Washington’s Water Quality 

Management Plan to Control 

Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

Draft

May 2015

Publication no. 15-10-015
Publication and Contact Information

This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1510015.html 

For more information contact:

Washington State Department of Ecology

Water Quality Program

P.O. Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

Phone: (360) 407-6600

Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov

o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000

o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000

o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300

o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490

o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400

To request ADA accommodation including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call 

Water Quality Program at Ecology, (360) 407-6600. Persons with impaired hearing may call 

Washington Relay Service at 711. Persons with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-

6341.
Washington’s Water Quality Management 

Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of 

Pollution

Draft

by

Ben Rau

Water Quality Program

Washington State Department of Ecology

Olympia, Washington
This page is purposely left blank
i

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents................................................................................................................. i

List of Figures and Tables....................................................................................................v

Figures............................................................................................................................v

Tables.............................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ vi

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Nonpoint Source Pollution in Washington State ..............................................1

Land use and Nonpoint Source Pollution ......................................................................1

What is the quality of Washington State’s water? .........................................................1

Water quality assessment ......................................................................................1

Nonpoint pollution in Washington State ...............................................................2

The impacts of land use practices-summary .........................................................3

Chapter 2: Washington State’s Regulatory Framework .....................................................7

State water quality laws-regulatory ...............................................................................7

Washington State Water Pollution Control Act ....................................................7

Forest Practices Rules............................................................................................8

Dairy Nutrient Management Program (DNMP)....................................................9

On-Site Sewage Systems.......................................................................................9

Additional State Authorities ........................................................................................12

State Environmental Policy Act ..........................................................................12

Land Use Planning: Growth Management Act, and Shoreline Management Act12

Shellfish Protection Districts...............................................................................14

Salmon Recovery Act, and Salmon Enhancement Program ...............................14

Conservation districts..........................................................................................14

Biosolids..............................................................................................................14

Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention and Response Act .....................14

Toxics Cleanup, Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, and Air Quality .....................15

Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA).....................................................................15

Secondary Containment Rules (Fertilizer and Pesticide)....................................15

Chemigation and Fertigation Technical Assistance Program (CFTAP) .............15

Federal Laws................................................................................................................16

Clean Water Act ..................................................................................................16

Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) ........................20

Safe Drinking Water Act.....................................................................................20

Endangered Species Act......................................................................................21

Federal Farm Bill Programs ................................................................................22

State Revolving Fund Program ...........................................................................22

Local Ordinances and Regulations ..............................................................................23
ii

Chapter 3: Strategies for Addressing Nonpoint Source Pollution .....................................25

Balancing Restoration and Protection..........................................................................26

Watershed Clean-up Programs ....................................................................................26

Total Maximum Daily Loads and Straight to Implementation ...........................26

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)..............................................................27

Straight to Implementation (STI) ........................................................................30

Focus on Implementation-TMDLs and STIs.......................................................30

TMDLs and Stormwater......................................................................................32

Data Tracking, Effectiveness Monitoring, and Adaptive Management ..............33

Ecology Grant and Loan Programs..............................................................................34

Complaint Response and Inspectors............................................................................35

Education and Outreach, and Voluntary Programs......................................................36

Partnerships..................................................................................................................36

Locally Led Water Clean-up Programs .......................................................................37

Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Programs.....................................37

Shellfish Protection Districts...............................................................................39

Other Tools to Promote Implementation .....................................................................40

Draft Water Quality Trading Framework............................................................40

Certification and Certainty Programs..................................................................41

Continued Implementation of Key Regulatory Programs ...........................................42

Forest Practices....................................................................................................42

Agricultural..........................................................................................................49

On-Site Sewage Systems (OSS) Regulation .......................................................51

Water Quality Permits.........................................................................................53

State Initiatives.............................................................................................................53

Governor’s Results Washington..........................................................................54

Washington Shellfish Initiative ...........................................................................54

Puget Sound Action Agenda ...............................................................................55

No Discharge Zone Designation-Puget Sound....................................................56

Ocean Acidification/Marine Resources Advisory Council .................................56

Salmon Recovery in Washington ........................................................................57

Chemical Action Plan (CAP) Development........................................................58

Chapter 4: Water Quality Partnerships..............................................................................59

Working with Local, State, Tribal and Federal Agencies............................................59

Statewide Coordination................................................................................................59

Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee .........................................59

Water Quality Partnership ...................................................................................60

Financial Assistance Council ..............................................................................61

Landowners, Businesses, and Agricultural Producers.................................................61

Agricultural Producer Groups......................................................................................61

Grant Recipients...........................................................................................................61

Local Governments......................................................................................................61

Conservation Districts.........................................................................................63

Local Health Departments and Districts..............................................................64

Interagency Project Team....................................................................................64

Washington Tribes.......................................................................................................64
iii

State Agencies..............................................................................................................65

Federal Agencies..........................................................................................................67

List of Federal Agencies and Responsibilities ....................................................67

Federal Lands-Forestry........................................................................................68

Chapter 5: Financial Incentive Programs...........................................................................71

Coordinated Investment...............................................................................................71

Financial Assistance Sources ..............................................................................71

Chapter 6: Recommended Management Measures............................................................75

Federal Requirements ..................................................................................................75

Existing Guidance ...............................................................................................76

Existing Regulatory Programs and Permits.........................................................76

Stakeholder Involvement .............................................................................................77

Next Steps....................................................................................................................77

Chapter 7: Monitoring........................................................................................................79

Ecology’s Monitoring Strategy....................................................................................79

Water Quality Assessment...........................................................................................80

Compiling Existing Sources of Data and Information ........................................80

Data Quality Requirements .................................................................................80

Data Review, Verification, and Validation .........................................................81

Data Analysis Procedures....................................................................................81

Reporting .............................................................................................................82

Ecology Monitoring Programs.....................................................................................83

Water Quality Improvement (WQI) Projects......................................................83

River and Stream Ambient Monitoring...............................................................84

Marine Water Ambient Monitoring.....................................................................84

Marine Sediment Monitoring ..............................................................................85

Stream Biological Monitoring.............................................................................86

Stream Flow Monitoring .....................................................................................86

Invasive Aquatic Plant Monitoring .....................................................................87

Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication and Health (BEACH) Program

.............................................................................................................................87

Freshwater Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program............................................87

Lake/Reservoir Monitoring .................................................................................88

Groundwater Monitoring.....................................................................................88

Intensively Monitored Watersheds......................................................................89

Water Quality Grants Projects.............................................................................89

Stormwater Work Group .....................................................................................89

Other Monitoring Programs.........................................................................................90

U.S. Geological Survey .......................................................................................90

U.S. Forest Service ..............................................................................................90

Habitat Conservation Plans .................................................................................90

Shellfish Growing Area Monitoring....................................................................91

Salmon Recovery Act..........................................................................................92

Strategy to Recover Salmon ................................................................................92

Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan .....................................................92
iv

Yakima Ground Water Management Area..........................................................93

Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides in Salmon-Baring Streams.................93

Identifying Viable Mitigation for Reducing Malathion Pollutant Loading to Streams

.............................................................................................................................93

Assessing Effectiveness of Pesticide Rule Pertaining to Cranberry Growing Areas

.............................................................................................................................94

Tribal Monitoring ................................................................................................94

Local Government Monitoring............................................................................94

Effectiveness Monitoring.............................................................................................94

Effectiveness Monitoring of the Forest Practices Rules......................................95

Quality Assurance........................................................................................................97

Data Management ........................................................................................................98

Environmental Information Management System (EIM and MyEIM)...............98

303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report Viewer (formerly known as WATS)...............98

Ecology Administrative Grants and Loans Database (EAGL)............................99

Laboratory Information Management System.....................................................99

The Pacific Northwest Water Quality Data Exchange ........................................99

Coastal Atlas........................................................................................................99

TMDL and Nonpoint Source Implementation Tracking Database .....................99

Chapter 8: Groundwater...................................................................................................101

Causes of Nonpoint Pollution in Groundwater..........................................................102

Regulatory Framework Nonpoint Pollution Control for Groundwater......................102

Water Pollution Control Act..............................................................................102

Ground WQ Standards ......................................................................................102

Washington State’s Safe Drinking Water Act...................................................103

Current Groundwater Pollution Control for Nonpoint Sources.................................103

Washington State Department of Ecology ........................................................103

Washington State Department of Agriculture ...................................................103

On-Site Sewage System Regulation..................................................................104

Washington State Department of Health Drinking Water Program..................104

Ground Water Management Areas (GWMAs)..................................................104

Nitrate ........................................................................................................................105

Nitrate Prioritization Project..............................................................................105

Chapter 9: Goals and Strategies.......................................................................................109

Appendices.......................................................................................................................117

Appendix A................................................................................................................117

Appendix B. ...............................................................................................................118

Appendix C. ...............................................................................................................120

Appendix D................................................................................................................125
v

List of Figures and Tables

 Page

Figures

Figure 1 Forest Practices Adaptive Management Program .......................................................... 45

Figure 2 Ecology’s Tiered Monitoring Strategy.......................................................................... 80

Figure 3 Public water supply system groundwater sources........................................................ 101

Figure 4 Groundwater Nitrate Sample Record Max <5 mg/L as N........................................... 106

Figure 5 Groundwater Nitrate Sample Record Max >5 mg/L as N............................................ 107

Tables

Table 1 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from agricultural areas. ............. 3

Table 2 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from atmospheric deposition..... 3

Table 3 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from forested areas.................... 4

Table 4 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from hydromodification............ 5

Table 5 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from marine/boating areas. ....... 5

Table 6 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from urban areas. ...................... 6

Table 7 Projects-Forest Practice Rules Effectiveness................................................................... 95

Table 8 Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Measurable Milestones............................................ 110
vi

Acknowledgements

The authors of this plan would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this 

plan:

• Lawrence Sullivan, Stuart Glasoe and Mary Knackstedt (DOH)

• Ginny Prest (WSDA)

• Mindy Fohn (Kitsap County Public Works) and Stuart Whitford (Kitsap Public Health)

• Marc Engel (DNR)

• Jim Bolger (PSP)

• Jo Henszey (EPA)

• Ron Shultz (WSCC) and Dave Vogel (WACD) for helping organize early feedback from 

conservation districts

• Washington State Department of Ecology staff 

o Helen Bresler and Melissa Gildersleeve

o Mark Hicks, Stephen Bernath, Alissa Ferrell, Patricia Brommer and Laurie Morgan.

o Will Kendra, Jessica Archer, Siana Wong and Paul Pickett. 

o Members of the Nonpoint Source Workgroup:

 Deborah Cornett

 Derek Rockett

 Stephanie Zurenko

 Donovan Gray

 Andrew Funk

 Ralph Svrjek

 Jane Creech

 Chris Coffin

 Chad Atkins

 Martyn Quinn

 Mike Kuttel, Jr.

 Mak Kaufman

 Jessica Kirkpatrick

 Chris Luerkens

 Andrew Wargo

 Marc LaCasse
vii

Executive Summary

This document outlines Washington State’s approach to addressing water quality impacts from 

nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution. This statewide management plan meets U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act requirements, and ensures 

Washington State’s eligibility for Section 319 (federal NPS Program) funding.

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is the regulatory agency charged with 

protecting the quality of Washington State’s water. Ecology acts as the lead agency in restoring, 

maintaining and enhancing water quality collaboratively with citizens, stakeholder groups, tribes, 

local governments, state agencies, and federal agencies. Ecology’s NPS program uses a 

combination of technical assistance, financial assistance, and regulatory tools to help citizens 

understand and comply with state and federal water quality laws and regulations.

Since the passage of the state Water Pollution Control Act, and federal Clean Water Act, 

Washington State has made important progress in cleaning up our rivers, lakes and coastal 

waters, largely by controlling pollution from factories, sewage plants, and other “point” sources 

of pollution. 

Yet, based on the available water quality data, there remain a significant number of waterways

that are not meeting the state WQ Standards which protect all beneficial uses.

Runoff from streets, farms, forest lands and other sources continue to pollute our waters. These 

are considered NPS of pollution, and they represent the largest remaining challenge in achieving 

compliance with state WQ Standards. Both point and NPS of pollution must be addressed to 

reverse the trend of impairment, and achieve the goals outlined in state and federal law.

The (NPS) aims to protect public health, and restore our state’s waters by setting clearer goals 

and standards, and emphasizing the implementation of proven suites of best management 

practices to prevent pollution.
viii

This page is purposely left blank
1

Chapter 1: Nonpoint Source Pollution in 

Washington State

Land use and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Nonpoint source pollutants are introduced into water through:

• Runoff (typically rainfall and snow melt washing pollutants from the land into rivers, 

streams, lakes, oceans, and underground aquifers); 

• Direct deposition of pollutants into state waters;

• Habitat alteration and hydromodification (the alteration of the natural flow of water 

across a landscape, including channel modification or channelization); and 

• Atmospheric deposition.

Land use is strongly correlated to nonpoint pollution. Therefore, to manage NPS pollution, we 

must focus on land use activities. The major sources of nonpoint pollution can be divided into 

the following categories.

Categories Associated Land Uses

Agriculture Livestock keeping; crop production; grazing; non-commercial 

agriculture

Atmospheric Deposition Emissions from various sources; wind borne erosion

Forest Practices Road construction and maintenance; harvesting; chemical 

applications.

Habitat Alteration/ 

Hydromodificcation

Filling of wetlands, and alteration of riparian areas; shoreline 

development; stream channelization; dikes; dredging; riprap; and 

dams.

Recreation Marinas and boats, off-road vehicles.

Urban/Suburban Areas Stormwater runoff; on-site sewage systems; hazardous materials; 

construction and maintenance of roads and bridges; residential use of 

fertilizers and pesticides.

What is the quality of Washington State’s water?

Water quality assessment

Ecology’s primary means of reporting on the status of water quality is through the development 

of an integrated water quality monitoring and assessment report, based on EPA’s 2002
2

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance (November 2001). 

Washington State's Water Quality Assessment satisfies Clean Water Act requirements for both 

Section 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists.

Ecology’s Water Quality Program has adopted Policy 1-11 that describes the methods used for 

assessing information to evaluate attainment of WQ Standards. The policy includes criteria for 

compiling, analyzing, and integrating data on ambient conditions with project implementation 

information. The policy describes how the state integrates data from numerous sources, 

collected for a variety of purposes under a variety of quality control practices. Washington 

State's Water Quality Assessment places waterbody segments into one of five categories. All 

waters in Washington (except those on reservation lands) fall into one of the five categories, 

which describe the status of water, from clean to polluted. Washington State's Water Quality 

Assessment may be found on Ecology's website at:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html

The assessment helps us prioritize the use of state resources more efficiently by focusing on 

water bodies that need the most work, and to address the problem pollutants that show up most 

often. It should be noted, however, that the water quality assessment is not a full accounting of 

the water quality problems in Washington. There are still many water bodies that have not been 

monitored yet.

Nonpoint pollution in Washington State

To support development of the NPS Plan, Ecology conducted a study of existing information 

regarding nonpoint source pollution in Washington.1 The objective of this study was to research 

and document the current known extent of NPS pollution, evaluate the land uses and human 

activities that can generate NPS pollution, and look at the linkage between land uses, human 

activities, and NPS pollution in Washington. 

To accomplish this, Ecology evaluated technical reports and other information sources produced 

since 2005. The study employed several distinct areas of research:

• A review of existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance. 

• A review and summary of recent research on NPS pollution relevant to Washington State. 

• Compilation of calculated NPS load reduction targets in 49 Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) studies conducted in Washington since 2005. 

• An exploratory analysis of TMDL load allocations and associated land uses, using 

Geographic Information Systems. 

• An evaluation of Section 319 grants used for NPS pollution control. 

• Four case studies in data-rich watersheds: Walla Walla River, Lower Yakima River, 

Dungeness River and Bay, and Samish Bay. 

