek or eating or being in the market place or eating raw vegetables that hadn't
been properly washed or if they were back packing and camping and were out in the back
country, or in any sort of recreational activity that brought them into contact and drank any
untreated water, there's no way to know what the source was. Some of these illnesses take two
weeks, three weeks or more before a person actually gets sick, so basically, they are not
monitoring for coliform, the a is��som`e ndication though; that ; merdences ;of water borne
illnesses are extremely vlow to 4i adxtstent. We were able to find data for both Santa Cruz and
Santa Clara County regarding illnesses associated with water contact.
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 4 of 21
indicator organisms..,.,
mean you have ' a pd
pathogens =present 7
present the ndicator s
pathogen; is .present. -:
Gillian Moran
rd,
.,,count. in a creek doesn't
organisms and not have
is- that if 'the pathogen is
ie indicator is present, the
)u don't necessarily have
3m present.
Dr. Williamson, excuse me, could you review for us what a pathogen is?
Dr. Williamson
Yes, I'm sorry, a pathogen is an organism that will make one sick.
Gillian Moran
OK, even if, so could you restate your sentence about that relationship ?)
Dr. Williamson
Indicator organisms are used as a means of, they're organisms that are generally non-
pathogenic and if they are present, if there's a pathogen present, the indicator organism will also
be present, ok ? ... if there's a pathogen present you're going to find that indicator organism also.
But that doesn't mean that every time you find an indicator organism, that the pathogen will also
be there.
Paul Jacobs
So is the fecal coliform the indicator but it's not necessarily a pathogen? Is that what
you're saying
Dr. Williamson
That's right, the fecal coliform is an indicator, not a pathogen.
Now there are different types, we get into speciation we get into all types of organisms
like a -coli, echericiacoli, or the various types of organisms that might come to mind are
' Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 5of21
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
associated with meat that hasn't been properly cooked. Those are different types of organisms
than this.
There is indication that Saratoga Creek does exceed the criteria set by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board on occasion, but again there is no evidence: of associated illness. Let me
also make the point that urban creeks throughout the San Francisco Bay region, throughout the
United States, exceed these guidelines, these criteria. The EPA, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, has a program called the National Urban Run -off Program that was
established to try to address these types of problems and they have determined that urban run -off
can have coliform levels that are similar to levels in treated waste water and even in the range of
untreated waste water, just from urban runoff, not having waste water entering the creek, because
this water is actually flowing over the land, picking up material, picking up animal droppings,
both wildlife and domestic, and transporting it into the waterway and the organisms can grow in
this vegetation that is deposited in the creeks.
There was a study done, I'm not sure how much time I have here, do I have very much,
any limit?
PaulJacobs
Keep going.
Gillian Moran
Dr. Williamson
OK, thank you. As a part of and in response to the USPCA's national urban runoff
program a number of studies were funded that looked at sources of coliform levels, sources of
coliform excuse me, a variety of different types of locations; residential, commercial and
industrial, and that's what this slide is showing you. Now this is for an area in Wisconsin, two
different communities its, during June and July, there wasn't a lot of runoff associated with this
time period and the data, what the data are showing you is that you have considerable amount of
fecal coliforms, the units are colony forming units per 100 /ml, in storm water from outfalls, or
storm drains, coming off of a variety of different types of streets, you can see feeder streets and
collector streets. We're looking at ten's of thousands of coliform forming units per 100 /mis of
water, and that you can see at the bottom that this storm sewer outfalls of about 175,000, in these
two places in Wisconsin. They even have coliform levels that are in excess of levels for water
a
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 6 of 21
215 recreation coming off of roofs. So if you collect water coming off your drain spouts, that would
216 be in excess. Lawns were a major issue. Run -off of lawns and out of drive ways, again, in
217 residential areas having somewhat elevated levels of fecal coliforms. Were provided some data
218 for, specific to Alameda County and Santa Clara County, in the document that showed geometric
219 means of coliforms for fecal and total between a two year period, between 1989 and 1991 and for
220 both total and fecal coliforms, the highest mean was associated with a mixed urban use. Again,
221 for total coliforms that was 9,665, which is a very high number, and 2,082 for fecal coliforms, so
222 far greater than the levels that one would expect if we had a swimming water, or a swimming
223 area.
224
225 Excuse me. The other, I keep mentioning some of these criteria, so I should probably
226 show you that the criteria, the objectives for coliform bacteria set by the Regional Water Quality
227 Control Board 1995, showed that for water contact recreation which covers wading, swimming,
228 boating, skiing, any variety of sports or activities where you're actually touching the water. The
229 median level of total coliforms has to be less than 240 If you lao at the data sR�ec�c to
230 Saratoga Creek, far aboeYSaratoga SpTings,where you're `+excin�g these..oum>bers even
231 way gp:Jwfl is relat�v�ly u�npa±cted area. Again, natural causes, wildlife and whatnot.' Fecal
232 coliforms have a log mean of less than 200 as a requirement. These are the numbers that you can
233 use to compare numbers in the Creek with and see if you're within the allowable levels.
234
235 1 wanted to go back because the question came up about making sure that you understand
236 the issue about an indicator organism versus the pathogen. And let me just reiterate so that you
237 are clear on this that when you use an indicator organism which is used to help you assess
238 whether or not you may have a pathogen present. The indicator organism should be present
239 when the pathogen is present. It should be absent, ideally, when the pathogen is absent. OK?
