Interagency Team – Washington Stormwater Center

Team Letter to EPA / USGS on Hydrologic Alteration Report

Summary: Comments on Hydrologic Alteration, USGS, EPA

________________________________
1 Brown and Caldwell. (2014). Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum
Daily Load Programs in Washington State. Report prepared for the Interagency Project Team. Seattle,
WA.Stormwater and TMDLs > Washington Stormwater Center
2 Phase 1 Municipal Stormwater Permit (2013-2018). National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and State
Waste Discharge Permit. State of Washington Deparment of Ecology. Olympia WA.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/phaseIpermit/5YR/2014mod/PhaseI-Permit-
2014Final.pdf
June 17, 2016
Ms. Diana M. Eignor
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., MC 4304T
Washington, DC 2046 0
eignor.diana@ epa.gov
Mr. Jonathan G. Kennen
New Jersey Water Science Center
U.S. Geological Survey
3450 Princeton Pike, Suite 110
Lawrenceville, NJ 086 48
jgkennen @usgs.gov
Submitted electronically through www.regulations.gov
Re:
Comments on EPA and USGS Draft Technical Report on Protecting Aquatic Life from
Effects of Hydrologic Alteration
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0335
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Eignor and Mr. Kennen,
The Interagency Team (Team) is a coalition of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) municipal stormwater permittees in Washington State working with the Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 10 to improve policy and process for Clean Water Act (CWA) programs including Water
Quality Assessment (WQA) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) 1. Team members are
regulated under NPDES municipal stormwater permits (Permits) and actively engaged in
stormwater and watershed management to protect and restore beneficial uses. Currently,
several Team members are required by Permit to model the effects of hydrologic conditions
and water quality on benthic macroinvertebrates under historic, current, and future land-use
scenarios2. Through these efforts, the Team recognizes that altered hydrology is one of many
stressors that can impact aquatic life, but that use of Clean Water Act (CWA)â€™s regulatory tools
to restore flow to natural conditions have limitations.
________________________________
3 United States Government Accountability Office. December 2013. Clean Water Act Changes Needed if Key EPA
Program is to Help Fulfill the Nationâ€™s Water Quality Goals. Publication No. GAO-14-80.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659496.pdf
4 Va. Depâ€™t of Transp. v. EPA, No. 12-775, 2013 WL 53741 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2013).
The Team appreciates that the Draft Report does not create or substitute for existing law or
regulation. Rather, it is intended to serve as a technical and informational resource for states,
tribes, and territories that may want to pursue additional means to proactively protect aquatic
life from the adverse effects of flow alteration.
However, our review of the Draft Report suggests it falls short of providing adequate technical
rigor needed to provide scientifically credible guidance relative to comprehensive stressor
identification. Instead, it provides a summary of existing knowledge and promotes the use of
CWA tools, including State water quality standards (WQS), narrative criteria, Sections 303(d)
and 305(b) of the CWA, NPDES stormwater permits, and the challenged TMDL program3 to
restore receiving water flows.
Given the Teamâ€™s experience in Washington State our concerns include, but are not limited to:
1. Use of CWA tools to restore receiving water flow to natural conditions
Team members feel that use of CWA tools for these applications, including WQS through
narrative criteria, TMDLs, and NPDES stormwater permits is out ahead of science. This
creates the potential for a less defensible use of NPDES stormwater permits to achieve our
goals of protecting and restoring beneficial uses.
Listing waters as impaired by a pollutant is the first step in the CWA management process,
followed by development of a TMDL to protect and restore beneficial uses. Section 5 of the
Draft Report discusses development of narrative flow criteria in State WQS as the
mechanism for placing waters on the 303(d) list and therefore driving flow based TMDL
development. However, courts have recently ruled that flow is not a pollutant and
therefore canâ€™t be used as a surrogate for pollutants in a TMDL4. Hence, the continued
promotion of flow as a pollutant and use of CWA tools in the Draft Report raises concerns.
Further, suggesting that natural flow regimes can be restored through heavy emphasis on
NPDES stormwater permits is not realistic nor practical. NPDES stormwater permits do not
require a restoration of flow in receiving waters to natural regimes. In Washington State,
municipal stormwater permittees are required to address stormwater flows from new
development and significant redevelopment. Given that many urbanized areas are already
developed, the application of stormwater controls during redevelopment alone within
these areas will not adequately address the desired outcome of restoring natural flow
regimes and protecting aquatic life. The Team recommends the Draft Report more clearly
acknowledge the practical limitations in using CWA tools, including NPDES stormwater
permits, to restore flow to natural conditions supportive of aquatic life.
________________________________
5 Interagency Team Bioassessment Letter to EPA Region 10. 31, July 2015. Stormwater and TMDLs > Washington
Stormwater Center
6 Washington Department of Ecology, April 2013. Squalicum and Soos Creek. Bioassessment Monitoring and
Analysis to Support Total Maximum Daily Load Development. Publication Number 13-03-017
2. Linking narrative criteria and stormwater to biological impairment
At the time of this letter, Ecology and EPA Region 10 are considering placement of 105
stream segments in Washington State on the 303(d) list for bioassessment using narrative
criteria as the basis. The use of narrative criteria as a listing basis for bioassessment is
similar to flow in that neither is a pollutant. At the same time, Ecology has not yet
adequately articulated the policy rationale and relationships between narrative criteria and
anti-degradation policy supportive of bioassessment listings. Nor has Ecology developed
credible biological goals for benthic macroinvertebrates in a manner consistent with
controlling laws5. The Team expects the same challenges would occur for flow.
These complications have been displayed locally through Ecology and EPA Region 10 study
of stormwater flow as a primary surrogate measure having adverse effects on benthic
invertebrates in Soos and Squalicum Creek6. The goal of the report was to link stormwater
flow to impairments of benthic invertebrates and set TMDL targets for NPDES stormwater
permittees to reduce impervious surface and flow. Statistically significant relationships were
found benthic invertebrate biometrics, canopy cover and other stressors not conclusively
associated with stormwater flow. As a result, TMDL stakeholders and the regulated
community are concerned with the approach, causing Ecology and EPA Region 10 to
proceed cautiously.
The Team believes that using narrative based criteria to support flow based 303(d) listings
and TMDL development relative to aquatic life impairment is premature and recommends
that EPA and states utilize stressor identification studies outside of the CWA regulatory
framework to promote understanding of complex relationships between flow, other
stressors, and aquatic life to support sound policy decisions.
________________________________
7 National Association of Clean Water Agencies. Comment letter to EPA on the Draft EPA-USGS Technical Report:
Protecting Aquatic Life from Effect of Hydrologic Alteration. 17, June 2016.
3. The report is primarily a policy statement, rather than technical guidance
The Team is generally supportive of comments provided by the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies7 relative to concerns that the Draft Report goes beyond being a
technical document, rather encourages regulatory agencies to implement EPA policy
preferences to regulate flow under the CWA framework.
The Draft Report would be improved by providing technical guidance or reference to
methods which more comprehensively evaluate all stressors to aquatic life. EPAâ€™s Causal
Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System or CADDIS was designed specifically for
this purpose, yet the authors fail to recognize its utility or provide other credible
methods upon which practitioners can rely.
_______________________________________________________________________
The Interagency Team appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Report. For
more information about the Interagency Team or to make contact please visit
Stormwater and TMDLs > Washington Stormwater Center