Results of these areas of analysis were synthesized to draw conclusions for different categories 

of nonpoint pollution sources, including agriculture, urban and residential areas, 

hydromodification, marinas and boating, forests, atmospheric deposition, and natural sources. 

The study found that nonpoint pollution sources are widespread in Washington and cause a 

 1 To access the full report see Appendix A.
3

variety of water pollution problems. Application of best management practices can help reduce

and prevent these pollution impacts.

The impacts of land use practices-summary

Agricultural

Agricultural areas have consistently been cited as a significant source of impairment in 

freshwaters nation-wide. Documented water quality impacts from agricultural areas include 

elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria, suspended sediment, turbidity, pesticides, PCBs, 

nutrients, and pH, as well as decreased levels of dissolved oxygen, and elevated water 

temperatures through loss of riparian shade.

Table 1 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from agricultural areas.

Pollutant Category Typical Sources Impacts 

Fecal coliform bacteria Direct animal access to streams; manure 

overspray, or runoff; runoff from pastures, 

grazing areas, application areas, manure piles, or

heavy use areas

Human health, shellfish 

harvest 

Suspended sediment/ 

Turbidity 

Erosion from animal access to stream banks, 

runoff from heavy use areas or cultivated fields, 

runoff from irrigated farm fields

Aquatic life uses, 

aesthetics

Pesticides Direct overspray, runoff from fields Human health, 

aquatic life uses 

Nutrients/ Dissolved 

oxygen/pH 

Direct animal access to streams, manure or 

fertilizer overspray or runoff, runoff from pastures, 

grazing areas, heavy use areas or cultivated fields 

Aquatic life uses, 

aesthetics 

Shade/Temperature Loss of riparian shade due to animal access or 

cultivation in riparian areas

Aquatic life uses

Atmospheric Deposition

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, sulfur, mercury, and toxic compounds such as PCBs and 

dioxins, in surface waters occurs from the fallout of atmospheric emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxides, ammonia, mercury, and toxic compounds. Fallout may occur as wet deposition, 

in which emissions react with water vapor in the air and fall as precipitation (e.g., nitric and 

sulfuric acids—acid rain), or as dry deposition, in which emissions fall in gaseous or particulate 

form. Emission sources include industrial facilities, vehicle exhaust, and agriculture-related 

activities, as well as volatilization, or open burning of PCB/dioxin-laden materials. 

Surface water deposition from atmospheric emissions have been found to occur at local, 

regional, and global scales

Table 2 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from atmospheric deposition.

Pollutant Category Typical Sources Impacts 

Nitrogen (ammonia, 

nitrate), Phosphorus, 

Sulfur dioxide 

Vehicle, agricultural, and industrial emissions, 

wind-borne erosion 

Aquatic life uses 

Mercury Mining, coal burning Human health, aquatic life 

uses 

PCBs, Dioxin, Furans Backyard burning of pollutant-laden trash, 

volatilization from soils or water 

Human health, aquatic life 

uses 
4

Forested Practices

The main pollutants associated with activities in forested areas include temperature, sediment, 

and nutrients. Nonpoint pollution from toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and pesticides, 

has also been associated with forest activities.

Table 3 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from forested areas

Pollutant Category Typical Sources Impacts 

Suspended sediment/ 

Turbidity 

Loss of riparian vegetation, concentration of flow 

from roads, road failures 

Aquatic life uses 

Temperature Loss of riparian vegetation Aquatic life uses 

Nutrients/dissolved 

oxygen 

Loss of riparian vegetation, forest fertilization Aquatic life uses 

Toxic chemicals 

(heavy metals, 

pesticides) 

Sedimentation, aerial forest pesticide applications Human health, aquatic life 

uses 

The primary means by which timber harvest impacts water quality is through: 1) removal of the 

trees which provide shade, leaf litter and woody debris, 2) removal of trees and vegetation in 

sufficient amounts to change the flow of water and nutrients, and 3) compacting and disturbing

soils such that excess sediment is delivered to streams with precipitation events.

Poorly located roads, outdated construction practices, and lack of maintenance of forest roads 

can have a large impact on water quality. Road activities can increase sedimentation through soil 

compaction and increased runoff from impervious surfaces.

The loss of shade through removal of streamside canopy is a well-established mechanism leading 

to elevated stream temperatures. Elevated stream temperatures can contribute to lowered 

dissolved oxygen levels. Other riparian functions and watershed characteristics, including 

streambank stability, filtration, and surface water-groundwater connectivity, are affected by 

forestry and can affect stream temperatures.

The mechanisms and specific risks of water quality impacts from forestry may change with the 

location in the watershed. Areas in the upper portions of watersheds tend to have steeper, more 

unstable slopes relative to lower-gradient areas further downstream, and are thus more prone to 

sediment erosion and debris flows affecting water quality, both locally and downstream. 

Throughout the watershed forest harvest activities and their associated roads can impact water 

quality with higher sediment loads when those activities directly discharge to streams or are 

located too near to streams.

Habitat Alteration/Hydromodification

Hydromodification or habitat alteration, a category found widely in EPA NPS guidance, is 

comprised of a variety of impacts, ranging from large dams to development in riparian zones.

Typical forms of hydromodification include:

• Dams and weirs forming reservoirs or ponded areas 

• Channelized streams 

• Bank armoring and levees 

• Bank excavation and removal of riparian vegetation 

• Streambank and shoreline erosion 
5

This category overlaps with many of the other categories, since agriculture, urban and residential 

development, and forestry can affect riparian zones. However, many hydromodification impacts 

occur directly from channel modification, or from activities on vacant or open space lands. In 

general, the term “hydromodification” used in this context refers to modifications to the 

geomorphological channel structure that impair water quality or aquatic habitat. Restoration 

activities may involve a channel “remodification” to restore ecological function.

The critical aspects of hydromodification are that:

• It can affect any kind of water body – marine, river, stream, lake, or wetland. 

• It can be associated with almost any kind of land use or human activity. 

• It impacts the aquatic ecosystem physically, through loss of habitat and ecosystem 

function. 

• It also impacts the aquatic ecosystem through the discharge of contaminants from 

construction, building materials, erosion, and the lack of a riparian vegetated buffer to 

prevent the transport of contaminants from overland flow. 

Table 4 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from hydromodification.

Pollutant Category Typical sources Impacts 

Temperature Loss of riparian canopy, changes in channel 

morphology, changes in surface watergroundwater interactions 

Aquatic life uses 

Suspended sediment/ 

Turbidity 

Erosion, alteration of transport and deposition 

dynamics 

Aquatic life uses 

Bacteria, Nutrients/ 

Dissolved oxygen/pH, 

Pesticides 

Loss of the riparian buffer Aquatic life uses, human 

health, aesthetics 

Recreation

Although generally a less pervasive nonpoint issue compared to agriculture and urban/residential 

areas, the impacts of NPS pollution from marinas and recreational boating can be present in our 

coastal areas.

This is especially true in Puget Sound waters that are poorly flushed and mixed. At the same 

time, Puget Sound waters contain economically important fish and shellfish areas, marine 

protected areas, aquatic reserves, and public beaches.

Table 5 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from marine/boating areas.

Pollutant Category Typical sources Impacts 

Fecal coliform bacteria Direct sewage discharge Contact recreation, 

shellfish harvest 

Toxic chemicals 

(heavy metals, organic 

toxics) 

Anti-fouling paint, solvents, sealers, lubricants Human health, aquatic life 

uses 

Nutrients from soaps 

and detergents 

Direct sewage discharge, 

boat cleaning 

Aquatic life uses, 

aesthetics 

Petroleum 

hydrocarbons 

Engine fueling and operation, bilge water Human health, aquatic life 

uses, aesthetics 
6

Urban and Residential Areas

Urban (including commercial, industrial, and residential) areas and non-urban residential areas 

have long been recognized as one of the top sources of nonpoint pollution across the United 

States. A mix of land use and human activities typically contribute to overall nonpoint pollution 

issues in urbanized watersheds.

The key transport mechanism involved is stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, although 

direct dumping and hydromodification also contribute. The most common pollutants associated 

with nonpoint pollution in urban areas are fecal coliform, toxic chemicals, suspended sediment 

and turbidity, and nutrients.

Table 6 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from urban areas.

Pollutant Category Typical Sources Impacts 

Fecal coliform bacteria Failing or inadequate onsite sewage disposal, pet 

waste, urban wildlife 

Contact recreation, 

shellfish harvest 

Suspended sediment/ 

Turbidity 

Erosion from construction or landscaping, road 

runoff, bank erosion from increased peak flows

Aquatic life uses, 

aesthetics 

Toxic chemicals 

(heavy metals, 

pesticides) 

Landscaping chemicals, road runoff, commercial or 

industrial spills 

Human health, 

aquatic life uses 

Nutrients/Dissolved 

oxygen/pH 

Landscaping chemicals, road runoff, commercial or 

industrial spills, pets, and urban wildlife 

Aquatic life uses, 

aesthetics 

Petroleum 

hydrocarbons 

Road runoff, commercial or industrial spills Aquatic life uses

Temperature Loss of riparian canopy, changes in channel 

morphology, changes in surface watergroundwater interactions 

Aquatic life uses 
7

Chapter 2: Washington State’s Regulatory 

Framework

This Chapter describes Washington State’s statutory and regulatory framework for implementing 

the NPS program. The authority to implement the NPS program is based primarily on the State 

Water Pollution Control Act, and two federal laws—the Clean Water Act (CWA) and, Coastal 

Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Further, three additional state laws 

provide enforceable mechanisms that address NPS pollution from forest practices, dairies, and 

on-site-sewage systems. Finally, other relevant state, and local laws are also included, to provide 

a full picture of the legal framework in Washington State.2

State water quality laws-regulatory

In Washington State, the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) is the principal state 

law governing water quality. It provides the primary authority to regulate (NPS) of pollution, 

achieve compliance with the state WQ Standards, and require the implementation of BMPs to 

address (NPS) pollution. Other state and local authorities can also provide authority to address 

NPS pollution. In addition to the Water Pollution Control Act, this section describes three other 

state laws and associated regulations (the Forest Practices Rules, the Dairy Nutrient Management 

Act, and On-Site Sewage Systems Regulations), that provide enforcement authority to address

nonpoint sources of pollution.

Washington State Water Pollution Control Act

The Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) is the principal law 

governing water quality in Washington State. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect 

water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The goal of the Water Pollution Control Act is to;

“maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state....”3 

Further, to achieve this goal the state will “require the use of all known available and reasonable 

methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the 

state....”4

 The Water Pollution Control Act applies to surface waters, wetlands and ground 

water.

Under the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act, Ecology is given the jurisdiction “to 

control and prevent the pollution of... waters of the state of Washington.”5

 Pollution is broadly 

defined in RCW 90.48.020, and includes the contamination, or other alteration of the physical, 

chemical, or biological, properties of any waters of the state. Under state law, it does not matter 

whether the pollution comes from a point or NPS, all pollution of state waters is subject to 

Ecology’s authority to control and prevent pollution.

 2 While this chapter discusses most of the relevant authorities in Washington State, it is not intended to be 

comprehensive of all possible legal authorities that can be used to address nonpoint sources of pollution. In some 

cases other legal authorities may be better suited to address a specific nonpoint pollution problem. 3 See RCW 90.48.010. 4 See RCW 90.48.010. 5 See RCW 90.48.030.
8

The Water Pollution Control Act makes it unlawful for any person to “cause, permit or suffer to 

be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged ... any organic or inorganic 

matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of” waters of the state.6 Any person who 

violates or creates a substantial potential to violate the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW is 

subject to an enforcement order from Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.48.120. Ecology is 

authorized to “issue such order or directive as it deems appropriate under the circumstances[.]”7

In addition to administrative orders, violating Chapter 90.48 RCW may result in injunctions, 

civil penalties, and notices of violations.8 Finally, any “person who conducts a commercial or 

industrial operation of any type which results in the disposal of solid or liquid waste material into 

the waters of the state” must obtain a state waste discharge permit before discharging to state 

waters.9 Ecology issues three types of wastewater discharge permits (1) State Waste Discharge 

Permit; (2) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Waste Discharge 

Permits; and (3) General Permit (may be issued under combined NPDES/State or State-only 

authority).

It is worth noting that while RCW 90.48.120 gives Ecology the authority to take action in 

response to (NPS) pollution, the statute also gives Ecology the authority to take action based on a 

“substantial potential” to pollute state waters via either a point or nonpoint pollution source. 

Consequently, Ecology not only has authority to take action following a NPS pollution 

occurrence (i.e. there was a discharge), but has specific statutory authority to act proactively to 

prevent NPS pollution from occurring in the first place.

Finally, Ecology’s authority includes the ability to require a nonpoint source polluter to 

implement specific best management practices (BMPs). Ecology’s authority can be used to 

prevent nonpoint pollution and require BMPs, as necessary.10

Forest Practices Rules

The Forest Practices Rules establish protection standards for forest practices activities such as 

timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, road construction and maintenance, fertilization, forest 

chemical application, required reforestation, and specific riparian and wetland protection 

measures.

11 They give direction on how to implement the Forest Practices Act12 and the 

Stewardship of Non-industrial Forests and Woodlands.

13 The rules are designed to protect 

public resources such as water quality and fish habitat while maintaining a viable timber 

industry. They are under constant review through an adaptive management program.

The Forest Practices Board, an independent state agency, adopts Forest Practices Rules. The 

Department of Ecology needs to concur with proposed rules involving water quality protection 

prior to adoption by the Forest Practices Board.

 6 See RCW 90.48.080. 7 See RCW 90.48.120. 8 See RCW 90.48.037, RCW 90.48.144, RCW 90.48.120, and RCW 90.48.240. 9 See RCW 90.48.160. 10 See Appendix B. 11 See Title 222 WAC. 12 See Chapter 76.09 RCW. 13 See Chapter 73.13 RCW.
9

The Forest Practice Rules requires trees to be left within streamside areas to shade streams 

(which keep them cool), to protect stream bank integrity, to capture surface run-off sediment, 

and to provide the woody debris that builds in-stream salmon habitat. They also establish road 

construction standards and required road maintenance, provide protection for wetlands, and set 

restrictions on pesticide use. An approved Forest Practices Application from the state 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is required for any forest practices activities on 

forestlands in the state meeting certain criteria. DNR is authorized to inspect operations and 

enforce all rules related to forest practices. Ecology is also authorized to take enforcement action 

if needed to prevent damage to water quality.

Dairy Nutrient Management Program (DNMP)

The Dairy Nutrient Management Act14 is administered by the Washington State Department of 

Agriculture (WSDA). Chapter 90.64 RCW requires all grade “A” licensed dairies to:

• Register with the DNMP;

• Develop a nutrient management plan (NMP), the NMP must be approved within six 

months of licensing, and certified within twenty-four months of licensing by their local 

conservation district;

• Prevent discharges to waters of the state; and

• Maintain land applications records demonstrating agronomic use of all nutrients.

The nutrient management plan (NMP) development process is completed by the dairy producer,

in consultation with a local conservation district, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), or a private planner. The NMP process includes an assessment of animal and nutrient 

inventory, surface and ground water risk(s), manure, and process waste water collection, 

conveyance and storage needs, crop production history, and land application acreage needs. The 

NMP process identifies the producer’s goals, resource risk(s), and the selection of best 

management practices to be implemented, to protect the resource.

DNMP specifies requirements of recordkeeping, and a penalty matrix for violations, in Chapter 

16-611 WAC. The program is managed in conformance with a Memorandum of Understanding 

between WSDA and Ecology.

Chapter 90.64 RCW requires DNMP to implement an inspection program to monitor dairy 

operations for NMP implementation, recordkeeping violations, and water quality violations 

(actual or potential). In addition, Chapter 43.05 RCW (Technical Assistance) requires DNMP to

identify dairies that could benefit from additional technical assistance. DNMP inspection 

program also includes non-dairy facilities covered under a NPDES CAFO permit.