240 Now I made the point earlier that with fecal coliforms and total coliforms, the fact that they are
241 present doesn't mean that you have a pathogen and that's because, traditionally, we have used
242 total and fecal coliforms across the board as indicator organisms. The most recent edition of
243 Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water, this is the 19th edition. This is,
244 all of the EPA criteria are based on this document. Basically, if you don't use the techniques in
245 this document, your data won't stand up in court, have made significant revisions in terms of the
246 methods to be used for fecal and total coliforms which include eriating ;a ratio hat was
247 standrdly used called the1FS ratto,h wlitoh was used Ito YeeX�yhether or not the waste
248 was 'associated with 4h ;being :or caw or.a dubk i t c ,we have - e hose ratios
249 and said "oh, we'Ye $boye flits number, it must,e human Waste or -it must>be some other:"
250 This; is <now dossed out, specifically; in the document Tt also- recommends that colifottns not be
251 used for swimming and watbr-contact areas that;another specie, another entirely different group
252 of organisms be used - theeriter ci ,fact that they are better;able'to
253 survive in the condttions'xnv'cli sWmgi�g occurs So there's, that throws another problem in
254 using this type of information to determine effect: `Theaht.t,yuhave theseoltfortsxesn't
255 necessarily; gains in�ac;tek'og±tt presets
256
257 There's been a move, recently, to monitor a whole new suite of pathogens and surface
258 waters because of the possibility of people getting sick from drinking the water and that's the
259 organisms that you are probably familiar with from the standard news like giardia and
260 cryptosporidium. We've had outbreaks of cryptosporidium, which is a pathogen, in tap water, in
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 7 of 21
261 a variety of cities in the Unites States. Now this is tap water that comes from a water treatment
262 plant. Las Vegas had an outbreak, Milwaukee had an outbreak, and so, you know, the point Ian
263 getting at is that there are organisms that are out there that can make people sick no matter how
264 well treated the water is. OK?
265
266 I think maybe if I could take a few minutes to answer questions that you may have, I think
267 that I've covered the main points of the report in that in summary, the coliform, the total and fecal
268 coliform data, for Saratoga Creek, are typical of creeks throughout the area. There's no
269 indication of any kind of a health related, series of incidences in terms of people becoming ill,
270 that there's not even a requirement or there's not any current monitoring by Department of Health
271 Services for coliforms in the creeks, all because of the difficulty in applying the data, interpreting
272 the data, and having the data really be useful for that particular purpose. Other questions?
273
274
275 Paul Jacobs
276
277 I have a couple questions...
278
279
280 Gillian Moran
281
282 Council Member Jacobs would like to ask a couple questions first.
283
284
285 Paul Jacobs
286
287 I had heard that there was a recent Cal -Trans study done , of Cal -Trans highways and
288 facilities. Are you familiar with such a study?
289
290
291 Dr. Williamson
292
293 I don't know how recent, I have looked at some Cal Trans studies, but not recently....
294
295
296 Paul Jacobs
297
298 The thing that I had heard was that Cal -Trans had done a study of wherever their
299 roadways were, and determined that fecal coliform levels were high everywhere that they had a
300 facility. Is that consistent with what you're familiar with or...
301
302
303 Dr. Williamson
304
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 8 of 21
305 Again, I can't say about what is happening on Cal -Trans facilities, but I can say that for
306 the storm drains that we have found data for, within the local area, the concentrations, or excuse
307 me, the numbers are elevated. I don't know if you want specific numbers, but often times we 're
308 looking at numbers for storm drains that are 160,000 -fecal coliforms - this is mpn per 100 mis,
309 16,000...
310
311
312 Paul Jacobs
313
314 How do those compare with Saratoga Creek? I mean, is that - you know. Where does
315 Saratoga Creek fit?
316
317
318 Dr. Williamson
319
320 Saratoga Creek ... it depends on where you're looking and it depends again on whether
321 you're looking at a wet weather flow, a dry weather flow. The data in the ... well, to answer your
322 question - there are places, particularly at Saratoga- Sunnyvale Big Basin Way interchange there,
323 at the storm drain, where fecal coliform levels have been fairly elevated on particular specific
324 dates, and one Y y + u caafin ga n and T r ensure,a level of .greater than 16;000 and the next ;day
325 measre,n leveleetsh *standard There's been an extreme amount of variability, you're
326 only taking a sample of about 100 %mis. And if you take it at 3:00 in the morning versus at 5:00
327 or 9:00, the type of waste can, excuse me, not. waste, but the type of water and sample you're
328 collecting can vary. Santa Cruz County was having a problem where they had elevated fecal
329 coliforms and total coliforms in an area. They were trying to figure out what the source was and
330 they started backtracking and going up the Creek collecting samples and they found a dead ... a
331 bear in the Creek and once they removed the bear the problem was resolved. So, I've :b'een in
332 Saraoga±Creek Ymm�%y reconn`aisahce�and,walked overNhorse:manure, I've seen baby diapers in
333 thaVCreek. These types of contaminants will greatly affect your data and it may affect it today
334 and not tomorrow.
335
336
337 Stan Bogosian
338
339 I've got a question to kinda follow up on that issue .... dry weather flows, and you
340 mentioned that there were some fairly highly elevated levels at the outfall of the Saratoga ... in the
341 Saratoga Creek at Big Basin Way and Saratoga - Sunnyvale. Did you consider the issue of the
342 possibility of sags in the drain line at all? That low spots, for example, could accumulate
343 whatever, and that could explain why that's happening. Did you consider that?
344
345
346 Dr. Williamson
347
348 In the storm drain, is what you're talking about? (yes - Stan Bogosian) Yes. We did
349 have some conversations of about there being some sagging and where there would be an
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 9 of 21
accumulation (who S we... you and who? - Stan BOgOSian) Myself and my students, I've
had conversations with Larry Perlin (So Larry told you about the sags? - Stan
BOgosion) No, he, what I did was reviewed the City document, I reviewed the data specific to
the video assessments and there was one report, all of the reports that we reviewed are tabulated
in here, there was a report that talked about some sag in one of the storm drains and, my
understanding is that that had been resolved, but that might be a better question for Larry , but ....