Proposal to Ecology on WQP 1-11 Related to Credible Data

Summary: Proposal to Ecology on WQP 1-11 Related to Credible Data

Interagency Team â€“ Credible Data Proposal to Ecology to support refinements to Water Quality Policy 1-11
(WQP) and Water Quality Assessment (WQA) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development
December 2016
The Interagency Team recommends refining WQP 1-11 and associated processes to include standardized data
quality assessment steps which allow for objective assessment of any data set, collected for any intended use, to
be deemed appropriate (or not) for use in the WQA & TMDL development. We request development and use of
standardized criteria and data assessment protocols to improve data credibility and confidence in assessment
results. The framework identified below should be made available to interested parties and required of those
submitting or using data in the WQA and TMDL development processes. Additionally, we request tools be created
or modified in a manner that integrates with Environmental Information Management (EIM) and Ecologyâ€™s
Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD), as a data processing refinement to currently available tools. We recognize
concepts of the Interagency Teamâ€™s proposal could be implemented in multiple ways by Ecology.
The Interagency Team proposes the following framework to improve and employ consistent processes for
collecting, assessing, and utilizing credible data in WQA and TMDL development:
1) Create and apply method and data quality objectives (MQOs and DQOs) to define a baseline level of
acceptability (validation and credibility) for data used in WQA and TMDL development projects based on
the following examples:
SCUM II
WSDOTâ€™s Stormwater Monitoring: Chemical Data Validation Guidance and Criteria (see attached)
Ecologyâ€™s EDD Processing Tool Usersâ€™ Guide and accompanying Software (Supports listed items # 4
& 5 below)
2) Include standard MQOs and DQOs in water quality monitoring QAPP template(s).
Applicable QAPP templates include Water Quality Program grant funded projects, NPDES permit-
related QAPPs, and Ecologyâ€™s internal monitoring projects conducted in support of state and
federal clean water programs.
Reference MQOs and DQOs in Policy 1-11 as baseline credibility requirements for data used in the
assessment.
3) Develop a programmatic QAPP for Ecology staff or contractors performing the WQA, which is a recurring
data usability assessment project.
Include MQOs and DQOs in the QAPP.
Include internal procedures for evaluating data used in the WQA.
4) Modify Ecologyâ€™s Environmental Information Management (EIM) system:
Define QA levels 3 and 4 based on MQOs and DQOs. Consider including a summary of these
criteria in EIM to reduce confusion and incorrect QA levels.
Add fields to the EIM results sheet and require data submitters to include lab and field quality
control data to facilitate data verification/validation supportive of QA levels.
Require a certification (sign and submit attribute) for those submitting data with a QA level 3 or 4.
An example is found in general condition G19 of current NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits.
Implement an audit (validation) of the data certified to meet QA levels 3 and 4.
5) If feasible, consider including MQOs and DQOs in Ecologyâ€™s new â€œcomputer algorithmâ€ as another QC
check on data submitted and certified to meet QA level 3 and 4 standards. See example provided for the
last bullet of Item # 1 above.

Team Comment to Ecology on Bioassessment Alternatives

Summary: Team Comment to Ecology on Bioassessment Alternatives

Interagency Team â€“ Bioassessment Alternatives Comments to support refinements to Water
Quality Policy 1-11, the Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs
March 17, 2017
1 Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Assessment/Policy 1-11 Updates. Bioassessment
Alternatives Proposed by Ecology. January 2017.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2016/Proposed_Bioassessment_Alternatives.pdf
2 Interagency Team. July 31, 2015. Bioassessment letter to the Environmental Protection agency and Washington
State Department of Ecology. http://www.wastormwatercenter.org/interagency
3 Interagency Team. December 2016. Credible Data Proposal to Ecology.
http://www.wastormwatercenter.org/interagency
The Interagency Team (Team) thanks Ecology (ECY) for coordinating Water Quality Policy (WQP)
meetings to engage stakeholders in dialogue on numerous topics including alternative ways1 to
evaluate bioassessment (B-IBI) data for the Water Quality Assessment (WQA).
Team members support the use of B-IBI as a tool to evaluate the health of aquatic systems.
However, we remain concerned about the use of B-IBI for the WQA primarily due to the lack of
clarity and transparency in determining the nexus between degraded B-IBI communities and
the causal stressors (i.e., stressor identification studies) as well as existing uncertainties
regarding the process once a waterbody becomes Category 5 listed for B-IBI (i.e., TMDL
development and associated stormwater permit-requirements). Additionally, several other
unresolved challenges remain which complicate the use of B-IBI for the WQA and TMDL
development. Many of these challenges and requests for documentation were outlined to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ECY in our July 31, 2015 bioassessment letter2.
Dialogue during the WQP meetings and subsequent meeting notes may help address some of
the fundamental challenges presented in our bioassessment letter2. To address these
challenges and improve the credibility, transparency and predictability of the WQA and
regulatory decision making, the Team recommends Ecology:
ï‚· document the nexus between Category 5 B-IBI listings, stressor identification studies,
and stormwater permit requirements;
ï‚· reconsider the use of B-IBI for the purposes of the WQA, because B-IBI is not defined as
a pollutant by the Clean Water Act;
ï‚· seriously consider rule-making to establish numeric B-IBI criteria used for the WQA and
regulatory decision making;
ï‚· implement the Teamâ€™s credible data proposal3 to support development of a
programmatic quality assurance project plan (QAPP) which identifies data quality
objectives (DQOâ€™s) for B-IBI;
ï‚· update the WQP to reference the programmatic QAPP and use of DQOâ€™s to verify
credibility of data;
Interagency Team â€“ Bioassessment Alternatives Comments to support refinements to Water
Quality Policy 1-11, the Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs
March 17, 2017
ï‚· improve the Puget Sound Stream Benthos (PSSB) database to allow for and require that
submitters of B-IBI data certify their data meet established DQOâ€™s;
ï‚· update the WQP to document the intended use of B-IBI data from PSSB for the purposes
of the WQA;
ï‚· verify and document that the Stateâ€™s Ambient Biological and Sentinel monitoring
programs and methods were designed for establishing numeric B-IBI criteria used in
regulatory decision making;
ï‚· verify and document the usability of B-IBI data from the Stateâ€™s Ambient Biological and
Sentinel monitoring programs against established DQOâ€™s to support development of
numeric B-IBI criteria and;
ï‚· document reference site conditions, used for establishing numeric criteria, which show
minimal or no human disturbance necessary to ensure criteria credibility and provide
assurance that reference sites are representative of waters within each ecoregion.
Until these fundamental challenges are first addressed, we feel it is premature for the Team to
comment on the proposed B-IBI alternatives. The risk for inappropriate and technically
unsubstantiated regulatory burden on stormwater permittees is too great.
The Team appreciates Ecologyâ€™s commitment to improving the credibility, transparency, and
predictability of WQP 1-11, the WQA, and TMDL programs. We anticipate scheduling a meeting
with ECY and EPA this spring to discuss these recommendations and other outcomes from the
WQP meetings.
Please contact Steve Britsch at 425-388-3464 x 2656 or [email protected] if you have
questions about these comments.
The Interagency Team: City of Bellevue, Clark County, Kitsap County, Pierce County, Snohomish
County, Thurston County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation.

