1 Washington State Department of Ecology. Public Review Draft. Water Quality Program Policy 1-11 Chapter 1. Washington’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 – Version 4.
Attachment A – 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 Ecology’s Quality Management Plan (QMP)5 and the reasons for the differences are
unclear. For example, the Team understands that Ecology does not “validate” the data
submitted into EIM, however the definition for data validation in the QMP includes: “three key
criteria to determine if data validation has actually occurred…” by the data submitter. With the
omission of the three key criteria in the Policy’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 Policy’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: “To 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.”
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 User’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 “helpful
guidance” 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 User’s Manual8 and the
Environmental Assessment Program’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 Ecology’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 Ecology’s
granting of waivers.
Recommendation: Clarify whether Ecology will still allow waivers for lab accreditation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1E. Data and Information Submittals
1. Page’s 12 – 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 currently…