During a dry weather flow, first of all, there aren't data for flow rates. No one has collected what
volume of water is coming out of that storm drain per unit of time. So, it's again, something that
is really hard to assess when you don't have the numbers to make an assessment with. If the
flows are slow, the solids are going to settle. If the flows become faster, during a storm event,
the solids are going to flush out. If the material is sitting and decomposing in a sagged area,
there can be what's called a transition from the particulate phase - like a particle you can filter - to
the soluble phase - where it dissolves. That's basically what we do at a waste water treatment
plant. We make this conversion happen. So if you've got a sag area and there's a long residence
time, that could happen, and then slow flows could move that out but we didn't do any actual
testing or monitoring in, during the extent of this study. We looked at existing data.
Paul Jacobs
But if we were talking about a low spot that were a source of greater levels of fecal
coliform, because, if whatever the waste is, is sitting there and fermenting (that bacteria are
growing - Dr. Williamson), I presume an urban creek or a rural creek or a wild creek, has
numerous spots where you have eddies and low spots and places where things, including I guess
even dead bears can accumulate, ("sure" - Dr. Williamson) so presumably, correct me if Iin
wrong, you .indicated ';that `these „eveLsexsted at even gas high up as ;:above Saratoga
S rin s... ("Well, what 1 said was... " - Dr. Williamson) are we talking about an area high up
in the hills where we have higher levels?
386 Paul Jacobs
387
388 You've indicated actually, if I understood you, that even in some of the National Parks
389 there are high levels? (That's correct- Dr. Williamson) Where we basically have a totally wild
390 stream, or close to (That's correct- Dr. Williamson) so it would seem to me that the only way
391 you could control the level of coliform in these kinds of streams would be perhaps have the
392 Army Corp. of Engineers come in and concrete the whole thing and put up fences - kind of like
393 the California Aqueduct or something. Is that ...?
' Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 10 of 21
394
395
396 Dr. Williamson
397
398 Well, what we do is come up with what are called "best management" practices and the
399 work I do and certainly one of the recommendations we've made to the Park Service is to put
400 "butt bags" on the horses and the mules that go up into carry people out and supplies up into the
401 high Sierra camps, certain cities in the United States have "butt bags" on the animals that run
402 through the forest, excuse me, I mean, the horses and the mules. And if you have grazing areas
403 we make recommendations of buffer strips because a buffer strip is an area adjacent to the creek
404 which you don't construct on and you allow that to act as a filter so that when rain does move
405 material that might be washed out of a graze, out of an area either a grazing field or a stock yard
406 or whatnot, there's some filtration and treatment that occurs. I don't think that I would
407 recommend something like that here but one thing that we did determine is that there are an
408 enormous number of wild animals, raccoons, opossums, and I believe, I don't recall the type of
409 rat, but there's a rat, there are all sorts of organisms and animals that may use those storm drains
410 as passage ways as conduits under the highways and under the freeway, not the freeway, but the
411 roads. There aren't any bars on those storm drains so that the animals do have access. Now
412 certainly some of the storm drains are elevated up above the Creek but they can come in through
413 the various storm inlet and catch basins ... and.
414
415
416 Paul Jacobs
417
418 Even if they didn't go into the drains, if they were in the Creek, their waste would flow
419 into the drains I presume? (Certainly, into the Creek ultimately, yes - Dr. Williamson)
420
421
422 Stan Bogosian
423
424 One clarification, you indicated that there were higher than the standards levels in above
425 Saratoga up in the hills than the standards, the government standard, what was it now, what was
426 that level? (the median is 240 OK? per 100 1mis - Dr. Williamson) ...they were higher
427 than that level but the weren't, just to clarify, the were much in excess of that at that outflow from
428 under Big Basin Way (yes - Dr. Williamson) so we're talking about something that is a
429 quantum lot larger than anything found up above the Village (that's right - Dr. Williamson),
430 just wanted to clarify that.
431
432
433 Dr. Williamson
434
435 That's right, we've found elevated levels of total and fecal coliforms and again, let me
436 make the point, that the data are often collected where the final ... do I have time to go into a little
437 bit about MPN? MPN is a most probable number, it's a statistical analysis. It is statistically
438 derived. So there's a range. So when you see a reported number of around, let's say, let's use an
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 11 of 21
439 example of 300, the table for MPN actually gives a range, and that range - I can jump to it here,
440 and I'm going to use this as an example - could be anywhere from 100 to 580. So there are lower
441 and higher levels, the midpoint, the number that is usually reported is some number that is in
442 between this range, but there's no way you can pinpoint whether it's higher or lower, OK? If you
443 donut do enough serial dilutions when you do the analysis then you're going to get a number like
444 what many of the numbers are for this, for the Saratoga Creek, that show greater than 1600 for
445 example. Well greater than 1600 means that there could be 1601 coliforms or there could be any
446 number higher than that, there's no way to know and there's no way to go back and recollect the
447 sample and analyze it with higher dilutions because it's past time, so there are a lot of
448 discrepancies here in these data. Now the point youre making, I believe, is that the numbers
449 we're monitoring above, outside of the urban area for the Village, are lower than within,
450 absolutely true, it follows right along with what happens in all the urban areas. That's the point
451 that-the. EPA has made is that if you look: at 'levels above and below .an urban area, your levels
452 below are going to b&' considerably eievated, I mean orders of magnitude higher. It's a very well
453 documented.phenomena, it's; associated with the way we use .our <land our cities.
454
455
456 Donald Wolfe
457
458 Dr., if I can ask then, is our Creek, below the Creek then, substantially or significantly
459 higher than other outflow from other urban creeks, that you know of?