Team Comment to Ecology on Public Review Draft of WQP 1-11

Summary: IAT Comment letter on WQP 1-11

1 Washington State Department of Ecology. Public Review Draft. Water Quality Program Policy 1-11 Chapter 1. Washingtonâ€™s
Water Quality Assessment Listing Methodology to meet Clean Water Act Requirements. February 2018.
2 Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Program Policy 1-11, Chapters 1 and 2. July 2012.
3 Washington State Legislature. Water Pollution Control. Water Quality Data Act Policy. RCW 90.48.570 -590. 2004.
March 30, 2018
Susan Braley
Water Quality Program
Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Online submittal form: http://ws.ecology.commentinput.com/?id=ph6ZP
Dear Ms. Braley,
The Interagency Team (Team) would like to thank the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) for efforts to engage stakeholders in improvements to the water quality assessment process.
We recognize the improvements proposed in the 2018 Public Review Draft of Water Quality Policy
(Policy) 1-11 Chapter 11, and appreciate the opportunity to provide comment. The Team values an
opportunity to discuss comments and share ideas for continued process improvement.
On March 31, 2016, prior to Policy stakeholder meetings, the Team provided Ecology with comments on
Chapters 1 and 2 of the 2012 Policy2 . Our comment letter recommended revisions to both Chapters
given the interrelated nature of their content, and the importance of Chapter 2 in describing how
Ecology evaluates the credibility of data in accordance with the Water Quality Data Act (WQDA)3.
Unfortunately, neither the stakeholder meetings, nor this draft Policy revision include proposed updates
to Chapter 2. The Team and Ecology have emphasized the importance of improving the transparency
and predictability of processes used for evaluating the credibility of data. We continue to urge Ecology
to update Chapter 2 and provide an opportunity for public review and comment. The Team welcomes
opportunities to work in partnership with Ecology and other stakeholders to accomplish this.
Our primary recommendations include that above and the bulleted list below. Attachment A contains
more detailed comments and recommendations.
Clarify roles and responsibilities of various parties relative to the data assembly, evaluation and
assessment process.
Add definitions for key terms and ensure consistent use of terminology.
Describe specific criteria used to determine credibility of water quality data.
Provide the capability for, and require the use of, the Environmental Information Management
System to house Quality Assurance and Sampling Plans and other documentation necessary to
substantiate QA Planning and Assessment Levels of 3 and improve category determinations.
Improve Total Maximum Daily Load prioritization processes and hold local meetings to solicit
local knowledge to help inform the prioritization process.
Provide parameter and category specific de-listing procedures that match TMDL lead and EPA
expectations.
Provide the scientific documentation, including an evaluation of historic reference site benthic
macroinvertebrate data against data quality objectives, supporting development and use of
numeric criteria.
Provide the scientific documentation for use of the two most recent years of benthic
macroinvertebrate sample results and 10th percentile to support category determinations.
Confirm, update, and/or clarify the use of benthic macroinvertebrate stressor identification
study guidance and describe the regulatory linkages between the studies and municipal
stormwater permits.
Use only the hypergeometric mean test as the basis for Category 5 pH, temperature and
dissolved oxygen listings, but maintain the exceptions where site- specific dissolved oxygen
criteria exist in table 602.
Regards,
The Interagency Team: staff from the City of Bellevue, Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County,
Pierce County, Snohomish County, Thurston County, and the Washington State Department of
Transportation
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 Washington State Legislature. Administrative Procedures Act. RCW 34.05.272.
5 Washington State Department of Ecology. Quality Management Plan. Publication No. 15-030303. December 2015 â€“ Version 4.
Attachment A â€“ Comments on Water Quality Policy 1-11 Chapter 1
The following comments are organized according to Chapter 1 of the draft Policy.
Executive Summary
1. Clarify the roles and responsibilities for the production and use of credible data during the WQA.
Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of data submitters and Ecology staff to improve data
credibility outcomes as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)4.
Recommendation: Use an active voice throughout the Policy to aid in clarifying roles and
responsibilities of the various parties involved in the WQA process.
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions
1. Improve the list of defined terms to foster consistent interpretation of the Policy.
Some of the definitions (e.g., data validation and data verification) slightly differ from those
found in Ecologyâ€™s Quality Management Plan (QMP)5 and the reasons for the differences are
unclear. For example, the Team understands that Ecology does not â€œvalidateâ€ the data
submitted into EIM, however the definition for data validation in the QMP includes: â€œthree key
criteria to determine if data validation has actually occurredâ€¦â€ by the data submitter. With the
omission of the three key criteria in the Policyâ€™s definition for data validation, it remains unclear
how Ecology will determine whether data validation actually occurred by the submitter.
Recommendation: Evaluate the use of terminology throughout the Policy to eliminate vague,
inconsistent, or incorrect descriptions. Ensure terminology aligns with legal and scientifically
accepted definitions in conformance with QMP requirements and associated glossary for
inclusion in the Policyâ€™s definitions.
2. Several definitions for commonly used terms are absent in the draft Policy.
Examples of commonly used terminology lacking definition include: Critical Condition, Natural
Condition, Non-detect, Pollutant, Pollution, QA Assessment Level, QA Planning Level, Replicate
Sample, Field Replicate Sample, Sampling Event, and Significant Human Impact.
Recommendation: Search the document for commonly used terms for inclusion in the
definitions section of the Policy.
6 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Chapter 173-201A WAC. Amended May 9, 2011.
Part 1: General Assessment Considerations
1A. Introduction and Background
1. Page 2. Fourth paragraph. As written, the paragraph could be interpreted to suggest that data
submitters are responsible for ensuring the credibility of data used in the WQA. The credibility of data
collected for an intended purpose may be sound, yet that does not necessarily mean the data should
be assigned a Level 3 or higher in EIM for use in the WQA.
Recommendation: Re-word the sentence to clarify that data submitters are responsible for
ensuring data credibility relative to their QAPPs intended purpose. Per the WQDA, Ecology is
tasked with ensuring use of credible data in the WQA.
1B. Process to Develop Water Quality Assessment
1. Better describe the process, including roles and responsibilities of the involved parties and the laws
governing the process.
As written, this section does not provide stakeholders a clear picture of the process. The Teams