On-Site Sewage Systems

Small On-Site Sewage Systems

Small on-site sewage systems (OSS), also known as septic systems, treat domestic sewage from 

private residences, restaurants, and other small-scale development. They are used extensively 

 14 Chapter 90.64 RCW.
10

statewide in rural and suburban infill settings.

15 In Washington State, small OSS are regulated 

by Chapter 246-272A WAC (state OSS rule), Chapter 70.118A RCW (marine recovery area 

statute), Chapter 43.20 RCW, and Chapter 70.05 RCW. The state OSS rule is adopted by the 

State Board of Health16 (SBOH), and administered by the State Department of Health. Local 

codes must be consistent with, and at least as stringent as the state laws.17

Chapter 246-272A WAC provides minimum requirements for the location, design, and 

performance of OSS. Anyone proposing the installation, repair, modification, connection to, or 

expansion of an OSS, is required to obtain a permit from the local health officer prior to 

construction.

Local Health Jurisdictions (LHJs), work with local boards of health to adopt and administer the 

local codes. The LHJs are responsible for permitting all OSS, and implementing other 

significant aspects of the state OSS rule. This includes developing and overseeing management 

plans (see next section), approving OSS designs, inspecting installations, certifying industry 

professionals, maintaining system records, and educating homeowners on program requirements,

and the proper use and care of systems.

OSS owners are responsible for operating, monitoring and maintaining OSS to minimize the risk 

of failure. Owners are required to have systems pumped when necessary, to avoid damage or 

improper use of the system, and to ensure the flow of sewage does not exceed the approved 

design in both quantity and waste strength.

The State Department of Health may take enforcement action if an LHJ fails to regulate OSS in 

compliance with state law. The Department of Ecology also has authority to take enforcement 

actions und the Water Pollution Control Act if there is a discharge to state waters.

On-Site Sewage System-Management Areas

The state OSS and marine recovery area (MRA) laws require LHJs to designate areas where 

OSSs present added risk to public health or water quality. Areas adjacent to Puget Sound that 

have pollution problems linked to OSS may be designated as MRAs. Consistent with the state 

OSS rule, Chapter 70.118A RCW requires LHJs to adopt management plans, and to implement

enhanced programs in these areas to protect public health and Puget Sound water quality. As 

part of the enhanced programs in MRAs, LHJs are required to:

• Inventory and inspect all OSS.

• Identify failing systems and ensure they are either repaired, or replaced.

• Develop and maintain electronic data systems capable of sharing OSS information with 

other regulators.

The state OSS rule complements this with the following management plan requirements from 

WAC 246-272A-0015 for Puget Sound counties:

 15 Small on-site sewage systems (OSS) are those sewage systems that have flows of less than 3,500 gallons per 

day. See Chapter 246-272A WAC. There are about 950,000 OSS in Washington. See 16 RCW 43.20.050 authorizes the State Board of Health to “adopt rules for the design, construction, installation, 

operation, and maintenance” of small on-site sewage systems. 17 The State Department of Health’s On-site Sewage Program reviews local health jurisdiction codes to ensure they 

are consistent with state regulations. 
11

• Progressively inventory all systems.

• Identify high-risk areas and designate MRAs.

• Develop and tailor O&M requirements to these areas.

• Facilitate education of owners on their O&M responsibilities for all types of systems.

• Remind and encourage system owners to inspect their systems.

• Maintain records of O&M activities.

• Find failing systems, and enforce system owner requirements.

• Assure coordination with local comprehensive plans.

• Assess the capacity of the LHJ to adequately fund the program.

For most Puget Sound counties, requirements are higher, and tracked more closely, inside 

designated areas than in other parts of the county. Efforts continue at the State Department of 

Health, and LHJs, to strengthen, and standardize both baseline and enhanced program

requirements.

To see a map that shows counties with management plans, please see:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/WastewaterManagement/OnsiteSewageSys

temsOSS/ManagementStrategy/ManagementAreas

Large On-Site Sewage Systems

Large On-site Sewage Systems (LOSS), convey, store, treat, and provide subsurface soil 

treatment and disposal of domestic sewage. Their design flow is between 3,500 and 100,000 

gallons per day.

LOSS offer an alternative to centralized municipal sewage treatment plants, and can serve from 

about 10 to about 370 individual residences, or equivalent flows from schools and churches, 

campgrounds and recreation vehicle parks, resorts or state park sites, or smaller cities or towns.

The state Department of Health reviews and approves all LOSS project applications. The state 

LOSS rule is Chapter 246-272B WAC, developed under authority of Chapter 70.118B RCW. 

The rule took effect July 1, 2011. Among other significant policy changes captured in the rule, it 

consolidated previously piecemeal regulatory and permitting authority for LOSS at the 

Department of Health, and assigned responsibility for public health and environmental protection 

to the agency. The rule is not a SBOH rule.

All existing LOSS are required to obtain and renew annual operating permits from the 

Department of Health. There are approximately 570 LOSS statewide, and about 290 in the Puget 

Sound region.
12

Additional State Authorities

State Environmental Policy Act

Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)18 requires that all state and local agencies 

consider the likely consequences of agency actions before making decisions that affect the 

natural and built environment. Among other things, the law requires all state and local 

governments within the state to:

• "Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of 

the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in 

decision making which may have an impact on man's environment;" and 

• Ensure that "...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate 

consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations...."19

The policies and goals in SEPA supplement those in existing authorizations of all branches of 

government of this state, including state agencies, counties, cities, districts, and public 

corporations. Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA.20

SEPA is intended to ensure that environmental values are considered during decision-making by 

state and local agencies.

Land Use Planning: Growth Management Act, and Shoreline 

Management Act

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA)21 and, Growth Management Act (GMA)22 are the two 

primary state statutes related to land use planning. They share some commonalities, but are 

separate statutes with different purposes, jurisdictions, and requirements.

The overarching goal of the SMA is, "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and 

piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines." Under the SMA, each city and county with 

"shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based 

on state laws and rules, but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic, and environmental 

needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific combined 

comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system.

The SMA establishes a balance of authority and partnership between local and state government. 

Towns, cities, and counties are the primary regulators. The state Department of Ecology acts 

primarily in a support and review capacity. Ecology provides technical assistance to local 

governments. Ecology also provides funding in the form of grants. Finally, Ecology is also 

required to review certain kinds of permits (conditional use and variance permits) for 

 18 Chapter 43.21C RCW 19 RCW 43.21C. 030(2)(a) and (2)(b) 20 RCW 43.21C.060 21 Chapter 90.58 RCW, and more information at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/index.html. 22 Chapters 36.70A and 36.70B RCW.
13

compliance with the law, and must review local shoreline master programs to ensure they also 

comply.

Local governments may modify (amend) master programs to reflect changing local 

circumstances, new information, or improved shoreline management approaches. There are two 

types of amendments: limited amendments and comprehensive amendments. All changes to 

master programs require public notice. Comprehensive amendments require more extensive 

public involvement.

SMPs and any amendments are effective only after Ecology approval. In reviewing and 

approving master programs, Ecology is limited to a decision on whether or not the proposed 

changes are consistent with the policy and provisions of the SMA and the shoreline master 

program guidelines.23

The GMA requires that each Washington city and county establish a public participation 

program and procedures for amendments, updates, and revisions of comprehensive plans and 

development regulations.

The GMA requires all jurisdictions in the state to designate and protect critical areas; designate 

farm lands, forest lands, and other natural resource areas; and determine that there are 

appropriate public services and facilities for new residential subdivisions. In addition, 29 of the 

state’s 39 counties, and the 218 cities within them, are planning for growth. These jurisdictions 

develop comprehensive land use plans.

All cities and counties in Washington are required, to adopt critical areas regulations by the 

GMA.24 As defined by the GMA, "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: 

(a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish 

and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically 

hazardous areas.25

Counties and cities are required to include the best available science in developing policies and 

development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas.

26

The Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) was passed in 2011 as an amendment to the GMA. 

Its goals are to protect and enhance critical areas, maintain and improve the long-term viability 

of agriculture, and reduce the conversion of farmland to other uses. To accomplish these goals 

the VSP relies primarily on incentives and voluntary stewardship practices. Counties that opt 

into the VSP are responsible for designating a local watershed group that will develop a 

watershed plan that describes how critical areas on agricultural lands will be protected and 

enhanced.

 23 WAC 173-26, Part III. 24 RCW 36.70A.060. 25 RCW 36.70A.030(5). 26 RCW 36.70A.172.
14

Shellfish Protection Districts

Chapter 90.72 RCW encourages, and in some cases, requires counties to establish shellfish 

protection districts and programs to curb the loss of productive shellfish beds caused by nonpoint 

sources of pollution, such as stormwater runoff, failing on-site sewage systems, and runoff from 

farm animal wastes.

Salmon Recovery Act, and Salmon Enhancement Program

In response to Endangered Species Act listings, Washington State passed the Salmon Recovery 

Act, Chapter 77.85 RCW. The Act provides for a planning and implementation process that is 

focused on fish habitat. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board provides grants to local 

organizations in watersheds to restore and protect salmon habitat.

Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups (RFEGs) are a statewide network of non-profit, 

community based, salmon enhancement organizations. Created by the Washington State 

Legislature in 1990, the RFEG program involves citizen volunteers and landowners in the state’s 

salmon recovery efforts.27 The RFEG program consists of 14 sanctioned non-profit communitybased organizations, with program support provided by the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. The long term vision of the RFEG program is that Washington State communities 

actively care for, and become stewards of, abundant salmon populations for future generations.

Conservation districts

Conservation districts28 are non-regulatory providers of technical assistance primarily to 

agricultural producers. Each of Washington’s 39 counties has at least one conservation district.

Districts offer a range of voluntary services including assistance with: erosion control, habitat 

restoration, manure management, wildfire prevention/mitigation, stormwater management, forest 

plans, irrigation efficiency, noxious weed control, fish barrier removals, livestock stream 

crossings, and more.

The Washington State Conservation Commission (SCC) is the coordinating state agency for all 

45 conservation districts in Washington State. The SCC was created to support conservation 

districts through financial and technical assistance, administrative and operational oversight,

program coordination, and promotion of district activities and services.

Biosolids

Biosolids facilities in Washington operate under a statewide General Permit for Biosolids 

Management issued by Ecology.

29 This permit covers land application of biosolids and other 

related processes and aspects of operations related to biosolids.

Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention and Response Act 

Oil and hazardous materials spills present a danger to human health and the environment. 

Ecology is responsible for rapidly responding to, and overseeing the cleanup of, oil spills, and 

 27 Chapter 77.95 RCW and Chapter 220-140 WAC. 28 Chapter 89.08 RCW. 29 Chapter 70.95J RCW and Chapter 173-308 WAC.
15

hazardous material incidents. The law also includes prevention and preparedness requirements, 

and authorizes Ecology to assess and collect damages and fines for spills.30

Toxics Cleanup, Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste, and Air Quality 

Various other laws administered by Ecology can have a nexus with nonpoint pollution. 

Examples include the Model Toxics Control Act,31 Hazardous Waste Management Act,32 Solid 

Waste Management-Reduction and Recycle Act,33 and Washington Clean Air Act.34 For 

additional information on laws and regulations administered by Ecology visit our website: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html

Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)

Anyone planning any construction activity or other work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes 

the natural flow or bed of state waters is required to obtain an environmental permit commonly 

known as an HPA. Thousands of HPAs are issued each year for activities ranging from work on 

bulkheads, piers, and docks to culvert replacement.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife administers the HPA program under the state 

Hydraulic Code,35 which was specifically designed to protect fish life.

All hydraulic projects associated with forest practices activities are administered by the DNR. 

These projects require an approved Forest Practices Application containing a request for 

approval of Forest Practices Hydraulic Projects.

Secondary Containment Rules (Fertilizer and Pesticide)

The Secondary Containment Rules36 are administered by the Washington State Department of 

Agriculture (WSDA). Fertilizer and pesticide secondary containment rules were implemented to 

protect ground and surface water. Secondary containment rules are not intended to prevent spills 

in the event of a catastrophic incident occurring to the primary container. The rules are intended 

to contain the spill of bulk pesticides or fertilizers in the event the primary bulk container should 

fail.

Chemigation and Fertigation Technical Assistance Program (CFTAP)

The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has regulatory authority involving 

the application of pesticides37 and fertilizers38 through irrigation systems. The Chemigation and 

Fertigation Rules apply to any irrigation system that is used to apply a pesticide or plant nutrient 

in a greenhouse or to a plant nursery, farm, residential or commercial property.

 30 Chapter 90.56 RCW and Chapter 88.46 RCW & Chapter 173-182 WAC, and Chapter 173-183 WAC.

31 Chapter 70.105 D RCW. 32 Chapter 70.105 RCW. 33 Chapter 70.95 RCW. 34 Chapter 70.94 RCW. 35 RCW 77.55 RCW and Chapter 220-110 WAC. 36 Chapter 16-201 WAC (Fertilizers) and Chapter 16-229 WAC (Pesticides). 37 WAC 16-202-1000. 38 WAC 16-202-2000.
16

These rules require that chemigation and fertigation systems must have the appropriate safety 

devices in-place and must be properly installed, maintained, and operating to protect human 

health and the environment. Equipment performance standards, operational procedures, and 

applicator competencies are protective of existing and future uses of surface water and 

groundwater quality.

Individuals who chemigate must also adhere to provisions of the Washington Pesticide Control 

Act39 concerning the formulation, distribution, storage, transportation, and disposal of any 

pesticide; the Washington Pesticide Application Act,

40 involving the use of various pesticides, 

application recordkeeping, and applicator licensing; the General Pesticide Rules41 and the 

Worker Protection Standards,

42 which are co-enforced with the Washington State Department of 

Labor and Industries. In instances where the water source is a public water system or a domestic 

water supply, Chemigation and Fertigation Technical Assistance Program (CFTAP) staff 

collaborate with the Washington State Department of Health, Drinking Water Unit. In counties 

that have codified the Uniform Plumbing Code to include irrigation wells used in agricultural 

operations, CFTAP staff advise growers about local permitting requirements and inspection 

procedures.

Federal Laws

Clean Water Act

The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)43 is the principal federal statute for water quality 

protection. The CWA’s goal is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters.”44

In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is designated “as the state water pollution 

control agency for all purposes of the federal clean water act...” and is “authorized to participate 

fully in the programs of the act as well as to take all action necessary to secure to the state the 

benefits and to meet the requirements of the act.”45

Historically, efforts to protect water quality under the CWA focused on the establishment of 

technology-based limitations on individual discharges into navigable waters from point sources. 

Point sources are “any discernible, confined and discreet conveyance . . . from which pollutants 

are or may be discharged,” such as any pipe, ditch, channel, or tunnel.46 This technology based 

approach to addressing point source discharges has had demonstrated success.

 39 Chapter 15.58 RCW. 40 Chapter 17.21 RCW. 41 Chapter 16-288 WAC.

42 Chapter 16-233 WAC.

43 33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq. 44 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). 

45 RCW 90.48.260.

46 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
17

Much of the improvement in our waters is attributable to the control of traditional point sources 

through permits. A majority of the remaining water quality impairments are largely caused by 

NPS. While the CWA does not authorize EPA to control NPS of pollution through a permit 

system, several sections of the CWA provide a basis for addressing nonpoint pollution sources. 

In general, the federal CWA addresses nonpoint sources by:

(1) Supporting the development of state NPS plans and programs, 

(2) Requiring the development of WQ Standards, the identification of impaired waters 

(including waters impaired by nonpoint sources) and the development of clean-up plans 

(TMDLs) for those waters, and 

(3) Providing financial incentives to states to accomplish those tasks.

This section will cover the key sections of the CWA that address nonpoint pollution.