460
461
462 Dr. Williamson
463
464 No, it isn't. It's within the range, and soon as you get, in looking at the data we collected
465 for fecal coliform, the highest point is at the outfall and that's water collected, in some situations,
466 actually the water coming out of the drain, so not diluted in the Creek, and then in other
467 situations. it was unclear if that was actually the storm drain water. If _you look at Saratoga
468 Creek just downstream of ` the 'Sunnyvale= Sarkatogw'� Bridge, levels begin to reduce
469 considerably, and then of £coursehen� you get to �Crestbrook' Drive, Saratoga Creek at
470 Crestbrook Drive, the; numbersYare m the san a ra`ge�as�wliat W found up al5ove; Saratoga
471 Springs
472
473
474 Stan Bogosian
475
476 I have a question, I appreciate your explanation of the statistical process here, but getting
477 back to a conclusion that was drawn in the report about animals, how do you know, and forgive
478 me if I'm asking a very simplistic question, how do you know its animals, that go into the storm
479 drains, did you like take videos of animals going in there, did you observe any animals going in
480 there? How do you know that, that's existing in the storm drains?
481
482
483 Dr. Williamson
Publicly taievised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 12 of 21
484
485 What we stated was that these are potential reasons for these elevated conditions, we
486 didnl, we used the information available to us. We did call Vector Control. We asked them
487 questions about whether or not they have problems with animals in the storm drain, and if they
488 had numbers. We were able to get, like the number of horses, the number of cats and the number
489 of dogs, but we couldn't get the number of opossums in the area, or the number of deer. We were
490 able to hear, I believe it was at, oh, there a Coyote Creek Riparian Station, I may have that
491 wrong, but I was at a public meeting where that organization gave a presentation and they had
492 flyers out about the skunk problem and the raccoons and so we have that kind of an antidotal
493 source of information, but no, we have no way of actual counting.
494
495
496 Stan Bogosian
497
498 Did you get any videos of these outfalls or anything, I mean were you able to look at
499 photographs or anything to substantiate or otherwise add to this anecdotal information ... I mean,
500 what sorts of things did you consider?
501
502
503 Dr. Williamson
504
505 Well, we actually did a site reconnaissance where we hiked the Creek from up above
506 Saratoga Springs, we actually went up into, there's a little state park up there, I can't remember
507 the name of it, we went through Hakone Gardens, we camedown tliaqugh the area where ;there is
508 a homeloss;.caanp. We went, we looked at all the storm drains that come, that enter into the Creek
509 at 4th St., we walked along the back of all the restaurants, we did take photographs of a number
510 of incidences or things that we observed We observed storm drains that were clogged with
511 grease We ok�served belunc� resaurant�s, al�oitsbofmatertal t could vsery easily end<up in the
512 Cheek during ttte storm, bltl �iny >_` "undertanclir<g as, nthat's, being resolved..tiy a restaurant
513 management plan that .the City has: We then went down into the storm drain itself at the
514 intersection there of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. and Big Basin Way, and then we went all the way
515 down the Creek until we came to the border, the border of the City, and we looked at all the cross
516 streets, where there was an access, to see how the Creek, well to look at it basically, and to look
517 for any problems that were obvious. The main issues from what we could see were within the
518 City proper. Once you got outside of the City and got into the residential areas, you know, there
519 were bike paths, and there were people walking and hiking, and jogging and riding bikes, people
520 walking their dogs, but there weren't storm drains that are clogged with grease and there weren't
521 horse droppings.
522
523
524 Stan Bogosian
525
526 So you saw a pretty gross scene in the Village then, is what you're telling us then?
527
528
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeffng on February 5, 1997
Page 13 of 21
529 Dr. Williamson
530
531 Well, we walked across some horse manure.
532
533
534 Stan Bogosian
535
536 I mean in terms of the grease and stuff, you saw some pretty gross looking stuff when you
537 where down in the Village.
538
539
540 Dr. Williamson
541
542 Well, we did see a storm drain that was clogged, we did see, again, I wouldn't want to
543 focus on that particular storm drain because I donit think that's the sole source of the problem and
544 what was one point in time, one observation, and were looking data that cover years. (Thank
545 you - Stan Bogosian).
546
547
548 Gillian Moran
549
550 If I might just add to that, because I was on the Council when you were doing this, and I was
551 allowed to tag along on some of this site reconnaissance, I thought we were just looking at the
552 Creek, but I like site reconnaissance better... I thought it was kind of interesting, we started up
553 there, we looked at Sanborn Park and you could see where some of the horse trails would
554 . potentially be pretty close to the Creek, and you could see a trailer park, no RV, camp ground,
555 group camp ground up there, and sort of working our way down the Creek and into the Village
556 area, so that I think that, it gave me a feeling that, in addition to actually doing most of your work
557 I take it, in terms of reviewing data, other data, you also, you and your team had kind of a hands
558 on feeling (that's right - Dr. WilllamSon) of what were talking about, and what the actual
559 problems might of been, so I just wanted that. I also wanted to say, that if there are no immediate
560 questions right now, Jeff Schwartz wanted to speak, and I wanted to get you in on this discussion
561 if you wanted to at this point.
562
563
564
565 Donald Wolfe
566
567 Madame Mayor, before Dr. Schwartz speaks, I know you want to contribute something
568 helpful to the discussion, we all want our Creek clean, as clean as possible. Dr. Williamson has
569 been identified as an expert in applied science and engineering, and I note that you're a Dr. as
570 well, could you tell us what you're area of study is?