basic understanding is that the WQA process involves the following three main steps: assemble
data, evaluate data, and assess data.
The assemble step is met when Ecology sends a call-for and receives-data.
The evaluate step is met when Ecology determines the credibility of assembled data
using specific criteria (as required of Ecology by the WQDA).
The assess step is met when Ecology compares the data deemed credible against
Washington State Water Quality Standards6 and makes category determination.
As a distinct step, the data credibility evaluation must happen before assessing the data against
Standards, yet the draft Policy uses the words evaluate and assess (or variations thereof)
inconsistently or interchangeably (one example below).
Example and Proposed Edit: page 2, fifth paragraph: â€œTo evaluate assess whether or not criteria
are persistently consistently being met, Ecology considers magnitude, frequency, and/or
duration of the exceedance of the water quality standard.â€
Recommendation: The section would benefit from outlining the WQA development process in a
simple flow chart, assigning roles and responsibilities to involved parties, and taking care to
ensure consistent and appropriate word usage when describing the distinct steps of the WQA
process.
7 Interagency Team. 2016. Credible Data Proposal to Ecology to Support Refinement to Water Quality Policy 1-11, the Water
Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs.
8 Washington State Department of Ecology. Sediment Cleanup Userâ€™s Manual II (SCUM II). Guidance for Implementing the
Cleanup Provisions of the Sediment Management Standards. Chapter 173-2014 WAC. Publication No. 12-09-057.
9 Washington State Department of Ecology. Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan for Water Quality Impairment
Studies. March 2017. Publication No. 17-03-107.
1D. Ensuring Data Credibility in the Assessment
1. The draft Policy does not adequately describe the specific criteria used to determine credibility of
water quality data in accordance with the WQDA.
The WQDA requires Ecology to develop policy describing the specific criteria that determine
data credibility. Ensuring data credibility is particularly important since the WQA constitutes a
significant agency action under the APA. Unfortunately, neither Chapter 1 nor 2 of the draft
Policy contain baseline parameter-specific data credibility requirements in the form of method
and data quality objectives (that could be used to define QA or Planning Level 3 or higher in
EIM) to ensure Ecology consistently uses credible during the WQA. Further, Chapter 2 of the
Policy has not been updated and provided for public review.
Ecology relies heavily on quality assurance project plan (QAPP) templates, standard operating
procedures (SOPs), and other guidance documents to meet the requirements of the WQDA.
However, these templates, SOPs, and guidelines do not adequately describe the specific criteria
to ensure the consistent credibility of data submitted and utilized for the WQA.
Additionally, it remains unclear why the Policy refers to templates and SOPs as â€œhelpful
guidanceâ€ when relying upon them to meet the legal requirements of the WQDA.
Without adequate parameter-specific criteria in the Policy, Ecology and stakeholders risk
generating and/or approving QAPPs using differing method and data quality objectives. This
results in organizations verifying data using different conventions. This data, submitted to
Ecology, undermines the credibility and consistency of data used for the WQA.
To assist in alleviating the issues above, the Team submitted a Credible Data Proposal 7 to
Ecology in December 2016 which outlined a framework to improve and employ consistent
processes for collecting, assessing, and utilizing credible water quality data for the WQA and
therefore TMDL development. The Credible Data Proposal and follow up communication
recommended the Water Quality Program (WQP) consider the SCUM II Userâ€™s Manual8 and the
Environmental Assessment Programâ€™s recently published Programmatic QAPP template for
Water Quality Impairment Studies9 to support the development of specific criteria in policy for
the collection and use of credible water quality data in the WQA. These documents include
method and data quality objectives lacking from the current Policy and QAPP templates. If
Ecology deems this insufficient, the WQP should develop policy or QAPPs of equal rigor for use
by stakeholders and Ecology.
Examples of Specific Criteria Used to Evaluate Water Quality Data Credibility:
(a) As required by Chapter 2 of the Policy, stakeholders submitting data for the
WQA must collect, preserve, and analyze data using methods prescribed in
procedures published by Ecology, EPA, USGS, APHA, USACOE, ASTM, or the
Code of Federal Regulations. To facilitate this, the Team requests Ecology
develop, document, and utilize a list of parameter-specific methods for
reference and use in determining data credibility.
(b) Neither the Policy, any quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) document,
nor SOP provides definitive guidance on how organizations should
treat/qualify their bacteria samples that exceed method-specific hold
temperatures. Without these parameter-specific criteria, stakeholders likely
treat data differently and Ecology risks accepting data for use in the WQA
that it should reject.
(c) Neither the Policy, any QA/QC document, nor SOP provides definitive
guidance on how organizations should treat/qualify their temperature data
if a thermistor fails calibration criteria. Without these parameter specific
criteria, stakeholders are treating data differently and Ecology risks
accepting data for use in the WQA that it should reject.
Recommendations:
Reconsider the recommendations outlined in the Credible Data Proposal and initiate an
effort to update Chapter 2 to better define a baseline level of acceptability for data used in
the WQA and therefore TMDL development.
Create a new QAPP template or improving upon (publication 04-03-030) by including MQOs
and DQOs.
Improve the QAPP template requiring its use for: WQP grant funded projects, NPDES
permit-related QAPPs, and Ecologyâ€™s internal monitoring projects in support of the federal
clean water programs. Achievement of QAPP required MQOs and DQOs would define data
that can be assigned a QA or Planning Level 3 or higher in EIM.
2. Proposed changes to Chapter 1 removes language allowing waivers to the requirement for lab
accreditation, but the allowances remain in Chapter 2 creating uncertainty regarding Ecologyâ€™s
granting of waivers.
Recommendation: Clarify whether Ecology will still allow waivers for lab accreditation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1E. Data and Information Submittals
1. Pageâ€™s 12 â€“ 13. Better describe the information leading up to the EIM Quality Assurance table to
clarify the difference between QA Planning Levels and QA Assessment Levels. Additionally, improve
the EIM Quality Assurance table to clarify roles and responsibilities for data collectors, labs, and data
submitters.
Recommendation: Edit language, using active voice, leading up to and within the table to clarify
roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved in the EIM submittal and QA/QC level
assigning process. Define important terminology such as QA/QC Planning Level and QA/QC
Assessment Level.
2. EIM does not currentlyâ€¦

