__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 User’s Manual II. Publication No. 12-09-057. March 2015.
Attachment A – 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.
Ecology’s Toxic Cleanup Program developed the Sediment Cleanup User’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 Legislature’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 Ecology’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 “replicate sample” and “field replicate
sample” need to be defined in conformance with Ecology’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 – 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 Ecology’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. “The 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.”
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. “A
determination regarding natural conditions will require information and data to validate the
condition, with no presumption either way.” This section contains several references to
presumptions that contradict this statement, such as “Pristine wilderness areas or other areas
with no significant human impact will be assumed to represent natural conditions.”
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.
“Use 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.”
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.
“In 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.”
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.
“The draft results of all five water quality assessment categories will be made available for
public review and submitted to EPA…” 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 – 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 doesn’t clearly specify
Ecology’s requirements and methodology for preparing the list.
Example: “This 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 Sections…