571
572
573 Jeff Schwartz
Publicly televised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 14 of 21
574
575 ...yes, it's not clean water or biology or anything related to this except - I'm just here as a
576 citizen. I don't know that this is relevant and I don't know that this is usually asked of people
577 who want to speak here, but it isn't a particular secret, my Ph.D. is in experimental psychology
578 with an emphasis on statistics and research design. That isn't my work, my work is primarily
579 consulting, primarily in criminal justice. (Thank you very much for that - Donald
580 Wolfe). Sure.
581
582 Madame Mayor, I would ask you and the Council's indulgence, because of the extent of
583 the presentation, I would like perhaps three or four, not a long time, but perhaps three or four
584 extra minutes, and if I can finish much quicker than that, I'll try to be as brief as I can.
585
586
587 Gillian Moran
588
589 Well that sounds like a threat to me. I'm going to set the clock, let's agree on say, seven
590 minutes.
591
592
593 Jeff Schwartz
594
595
596 Thank you very much. First, I want to say something that is, I know, clear to members of
597 the Council, but I think not at all clear to members of the public who may be watching on TV, or
598 the few people in the audience. Saratoga Creek, as many people will know, has been the subject
599 of controversy, conflict, and in the last several years, litigation. I do not want to do what I think
600 has just been done here, perhaps inadvertently. Let me identify myself clearly, as one of the
601 principals in Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks, which is one of two plaintiffs who have
602 been, for a few years now, in litigation, in Federal court, against the City of Saratoga, over the
603 issue of enforcement of the clean water act and clean water act standards in Saratoga Creek. So,
604 I do not come here as I did earlier in the meeting on the computer issue, carrying no brief on this
605 one - while I'm no attorney - I do have a bias if you will, a point of view, and that needs to be
606 clear to everyone. I think it is patently unfair and misleading to have a presentation of the type
607 that the Council just had without making a similar acknowledgment of the role of Dr.
608 Williamson. Dr. Williamson has been identified, in the litigation, as the City's expert witness.
609 The plaintiffs, Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks and Bay Keeper, represented by Sierra Club
610 Legal Defense Fund, have their own expert witness who has reached remarkably different
611 conclusions. No surprise to ;anyone whos,awatched civil litigation, that experts tend to, once
612 identified and hired, and planned`for use, tend to;have conclusions that tend to su ort`their own
� PP
613 side.. I .think that; however, forresidents of the City to watch this presentanon and think ;that this
614 was; a report on cleanliness of the Creek or issues m the Creek from some unbiased source, or
615 that-,,,the Councit <is,..deahng withtariexpert lined solely}to assess :.the Creek atvarms _length, is
616 unfair. So I really want to clarify that in the strongest terms that I can. Let me move now, to, if I
617 can to methodology and the substance of the report you reviewed, and I know I will skip a
618 number of things and I'll try to get, simply, some high points as best as I can put them together.
Publicly -_.avised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 15 of 21
619
620 Poetry is often expected to take flight on gossamer wings. Science is not. The report that
621 you have is not a study as it has been called, but more of an essay, if you will. There was no
622 testing done. Plaintiffs, the City of Saratoga, the Water District have tested Saratoga Creek
623 hundreds, literally hundreds of times. There are hundreds of data point from tests in the last
624 several years. Not occasional tests now and then, but very regular testing, much of it done within
625 Federally prescribed protocols, specified under the Clean Water Act. The report did not review
626 the videos, it did not, according to the appendices, have access to the video tape and photos that
627 we, Friends of Santa Clara County Creek and specifically Don Whetstone - have provided and
628 are in the City's possession.
629
630 The report is far more speculation on what may be causing the pollution in the Creek than it is
631 providing any new information whatsoever on the causes of the pollution that this report, and that
632 everyone at this point, acknowledges exists. I think there are a couple areas of agreement, and
633 they're very important. Your hired expert agrees with us that there are federally applicable
634 standards and that those standards are for contact recreation water. That has been something the
635 City has taken issue with for a few years, in an ongoing debate between myself, Don Whetstone
636 and the City Manager in our weekly newspaper. Your expert agrees with us - there are standards
637 - and they apply.
638
639 A couple of the common misunderstandings, that are continuing: - there is this "bears do
640 it in the woods ", or "bears die in the woods ", or "bears die in the creek" - you can go on with that
641 if you wish, explanation for what's happening. The simple fact is:
642
643 One, we are talking about dry weather flows and dry weather situations - not wet weather.
644 The wet weather conditions may be very bad, but we've looked at them very little. We're talking
645 about dry weather flows. That restricts, very much, what we look at. Most of this (Williamson's)
646 report deals with wet weather explanations, runoff, things of that sort. I have personally gone
647 above Saratoga .Creek Village area up to the upper reaches of the Creek where the two main
648 tributaries come together and sampled, and then taken the samples to a lab and gotten the results.
649 On several occasions when tested, and these tests all having been made available to the City, you
650 get numbers MPN, which your consultant has explained in the range there of 13, 27 (it sounds, I
651 know I know like a bingo game). You do not get numbers that even approach the federal
652 standards. When you come down into the Village, then you begin to get the numbers we have
653 seen, and they're not occasionally as Dr. Williamson presented. One day you might get a number
654 like 16,000, one day you may get a number like 160,000, the next day you may not - it may be
655 greater than 40,000, it may be 37,000, it may be 1700 -but we're talking about magnitudes of 100
656 times more than federal limits, which are acknowledged now, finally.
657
658 The second, if this first was a "bears do it in the woods ", you know we have not gotten
659 BART to go around the Bay, but evidently one of the likely explanations that is being suggested
660 is that we now have the world's largest underground metro system for raccoons - it's unlikely.
661 Everything is possible because we donit know, but it's unlikely. There are lots of animals,
662 perhaps more, in the upper reaches of the Creek. Animals, if they were in the lower reaches in
663 the Village, you still would not get their droppings into the Creek except from wet weather runoff
664 - not dry weather flow. The whole approach is wrong here.