Team Scoping Feedback on Ecology’s WQ Policy 1-11

Summary: WQ Policy 1-11 Team scoping

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Program Policy 1-11, Chapters 1 and 2. July 2012.
2 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Chapter 173-201A WAC. Amended May 9, 2011.
Revised January 2012. Publication No. 06-10-091. Water Quality Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia
WA.
3 Washington State Sediment Management Standards. Chapter 173-204 WAC. Revised February 2013. Publication No. 13-09-
055. Toxics Cleanup Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia. WA.
4 Washington State Legislature. Water Pollution Control. Water Quality Data Act Policy. RCW 90.48.570 -590. 2004.
March 31, 2016
Patrick Lizon, Water Quality Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA. 98504-7600
Dear Mr. Lizon,
The Interagency Team (Team) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Water Quality Policy
(Policy) 1-111. The Policy describes how waterbody segments are assessed to determine attainment with
the state's Water Quality2 and Sediment Management Standards3. The Water Quality Data Act4 requires
the Policy to provide specifications defining data credibility for inclusion in the water quality assessment
(WQA) and establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The WQA results in assigning
waterbody segments to categories of impairment to satisfy sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and to assist in the prioritization of TMDLs. Programmatic actions in TMDLs have been
included in stormwater permits, requiring the regulated community to comply.
As a result, it is critical the Policy be credible, transparent, technically correct, effective, and consistent
with controlling laws. This will provide the public and regulated community with verifiable and
reproducible WQA decisions that improve confidence in CWA implementation.
While we understand Ecology is offering a scoping level process to identify areas of Chapter 1 for
updates, the Team feels strongly that a comprehensive review and update of both Chapters 1 and 2 is
necessary due to the interrelated nature of its content. Therefore, we recommend evaluating the Policy
in its entirety and request Ecology take the time necessary to do so. The Team welcomes opportunities
to work in partnership with Ecology on such an exercise and provide track-changes level feedback to
support such an endeavor.
Attachments A and B contain a selection of examples for areas of improvement.
Regards,
The Interagency Team: City of Bellevue, Clark County, King County, Kitsap County, Pierce County,
Snohomish County, Thurston County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation
Cc:
Dave Croxton (EPA)
Jill Fullagar (EPA)
Melissa Gildersleeve, Water Quality Section Manager (ECY)
Susan Braley, Watershed Management Section (ECY)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5 Washington State Department of Ecology. Sediment Cleanup Userâ€™s Manual II. Publication No. 12-09-057. March 2015.
Attachment A â€“ General Comments on Water Quality Policy 1-11 Chapters 1 & 2
Revise the terminology, improve technical accuracy and address discrepancy through-out the Policy.
General issues, examples, reference to sections of the policy and recommendations are below with
supporting detail in Attachment B.
Issue 1. Lack of specific criteria to determine data credibility
Example: Section 4, Public Participation and Submitting Information.
Ecologyâ€™s Toxic Cleanup Program developed the Sediment Cleanup Userâ€™s Manual II5, which
includes requirements for data quality under state Sediment Management Standards. Specific
water quality data requirements are omitted from the Policy. In order to meet the Legislatureâ€™s
intent in the Water Quality Data Act, requirements for data quality must be established.
Recommendation: Develop methodology, standardized criteria, and technical procedures for
conducting water (fresh and marine) investigations under the Standards. Once complete: 1)
Add reference to this information in the Policy and make available on Ecologyâ€™s external
website, and 2) Require Ecology staff to assemble and evaluate all readily available data against
this criteria for use in the WQA process and on all TMDL development projects. Further, the
Team suggests Ecology develop additional rules, policies, and guidance to fully implement the
Water Quality Data Act.
Issue 2. Widespread use and misuse of terminology critical for consistent application of the Policy
Examples of terminology lacking definition: representative, criteria/criterion, sufficient data,
critical condition period, natural condition, significant human impact, usability determination,
verification, validation, non-detect values, QA procedures, QA/QC, best professional judgment,
etc.
Examples of misuse of terminology:
Section 6, Assessment Methodology: The terms â€œreplicate sampleâ€ and â€œfield replicate
sampleâ€ need to be defined in conformance with Ecologyâ€™s Quality Management Plan5 and
used consistently.
Section 6, Assessment Methodology, first paragraph: "Generally numeric and narrative data
will be used for assessment purposes depending on the parameter. Modeled data that
meet QA procedures will be allowed when the status of water quality is being determined in
relation to natural conditions."
In the context of the above excerpt, "modeled data" is a contradiction in terms. Models
generate outputs rather than actual measured, sampled, or observed data. As such, we
believe modeled data is an inappropriate use of information for listing purposes.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 Washington State Department of Ecology. Quality Management Plan. Publication No. 15-030303. December 2015 â€“ Version 4.
Recommendation: Evaluate the use of terminology throughout the Policy to eliminate vague
and incorrect descriptions. Ensure terminology aligns with legal and scientifically accepted
definitions, in conformance with Ecologyâ€™s Quality Management Plan6 requirements and
associated glossary. Include definitions in the Policy.
Issue 3. Widespread use of best professional judgment or determinations on a case-by-case basis
reduces consistency and predictability for stakeholders.
Example: Section 7, Natural Conditions. â€œThe designation of a waterbody as impaired or as
exceeding a water quality criterion for these two parameters (DO and pH) due to natural
conditions requires a systematic review of available data and the application of best
professional judgment of Ecology staff.â€
Recommendation: Institute use of standardized processes, improve consistency in decision-
making and repeatability of listing decisions by reducing reliance on subjectivity.
Issue 4. Use of conflicting statements
Example: Section 7, Other Assessment Consideration, Natural Conditions, second paragraph. â€œA
determination regarding natural conditions will require information and data to validate the
condition, with no presumption either way.â€ This section contains several references to
presumptions that contradict this statement, such as â€œPristine wilderness areas or other areas
with no significant human impact will be assumed to represent natural conditions.â€
Recommendation: Review and address conflicting statements in Chapters 1 and 2.
Issue 5. Bias toward Category 5 listings
Example: Section 5, Categories; Section 6, Assessment Methodology; Section 7, Other
Assessment Considerations; and Section 8, Specific Submittal and Basis for Assessment
Decisions. Information necessary to qualify a waterbody for Category 5 listing (for many if not all
pollutants) are dramatically inequitable to information necessary for other categories. This
creates a bias towards impaired listings and in the absence of a de-listing process, results in an
ever expanding Category 5 list.
Recommendation: Develop uniform, scientifically-defensible, and objective listing processes
that evaluates information equitability within and amongst categories.
Issue 6. The Policy allows use of laboratories lacking accreditation and non-standardized methods
Example: Section 4, Public Participation and Submitting Information.
â€œUse of laboratories not accredited by Ecology must be approved by Ecology prior to the start of
monitoring. The monitoring entity must seek and obtain a waiver to the Executive Policy 1-22
requirement. A list of laboratories and the methods for which they are accredited can be found
at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/labs/lab-accreditation.html. Executive Policy 1-22 does not
apply to data obtained in the field or to benthic analyses.â€
For states with approved NPDES programs, sample test procedures must conform to 40 CFR 136.
Allowing use of non-accredited laboratories and alternative methods outside of rigor and
performance criteria established in 40 CFR 136 creates potential inconsistency in WQA decision-
making if the approval process for using alternative test methods does not meet or exceed
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 136.4 through 136.6.
Recommendation: Require and verify adequate documentation exists for the use of data
generated by methods other than those listed in 40 CFR 136. This is necessary so data users can
determine that the method was formally approved for use by Ecology prior to sampling and the
lab was accredited by Ecology to perform that method for a given parameter during the time of
analysis.
Issue 7. Lack of standard methodology describing how non-detect information should be used
Example: Section 6, Assessment Methodology, Use of Non-Detect Samples.
â€œIn these situations, a non-detect sample may, or may not show compliance with water quality
standards. For calculating a geometric mean using non-detect samples, where zero cannot be
used, a value should be chosen so as not to bias the geometric mean high or low.â€
The Policy does not provide specific details, or reference to standard procedures for the use of
non-detect data. Omitting reference to, or inclusion of, standard procedures for use of non-
detect data results in inconsistent evaluation of data and decision-making during the WQA.
Recommendation: Provide reference to, or include, standard procedures applied to non-detect
data such that Ecology staff are consistently evaluating data, and data submittals contain
comparable information.
Issue 8. All information used to prepare the list must be readily available to the public
Example: Section 1, Introduction and Background, last paragraph.
â€œThe draft results of all five water quality assessment categories will be made available for
public review and submitted to EPAâ€¦â€ Without (1) a transparent and complete description of
listing methodology, (2) a description and access to all data used to conduct the WQA, and (3) a
rationale for any decision, stakeholders are unable to verify and reproduce the draft list.
Recommendation: Make available the complete dataset (e.g., numeric and narrative
information from sources other than EIM) and methodologies used to prepare the list.
Additionally, identify all instances where best professional judgment is applied or evaluations
are made on a case-by-case basis, the rational for such determinations, and the person making
the decision. This information is necessary to ensure the list is reproducible.
Issue 9. The Policy describes listing processes, but fails to establish parameter-specific delisting
procedures.
Example: Section 5. Categories; Section 6, Assessment Methodology; Section 7, Other
Assessment Considerations; and Section 8, Specific Submittal and Basis for Assessment
Decisions. The lack of parameter-specific de-listing procedures promotes inconsistent decision-
making and discourages programs and monitoring supportive of de-listing.
Recommendation: Develop transparent, predictable, and credible parameter-specific de-listing
methods that are protective of designated uses and consistent with Standards. Efforts could
initially focus on those parameters with the greatest stream miles/acres of impaired waters
(temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH).
Note: California established policy 2004-0063 to define the listing and de-listing policy. The
policy contains explicit methodology and transparent statistical methods to support de-listing
decisions.
Attachment B – Water Quality Policy 1-11 Chapter 1 â€“ Areas for Improvement
The following feedbacks are organized according to Chapter 1 of the Policy, with examples referencing
applicable sections of policy.
Purpose and Application Sections
Issue 1. The Water Quality Data Act requires Ecology to assemble and evaluate all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and information to ensure that the data meets the state's
requirements for data quality prior to use in the WQA. However, the Policy doesnâ€™t clearly specify
Ecologyâ€™s requirements and methodology for preparing the list.
Example: â€œThis Policy describes how waterbody segments will generally be assessed to
determine attainment with Standards. This Policy also provides specification for data submittal
and data quality necessary for inclusion in the assessment. This Policy, in combination with the
guidance documents referenced herein, constitute the Listing Methodology. This Policy applies
to Department of Ecology staff when conducting assessment. It is also intended as guidance for
all parties submitting data for the assessment process or developing data collection programs
for use in future assessments.
Recommendation: Modify the Policy to clarify that Ecology is required to use this Policy to
assemble and evaluate all data and information used in the WQA. We recommend only
referencing current Agency documents required in the evaluation process.
Section 2. Waterbody Segments and GIS Layers
Issue 1. Ecology maintains a valuable Geographical Information Systems (GIS) waterbody layer
containing the Standards, but it lacks consistency with Table 602 in Standards and is not promoted as
a definitive tool for determining where Standards apply.
Example: Section 2. The Standards differ by waterbody type and location. The GIS Standards
layer is the best tool for deciphering spatial application of Standards. As such, stakeholders rely
upon this to design monitoring programs, analyze data, and determine regulatory compliance.
Where discrepancies with Table 602 in 173-201A exist, local programs suffer.
Recommendation: Compare Table 602 in Standards with the GIS layer for consistency. Improve
consistency and approve the GIS layer as a tool for stakeholder use in regulatory decision-
making.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7 EPA. (2005, July). EPA Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sectionsâ€¦