Section 319-Nonpoint Source Management Programs

In the 1987 CWA Amendments, Congress added Section 31947 to the act. Section 319 required 

states to develop Assessment Reports that described the states’ NPS problems, and establish 

Management Programs to address these problems. EPA supports implementation of NPS

programs by providing funding to states. Ecology is designated as the section 319 lead agency 

for Washington State’s (NPS). As the lead agency, Ecology is responsible for the administration 

of Section 319 pass-through and internal grant funds, the identification and establishment of 

priorities for (NPS) related water quality problems, and the development of the state’s (NPS)

pollution control plan.

According to EPA guidance,48 under section 319(b) of the CWA, Washington State’s NPS 

management program must include all of the following components:

(i) An identification of measures (i.e., systems of practices) that will be used to control NPS 

pollution, focusing on those measures which the state believes will be most effective in 

achieving and maintaining WQ Standards. These measures may be individually identified or 

presented in manuals or compendiums, provided that they are specific and are related to the 

category or subcategory of NPS. They may also be identified as part of a watershed approach 

towards achieving WQ Standards, whether locally, within a watershed, or statewide;

(ii) An identification of the key programs to achieve implementation of the measures, 

including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical 

assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration 

projects. The state is free to decide the best approaches for solving NPS problems. These 

approaches may include one or all of the following:

• watershed or water quality-based approaches aimed at meeting WQ Standards

directly; 

• iterative, technology-based approaches based on best management practices or 

measures, applied on either a categorical or site-specific basis; or 

 47 33 USC §1329 48 See Section 319 Program Guidance: Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Managemnet 

Program (November 2012).
18

• an appropriate mix of these approaches.

(iii) A description of the processes used to coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate the 

various programs used to implement NPS pollution controls in the state;

(iv) A schedule with goals, objectives, and annual milestones for implementation at the 

earliest practicable date: legal authorities to implement the program; available resources; and 

institutional relationships;

(v) Sources of funding from federal (other than section 319), state, local, and private sources; 

(vi) Federal land management programs, development projects and financial assistance 

programs; and

(vii) A description of monitoring and other evaluation programs that the state will conduct to 

help determine short- and long-term NPS management program effectiveness.49

EPA expects all states to review and, as appropriate, revise their NPS at least every 5 years. An 

updated program allows EPA and states to ensure that resources are efficiently and effectively 

directed in a manner that will support state efforts to address water quality issues.

Section 303(d)-Water Quality Standards and Water Clean-up Plans (TMDLs)

Water Quality (WQ) Standards are regulations comprised of: 1) a description of the designated 

use or uses of a water body; 2) the criteria necessary to protect the use or uses; and 3) a statement 

by the applicable state that the standard will maintain and protect the existing use and the water 

quality of the water body. Additionally, CWA Section 303(d) requires states to list surface 

waters not attaining (or not expected to attain) WQ Standards after the application of technologybased effluent limits. States must complete a TMDL (water clean-up plan) for all waters on the 

Section 303(d) list.

In Washington State, the WQ Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) are the basis for protecting 

and regulating the quality of surface waters. The WQ Standards are established to sustain public 

health and public enjoyment of state waters, and the propagation and protection of fish, shellfish, 

and wildlife. A three-part approach was designed to set limits on pollution in Washington State 

lakes, rivers, and marine waters in order to protect beneficial uses such as aquatic life, swimming 

and fishing. The three-part approach covers:

• Designated uses, such as fishing, swimming, and aquatic life habitat.

• Numeric and narrative water quality criteria limits to protect the uses.

 49 Further according EPA guidance, “In addition, the state incorporates existing baseline requirements established 

by other applicable federal or state laws to the extent that they are relevant. For example, a coastal state or 

territory with an approved coastal zone management program incorporates its approved state coastal nonpoint 

pollution control programs required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 

(CZARA) of 1990, into its NPS management program since CZARA requires implementation through the state’s NPS 

management program. In this manner, the state ensures that this program and other relevant baseline programs 

are integrated into, and consistent with, Section 319 programs.”
19

• Policies, such as antidegradation, to protect higher quality waters from being further 

degraded.

To fully achieve and maintain compliance with the WQ Standards in Washington, the standards 

state that the intent of Ecology is to “apply the various implementation and enforcement 

authorities at its disposal.”50 The primary means to be used for “controlling municipal, 

commercial, and industrial waste discharges shall be through the issuance of waste discharge 

permits, as provided for in RCW 90.48.16, 90.48.162, and 90.48.260.”51 Further, “[w]aste 

discharge permits, whether issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System or otherwise, must be conditioned so the discharges authorized will meet the WQ 

Standards.”52

The standards require activities which contribute nonpoint source pollution to use best 

management practices (BMPs) to prevent exceedences of water quality criteria.53 The Standards 

define BMPs, as “physical, structural, and/or managerial practices approved by the department 

that, when used singularly or in combination, prevent or reduce pollutant discharges.”54 Given 

that much of nonpoint pollution cannot easily be measured, the Standards express compliance 

with the law by implementing Ecology approved BMPs.55

Washington’s WQ Standards, along with the Washington Water Pollution Control Act, provide 

Ecology with the tools to fully implement TMDLs, including the requirement that the state 

provide reasonable assurance that nonpoint sources can be required to meet TMDL load 

allocations if the wasteload allocations established for point sources depend on those nonpoint 

reductions being made in the TMDL area.

Section 312-No Discharge Zone

Under Section 312 of the CWA, vessel sewage may be controlled through the establishment of 

areas in which discharges of sewage from vessels are not allowed. These areas are also known 

as "no discharge zones.”56 A No Discharge Zone (NDZ) is a designated body of water where the 

discharge of sewage (blackwater/toilet waste) from boats, whether treated or not, is prohibited. 

Under Section 312 of the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the state in which the NDZ has been 

designated may enforce the NDZ requirements.57

Under existing federal regulations, treated sewage may be discharged anywhere in Puget Sound, 

and untreated sewage may be discharged as long as the boat is more than three miles from shore. 

If a NDZ is established, no boat, whether a freighter, a cruise ship, or a sailboat, could discharge 

anywhere within the designated NDZ. All boats and vessels would have to store their sewage 

 50 WAC 173-201A-500 51 WAC 173-201A- 510(1) 52 Id. 53 WAC 173-201A- 510(3)(c) 54 WAC 173-201A-020 55 WAC 173-201A- 510(3)(a) states that the “primary means to be used for requiring compliance with the standards 

shall be through best management practices required in waste discharge permits, rules, orders, and directives 

issued by the department for activities which generate nonpoint source pollution.” 56 33 USC §1322 57 33 USC §1322(k) 
20

until they could safely dispose of it at an onshore or mobile pumpout facility, or hold it until it 

can be discharged in the open ocean beyond three miles from shore.

Section 320-National Estuary Program

The NEP was established under the 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments as a program to 

"restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary, including 

restoration and maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, 

and wildlife, and recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the designated uses of the 

estuary are protected".

The NEP is designed to encourage local communities to take responsibility for managing their 

own estuaries. Each NEP is made up of representatives from federal, state and local government 

agencies responsible for managing the estuary's resources, as well as members of the community 

such as citizens, business leaders, educators, and researchers. These stakeholders work together 

to identify problems in the estuary, develop specific actions to address those problems, and 

create and implement a formal management plan to restore and protect the estuary.

Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA)

The CZMA of 197258 established a national framework for effective management, protection, 

development, and beneficial use of the coastal zone. Recognizing that the CZMA did not 

specifically mention water quality, in 1990 Congress amended CZMA Section 306(d)(16)59 and 

added Section 621760 to focus on NPS pollution problems and the protection of coastal waters. 

CZARA Section 6217 requires state water quality agencies to develop and implement 

Management Measures to restore and protect coastal waters from adverse impacts of NPS 

pollution. CZMA Section 306(d)(16)61 requires that state CZM programs contain enforceable 

policies and mechanisms to implement applicable requirements of CZARA Section 6217. To 

achieve these goals, states were directed to coordinate and integrate their existing CZM and 

water quality plans and programs, including the states’ NPS. Washington has yet to receive 

CZARA program approval.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)62 is the main federal law that ensures the quality of 

Americans' drinking water. Under SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and 

oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.

The SDWA includes WQ Standards, sampling, treatment, and public notification requirements. 

The 1996 amendments added new requirements related to annual water quality reports, operator 

certification requirements, system capacity, and source water assessment and protection. The 

Washington State Department of Health, through an agreement with EPA, is authorized and 

responsible for implementing the SDWA in Washington.

 58 16 USC §§1451 et seq. 59 16 USC §1455(d)(16) 60 16 USC §1455b 61 16 USC §1455(d)(16) 62 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.
21

Generally, the SDWA applies to water systems with 15 or more connections, or those regularly 

serving 25 or more people daily, 60 or more days per year. Approximately 4,200 public water 

systems in Washington are subject to the SDWA.

Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Protection Program

The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Protection Program is authorized by Section 1424(e) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, which states:

"If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an area has 

an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if 

contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish notice 

of that determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no 

commitment for federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or 

otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may 

contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to 

public health, but a commitment for federal assistance may, if authorized under another 

provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so 

contaminate the aquifer.”

EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which supplies at least 50 percent of the 

drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines also stipulate that 

these areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could physically, legally, and 

economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water. For convenience, 

all designated sole or principal source aquifers are usually referred to simply as "sole source 

aquifers.”

If an SSA designation is approved, proposed federal financially-assisted projects which have the 

potential to contaminate the aquifer are subject to EPA review. Proposed projects that are 

funded entirely by state, local, or private concerns are not subject to EPA review. Examples of 

federally funded projects which have been reviewed by EPA under the SSA protection program 

include:

• Highway improvements and new road construction;

• Public water supply wells and transmission lines;

• Wastewater treatment facilities;

• Construction projects that involve disposal of storm water;

• Agricultural projects that involve management of animal waste; and

• Projects funded through Community Development Block Grants.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened 

and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. The Act: 

• Authorizes the designation and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

• Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 

• Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and 

water conservation funds; 
22

• Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states that 

establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants;

• Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or 

regulations; and

• Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and 

conviction for any violation of the Act or any regulation issued thereunder.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) to ensure that actions 

the agencies authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize threatened or endangered 

species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat.

Federal Farm Bill Programs

The 2014 Farm Bill was enacted on February 7, 2014. The Farm Bill funds several conservation 

programs that can benefit agricultural producers and forest landowners along with the 

environment. See Chapter 5 for more information on some of the Farm Bill’s financial incentive 

programs.

State Revolving Fund Program

The United States Congress established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) as part 

of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments of 1987. The EPA offers states capitalization 

grants each year according to a formula established in the CWA. The capitalization grants are 

required to be matched with 20 percent state funds and are added to payments of principal and 

interest from previous loans. The combined funds are loaned out to eligible public bodies and 

repaid to the CWSRF with interest. This means that the CWSRF continues to revolve and grow, 

and more money becomes available to fund water quality projects. Today, the majority of the 

fund consists of repaid principal and interest.

The CWSRF must be managed in accordance with federal regulations associated with timely use 

of funds, adherence to specific accounting principles, fund perpetuity, project eligibility, 

financial capacity assessments of borrowers, implementation of state rules, extensive public 

outreach and public accountability, and strong coordination of multiple environmental crosscutters required under the State Environmental Review Process, such as the Endangered Species 

Act, and state and federal regulations for archeological and cultural resources.

The CWSRF supports a variety of water quality projects, including NPS BMP implementation 

projects, on-site septic system projects, stormwater projects, and wastewater facility projects.

Additionally, CWSRF has the potential to address a wide range of additional projects. For 

example, within urbanized areas where sewer service is available, service connections from 

individual homes and businesses can be a source of NPS pollution. Once the wastewater from 

homes and businesses reaches the sewer pipes in the public right of way, it is collected and 

treated at the local wastewater treatment facility. However, sewage leaking from the pipe that 

connects buildings to the public sewer can be a problem. These side sewers, or service laterals, 

are very near the surface (compared to sewer lines buried in the street) and are susceptible to 
23

damage. Tree roots, landscaping, digging, and heavy vehicles can all damage side sewer 

laterals. Maintenance, repair, and inspection of these privately owned service laterals is 

generally the responsibility of the individual property owners. CWSRF could support projects 

that address problems from side sewers or service laterals.

Local Ordinances and Regulations

Local ordinances can supplement federal and state law. While a comprehensive review of local 

authorities is outside the scope of this section, the most common sources of authority that can be 

used to address nonpoint pollution sources at the local level are found in local solid waste 

regulations, illicit discharge ordinances, and animal or pet waste disposal ordinances. 

Additionally, planning and development codes and regulations can provide authority to address 

NPS pollution. For example, critical area ordinances can provide protection to critical areas that

have a nexus with water quality.

Below are two examples of local regulatory tools that can be used to address nonpoint pollution:

Kitsap County Board of Health’s Onsite Sewage System and General Sewage Sanitation 

Regulations and Solid Waste Regulations, and Kitsap County’s illicit discharge code.

Example-Kitsap County Public Health:

Kitsap County Board of Health Ordinance 2008-01A, Onsite Sewage System and General Sewage 

Sanitation Regulations, May 1, 2008 and Amended June 7, 2011. Regulatory authority includes 

nonpoint discharges from failing onsite sewage systems, recreational vehicle dumping, and broken 

sanitary side sewers. 

Section 6. B. Sewage Discharged to Approved or Health Officer-Accepted Systems, 

Only.

1. All plumbing fixtures in residences, places of business, or other buildings,

structures, etc., where sewage is created shall be connected to, and discharge

to, an approved public sewer system, large onsite sewage system, onsite

sewage system, or other Health Officer-accepted system, only (e.g.,

temporary holding tanks, portable toilets, RV sewage dumpsites, certified

septic tank pumping trucks or facilities, etc.).

2. Sewage shall not be discharged to the surface of the ground, surface water,

ground water, cesspools, un-permitted sewage systems, or allowed to backup

Kitsap County Board of Health Ordinance Number 2010-1, Solid Waste Regulations, July 6, 

2010. Regulatory authority includes nonpoint sources from animal manure as related to 

pollution of water. Other typical solid wastes, such as vehicle fluids, paint and construction are 

included in other sections.

Section 305 1.(c)

(c) Animal Manure. Animal manure shall not be deposited, or allowed to accumulate,

in any ditch, gulch, ravine, river, stream, lake, pond, marine water, or upon the
24

surface of the ground, or on any highway or road right of way, where it may

become a nuisance or menace to health, as determined by the Health Officer,

through the breeding of flies, harboring of rodents, or pollution of water. Manure

shall not be allowed to accumulate in any place where it can pollute any source of

drinking water.

Example-Kitsap County:

Kitsap County has an illicit discharge code, as required for the Phase II National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination Permit, which specifies the prohibition of non-stormwater discharges into 

or from the municipal storm sewer system, including pipes and ditches.

Kitsap County Code Title 12.30

12.30.020 Illicit Discharges

Illicit discharges to storm water drainage systems are prohibited.

12.30.020 Illicit Connections and Uses.

The storm water system of Kitsap County, natural and artificial, may only be used to 

convey storm water runoff. Violation of this chapter can result in enforcement action 

being taken as prescribed in Chapter 12.32.

No person shall use this system, directly or indirectly, to dispose of any solid or liquid 

matter other than storm water. No person shall make or allow any connection to the 

storm water system which could result in the discharge of polluting matter. Connections 

to the storm water system from the interiors of structures are prohibited. Connections to 

the storm water system for any purpose other than to convey storm water or ground 

water are prohibited and shall be eliminated.

In summary, regulatory authority and enforcement for nonpoint sources can be a combination of 

efforts by Washington State and local jurisdictions.
25

Chapter 3: Strategies for Addressing Nonpoint 

Source Pollution

The Washington State Department of Ecology, (Ecology) is the regulatory agency charged with 

protecting the quality of Washington State’s water. Ecology acts as the lead agency in restoring, 

maintaining and enhancing water quality collaboratively with citizens, stakeholder groups, tribes, 

local governments, local governmental entities, state agencies, and federal agencies. Ecology’s 

NPS uses a combination of public education, technical assistance, financial assistance and 

regulatory tools to help citizens understand and comply with state and federal water quality laws 

and regulations that protect water quality.