Publicly iaievised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 16 of 21
665 A second explanation is the Creek is no worse than any other creek. There is very poor evidence
666 to support that. I am not going to go into some of the specifics in the report, because, it's a long
667 meeting, you've had a long evening, and I would like to take issue with a few of the major, what I
668 regard as serious errors. One thing, if I can, to answer a few questions that you asked, all towards
669 the same point. There's a lot of discussion between the Council and the consultant about
670 indicators - look, enterococci are not indicators - they are pathogens. As Dr. Williamson
671 suggested, they're being looked to more and more. Enterococci results, in the Creek (from data,
672 by the way, evidently that she was not made aware of or didnit review), - data collected over the
673 last year by UCAP, supervised by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. That data shows 2/3's,
674 3/4's of the time - the enterococci results, in Saratoga Creek, are far in excess of the federal
675 standards. Those are not indicators, those organisms are pathogens. So, the situation is not
676 substantially, as this report would present it.
677
678 And if you look, one other thing that I think is very seriously misleading for the Council, the last
679 sentence of the second paragraph of the executive summary says "data for the fecal and strepto
680 ratios indicates that the origin of the fecal coliform and fecal streptococci are of non -human
681 sources ". Much of the report then goes on to speculate about the human sources of this problem.
682 Then later it is acknowledged that those ratios are misleading and not given wide - spread
683 credibility. But I defy you to find, in the report, any new information, any testing, a single test or
684 analysis of variance, any inferential statistics. Sorry to stop there, I'd like to go on and I know
685 you'd probably rather that quit, so I will. Thank you. I will be glad to answer questions if
686 anybody has any for me that don't get into what I would think would be ongoing litigation issues
687 which I know which are out of bounds for both sides.
688
689
690 Gillian Moran
691
692 Well, I appreciate your comments and I hope you've had a chance to cover the main
693 points that you, the main concerns that you have about the study.
694
695
696 Jeff Schwartz
697
698 I have, and I do appreciate the extra time, thank you.
699
700
701 Paul Jacobs
702
703 I don't know if Dr. Williamson has any response to any of these comments, but I believe,
704 and if I'm wrong, I would ask Dr. Williamson to correct me, I don't believe there's ever been an
705 acknowledgment by Dr. Williamson or anyone else from the City, that federal recreational water
706 standards apply to the Creek. I know this has been something that has been said repeatedly by
707 the Plaintiffs, but I, I'm not asking this question of you Jeff, I understand your position - you have
708 said that those standards apply to urban creeks, and I'm not aware that that standard applies - you
Publicly 1U16VISed presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 17 of 21
709 can use that standard if you choose, but I'm not, I don't believe that the City has ever, that there is
710 any statements that say that in fact those standards do apply.
711
712
713 Rick Jarvis
714
715 Speaking as, this is Rick Jarvis, I am the Attorney representing the City in the litigation.
716 The standards in the Basin plan do legally apply to all the Creeks in the area.
717
718 Paul Jacobs
719
720 ...and are those Federal recreational water standards?
721
.722
723 Rick Jarvis
724
725 They are,....the recreational water standards are set by the Regional Board, which are
726 based upon the Federal standards. I think the problem that we have is that any knowledgeable
727 expert will agree, that those standards are simply not realistic for urban creeks and that really it
728 has been an error in the past for those standards to have been applied to those creeks, but
729 technically, they have applied to the Creeks, they are the standards that have been set by the
730 regulatory agencies for the Creeks, and I think, at least off the record, most of the regulatory
731 agencies would acknowledge at this stage that they are not realistic, but...
732
733
734 Gillian Moran
735
736 Thanks Mr. Jarvis for clarifying that. I think that what we're trying to do is get Dr.
737 Williamson home when she needs to be home so I'd like to concentrate on the questions that we
738 might have of her concerning her report.
739
740
741 Donald Wolfe:
742
743 And if I may, too, I have a couple of other comments too, but the comment was made about
744 serious error and I think that the remark was indicative of something. If we are not reaching the
745 Federal Standards, I made a note here, I think the Federal Standards should me modified to
746 reflect reality.
747
748
749 Gillian Moran
750
751 All right. Are there any questions of Dr. Williamson?
752
753 Donald Wolfe:
I
Publicly ,- ,evised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 18 of 21
754
755 Dr., I was able to share with you a map and some photographs from, as I did with the
756 Council, of a scene in the City of San Luis Obispo, an urban creek that runs through it, San Luis
757 Obispo is a city about the size of ours, about 43,000; it has a creek called the San Luis Obispo
758 Creek, that emanates from hillsides above the City. It runs under a major highway, Rt. 101,
759 down through paths restaurants and other churches and what have you, in the heart of town, and
760 the photographs that I took, my wife and I were vacationing there less than a year ago and were
761 enthralled by this lovely scene and there's children, wading in these creeks, some of them, they
762 look like my grandchildren, two and three years old without any clothes on, and they're very cute,
763 but just dozens as you're seen in this photograph. So I was wondering how our creek can be
764 different from that creek? I took, in order to help answer that same question, I took the time to
765 call San Luis Obispo Public Works Department as late as 4:00 this afternoon and talked to a
766 Dave Pierce who's a coordinator with the water division there and he said, I said, "how about
767 your colifonm ?" and he said, "sure, we got it, it starts up in cattle country (the creek does)" and I
768 says "are those kids in danger ?" Have those kids that are in those pictures "been carted off in
769 ambulances or something as yet ? ", and he says, and he chuckled of course. I took the liberty here
770 a couple of months ago and called the, Chris Rummel who is a, with the a, staff person in our
771 district sanitarian and he identified himself as, and he said again in Santa Clara County, identified
772 our creek as a regular, normal North American type Californian creek and had no particular
773 problems greater than any other creek. He was a little reluctant to say more because he said this
774 whole issue is really political but, particularly are the San Luis Obispo Creek which seems to be
775 highly used, do you think those people are in danger and that our creek is different?