Team Comment to Ecology on 2018 Water Quality Assessment

Summary: 2018 Water Quality Assessment Comments, WQ Policy 1-11

June 4, 2021
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program PO BOX 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
ATTN: Jeremy Reiman
Dear Mr. Reiman,
The Interagency Team (IAT) appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Department of
Ecologyâ€™s (Ecology) draft Water Quality Assessment (WQA) and associated tools (e.g., Environmental
Information Management (EIM) and the Water Quality Atlas). The IAT also appreciates Ecologyâ€™s work to
improve the Water Quality Policy 1-11 (WQP 1-11) and the WQA process since 2016. Please consider
these IAT comments and recommendations:
1. Comment: Identifying data not deemed usable for listing decisions has value as it provides
transparency and supports quality assurance objectives. For example, Oregon has used Category
1 for data not assessed and Category 3d for data infeasible to assess. Similarly, California has
used Category 3 for data not used in the assessment.
Recommendation: For future WQAâ€™s, consider using a Category or a sub-category to identify
data not used or deemed credible for listing decisions.
2. Comment: Other states use sub-categories to make distinctions between data insufficiencies.
This could be a helpful tool for categorizing listing and impairment challenges, as well as
prioritization efforts.
Recommendation: For future WQAâ€™s, consider using subcategories to Category 3 to help
distinguish data insufficiencies in a way that will be helpful for identifying challenges and
prioritizing work.
3. Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency supports TMDL alternative approaches to
prioritize water clean-up efforts and get to cleaner water faster than through a formal TMDL in
certain watersheds. The process and terminology associated with these efforts in Washington
State (e.g., 4b approach, Alternative Restoration Plans, Straight-to-Implementation (STI)) can
vary widely and are not well understood by most stakeholders. Classifying and defining these
types of approaches using a Category would help clarify processes and terminology.
Recommendation: For future WQAâ€™s, consider adding a sub-category 5 to identify TMDL
alternative approaches for waters that remain in Category 5.
4. Comment: The Water Quality Atlas functionality would be enhanced if it included highway
mileposts.
Recommendation: Consider adding highway milepost data from WSDOTâ€™s internet Geodata
Catalog page and selecting the â€œState Route Milepost Markers of Washington Stateâ€.
5. Comment: Salish Sea Model (SSM) outputs have been used to generate new Category 5 listings
for dissolved oxygen in both fresh and marine waters. WQP 1-11 does not list the SSM as
approved for any listing purpose. Further, Ecology's SSM QAPP (Publication No. 18-03-111)
indicates the model is only to be used to estimate water quality outcomes. While the SSM may
be predicting water quality impairment in particular areas, whether using that or any other
model for prediction, Ecology must conduct monitoring and collect sufficient field data to
establish actual impairment before assigning Category 5 for any pollutant to any waterbody
segment.
Recommendation: Clarify how Ecology determined that outputs from the SSM meet conditions
of WQP 1-11 for dissolved oxygen listings.
6. Comment: Twenty-nine percent of Statewide Category 5 bioassessment listings have no known
source (either EIM or the Water Quality Portal) listed when exported from the water quality
assessment tool. Without knowing the source, what basis does Ecology use to determine the
credibility of data?
Recommendation: Review Category 5 bioassessment listings and describe the source (EIM or
Water Quality Portal) of the data used. Regardless of the data source, we encourage Ecology to
describe how the credibility of data was confirmed to support a Category 5 listing. If Ecology
cannot confirm data credibility for these listings, they should be removed, or at most placed into
Category 2.
7. Comment: WQP 1-11 considers data credible for use if the studies are listed in EIM as having QA
planning and assessment levels of 3 or higher. However, the QA and assessment levels in EIM
are assigned by the data submitter. Thus, Ecology appears to rely on a presumptive approach
when assessing data credibility given that EIM does not have the capability for data submitters
to upload QAPPs, SAPs or equivalent documents to support an authentic evaluation of data
quality objectives and intended use. While the IAT appreciates the variety of challenges involved
in ensuring credible data, there may be several ways of making improvements.
Recommendations: Some potentially easily implementable improvements to enhance data
credibility assumptions, may include:
Using hyperlinks to connect users to the Publications Database that contains Ecologyâ€™s
QAPPs and reports (hyperlinks are already utilized for other purposes in the WQA tool).
Requiring a data submitter signatory certification (like the signatory certification
required when discharge data is submitted for the NPDES Construction Stormwater
General Permit). If signatory certification is required for construction discharges, a
certifying signature seems appropriate for data submittals that form the basis of WQA
listing decisions.
The IAT sincerely appreciates the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder engagement efforts and
provide public comment on this important work.
Thank you,
The Interagency Team

Status Report on Recommendations for Improving Water Quality

Summary: Improving Water Quality Status Report 2020, IAT Comments

Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total
Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State
Accomplishments and Opportunities
2014 â€“ 2020
Image Credit: Seattle Magazine
Produced by:
The Interagency Team
December 2020
The Interagency Project Team is comprised of City, County, and State Agency stormwater
professionals in Washington State. The team was formed in 2012 with the goal of improving
State Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load programs for better
water quality outcomes.
Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State
Accomplishments and Opportunities 2014-2020
[DATE]Page is blank for duplex printing
Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State
Accomplishments and Opportunities 2014-2020
[DATE]Acknowledgements
The Interagency Team (Team) partnered with representatives from Brown and Caldwell, and
continues to work with the Washington State Department of Ecology, and Region 10 of the
Environmental Protection Agency, who are committed to working with the Team to make
improvements to State Water Quality Assessment (WQA) and Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) programs.
Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State
Accomplishments and Opportunities 2014-2020
[DATE]Table of Contents
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. i
Executive Summary and Background ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Recommendation Goals, Accomplishments, Lessons Learned and Opportunities ………………… 3
Recommendation 1: Establish a multi-stakeholder Standing Committee to improve
coordination and engagement with the regulated community ……………………………………….. 3
Recommendation 1 Goal: …………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Recommendation 1 Accomplishments: ………………………………………………………………………. 3
Recommendation 1 Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………… 3
Recommendation 1 Opportunities: ……………………………………………………………………………. 3
Recommendation 2: Implement existing regulatory authority related to unpermitted and
nonpoint sources ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Recommendation 2 Goal: …………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Recommendation 2 Accomplishments: ………………………………………………………………………. 4
Recommendation 2 Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………… 4
Recommendation 2 Opportunities: ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
Recommendations 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e: Refine water quality standards and water quality
assessment methodologies ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Recommendation 3a Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Recommendation 3a Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 5
Recommendation 3a Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 5
Recommendation 3a Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Recommendation 3b Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Recommendation 3b Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 5
Recommendation 3b Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 5
Recommendation 3b Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Recommendation 3c Goal:………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Recommendation 3c Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 6
Recommendation 3c Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 6
Recommendation 3c Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Recommendation 3d Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Recommendation 3d Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 7
Recommendation 3d Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 7
Recommendation 3d Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Recommendation 3e Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Recommendation 3e Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 7
Recommendation 3e Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 7
Recommendation 3e Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Recommendations 4a and 4b: Improve and employ consistent process for collecting,
assessing, and utilizing credible data in WQA and TMDL development ……………………………. 8
Recommendation 4a Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Recommendation 4b Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State
Accomplishments and Opportunities 2014-2020
[DATE]Recommendations 4a and 4b Accomplishments: ………………………………………………………… 8
Recommendations 4a and 4b Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………… 10
Recommendation 4a and 4b Opportunities: ……………………………………………………………… 11
Recommendation 5: Refine and/or add water quality assessment categories to improve
clarity and aid in defining priority water bodies …………………………………………………………… 13
Recommendation 5 Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Recommendation 5 Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 13
Recommendation 5 Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 13
Recommendation 5 Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Recommendations 6a and 6b: Update the current biological assessment and listing
methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Recommendation 6a Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Recommendation 6b Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Recommendations 6a and 6b Accomplishments: ………………………………………………………. 14
Recommendation 6a and 6b Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………….. 15
Recommendation 6a and 6b Opportunities: ……………………………………………………………… 16
Recommendation 7: Define TMDL prioritization methodology, timelines and process for
public improvement ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Recommendation 7 Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Recommendation 7 Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………….. 17
Recommendation 7 Lessons Learned: ………………………………………………………………………. 17
Recommendation 7 Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Recommendation 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and 8e: Define TMDL development methodology ………… 19
Recommendation 8a Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8a Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8a Lessons Learned: …………………………………………………………………….. 19
Recommendation 8a Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8b Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8b Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8b Challenges/Lessons Learned: ……………………………………………………. 19
Recommendation 8b Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8c Goal:………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
Recommendation 8c Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 19
Recommendation 8c Challenges/Lessons Learned: ……………………………………………………. 20
Recommendation 8c Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendation 8d Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendation 8d Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendation 8d Challenges/Lessons Learned: ……………………………………………………. 20
Recommendation 8d Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendation 8e Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendation 8e Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendation 8e Challenges/Lessons Learned: ……………………………………………………. 20
Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State
Accomplishments and Opportunities 2014-2020
[DATE]Recommendation 8e Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 20
Recommendations 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d: Develop consistent TMDL implementation
expectations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9a Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9a Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9a Lessons Learned: …………………………………………………………………….. 21
Recommendation 9a Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9b Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9b Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9b Lessons Learned: …………………………………………………………………….. 21
Recommendation 9b Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9c Goal:………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
Recommendation 9c Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 21
Recommendation 9c Lessons Learned: …………………………………………………………………….. 22
Recommendation 9c Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 22
Recommendation 9d Goal: ……………………………………………………………………………………… 22
Recommendation 9d Accomplishments: …………………………………………………………………… 22
Recommendation 9d Lessons Learned: …………………………………………………………………….. 22
Recommendation 9d Opportunities: ………………………………………………………………………… 22
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
Interagency Team Framework and Operating Principle ……………………………………………………. 24
New Member Orientation and Commitments ……………………………………………………………….. 24
Recommendation Priorities and Lead, Participate, and Track Functions …………………………… 24
Lead or Co-lead: …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Participate: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
Track: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Quarterly Meetings and Communication ……………………………………………………………………… 25
Outreach Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25
SharePointâ€¦