The NPS aims to protect public health and restore our state’s waters by setting clear goals and 

objectives. Ecology’s strategy to address nonpoint source pollution focuses on cleaning-up

impaired watersheds, completing watershed evaluations to identify nonpoint source pollution 

issues, and implementing suites of best management practices (BMPs) to address identified 

pollution sources and ensure compliance with the WQ Standards.

Ecology will apply the following key principles in the implementation of this nonpoint strategy:

• Communicate clear standards and compliance expectations. 

• Implement BMPs that ensure compliance with state WQ Standards and state law. 

• Implement watershed based plans/strategies designed to meet WQ Standards.

• Identify and correct nonpoint pollution sources in impaired watersheds.

• Be proactive in addressing pollution problems (i.e. incentives/education & outreach).

• Escalate to enforcement when education, outreach, and technical assistance fail.

• Be accountable by collecting data on watershed evaluations and tracking BMP 

implementation.

• Target effectiveness monitoring where implementation of BMPs has occurred.

• Promote adaptive management. 

• Develop and/or strengthen partnerships to achieve water quality goals.

The primary tools that Ecology will use to guide and promote the implementation of this strategy

are:

1. Water Clean-Up Plans-Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Straight to 

Implementation (STI) projects; 

2. Grant and Loan Programs;

3. Complaint Response and Inspectors;

4. Education and Outreach, and Voluntary Programs; and

5. Partnerships.

Ecology will also support locally led programs that are designed to identify nonpoint pollution 

sources and cleanup those sources of pollution. For example, locally led Pollution Identification 

and Correction (PIC) programs have been developed around the Puget Sound. Also, Shellfish 
26

Protection Districts provide a framework for locally lead programs to address areas where 

pollution is impacting shellfish resources.

When an opportunity exists we will support the development and use of other tools to address 

NPS pollution. Current examples include:

• Water Quality Trading; and

• Certification/Certainty Programs.

Ecology will continue to support the implementation of the following key regulatory programs:

• State’s Forest Practice Rules;

• Dairy Nutrient Management Program;

• Local regulation of on-site sewage systems; and 

• NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit program. 

Finally, Ecology will coordinate our nonpoint program with key state initiatives connected to 

water quality:

• Results Washington;

• Governor’s Shellfish Initiative;

• Puget Sound Action Agenda;

• No discharge zone designation for Puget Sound;

• Ocean acidification/Washington Marine Resources Advisory Council; and

• Washington’s efforts to recover salmon species.

Each of these implementation areas are discussed in detail below. 

Balancing Restoration and Protection

Solving the state’s water quality problems requires correcting existing problems as well as 

preventing future degradation. With limited resources, Ecology’s first priority is to correct 

known water quality impairments from nonpoint source pollution. Our second priority is to 

support projects that protect threatened and high quality waters from present, and future nonpoint 

source pollution impacts. Ecology will follow the WQ Standards’ antidegradation policy when 

supporting projects that protect threatened and high quality waters.

Watershed Clean-up Programs

Total Maximum Daily Loads and Straight to Implementation

Ecology’s primary strategy for addressing nonpoint pollution is implementing watershed cleanup projects. There are two related approaches that Ecology uses to clean up impaired water 

bodies: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Straight to Implementation (STI) projects. 

Additionally, Ecology supports locally led programs to clean-up impaired water bodies such as;
27

Pollution Identification Correction (PIC) programs, and Shellfish Protection District efforts 

discussed later in this chapter.

Both TMDLs and STIs utilize a combination of education and outreach, technical assistance, 

financial incentives, and enforcement to meet the requirements of the WQ Standards, and 

promote compliance with water quality laws.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

As required by Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act, Ecology develops TMDLs for water 

bodies on the state’s list of impaired waters. TMDLs are a regulatory tool that sets the maximum 

quantity (or “load”) of a pollutant that may be added to a water body from all sources, including 

natural background sources, without exceeding the applicable water quality criteria for that 

pollutant. It must take into consideration seasonal variations in water quality conditions and 

must include a margin of safety to account for any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship 

between effluent limitations and water quality.

There are two types of loads that are allocated by TMDLs: Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) that 

include the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing and future point sources with NPDES 

permits; and Load Allocations (LAs) that include the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing 

and future nonpoint pollution sources and natural background sources.

The TMDL Process in Washington State

Washington State's TMDL process starts by choosing where TMDLs will be developed. Once a 

TMDL area is finalized, Ecology typically conducts field monitoring and computer modeling of 

watershed conditions. A TMDL study identifies pollution sources within a watershed and 

determines what needs to change so that pollution is reduced or eliminated.

Pollution sources are broken down into two categories. The first is nonpoint pollution, where the 

source runs directly off the land into the water. The allowable discharge from all the nonpoint 

sources is called the load allocation. The second category is point source pollution, which 

typically flows out of a pipe and is regulated by a NPDES permit. The allowable discharge from 

a permitted point source is called a wasteload allocation. The TMDL then sets out the actions 

required for each point source and land use in the project area to ensure TMDL allocations are 

met.

In short, our TMDL approach:

• Assigns load allocations to specified nonpoint pollution sources. 

• Assigns wasteload allocations to point sources which may require more protective

NPDES permit limits. 

• Designates suites of BMPs for various land-use categories. 

• Details the technical data, analyses, and actions needed to attain standards and return 

waters to good health.
28

Each TMDL project is unique, but there are essential elements common to all. As long as these 

elements are included, the TMDL project should result in a water quality improvement plan that 

is complete, acceptable to the public, and approvable by EPA. These elements include:

• An initial study of water quality problems. This includes a monitoring study identifying 

the sources and amounts of pollutants causing the water quality problem, and a technical 

analysis to determine how much pollution sources must be reduced to protect the water. 

• Public involvement. Public involvement, along with coordination with tribal 

governments and consideration of environmental justice issues (as appropriate), is 

important at all key decision steps of the process. 

• Loading capacity for the pollutant. This is the sum total of all of the pollutant loading the 

waterbody can absorb without violating WQ Standards. 

• Load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources. The LA quantifies how much of the 

pollutant(s) can be discharged from nonpoint sources, along with the other sources, and 

have the water body still meet WQ Standards. 

• Wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources. The WLA quantifies how much of the 

pollutant(s) can be discharged from point sources, along with other sources, and have the 

water body still meet WQ Standards. 

• A margin of safety. An allowance so that surface water quality (WQ) standards will be 

met under the worst conditions likely to be experienced. 

• A reserve capacity. This factor estimates the effect of population growth and future land 

uses on pollutant WLAs and LAs so they will continue to be adequate in the future. 

• Consideration of seasonal variation of flows and contaminant concentrations. This 

ensures that WQ Standards are met during all seasons of the year. 

• An implementation plan. A detailed plan to prevent, reduce, or clean up excess pollution. 

• A follow-up monitoring plan. To demonstrate the success of pollution controls contained 

in the implementation plan or the need for additional action.

• Reasonable assurance. For TMDLs that allocate pollutant loads to both point and nonpoint 

sources, the state must demonstrate reasonable assurance that the load allocations (LAs) will 

be achieved and WQ Standards (WQS) will be attained. The purpose of reasonable 

assurance is to ensure that the wasteload allocations (WLAs) and LAs established in the 

TMDL are not based on overly generous assumptions regarding the amount of nonpoint 

source pollutant reductions that will occur. 

• An administrative record. 

• An estimate of when the waterbody will meet WQ Standards. 

TMDLs and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Ecology relies on TMDL implementation plans to ensure that we accomplish the reductions 

needed from nonpoint pollution sources to meet the LA required by the TMDL. Our goal is to 

secure the load reductions required of nonpoint sources through voluntary implementation and 

the use of education and outreach, technical assistance, and financial assistance. However, 

enforcement authority under state law provides a regulatory backstop. This regulatory backstop 

is necessary because there must be reasonable assurance that the abatement strategies for 

nonpoint sources will actually take place. If nonpoint sources are not addressed, federal law 

shifts reduction requirements to point source dischargers. 
29

History of TMDLs in Washington State

Starting in 1998, Ecology was placed on a schedule to produce 1,566 TMDLs in 15 years as the 

result of a citizens’ suit filed against EPA. For the first few years, TMDL production met the 

schedule. However, as time went on, TMDL development became more complicated and 

controversial for several reasons.

• Instead of focusing on individual segments and individual pollutants when developing 

TMDLs, Ecology began to focus on entire watersheds and multiple pollutants. Focusing 

on multiple pollutants for an entire water body provided the opportunity for the same set 

of actions being able to address an array of related pollutants. Although focusing on 

multiple pollutants and the entire watershed gained more for the same set of actions, 

these TMDLs required more data, more analyses, and more time to complete.

• As it became necessary to set more and more stringent wasteload allocations in TMDLs,

point source dischargers concerned about the costs of installing advanced treatment 

technologies began debating Ecology’s technical work supporting TMDLs. Additional 

and more detailed modeling was required to predict outcomes of TMDL implementation 

and support TMDL wasteload allocations.

When the TMDL settlement agreement expired in 2013, significant work remained to produce 

the required 1,566 TMDLs. Additionally, implementing the load allocations in TMDLs has been 

an increasing challenge. Compared to the technology and investments required of point source 

industries to meet wasteload allocations, the remedial measures necessary to meet load 

allocations are usually simple, straight forward, practical, low-tech and inexpensive.

Slow paced implementation of the load allocation component in TMDLs puts at risk the state’s 

ability to provide reasonable assurance that load allocations will be met. One consequence of not 

being able to provide reasonable assurance is that the point sources, which are regulated through 

NPDES permits, will be required to meet even more stringent reductions to achieve compliance 

with TMDLs. Eventually, the state will reach a point where even a wasteload allocation of zero 

for all point sources will not be sufficient to meet the reductions required by the TMDL. 

Nonpoint source pollution, as a significant source of pollution in Washington must also be 

addressed to clean-up our impaired waterways.

Aligning Ecology’s Nonpoint and TMDL Programs

As Ecology moves forward, we will deploy our resources in a more systematic manner by 

aligning our TMDL and NPS programs. Ecology has already taken several important steps to 

more closely align our TMDL and NPS programs to better leverage an array of staff expertise 

and to orient programmatic efforts toward cleaning up impaired watersheds. For example, all 

TMDLs include an implementation plan that contains the required elements of a watershed based

plan.

Moving forward, we intend to continue improving implementation plans to designate the specific 

actions necessary to comply with TMDL load allocations. Additionally, while Ecology will 

continue to work with and rely on partners to implement load allocation requirements, Ecology 

will utilize watershed evaluations to identify sites with nonpoint pollution issues and secure the 

implementation of BMPs that ensure compliance with the WQ Standards and state law. To 
30

implement BMPs Ecology will first rely on education and outreach efforts, technical assistance 

and financial assistance from Ecology and partners. If pollution sources are not addressed, 

Ecology will utilize enforcement tools as necessary and appropriate.

Straight to Implementation (STI) 

Straight to Implementation (STI) is a strategy that uses Ecology’s nonpoint authority and state 

resources to clean up a watershed. In watersheds in which the sources of nonpoint pollution are 

known and the suites of BMPs necessary to control those sources have been identified by 

Ecology, we simply begin working directly with landowners to implement those BMPs. As with 

implementing TMDLs, Ecology’s emphasis is on a collaborative approach to addressing 

pollution problems. We prioritize the use of partnerships, education programs, outreach,

technical assistance and incentives as the primary implementation mechanisms to secure the 

proactive implementation of BMPs to address nonpoint sources of pollution. However, Ecology 

also identifies and utilizes all available federal, state and local enforceable authorities to secure 

implementation if the technical and financial assistance fails to address nonpoint sources of 

pollution. This is a similar approach to that used by local Pollution Identification and Correction 

programs outlined below.

If STI is successful, the impaired water bodies will be cleaned up and move from Category 5

(impaired water body) to Category 1 (clean water body) of the Water Quality Assessment 

without the need to develop a TMDL. While a STI project is being implemented, the affected 

water bodies will remain in Category 5. If they do not move to Category 1 by the end of the 

project, Ecology will develop a TMDL.

STI projects are intended to implement nonpoint source controls as quickly as possible. When 

we use STI, compliance with the WQ Standards is to be achieved no more than 10 years after the 

start of STI work in the watershed. The only exception to this time requirement is for parameters

such as temperature, which might take longer because of the time it takes for trees to grow and 

achieve site potential shade. However, even in this case, all implementation actions necessary to 

achieve compliance must be completed within 10 years.

STI is more appropriate for watersheds with few pollution inputs, and rural watersheds with few 

contributors tend to make the best candidates for this methodology. STI projects are guided by 

an internal staff work plan that includes EPA’s required elements of a watershed based plan, 

which makes project implemented in support of STIs eligible for Section 319 grants.

Focus on Implementation-TMDLs and STIs

Ecology uses watershed evaluations to support STI and TMDL implementation efforts by 

identifying specific nonpoint pollution problems, and prioritizing sites to be contacted for 

technical and financial assistance. While watershed evaluations can be used to identify and 

address multiple types of nonpoint source pollution, Ecology primarily uses them to address 

agricultural nonpoint pollution sources because there is no specific statewide regulatory

oversight/permit program designed to meet WQ Standards for this sector.63 

 63 As covered below the other major sources of nonpoint source pollution are addressed through permit or other 

regulatory programs: urban/suburban development and stormwater is addressed through permits and 

requirements in TMDLs, forestry is addressed through the state Forest Practices Rules, and on-site sewage systems 
31

Watershed Evaluations

During watershed evaluations, Ecology assesses site specific conditions to determine if water 

quality problems exist. While water quality monitoring may be used to help document pollution 

in the water body and/or stormwater flowing into surface water,64 Ecology relies on visual site 

conditions as the primary evidence for identifying nonpoint source pollution problems. An 

evaluation of site conditions is supported by numerous scientific studies that clearly link site 

conditions to pollutant discharges. It is also important to use site conditions because unlike 

many point sources, nonpoint pollution does not discharge continuously. Instead, nonpoint 

source pollution discharges are intermittent; pollution is moved to state waters through run-off 

events, atmospheric deposition, direct deposition and irrigation. It is not possible to be on a site 

every time there is a discharge. Evaluating site conditions provides a more constant and reliable 

tool for identifying most nonpoint source pollution issues.

In general, when evaluating a site for nonpoint pollution problems Ecology considers the 

following questions:

• Are there sources of nonpoint pollution present? 

• Is surface water present at the site or in proximity to the site? Are there groundwater 

concerns?

• Are there pathways for pollution to get to state waters?

• Is there evidence that pollutants have left the site and entered state waters?

• Are management practices in place for identified sources of nonpoint pollution to 

prevent the delivery of pollution to state waters?

After a site is identified as having a nonpoint source pollution problem, Ecology then promotes 

the use of technical and financial assistance to correct the problem. If technical and financial 

assistance fail to address the pollution issue, Ecology may utilize enforcement tools to secure 

compliance.

Watershed Evaluation Process:

• Coordination with partners (local conservation districts, local government, health 

districts, producer groups, tribes, environmental groups, etc.);

• Secure resources—Technical and financial assistance;

• Complete watershed outreach with partners;

• Complete watershed surveys and site prioritization;

• Contact producers or landowners;

• Complete site visits and/or inspections;

• Work cooperatively to implement recommended BMPs to address identified 

problems;

• Complete follow-up outreach; and

• Use of enforcement tools if technical and financial assistance tools fail.