776
777
778 Dr. Williamson:
779
780 Well, actually looking at data, it's difficult to make any kind of a statement about whether
781 or not somebody's in danger, but (I understand - Donald Wolfe) based on what I've been
782 given during the break, I would be willing to state that I would expect that the water quality data
783 for this creek would be similar to Saratoga Creek, to Guadeloupe, to Coyote Creek, to San
784 Leandro Creek, to many of the creeks.
785
786
787 Donald Wolfe:
788
789 I'm like Dr.Schwartz, I'm certainly not an expert in this area so I have to go to experts.
790
791
792 Dr. Williamson:
793
794 If I can also add that if you collect water samples below where you see all these lovely
795 children playing, you're probably going to have extremely elevated coliform counts, which is
796 what we found in Yosemite, below the swimming pool areas, the total and fecal coliform counts
797 were elevated when you had lots of kids in them, another problem that we have.
798
L
Publicly itH@VISed presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 19 of 21
799
800 Gillian Moran:
801
802 OK thanks a lot. Are there any other questions or comments?
803
804
805 Jim Shaw:
806
807 I had one and it's probably very unfair because I have a personal speculation, and that's all
808 it is, concerning the Village, and I notice that what's been said this evening, it appears that in the
809 Village area, is where we're seeing the highest incidence of indicator organisms (that's correct
810 - Dr. Williamson) and I put that together with the fact that the Village, of course, has been
811 around for a long time and when it was settled it was, obviously a great number of septic
812 systems, and I noticed from the report that you make a statement there's a limited number of
813 septic systems in the City and that's based on the information which the City provided you, based
814 on the survey they did :(1 belie��ehr pare nine" ots that are on' eptic, If I recall an Dr:
815 Wilic -I ]')s011), there's some, and again here is where I'm going off into speculation, there's some
816 speculation that perhaps in City there are a number of septic systems which havenit been
817 identified or picked up by the City and I guess I'm trying to ask you again to guess, if that were
818 the case, could that be a possible source of the high incidence of indicator organisms that we're
819 getting in the Creek?
820
821
822 Dr. Williamson:
823
824 It would really, if the septic systems are being used still? So you're thinking that there
825 may be septic (or a combination of maybe old systems - Jim Shaw). There are old
826 systems in places that I've worked in where they pump them out every year when they go off line
827 - and those don't have an impact. If a septic system, a septic system has two components.
828 There's a system tank and then there's generally a leach field that where you have the treatment
829 actually, most of the treatment actually occurring. If the system fills with waste and is then for
830 some reason, maybe there's a ground water, the ground water may be rising during wet weather
831 conditions and in some cases tanks have actually popped up, out of ground, sure. Certainly there
832 could be a source. I didn't come across any documents related to this, I don't really have a lot of
833 information about it.
834
835
836 Jim Shaw:
837
838 Yea, it's sheer speculation. I know the City made an effort to identify
839
840
841 Larry Perlin:
842
�i
• Publicly -- ,evised presentation by Dr. Rhea Williamson at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 20 of 21
843 I think it's important to recognize that the City is not responsible for the regulation of
844 septic systems in the City. That is not an activity that the City regulates. Septic systems in
845 Saratoga and throughout the County are regulated by the County's Department of Environmental
846 Health. Likewise, the sewer systems in Saratoga are not owned or operated by the City of
847 Saratoga. We have the benefit of two separate sanitation districts that operate in Saratoga, so
848 when you, one of the difficulties in dealing with this whole issue, is that we look to potential
849 sources that might emanate from waste water or sanitary sewers, the City really doesn't control
850 any of it, we don't have the records, we have to rely on other agencies to carry out their
851 responsibilities.
852
853
854 Paul Jacobs:
855
856 However, at this point, so far as I know, in the time that the City has been investigating
857 this, and presumably the plaintiffs, Friends of Saratoga Creeks have been investigating this, no
858 one has actually turned up concrete evidence of any septic tanks that are leaking? Is that correct?
859
860
861 Larry Perlin:
862
863 That's correct. A couple years ago we did request the County Environmental Health
864 Department to survey the properties that were known to have septic systems. We also did some
865 cross - referencing with building permit records and records of sewer connection permits by West
866 Valley Sanitation District which is the sanitation district that controls most of the area around
867 Saratoga Village and from that there was a list of properties identified that were either known to
868 have septic tanks or potential candidates for septic tanks. I believe if I remember, there was
869 something like 15 or 18 properties that were identified in the area of the Village and in each one
870 of those properties was checked by the Department of Environmental Health. They did go out
871 and asses the condition of the septic system on the property and I believe that in all cases they
872 reported back to us that the systems were functioning adequately.
873
874
875 Stan Bogosian:
876
877 I have a question to follow up on Jim's question for Dr. Williamson dealing with the issue
878 of, to follow up on the septic thing, did the City staff talk with you at any point when you were
879 preparing this about the existence of springs in around the Village, you know, intermittent
880 springs that start up and then stop, was that issue ever raised, or did you study that in any way.
881
882
883 Dr. Williamson:
884
885 When we did the site reconnaissance we went behind, adjacent, I think it was between 4th
886 and 3rd St. there's an area where there is ground water actually coming up, and there's a hill,
887 there's a mound and there are a couple of homes that apparently have problems with their
A It
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
Publicly . _.avised presentation by Dr. Rhea Willian. —in at the
Saratoga City Council Meeting on February 5, 1997
Page 21 of 21
basements flooding, and that water is pumped out and disposed of in the storm drain. We
actually looked at some data specific to that water.