Team Comment to Ecology on Updates to WQ Policy 1-11

Summary: IAT comments on WQP 1-11, IAT Comments to Ecology

April 30, 2020
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program PO BOX 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
ATTN: Jeremy Reiman
Dear Mr. Reiman,
The Interagency Project Team (Team) thanks the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for
its continued efforts to update the stateâ€™s water quality standards for bacterial indicators associated
with shellfish harvesting and water contact recreation . The Team documented their support for such
changes in their, Recommendations for Improving Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily
Load Programs in Washington State report (recommendation 3a), and the Team is generally supportive
of the proposed rule changes to Washington Administrative Code.
There are concerns regarding some key details associated with new procedures, definitions and other
descriptive word choices found within the water quality policy which may result in inconsistent
interpretations and affect future Water Quality Assessments.
The Team would like to provide the following comments, context and recommendations on the Rule and
Plan:
Bacteria – Shellfish Harvesting / WAC 173-201A-210 (2)(b)
1. Comment (Pg. 34 – Paragraph 2): The term Assessment Unit (AU), while explained in Part 1
Section 1C, does not adequately describe how AUâ€™s differ from those developed for freshwater
segments constructed under a bacterial TMDL for the protection of downstream shellfish
harvesting. Further, it would be helpful to clarify how an AU is determined and delineated when
waters â€œdrain directly toâ€ marine waters within a TMDL boundary.
Context: Are freshwater bacterial TMDL segments and freshwater bacterial TMDL Assessment
Units the same? The Clarks Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL is based on segments that were
delineated around prominent outfalls and not tributary confluence-to-confluence points.
It is unclear how far upstream is considered â€œdrains directly toâ€ marine waters within a TMDL
boundary? How would this particular upstream type of freshwater bacterial AU be delineated?
Would it start from the estuarine confluence and extend upstream to the first tributary or would
Ecology calculate its length based upon the freshwater systems flow regime, its upstream
bacterial loads and a statistically derived distance-based risk for creating a water quality
impairment to marine shellfish harvesting areas? If itâ€™s the latter, how specifically would that
determination be made?
Recommendation: Please add further clarification to the term Assessment Unit in Part 1 Section
1C and include it in the definitions section, it appears that the current description fails to be
comprehensive enough to explain how Assessment Units are delineated in all circumstances.
2. Comment: The term critical period is defined, however the term critical condition is not defined
and often used in TMDLs in a manner that implies these terms are interchangeable. This creates
confusion.
Recommendation: Please clarify whether the determination of the critical period differ from the
process for determining the critical condition. Please confirm the distinction and/or similarity
between these terms and describe how the critical period relates to the assessment of
freshwater bacterial impairments under a TMDL developed for the protection of downstream
shellfish harvesting.
3. Comment (Pg. 34 – Paragraph 4): It is unclear what is meant by â€œsufficient informationâ€, in the
sentence, â€œWhere sufficient information is available, Ecology may also define a specified critical
period or season in which the criteria must be met for water contact recreation. This time period
may be defined through a TMDL study or a seasonal analysis that brackets specific months or
seasons in which bacteria levels are more prone to exceed criteria.â€
Recommendation: Please clarify what information is used to determine the critical period,
whether a season analysis is included and whether one can be developed and used for the water
quality assessment outside of an EPA-approved TMDL.
4. Comment (Pg. 35 – Paragraph 3): It is unclear when monitoring may be required for both fecal
coliform and E. coli bacterial indicators to determine attainment of both recreation and shellfish
harvesting uses. Further, it is not clear how regional TMDL leads will consistently apply their re-
evaluation of AUs that have a fecal coliform TMDL.
Recommendation: Clarify when monitoring for both fecal coliform and E.coli is necessary to
attain both recreation and shellfish harvest uses and describe how regional TMDL leads will
consistently apply their re-evaluation of AUs that have a fecal coliform TMDL.
5. Comment (Pg. 35 – Paragraph 2): It is not clear how Ecology will continue to assess fecal coliform
data after 2020 in freshwater where a fecal coliform TMDL was not specifically developed for
the protection of downstream shellfish harvest. Further, in reference to Comment # 5, load
allocations are not water quality standards against which compliance should be determined.
Recommendation: Clarify what methods will be used to assess fecal coliform data after 2020
where a fecal coliform TMDL was not specifically developed for protection of downstream
shellfish harvest use. Also, remove all reference to determining compliance with load
allocations.
6. Comment (Pg. 35 – Paragraph 3): The policy does not describe how, when consulted, regional
TMDL leads will conduct a re-evaluation of AUs that have a fecal coliform TMDL to ensure
consistency in practices statewide.
Recommendation: Clarify how regional TMDL leads are expected to re-evaluate fecal coliform
TMDLs to ensure itâ€™s conducted in a consistent manner statewide.
7. Comment (Pg. 37 – Paragraph 1): Given the following sentence, â€œIn some cases, Ecology will
retain an AU in Category 4A when the criteria are attained if further work is needed to achieve
associated water quality goals. For example, an AU may be meeting criteria, but may not yet be
meeting TMDL load allocations necessary to support downstream uses.â€
Context: If load allocations (Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations) are not met and water
quality standards are achieved, it may suggest that the level of impairment was based on less
than credible data, load allocations were inaccurately derived, the reserve capacity was
calculated inappropriately, or the measure of safety were set too conservatively. The promise of
the TMDL process and the development of sound load allocations is that there is supposed to be
a reliable linkage between satisfying the requirements of the LA and the commensurate
attainment of the applicable water quality standards. The TMDL concept depends on the
scientifically-derived relationship between the numerically expressed load allocations and their
promise as an arithmetically calculated pollution diet or quantifiable pathway back to meeting
water quality standards in the receiving water.
Recommendation: Please clarify further how Ecology differentiates the attainment of a bacterial
LA versus the attainment of the applicable water quality standard.
Bacteria â€“ Water Contact Recreation / WAC 173-201A-200 (2)(b) and 201A-210 (3)(b)
8. Comment (Pg. 40 – Paragraph 2): Please refer to Comment 2 regarding the general request for
an enhanced explanation of the development and use of the critical period, especially when
developed outside of a TMDL analysis. This request is made in light of the sentence, â€œEcology
will group data for each AU by individual water year (October 1 through September 30 of the
following calendar year). Within each water year, data will be compared to the criteria in three-
consecutive-month periods (i.e., Jan./Feb/March, Feb/March/April, etc.), as well as separately
for any applicable critical period.â€
Recommendation: Refer to the recommendation for Comment #2.
9. Comment (Pg. 40 – Paragraph 2): It is not clear that the geometric mean analysis in three-
consecutive-month periods (i.e., Jan./Feb/March, Feb/March/April, etc.) is the same as that
identified in WAC 173-201A for ambient data where when averaging bacteria data for
comparison to the geometric criteria, it is preferable to average by season and this averaging
period shall be â€œ90 days or lessâ€
Additionally, the 2nd paragraph on page 40 uses the terms â€œthree-consecutive-month periodsâ€
and three-month periods interchangeably â€“ which may cause confusion.
Recommendation: It is understood that the use of the â€œthree-consecutive-month-periodâ€ for
the geometric mean analysis is an interpretation of the â€œ90 day or lessâ€ period used in WAC 173-
201A. Please describe this in the policy and perhaps provide an example so users are not
confused by the use of different language. Also, ensure the term â€œthree-consecutive-month-
periodâ€ is used consistently throughout the policy when referring to analysis of bacteria data.
10. Comment (Pg. 40 – Paragraph 4): Itâ€™s unclear why Ecology references compliance with load
allocations under a TMDL when load allocations are not water quality standards subject to rule-
making. This is the same concern brought up under comment #â€™s 5 and 6.
Recommendation: Remove all reference to determining compliance with load allocations.
General Comments:
Natural Background: What are Natural Background sources of bacterial pollution and how will Ecology
account for surface runoff from undisturbed areas, natural rates of overland surface runoff, and
groundwater influences when making this determination?
Natural Load: How would the Natural Background sources for bacterial pollution differ from calculating
the Natural Load for bacterial pollution under a TMDL analysis?
The Interagency Team sincerely appreciates the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder
engagement efforts and provide public comment.
Kind Regards,
The Interagency Team