 

are regulated through local ordinances and regulations. Additionally, dairies are regulated through the Dairy 

Nutrient Management Program and are also not addressed by Ecology through watershed evaluations. 64 See Chapter 7 for more information on Ecology’s monitoring efforts. 
32

Implementing Key Changes Recommended by the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory 

Committee

Ecology strives to continually improve the way it performs its work. As part of this process, in 

2014 the Director of Ecology convened the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory 

Committee65 to give us input on our water quality work on agricultural lands. One of the areas 

where Ecology received input is on ways to improve our watershed evaluation process when 

using it in agricultural areas. The group made several recommendations, which Ecology is 

implementing.

• Increasing education and outreach efforts in watersheds where we work, communicating 

with willing conservation districts, and engaging with producer groups when conducting 

education and outreach in watersheds.

• When contacting producers our letters will include specific information on the pollution 

problem observed at the site, a clear timeline for producers to contact Ecology, and an 

offer for the producer to access the documentation related to their operation and an offer 

for Ecology staff to make a site visit.

• Ecology will send letters as close as possible to when we observe the site with the goal of 

sending letters to prioritized sites within sixty days of observing the site. Letters will 

provide producers thirty days to contact Ecology and/or set up a site visit. After the thirty 

days, Ecology will send second letters to producers who fail to contact Ecology and/or set 

up a site visit.

• If we can verify that land is being leased, Ecology will send the first communication to 

the lessee.

The above changes were made to promote better upfront communication, better engage producer 

groups, increase clarity around nonpoint pollution problems and promote consistency between 

regions of our state.

TMDLs and Stormwater

Stormwater pollution from new and existing development and roads is a significant contributor 

of pollution to state waters. However, due to their coverage under the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Waste Discharge permit program many 

stormwater sources of pollution have shifted from our NPS program to our point source 

pollution/permit program. These include:

• New Development (geographically limited)

• Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control

• Construction Site Chemical Control 

• Existing Development (geographically limited)

• Road, Highway and Bridge Construction Projects

• Road, Highway and Bridge Construction Site Chemical Control

• Road, Highway and Bridge Operation and Maintenance (geographically limited)

• Road, Highway and Bridge Runoff Systems (geographically limited)

 65 For more information on the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Group see Chapter 4.
33

Where there is a legal requirement to obtain a permit the NPS program does not address or cover 

that source. However, stormwater sources that are not required to obtain a permit remain a 

nonpoint source of pollution. Ecology’s primary strategy to address those sources is to utilize 

TMDLs.

For TMDLs that cover watersheds that contain Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

(MS4s) that are not legally required to obtain an NPDES permit, Ecology will:

1. Design the TMDL study to clearly identify whether or not the MS4 causes or contributes 

to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to 

waters of the state.

2. Establish, to the extent possible, specific load or wasteload allocations to areas of MS4s 

where they are identified as a potential source of impairment.

3. If the MS4 is deemed a significant and/or contributing source of the water quality 

impairment, Ecology will, at a minimum, specify and include by reference in the TMDL 

the management practices in Ecology’s most recently issued Stormwater Manuals as the 

minimum required BMPs necessary to achieve compliance with the TMDL allocations.

4. If the TMDL contains information relevant to the determination of whether the MS4s 

meet the criteria for coverage as specified in Ecology’s Municipal Stormwater Permit 

Criteria for Designating Phase II Bubble Cities, the TMDL will be used to support the 

designation of the jurisdiction as needing to discharge under a new or existing MS4 

permit issued by Ecology pursuant to CWA Section 402(p)(2)(E) and 40 C.F.R. § 

122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) and (D).

Data Tracking, Effectiveness Monitoring, and Adaptive Management

Tracking implementation data is important for accountability, transparency, effectiveness 

monitoring and adaptive management. At a minimum, Ecology will track the following 

implementation data for TMDLs and STI projects:

• The location of nonpoint source problems identified by Ecology during watershed 

evaluations.

• Sites that Ecology has contacted after the evaluations.

• The BMPs that were implemented in the watershed and their location.

A specific description of the BMPs that are implemented at a site is the most important 

information to track in order to support effectiveness monitoring efforts, and promote 

accountability and transparency. For BMPs implemented with funds from an Ecology grant, 

specific information is collected on our BMP approval form. For other BMPs implemented in 

support of a TMDL or STI, Ecology will collect data consistent with the BMP approval form. 

Additionally, we will work with partners to promote the collection of consistent implementation 

data, and share that data with partners and the public.

Finally, to support implementation tracking, Ecology is working to develop a TMDL and 

Nonpoint database.
34

Ecology Grant and Loan Programs

Ecology’s Water Quality Program administers four major funding programs that provide grants 

and low-interest loans (The Centennial Clean Water Fund, The State Revolving Fund, Section 

319 grants, and Stormwater Financial Assistance Program) for projects to protect and improve 

water quality in Washington State. Applicants use one integrated financial assistance application 

to apply for funds to address both point and nonpoint source water pollution. Ecology reviews, 

rates and ranks applications and then distributes funds to the highest priority projects.

Each of the funding programs, based on fund source, has different eligibility requirements and 

limitations and may have specific set-asides or funding priorities. All projects are rated and 

ranked on a standard set of criteria. Scoring criteria cover:

• Scope of Work-The Scope of Work represents a complete and concise description of the 

project tasks and outcomes, including deliverables and timelines, and the project directly 

and measurably addresses a water quality problem.

• Task and Project Budget-The cost estimate process is reasonable, and the project budget 

represents a good value for the work and water quality benefits achieved. For nonpoint 

source activity projects requesting grant funding, the applicant identifies adequate 

matching funds.

• Water Quality and Public Health Improvements-Consideration of the severity of the 

water quality problem, whether the project will achieve substantial water quality and 

public health benefits, how project success can be measured, and how the project will 

provide long-term water quality benefits.

• Coordination with State and Federal Priorities— TMDL or STI implementation, other 

state or federal water quality requirements, the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda 

or current approved plan or program specifically designed to address water quality 

problems such as a watershed based plan containing EPA’s required elements.

66 Also, 

consideration is given to how well the applicant and the project address greenhouse 

emission reductions in accordance with RCW 70.235.070.

• Project Team—Applicant defines team members’ roles and responsibilities. 

Additionally, scoring considers team members’ past experience, and whether the staffing 

commitment is well described.

• Project Development, Local Support, and Past Performance—A comprehensive decision 

making process was used to arrive at the proposed project, and plans for long-term 

project success and sustainability were considered during project development. 

Additionally, scoring considers the level of local support and commitment for the project, 

and the applicant’s past performance on other water quality projects, including Ecology 

funded projects.

• Readiness to Proceed—Project elements are in place for the project to proceed and 

documentation is provided.

Successful proposals will demonstrate how the project solves or addresses a water quality 

problem and how the applicant will document that benefit. Projects must have a well-defined 

 66 See Appendix C.
35

scope of work that has goals, objectives, timelines, and measurable outcomes in addition to an 

accurate and reasonable budget. Proposals are also prioritized based on their readiness to proceed 

through documentation that items are in place to begin as soon as funds may be offered. 

The funds for nonpoint source pollution help to provide an incentive to support the achievement 

of clean water objectives and meet the WQ Standards. Eligible activities covered by these 

nonpoint source funds include implementation of one or more of a limited set of effective BMPs, 

education and stewardship programs, pollution identification and correction, water quality 

monitoring, and watershed planning. Ecology prioritizes nonpoint projects that implement 

eligible BMPs such as livestock exclusion fencing, agricultural waste management, restoring

riparian vegetation, irrigation system improvements, stream habitat restoration; control of 

invasive species; bank stabilization projects, and promoting practices that decrease soil erosion

such as direct seed.

To ensure that effective BMPs are implemented, Ecology has developed specific criteria that 

provide minimum standards for BMPs in the program funding guidelines. These funding 

guidelines are updated annually to ensure that funded projects meet WQ Standards. The funding 

guidelines also include statutory requirements, the administrative rule defining uses and 

limitations of funds, and program and agency policy that guide our programs.

Additionally, Ecology recognizes the need to measure outputs and outcomes, as well as, BMP 

costs to improve accountability and better target future clean water investments. To better track 

BMP implementation Ecology has started collecting more specific implementation data through 

a BMP approval form. The form includes specific BMP metrics that must be reported by the 

grantee, and the requirement to submit a site plan that clearly identifies the location of BMPs that 

will be implemented by the project. Ecology will work with other funding programs to collect 

consistent data to measure the effectiveness of funded projects.

In addition to our combined funding program, other grant programs can help with 

implementation. More detailed information on other funding programs is provided in Chapter 5. 

Important sources of financial assistance come from local conservation districts, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, the State Conservation Commission, Salmon Recovery Funding 

Board, and EPA. Ecology will look to support our partners’ grant programs and pursue 

opportunities for coordinated investment.

In state fiscal year 2015, Ecology implemented a new online grant and loan management system 

called Ecology Administration of Grants and Loans (EAGL). This implementation followed an 

agency wide Lean effort to standardize agency grant and loan procedures for all programs to be 

used in the system. Applicants now apply for and manage their funded projects in EAGL 

throughout the grant and loan life cycle.

Complaint Response and Inspectors

Ecology’s complaint response system provides a tool to address reported nonpoint pollution 

problems through technical assistance, education, referrals, or in limited circumstances, 
36

escalating enforcement. All of Ecology’s regional offices have staff dedicated to responding to

nonpoint source pollution complaints.

Ecology complaint response staff and field inspectors are the first line of Ecology employees that 

a nonpoint discharger will interact with after a discharge is reported. These staff are responsible 

for verifying complaints, conducting field visits or inspections, providing technical assistance, 

highlighting financial assistance opportunities, and referring landowners (if need be) to local 

conservation districts or other resources for additional support.

Ultimately, Ecology is responsible for ensuring that individuals comply with state law, and that 

the BMPs implemented at a site are sufficient to address the identified water quality problem.

Finally, nonpoint inspectors can also support the implementation of TMDLs and STIs, local 

programs (PIC and Shellfish Protection), and other programs with a nexus to water quality.

Education and Outreach, and Voluntary Programs

Public outreach and education are an important part of the state’s NPS program. Developing 

education and outreach programs that increase the public’s understanding of nonpoint source 

pollution, the technical and financial assistance resources available to address nonpoint pollution,

and how the public can be involved in preventing pollution before it happens are fundamental to 

the success of our nonpoint strategy. Our education and outreach efforts take advantage of a 

variety of delivery mechanisms.

Ecology will continue to work with partners, including producer groups, tribes, state and federal

agencies, local governments, conservation districts, environmental organizations, and other 

stakeholder organizations in a collaborative effort to maximize participation and increase 

stakeholder adoption of practices that protect and enhance water quality. These collaborative 

efforts take advantage of the skills and knowledge of partner organizations to complement 

education and outreach expertise at Ecology.

Ecology will also support locally led voluntary programs that address nonpoint sources of 

pollution and promote compliance with the WQ Standards. This includes programs designed 

specifically to address nonpoint pollution, as well as programs that focus on broader natural 

resource goals that have a nexus with water quality, including salmon recovery programs, 

voluntary stewardship programs, irrigation efficiencies, and floodplains by design projects.

Partnerships

Ecology works collaboratively with other key state and local entities to coordinate the 

implementation of NPS control measures. In some cases a partner agency or local government is 

the lead regulatory agency. In other cases they are the on-the-ground implementers of nonpoint 

pollution control activities. The importance of partnerships to addressing nonpoint pollution 

sources cannot be overstated. Whether it is implementing TMDLs or STIs, administering our 

grants and loans program, responding to complaints or developing education and outreach 

programs, partners are fundamental to successfully implementing our nonpoint program.
37

Additionally, we recognize the importance of existing locally led efforts (both voluntary and 

regulatory) to reduce nonpoint pollution. We will look for ways to help strengthen and augment 

existing programs that address and prevent the harmful effects of nonpoint pollution. Further, 

we will look to support programs that bring together farmers, landowners, communities and local 

organizations to address nonpoint pollution. 

Chapter 4 provides a detailed description of current and future partnership efforts.

Locally Led Water Clean-up Programs

Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Programs

Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) programs identify and address pathogen and 

nutrient pollution from a variety of nonpoint sources, including on-site sewage systems, farm 

animals, pets, sewage from boats, and stormwater runoff. The corrective actions taken by local 

agencies or tribes may include outreach and education, technical assistance, incentives for best 

management practices, and enforcement.

To promote PIC programs, the state Department of Health and Ecology have offered short term

federally funded grants to county governments, local health jurisdictions, and tribal governments 

adjacent to Puget Sound to establish or enhance PIC programs.67 The goal of these grants is to 

launch new and improve existing PIC programs that can eventually be sustainable in the long 

term by integrating planning across local water quality programs, interests, and concerns.

An effective program will have the following components:

• The ability to reduce or eliminate pathogen and nutrient pollution caused by on-site 

sewage systems, farm animal waste, pet waste, boat sewage, and stormwater. The 

capacity to address diverse sources may be accomplished through partnerships.

• An on-going assessment and monitoring program to identify and prioritize problem areas 

for correction. A monitoring program should include both targeted monitoring to identify 

pollution sources and monitoring to assess effectiveness of control efforts to ensure that 

waters stay clean. Assessments from other programs can be used to identify and 

prioritize water quality problems, for instance, the Washington State Water Quality 

Assessment.

• Corrective action work which includes outreach and education, technical assistance, and 

incentives such as cost share for the installation of best management practices. The 

program includes enforcement as a backstop when other methods don’t fix the problem. 

• A sustainable funding source.

 67 EPA is providing the funding for these grants through the National Estuary Program grant program. They are 

currently available from November 2011 through September 2014.
38

While PIC programs are administered at the local level, Ecology will continue to take an active 

role in supporting these programs because our nonpoint strategy shares the objectives of 

identifying and addressing water pollution issues. Additionally, Ecology provides the regulatory 

enforcement backstop for counties to help implement the agriculture related components of their 

programs.68 Specifically, as EPA pushed for National Estuary Program (NEP) funding to be 

focused on local PIC programs, there was an acknowledgement that it would take some local 

programs time to have a complete and sustainable program similar to Kitsap County’s program. 

Ecology was asked to provide enforcement backup until those local programs developed their 

own comprehensive enforcement programs that address all sources of nonpoint pollution.

Example: Kitsap County’s Clean Water Kitsap Program

Kitsap County’s Clean Water Kitsap Program is a comprehensive, interagency partnership to 

address local issues related to stormwater management, nonpoint source pollution, and water 

quality. County leaders created the program in 1993 to protect public health and natural 

resources, meet state and federal requirements, minimize costs, and provide stable, ongoing 

funding to address nonpoint source pollution.

This partnership is led by Kitsap County Public Works Stormwater Division. Stormwater 

management fees fund the Stormwater Division and, through interlocal agreements, also fund

selected programs at Kitsap Public Health District, Kitsap Conservation District, Washington 

State University Kitsap Extension and the Kitsap County Department of Community 

Development.

Through this interagency model, the partners work collaboratively to accomplish many programs 

and projects for the ultimate goal of clean water. The following descriptions are some programs 

that are uniquely relevant to the State NPS Plan.

Water Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) at Kitsap Public Health District

Kitsap’s PIC program is nationally recognized for its innovation and effectiveness. Their mission 

is to protect the public from waterborne illness and other water quality related hazards. Water 

that is polluted with fecal bacteria is the primary concern. Kitsap defines their job as ensuring

that surface waters are safe and sanitary so you don't get sick when you swim in them or eat the 

shellfish. Their work includes:

• Collecting water samples

• Investigating fecal bacteria sources of water pollution; and

• Taking steps to correct problems

How it Works

Kitsap uses standard procedures for doing PIC work, as outlined in:

• Pollution Identification and Correction Protocol Manual 2012

• Pollution Identification and Correction Guidance Document 2014 (written with the 

Washington State Departments of Health and Ecology).

 68 See Appendix D.
39

Looking For Trends

Kitsap starts with the big picture by monitoring long-term water quality trends for Kitsap 

County’s marine (salt) waters, lakes and streams (known as surface waters). All Kitsap streams 

run into the Puget Sound or Hood Canal, so, if the streams are polluted, they can impact marine 

waters. The streams are relatively small, so signs of pollution appear early, and damage occurs 

more quickly.