Stan Bogosian:
You didn't get any maps, receive any maps, or anything, pinpointing where these springs
are then?
Dr. Williamson:
No we did not, not that I recall. We didn't collect any water quality sampling either, on
any of these sites. We relied, again, on historical data, that wasn't within the task for the project.
(Thank you - Stan Bogosian)
Gillian Moran:
Can we just clarify that, that was not your intention to collect (it was never our
intention - Dr. Williamson), it was never your intention, but rather the focus was on analysis
of samples that had been collected.
Dr. Williamson:
Gillian Moran:
Thank you, are there other questions or comments at this time? If not, then I would like
to thank you very much, Dr. Williamson for your help in preparing the report and for your
patience in answering all of our questions and explaining your findings to us.
Dr. Williamson:
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
(End of transcript)
Williamson Final Report and Presentation to Council
ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE EXAMINED
The 920 MPN data (above Saratoga Springs) is false and is the sole basis of one
key conclusion in Williamson's report and is one half of the basis for another key
conclusion.
2. "And then of course when you get to Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga Creek at
Crestbrook Drive, the numbers are in the same range as what we found up
above Saratoga Springs." (Council meeting transcript, lines 375 -383). "and then
when you get to Crestbrdok Drive... the numbers are in the same range as what
we found up above Saratoga Springs." (Council meeting transcript, lines 467-
471.) False conclusion. No such data. Numbers at Crestbrook Drive do not
begin to decrease to the levels found above Saratoga Springs.
3. "Data for the FC /FS ratio indicate that the origin ... are of non -human sources."
(Final Report; Executive Summary; page 1; Council meeting transcript, lines 246-
250.) That conclusion is based on a ratio that is no longer used or accepted
4. "The apparent incidence of water borne illness related to surface water contact in
Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties is low to non - existent." (Final report,
Executive Summary, page 3.) There is no data or other evidence to support that
conclusion.
5. "There is extremely limited data available in dry weather flows within Saratoga
Creek." (Council meeting transcript, page 3.) "In summary, there are very few
data available that would help in identifying the sources and /or causes of total
and fecal coliform numbers during dry flow conditions in storm drain lines,
including the outfall at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road." (Final report, page 12.)
False statements. There is far more dry weather data available for Saratoga
Creek than runoff and /or rainy season data. Her report focuses on storm water
runoff, when the issue here is and has been dry weather flows.
6. "Direct deposits of wildlife and domestic animal feces may be responsible for
elevated dry weather numbers." (Final report; Executive Summary, page 2.) No
data or other evidence to support this conclusion. To the contrary, over the last
four years many individuals have been in the creek to collect samples or for
observations, without a single report of animal feces deposited directly in the
creek.
7. "But one thing, that we did determine is that there are an enormous number of
wild animals, raccoons, opossums, ..." (Council meeting transcript, lines 407-
408.) "We have no way of actual counting (animal populations)." (Council
meeting transcript, lines 492 -493.) "Santa Clara County Vector Control does not
have a record of any wildlife nuisances in this area." (Final report, page 8.) Only
--!ssues That Should Be Exam.
May 6, 1997
information cited indicates no exceptional numbers of animals. There are ways
to count., including scientifically well established protocols.
8. "There were two point sources identified. This was to the outfall..." (Council
meeting transcript, lines 87 -89.) Not true. More than two such sources identified.
9. "There is indication that Saratoga Creek does exceed the criteria set by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board on occasion." (Council meeting transcript,
lines 173 -177.) There are places, particularly at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Big Basin
Way interchange there, at the storm drain, where fecal coliform levels have been
fairly elevated on particular specific dates, and on one day you could go in and
measure a level of greater than 16,000 and the next day measure a level that
meets the standard." (Council meeting transcript, lines 322 -325.) Grossly
misleading. The available data demonstrate these RWQCB and federal
standards have been exceeded almost all the time. (For ex., at Crestbrook Drive,
59 of the 63 samples collected by UCAP through 1215196 exceeded those federal
limits). That is not- "occasionally ", or "one day this, one day that"
10. "What we did with our database was to try to focus on urban creeks located within
the Bay Area so that we could eliminate any differences in climate, differences in
slopes of the land, different types of land uses - we focused on urban creeks."
(Council meeting transcript, lines 49 -51.) Bay Area creeks differ dramatically in
climate, slope, etc. (Santa Cruz creeks vs. Contra Costa creeks, for ex.).
11. "There is a limited number of septic systems located within the City of Saratoga."
(Final report; Executive Summary, page 1; Council meeting transcript, lines 814-
815.) The number of septic systems within Saratoga is unknown.
12. "I've been in Saratoga Creek in my reconnaissance and walked over horse
manure, I've seen baby diapers in that creek." (Council meeting transcript, lines
331 -333.) Final report provides detailed description of other findings during
reconnaissance (e.g. restaurants), but there is no indication of these
observations presented.
13. Dr. Williamson did not review available data and information concerning the
known sags in the storm sewer lines, and she did not review and is not familiar
with the videotapes and photographs that are in the City's files on this matter.
She additionally did not familiarize herself with the situation with regard to septic
systems within the City of Saratoga.
14. The only significant independent observation in the report was the finding that
the situation behind the Big Basin restaurants continues to exhibit grease in
storm drains, overflowing dumpster areas, unsecured tallow and other waste
containers, etc. This important observation, confirming that this long standing
creek pollution problem remains unabated, was omitted from both the summary
and the conclusions of the final report in favor of a contradictory conclusion that
the consultant's client was doing an effective and .good faith effort to prevent such
situations.
2