Bioassessment Alternatives Comments to support refinements to WQ

Summary: Bioassessment Alternatives Comments to support refinements to WQ Policy 1-11

Letter to Ecology on Nonpoint Guidance Process Design

Summary: IAT Nonpoint Guidance Comments

February 23, 2017
Mr. Ben Rau, Water Quality Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA. 98504-7600
Dear Mr. Rau:
The Interagency Team (Team) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Ecologyâ€™s Draft Process
Design â€“ Clean Water Guidance for Agricultural Activities (Draft Process). The Team generally supports
Ecologyâ€™s goal of producing voluntary clean water guidance for agriculture (Guidance Document). The
team also supports the type of background information proposed for inclusion: i.e., the water quality
parameters the practices address; applicability and design considerations; implementation
considerations and costs for operation and maintenance requirements; and effectiveness. This
background will provide practical information and enable users to understand expected pollutant
reductions from the practices. It should help Guidance Document users plan, design, implement and
maintain the most effective combination of practices that are reasonably expected to support
compliance with water quality standards and provide assurance to municipalities that the impact of non-
point source pollution is being reduced.
The Team supports the proposed structure for an advisory group being made up of an implementation
evaluation workgroup and an effectiveness evaluation workgroup. We agree with the concept of the
workgroups working separately, but in parallel, with opportunities for joint discussion during meetings
of the full advisory group.
The Team supports the recruitment of advisory group members that will comprise a balanced mix of
participants and represent diverse perspectives. We encourage Ecology to ensure the advisory group
include a wide range of agricultural producers to account for different perspectives, scales of operation,
economic viability, and geographic variability. To the extent possible, representatives of â€œproducers and
producer groupsâ€ should be farm operators and rural landowners, rather than trade associations, which
may have less practical experience.
Ecology is correct to recognize that â€œIt will be important to provide implementation support to
landowners to encourage the adoption of voluntary clean water practices, particularly for practices that
require significant investment, on-going maintenance, and/or take land out of agricultural production.â€
Additional public investment is needed to incentivize the implementation of effective practices that
yield water quality benefits in watersheds where nonpoint sources contribute to water quality
impairment.
The Draft Process describes the goal of the Effectiveness Evaluation Workgroup to determine what
pollution control or reduction can be expected from various clean water practices. The Team agrees
with Ecologyâ€™s plan to use quantitative estimates of practice effectiveness, where possible; with
qualitative information used only when necessary. The Team strongly encourages Ecology to utilize
credible data and science (as described in paragraphs c-e of the Effectiveness Evaluation Workgroup
section). Further, the Team supports an independent peer review of the Effectiveness Evaluation
Workgroupâ€™s final product. We recommend the review be completed by peers representing diverse
Mr. Ben Rau
February 23, 2017
Page Two
perspectives, including representatives of producers. We believe this independent peer review process
will increase transparency and overall confidence in the process.
When the guidance document is finalized and published, the effectiveness information should be
presented in a format that is useful at the farm/site level as well as the basin or watershed scale. The
Guidance Document should:
1) help landowners compare the costs and benefits of different practices, alone or in combination,
2) guide implementation actions necessary to meet water quality standards, and
3) help municipalities and others provide technical assistance to producers.
Given the spectrum of site conditions that can impact pollutant concentrations and loading to receiving
waters, the effectiveness evaluation workgroup should consider how best to provide reliable estimates
of effectiveness for practices that treat or reduce the loading of pollutants. The Guidance Document
may need to include additional information on the operational factors and/or site conditions that could
alter the effectiveness of various practices and what source control, pre-treatment, and/or practice
combinations could improve overall effectiveness and attainment of water quality standards. Ecology
should explore and include links to peer-reviewed internet-based conservation practice tools or
organizations that could make the process more user friendly and productive.
The Team appreciates Ecologyâ€™s plan to make progress on the first set of clean water practices by July
31, 2017; but has some concerns with the implementation of â€œâ€¦ a rolling process where work on sets of
practices are finalized and added to the guidance document on an on-going basis.â€ The Team notes that
the Draft Plan is somewhat vague about how the public will be engaged and be allowed to review draft
versions of the guidance document before it is finalized. It is suggested that Ecology follow a sequential
process: â€œAdvisory Committee/Ecology Develops Draft > Release Public Draft > 30+ day Public Comment
Period > Final Document Publishedâ€ at regular intervals to support participation.
The Team appreciates Ecologyâ€™s commitment to develop Voluntary Clean Water Guidance for
Agriculture using an inclusive, balanced, data-driven process. Please contact Jeff Killelea at 360-867-
2073 or [email protected] if you have any questions about our comments.
Regards,
The Interagency Team: City of Bellevue, Clark County, King County, Kitsap County, Pierce County,
Snohomish County, Thurston County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation
cc:
Melissa Gildersleeve, Watershed Section Manager (ECY)

Search.