Early Warnings

Surface water quality gives an early warning that development, land uses, and other human 

activities are beginning to harm the public’s health, shellfish resources, and the environment.

The primary sources of pollution are:

• Failing septic and sewer systems;

• Faulty storm water systems;

• Pet and livestock waste;

• Runoff from farms.

Correcting Pollution Problems: Strength of the Clean Water Kitsap Partnership

Each year Kitsap’s PIC team uses their monitoring data to prioritize a list of the waterways that 

are the most polluted. Working through this list, they investigate to find the source of the 

pollution. When they locate the source, they work with property owners to eliminate it. When 

sources are from failing septic systems or other sewage issues, Kitsap Public Health spearheads 

the education, enforcement and technical assistance to work through the correction process.

When the source is animal waste from a farm, the Kitsap Conservation District is available for 

non-regulatory technical assistance while the owner has the option of a voluntary compliance 

process to address the documented water quality problem. When the source is a faulty 

stormwater system, Kitsap Public Works will perform smoke and dye testing to find and confirm 

an illicit connection to the storm drain system and follow up with the established escalating 

enforcement strategy required in the stormwater NPDES Permit.

Water Quality Reports

Public communication about the state of the public’s local water bodies is an important part of 

the PIC Program. Kitsap’s PIC team publishes annual reports about the relative fecal coliform 

levels in streams, bays and lakes, their ongoing efforts to improve water quality, and the current 

priority list of polluted areas. The Kitsap PIC has demonstrated success at cleaning up polluted 

waters. On the 2015 Water quality Assessment, seven polluted segments covered by the PIC 

program were moved into Category1—meets WQ standards.

Shellfish Protection Districts 

Shellfish growing area restoration involves finding and correcting nonpoint fecal pollution 

sources that reduce marine water quality and cause closure of commercial and recreational 

shellfish beds. Examples of nonpoint fecal pollution are failing on-site sewage systems, improper 

management of animal waste, or any fecal pollution that finds its way to a creek, river, or storm 

drain and eventually ends up in marine waters.
40

The State Department of Health routinely samples water around commercial and recreational 

shellfish growing areas to make sure it meets health standards. If water quality fails to meet those 

standards, they restrict or close that area to shellfish harvest. This is called a classification 

downgrade.

When a shellfish area's classification is downgraded due to poor water quality, the county 

authority must create a shellfish protection district (SPD) and implement a program to find and 

correct the pollution source(s) that are causing water quality to decline (see RCW 90.72.045).

Shellfish protection districts have proven to be very effective in reversing pollution of 

Washington’s saltwater beaches, preventing new pollution sources, and reopening shellfish areas 

to harvest.

More information on Shellfish Protection Districts can be found at:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Shellfish/GrowingAreaRestoration/Shellfis

hProtectionDistrictsLibrary

Other Tools to Promote Implementation

In addition to the ongoing nonpoint efforts outlined above, Ecology continues to pursue and 

support other tools and strategies to address nonpoint source pollution.

Draft Water Quality Trading Framework

Ecology’s Water Quality Program has developed a water quality trading framework69 to guide 

the development of trading programs in watersheds in which the point sources determine that 

they will need trading to meet TMDL wasteload allocations and the subsequent NPDES permit 

limits. Water quality trading has the specific goal of helping point source dischargers meet 

permit limits through the purchase of pollution reduction credits from a source of the same 

pollutant that is able to reduce pollution at a lower cost than the point source. This narrow 

definition of trading is the only one supported by EPA’s trading guidance, which Washington 

must follow.

EPA’s trading policy recommends: 

• Timely public access to information on trades.

• Public participation during program development and implementation. 

• Mechanisms to monitor progress, evaluate program effectiveness, and revise the program 

as necessary. 

• Legal mechanisms to facilitate trading. 

• Clearly defined units of trade. 

• Methods to quantify credits and address uncertainty. 

• Compliance and enforcement provisions. 

• Accountability for all trades. Assurance that NPDES permit holders meet their permit 

limits.

 69 See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/progs.html and http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110027.html. 
41

Ecology supports the concept of pollution trading markets that: 

• Meet the requirements and objectives of Washington’s WQ Standards and the federal 

Clean Water Act. 

• Promote cost-effective water quality protection and restoration. 

• Result in water quality trades that are verifiable and fully enforceable. 

• Ensure credits generated by a nonpoint source from the installation of best management 

practices must be beyond those required to meet the most stringent load allocation 

applicable to that nonpoint source. 

• Measure or calculate nonpoint source credits and trading ratios from the same baseline 

used in the TMDL and consistent with the assumptions used to develop the load 

allocation.

Ecology considers the most logical pollutants for trading are phosphorus, nitrogen, other oxygenrelated pollutants, and sediment. We will consider trades involving temperature, although the 

lengthy time lag to produce shade may prohibit temperature trades in many watersheds.

Certification and Certainty Programs

Certification programs take a market based approach to address environmental problems. They

can verify to retailers and consumers that a product has been produced using environmentally

sustainable management practices. Ecology supports the concept of certification programs that 

include a focus on protecting water quality from nonpoint sources of pollution, and support the 

key principles of Ecology’s nonpoint source pollution strategy. Additionally, when organizations 

develop certification programs in consultation with Ecology, we can provide regulatory certainty 

to participating landowners, businesses, and agricultural producers who participate in the 

program.

A current example is the Farmed Smart Certification. The Farmed Smart Certification is a 

sustainable farm certification program developed by the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed 

Association (PNDSA), and a conservation farming technical stakeholder committee, comprised 

of conservation producers, managers from conservation districts, Ecology, and researchers with 

NRCS and Washington State University. The certification criteria were developed using best 

management practices from multiple environmental and conservation entities, including NRCS, 

and Ecology. The certification program has been vetted by SureHarvest, a third party 

certification company and several regional commodity marketing companies with positive 

feedback that this is a market-ready program.

The Farmed Smart certification objectives include:

• Define a set of conservation standards that will provide a clear understanding of 

economic and environmental benefits of direct seeding

• Certify producers that are utilizing sustainable practices; and

• Educate and develop environmental markets for certified sustainable products and 

producers. 

Further, the Farmed Smart certification has six initiatives that will be evaluated and proven in 

order to become certified:
42

• Improving Water Quality – through less soil disturbance, less soil erosion, precision 

placement of fertilizers, and implementing buffer strips along water sources

• Improving Air Quality – by keeping crop residue on the field to avoid wind erosion, 

and reducing fuel emissions from equipment

• Improving Soil Quality – by reducing the amount of tillage which increases organic 

matter, earthworm activity, and yield potential.

• Improving Wildlife habitat – by providing food and cover for wildlife and fish 

habitats

• Conserving Energy and Reducing Carbon Footprint – through planting in 1 – 2 passes 

allowing a significant reduction in fossil fuel usage and sequestering carbon in the soil

• Improving Economic Viability and Sustainability – Reducing input costs of fuel, 

labor, and chemicals through precision agriculture and direct seeding practices ensures 

the family farm can continue to produce a safe food supply for the growing 

population.

Continued Implementation of Key Regulatory 

Programs

Forest Practices

Washington’s streams benefit from a well regulated Forest Practices Program. In Washington, 

forest practices are mandated under law to meet the state WQ Standards, and are implemented 

using forestry prescriptions developed and refined through a science-based adaptive management 

system. In response to the strength and focus of the current regulatory system, the Department of 

Ecology in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency established the 

Clean Water Act Assurances. To the extent that the current rules continue to be tested and 

refined as appropriate by a well funded adaptive management program, the rules will be relied 

upon to ensure streams in the forested environment meet the state WQ Standards.

History of the Current Forest Practices Rules

The Forests & Fish Report

Leading up to the current Forest Practices Rules was the Forests and Fish Report (FFR). This 

document, issued in 1999, was the result of the collaboration of stakeholders, including tribes, 

forest landowners, local governments, environmental groups, and state and federal resource 

agencies. These diverse stakeholders outlined ways to protect water quality and aquatic and 

riparian-dependent species on non-Federal forestlands in Washington.

The FFR identified four goals:

1. Provide compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for aquatic and ripariandependent species on state and private forestlands.

2. Restore and maintain riparian habitat to support a harvestable supply of fish.

3. Meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act for water quality.

4. Keep the Washington timber industry economically viable.
43

The Salmon Recovery Act of 1999

Following the release of the Forests and Fish Report was passage and enactment of the state’s 

Salmon Recovery Act of 1999 (sometimes called the ‘Forests and Fish Law’). This act directed 

the adoption of the goals of the Forests and Fish Report into the State Forest Practices Rules. 

Those rules are guided by the state’s Forest Practices Board, and set standards for timber 

harvests, pre-commercial thinning, road construction, and other forest practices on over 10 

million acres of state and private forestland.

The Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan

The Washington State Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a direct result of the 

Forests and Fish Report. The HCP was approved in 2006 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and NOAA’s Marine Fisheries Service. Covering 60,000 miles of stream habitat across 9.3 

million acres of private and state forestlands, this 50-year agreement protects the habitat of 

aquatic species, supports economically viable and healthy forests, and creates regulatory stability 

for landowners.

The Forest Practices Act

The Washington State Legislature found that the 1999 Salmon Recovery Act and the resulting 

Forests and Fish Rules "...taken as a whole, constitute a comprehensive and coordinated program 

to provide substantial and sufficient contributions to salmon recovery and water quality 

enhancement in areas impacted by forest practices...” (RCW 77.85.180(2)). It also recognized 

that federal and state agencies, tribes, county representatives, and private timberland owners 

have spent considerable effort and time to develop the Forests and Fish Report (RCW 

76.09.055), and authorized the development of Forest Practices Rules based on the analyses and 

conclusions of the Forests and Fish Report (FFR). The rules include the development of an 

adaptive management program to: 

. . . make adjustments as quickly as possible to forest practices that are not achieving the 

resource objectives . . . (and) shall incorporate the best available science and information, 

include protocols and standards, regular monitoring, a scientific and peer review process, 

and provide recommendations to the board on proposed changes to forest practices rules to 

meet timber industry viability and salmon recovery. (RCW 76.09.370(7)) 

These provisions for the forest practices Adaptive Management Program are designed to meet 

the goals and objectives for water quality and fish habitat within the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Practices Program. 

The state Forest Practices Act (Chapter 76.09 RCW) and the Stewardship of Non-industrial 

Forests and Woodlands (Chapter 76.13 RCW) set up the foundation for management by the state 

and private landowners in Washington. Landowners must either follow the prescriptions 

established in the state Forest Practices Rules (Chapter 222 WAC), or follow prescriptions 

established in federal Habitat Conservations Plans established for their specific lands. There are 

currently eight other HCPs that cover some of the state and private forest lands.

The Forest Practices Rules

The Forest Practices Rules in Washington are detailed and comprehensive. The rules cover a 

wide range of issues associated with forest harvesting, roads, and unstable slopes. The specific 

prescriptions are dependent on site factors such as the size of streams and the type and size of 
44

wetlands, as well as the productivity of the soils, and the method of harvest (e.g. clear cutting vs. 

thinning, ground based vs. cable yarding). As such, the rules are too complicated to restate here.

However, some generalized elements related to water quality protection are worth noting. These 

include leaving streamside forested buffers that range from 90 - 200 feet wide along each side of 

fish-bearing streams west of the Cascade Mountains and 75-130 feet wide buffers on the east 

side of the mountains (the dry side). Fifty-foot wide buffers typically protect most of the flowing 

reaches of the non-fish-bearing waters on the westside, with an allowance for more variable 

width buffers on the eastside to mimic historic forest fire cycles.

All new forest roads must be constructed to the rule standards and Road Maintenance and 

Abandonment Plans exist statewide to bring roads into compliance with current road standards. 

Based on current rates of improvement, most ownerships will meet the initial target date of 2016 

for bringing all of their roads up to current standards, with only a small number of ownerships 

formally granted a 5 year extension due to economic hardship incurred during the economic 

recession that began in 2008.

Framework for Administering the Forest Practices Rules

Overview of the Adaptive Management Program

The Adaptive Management program was created to provide science-based recommendations and 

technical information to assist the Forest Practices Board in determining if and when it is 

necessary or advisable to adjust rules and guidance for aquatic resources to achieve the resource 

goals and objectives of the Forests and Fish Report.

The Forest Practices Adaptive Management Program is a multi-caucus program that includes 

representatives from state departments (including Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Natural 

Resources), federal agencies (particularly National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency), forest landowners, county 

governments, the environmental community, and tribal governments. Representatives of these 

caucuses participate on two key Adaptive Management Program committees established by the 

Forest Practices Board: the Timber, Fish and Wildlife Policy Committee (Policy) and the 

Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Committee (CMER).

The Policy Committee makes recommendations to the Board for decision. CMER reviews 

existing science and contributes original research to the program. This Science function is 

designed to produce unbiased technical information for consideration by the Policy Committee 

and the Board, as illustrated by the interactive structure of the Adaptive Management Program in 

the diagram shown below. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) operationally 

implements the Forest Practices Program. The Department of Ecology, the Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, and many of the state’s Tribes are active cooperators with DNR in implementing 

key provisions of the state’s Forest Practices Rules in the field.
45

Figure 1 Forest Practices Adaptive Management Program

Forest Practices Board (Board)

The Board has approval authority over proposed CMER projects, annual work plans, and 

expenditures. It establishes resource objectives to inform and guide the activities of the program 

and sets priorities for action. If consensus or an otherwise acceptable conclusion is not reached 

in Policy, the Board makes the final determination. The Board also: 

• Directs the program to complete work according to the CMER master project schedule; 

• Determines whether the program is in substantial compliance with the CMER master 

project schedule; 

• Notifies the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service if 

the program is not in substantial compliance with the CMER master project schedule; 

• Approves nominations for CMER committee members; 

• Ensures that fiscal and performance audits of the Adaptive Management Program are 

conducted; 

• Forwards to the Adaptive Management Program all proposals affecting aquatic resources 

for new rules and board manual content; and 

• Approves proposed updates to Schedules L-1 and L-2 of the Forests and Fish Report, 

“Key Questions, Resource Objectives, and Performance Targets for Adaptive 

Management.” 

Timber, Fish and Wildlife Policy Committee (Policy Committee)

The Policy Committee is a consensus- based policy forum to support the Adaptive Management 

Program. The Policy Committee consists of members selected by and representing the following 

State of Washington TFW caucuses: 
46

• Industrial private timber owners;

• Nonindustrial (small) private timber owners;

• Environmental community;

• Western Washington tribal governments;

• Eastern Washington tribal governments;

• County governments;

• Department of Natural Resources;

• Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology; and

• Federal agencies (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and US Environmental Protection Agency).

The function of the Policy Committee is to develop solutions to issues that arise in the Forest 

Practices Program. These issues may be raised by science reports on rule or program 

effectiveness or policy questions on implementation of forest practices. Solutions may include 

the preparation of rule amendments and/or guidance recommendations.

The Policy Committee also assists the Board by providing guidance to CMER and 

recommendations on adaptive management issues. The Policy Committee reviews and makes 

recommendations on the key questions, resource objectives, and performance targets, and 

recommends CMER program priorities for CMER work plans containing specific research

projects to the Board. In cooperation with CMER, the Policy Committee reports to the Board the 

status of the CMER master project schedule prioritizing CMER research and monitoring projects 

and provides an update of the CMER master project schedule at least every four years.

The Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research Committee (CMER)

The purpose of CMER is to advance the science needed to support adaptive management. For 

the Adaptive Management Program, best available science is considered to be relevant science 

from all credible sources including peer-reviewed government and university research, other 

published studies, and CMER research products. Applicable historic information, privately 

produced technical reports, and unpublished data may have value and are considered as long as 

they can be assessed for accuracy and credibility. CMER is responsible for understanding 

available scientific information that is applicable to the questions at hand, selecting the best and 

most relevant information and synthesizing it into reports for the Policy Committee and the 

Board.

CMER is composed of scientific representatives of TFW participating caucuses who are 

expected to maintain an objective scientific perspective. CMER operates on the basis of 

consensus. Because CMER is charged with producing credible, peer-reviewed technical reports 

based on best available science, participating caucuses are encouraged to nominate research 

scientists with research and publication experience.

The CMER work plan provides a long-term integrated strategy for how CMER supports the 

Adaptive Management Program. The work plan identifies six objectives towards this goal:

1. State critical research and monitoring questions that are pertinent to evaluating rule, 

guidance, and DNR products (i.e., rule tools) effectiveness;

2. Organize these questions into coherent program groupings;

3. Assess feasibility, resource risk, and scientific uncertainty addressed by each program;
47

4. Develop an integrated strategy for accomplishing the work; 

5. Rank programs/projects for implementation; and 

6. Develop budget estimates and timelines.

The Clean Water Act Assurances

Overview

Under Washington State law (Chapters 90.48 RCW & 76.09 RCW) Forest Practices Rules are to 

be developed so as to achieve compliance with the state WQ Standards and the federal Clean 

Water Act (CWA). The Department of Ecology (Ecology) has been designated as the state water 

pollution control agency for all purposes of the CWA, and has been directed to take all action 

necessary to meet the requirements of that Act. The original Clean Water Act assurances (CWA 

assurances) granted by Ecology in 1999 as part of the Forests and Fish Report (FFR) were

reviewed after June 30, 2009. The assurances established that the state’s Forest Practices Rules 

and programs, as updated through a formal adaptive management program, would be used as the 

primary mechanism for bringing and maintaining forested watersheds into compliance with the 

state WQ Standards.

The foundation for granting the CWA assurances was the belief that the Forest Practices Rules 

were a substantial step forward in environmental protection, and when implemented would 

provide the quickest and most efficient means for achieving environmental goals and compliance 

with the state’s WQ Standards. Developing CWA mandated total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) to serve as regulatory water cleanup tools for forested watersheds was therefore 

viewed as a low priority, and the CWA assurances established that Ecology would rely on the 

FFR-based forest practices program for an initial ten-year period. It was assumed in 1999 that 

research and monitoring would occur to demonstrate that implementing the Forest Practices 

Rules would improve water quality and eventually bring forested waters into full compliance 

with the state’s surface WQ Standards and thereby also satisfy the conditions under Section 303 

of the federal CWA. The value of offering formal assurances is that they provide landowners 

and agencies with a predictable and consistent regulatory system; and in doing so provide an 

additional motivation for stakeholders to participate in the adaptive management program.

In July of 2009, Ecology completed a re-examination on progress in meeting the conditions for 

providing the CWA Assurances (2009 Clean Water Act Assurances Review of Washington's 

Forest Practices Program). At that time, Ecology determined the forest practices program had 

not achieved the level of information needed to verify that water quality in the forested 

environment will meet WQ Standards, or to verify that the conditions for offering the assurances 

in 1999 had been satisfied. In spite of these shortcomings, Ecology believed the forest practices 

program still offered a viable and compelling management strategy for achieving water quality 

goals in the forested environment. As such, Ecology concluded that continuation of CWA 

assurances would be warranted if specific actions were taken to improve the program’s 

performance.

Taken in total, the forest practices program provides a substantial framework for bringing the 

Forest Practices Rules and activities into full compliance with the WQ Standards. Ecology 

concluded it remained in the best interests of water quality, and was most consistent with 

legislative intent, to work with the other participants to make needed improvements to the 
48

existing program. Ecology therefore conditionally extended the CWA assurances with the intent 

to stimulate needed improvements to the forest practices and adaptive management programs. 

Ecology, in consultation with key stakeholders, established specific corrective milestones. The 

extension of the assurances remains conditioned on meeting these research and administrative 

milestones by the specific target dates described. These milestones serve as a corrective action 

plan necessary to retain the assurances into the foreseeable future.

The key result of the corrective milestones was to more directly prioritize water quality-based 

operational and science issues and concerns. But even before the assurances review had been 

completed, steps were already being taken to proactively address some of the corrective 

milestones associated with operational issues, compliance monitoring, and assessing progress 

under Road Maintenance, Abandonment, and Planning (RMAP) rules.

Compliance with the corrective milestones is intended to demonstrate sufficient progress to 

satisfy the CWA assurances and the adaptive management provisions of the state WQ Standards

(WAC 173-201A-510(3)). Because extending the assurances was based on meeting the specific 

research and administrative milestones by the specific dates listed, failure to meet any milestone 

would be considered a basis for potentially withdrawing the assurances at that time.

The 2009 corrective milestones included 21 operational or administrative milestones, and phasespecific milestones covering 20 research projects examining prescription effectiveness questions. 

Between 2009 and the 2015 Ecology has made changes in the milestones in response to new 

information, natural disasters, and the global economic recession. While the initial list in 2009 is 

different from that today, neither the number nor the complexity of the milestones has been 

reduced in scale and the priority research remains focused on water quality protection issues. As 

of this time, only a few operational and administrative milestones remain incomplete, and most 

of the priority water quality research is either in field implementation or in the study design 

phase.

Currently the CMER research program invests about 3.2 million dollars per year in examination 

of the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Rules. To be successful in meeting these milestones 

and consequently retaining the CWA assurances, the caucus principals will need to continue to 

work together to ensure continued funding and support for the actions needed to meet the 

specific milestones. Based on ongoing progress and the continued commitment by key 

stakeholders, Ecology fully expects these steps to be successful.

Small Forest Landowners-Alternate Rules

The state legislature enacted special rules for some landowners. Small forest landowners are 

defined as entities that harvest less than 2 million board feet per year on average. The vast 

majority of these small forest landowners own less than 20 contiguous acres. These smaller 

landowners were provided with rules that allow for greater harvests near streams and they are

only required to correct problems on their roads at the time the associated land is harvested. The 

Legislature established the Small Forest Landowner Office to be housed in the Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources to help landowners and to proactively improve environmental 

conditions on their lands through the use of targeted financial, technical, and regulatory 

opportunities, as well as education.
49

Small landowners are provided with limited cost share funding and technical assistance to fix

road crossing fish barriers on their properties, and limited additional appropriations to help 

compensate them for leaving trees along streams to protect water quality and other public 

resources in recognition of the disproportionate impact the Forest Practices Rules when 

established, were estimated to have on small forest landowners.

With the exception of those rules established directly by the legislature, all the programs 

provided to small forest landowners were initially designed with the intention of meeting the 

goals of the federal Clean Water Act and the state WQ Standards, and are scheduled to be tested 

through science based adaptive management. While no programs exist to directly examine the 

effectiveness of the rules established for small forest landowners, research designed to evaluate 

the rules applied to larger landowners will have value in providing feedback to the state 

legislature and the state Forest Practices Board on the effectiveness of the small forest landowner 

rules as well.

Agricultural

Ecology and Agriculture

As detailed elsewhere in this Chapter, Ecology will continue to use its nonpoint source authority 

to address pollution problems on agricultural lands, and to develop additional strategies that 

might help us accomplish the goal of achieving clean water in Washington. As the state water 

quality agency, Ecology will continue to work on better defining what compliance with state 

water quality law means and to provide that feedback to landowners so they can make informed 

decisions.

Dairy Nutrient Management Program-Washington State Department of Agriculture 

(WSDA)

The DNMP currently has 3.5 dedicated staff for inspection activities. DNMP utilizes several 

tools to work with dairy, CAFO permitted livestock, and non-dairy operations including:

• DNMP conducts routine inspections at all dairy and permitted CAFO operations 

approximately every 22 months and a wet-weather inspection every five years to identify 

actual or potential violations of water quality and recordkeeping requirements;

• DNMP conducts focused inspections such as fall and spring lagoon assessment to ensure 

adequate storage is available and being operated and managed appropriately and to 

monitor agronomic applications;

• DNMP partners with other agencies (Ecology, Health, local agencies) to identify and 

correct actual or potential violations from non-dairy livestock operations in watersheds 

with documented water quality issues such as Samish, Portage Bay, and the Lower 

Yakima Valley;

• DNMP has established a compliance pathway to provide clarity for dairy producers and 

encourage compliance with water quality laws through the use of regulatory technical 

assistance, warning letters, notices of correction and, when necessary, civil penalties. 

RCW 43.05 (Technical Assistance) requires WSDA to provide technical assistance 

before issuing a civil penalty for violations.

• DNMP is working with local conservation districts to provide training and tools to help 

producers meet recordkeeping requirements.
50

DNMP is working with state and local agencies to identify gaps in authorities and strategies to 

fill those gaps such as

• Requesting additional funding to provide additional inspections and training to livestock 

producers;

• Evaluate and update WAC 16-611 to include additional recordkeeping requirements to 

ensure land applications of nutrients are not exceeding agronomic needs of crops;

• Evaluating and identifying regulatory gaps in RCW 90.64 to address significant potential 

to pollute issues.

Challenges and Gaps in the Current Program Identified by WSDA

The following are challenges and gaps in the current program identified by WSDA. During the 

term of this plan we will work collaboratively and find opportunities to address these gaps and 

challenges.

Program Requirements-Regulatory agency does not control specific program requirements so 

can’t directly respond to evolving water quality or industry issues.

• Conservation Commission sets minimum elements of dairy plans based on NRCS 

standards.

o Elements not updated since 1998, no requirement to incorporate updated 

standards.

• Conservation Districts approve and certify plans as meeting minimum elements.

• Operators not required to meet plan timelines if district does not have resources.

Enforcement Authority-The state lacks the enforcement authority and penalties for dairies that do 

not get plans updated or properly implement their plans, which limits water quality enforcement 

effectiveness.

• Plan Updates: Dairies have no effective requirement to update a plan when there are 

changes to dairy operations.

 No agency has authority to require the update.

 No penalty is established for failing to update a plan.

• Plan Implementation: Dairies have no requirement to follow an approved and certified 

plan.

 No penalty for failure to follow the plan except for when proper records have not 

been kept to show agronomic applications or discharge occurs (2010 legislation).

 Plan development relies on practice standards that are intended as guidelines, 

subject to interpretation and are updated periodically.

• Water Quality Enforcement: State has limited enforcement authority except where dairy 

actions cause a discharge or create a potential to pollute.

 WSDA can issue a Notice of Correction based on creating a potential to pollute.

 WSDA may issue a penalty if there is a documented discharge to waters of the 

state or (under Chapter 43.05 RCW an NOC may be required for a first-time 

violation).

 WSDA may now issue a penalty if records are not kept to show agronomic 

applications.
51

 Actual over application is not subject to penalty unless a discharge is 

documented.

• Violations/Penalties: The Dairy Nutrient Management Act narrowly defines what a 

violation is and establishes specific penalties for violations.

 Causing a discharge—civil penalty up to $10,000 per day (RCW 90.48.144);

 Failure to obtain an approved and certified initial plan—a civil penalty of $100 

per month past due date (RCW 90.64.030); and

 Records violation added in 2009—penalty established in 2010 for up to $5,000 

per violation and maximum of $5,000 in one year.

On-Site Sewage Systems (OSS) Regulation

There are about 950,000 small on-site sewage systems (OSS) in Washington. Failing on-site 

sewage systems can pose a threat to shellfish resources, impact groundwater, and cause nutrient 

enrichment of receiving waters.

In Washington, on-site sewage systems are regulated by Chapter 246-272A of the Washington 

Administrative Code, “On-site Sewage System.” This rule is adopted by the State Board of 

Health, developed and administered by the state Department of Health, and primarily 

implemented by local health jurisdictions for small systems with flows less than 3,500 gallons 

per day.

The regulations prohibit the discharge of sewage to surface waters and provide a permitting 

system for on-site sewage systems. Conditions for permits and system design requirements are 

set in state and local code, including minimum land area, horizontal setback and other site 

characteristics, soil and treatment standards, and more. Circumstances are described which 

require connection to a public sewer system. On-site sewage system designers must be licensed 

by the state Department of Licensing, and installers and pumpers must be certified by local 

health jurisdictions. Local health jurisdictions are authorized to inspect on-site systems under 

construction as part of the permitting process.

As noted above, local health jurisdictions implement front-line provisions of Chapter 246-272A

WAC and have authority to promulgate more stringent regulations (RCW 70.118.050). 

Enforcement of rules related to onsite sewage systems is authorized in Chapter 70.05 RCW.

The state Department of Health has back-up enforcement authority under RCW 43.0.130, 

“Powers and duties of the Secretary of Health.” The Department of Ecology also has the 

authority to take enforcement action under the Water Pollution Control Act.

To ensure that local programs are consistent with the state rule, the state Department of Health 

must approve local health codes. If a local government does not follow the state rule, the 

Department of Health works with the local health officer and local board of health to bring the 

local code into compliance with the state rule. If necessary, the Secretary of Health may exercise 

enforcement authority if a local health jurisdiction fails to enforce the state public health rules.
52

The Department of Health uses a technical advisory group made up of government and industry 

representatives to provide advice on technical wastewater issues and guidelines governing the 

design and use of public domain and proprietary on-site sewage treatment and distribution 

technologies approved for use in the state.

The state recognizes that proper operation and maintenance of on-site systems is essential to 

ensure they function properly. Chapter 246-272A WAC describes the operation, monitoring, and 

maintenance responsibilities of system owners and the local health jurisdictions. System owners

are responsible for properly operating their systems, periodically evaluating them, and pumping

when necessary to avoid problems and to ensure ongoing performance. The Department of 

Health and local health jurisdictions provide technical support, oversight services, and 

information on proper operation and maintenance (O&M) to homeowners. One example of an 

information source on the Department of health website: 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/WastewaterManagement/OnsiteSewageSys

temsOSS/HomeownerEducation

Local health jurisdictions are responsible for developing and implementing management plans 

describing their methods and financial capacity to educate and remind system owners of their

O&M responsibilities. The state rule and chapter 70.118A RCW on marine recovery areas, 

establishes more rigorous requirements for the 12 Puget Sound counties. The Department of 

Health has produced numerous guidance documents and administers a small amount of state 

grant funding (about $1.2 million biennially) to support implementation of these management 

plans. The local plans and programs are all uniquely designed and implemented, and involve 

such activities as inventorying systems, tracking system status and inspection/maintenance 

activities, facilitating and enforcing work on failures, and educating system owners. Funding for 

the local management programs is limited and uneven. The department is working closely with 

the local health jurisdictions and other interests to establish dedicated sustainable funding for 

these programs.

In implementing the plans, local health jurisdictions generally focus their oversight on more 

complex systems that require regular O&M and in areas where site risks are greatest, such as 

marine recovery areas and other sensitive areas.

To supplement this regulatory framework, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has 

loaned significant money from the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund (SRF) to local 

governments to set up low-interest loan programs to repair or replace failing on-site sewage 

systems. The following is an overview of the funding program:

• Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund loans can be used by counties and cities 

to, in turn, loan money to land owners to repair or replace their failing systems. 

• Centennial Clean Water Program grant funds can help defray some of the operating costs 

and lending risks for these programs. Counties and cities can use the grant funds to cover 

operating costs for the program, provide small grants to property owners, and to establish 

a loan loss reserve account to cover their obligations if a property owner defaults on a 

loan.
53

To capture greater economies of scale, Ecology is working with the Department of Health and 

counties to establish and capitalize a regional scale loan program that would complement or 

potentially replace many county-based loan programs in the state’s coastal counties. Once 

established, this program could scale up to cover additional parts of the state.

Shellfish restoration projects provide an important opportunity to address on-site sewage 

systems. When a shellfish bed is downgraded, the state works with the local government and 

other interests to develop and carry out a restoration strategy, which typically includes work to 

find and fix failing on-site systems. The local jurisdiction must also create a shellfish protection 

district to implement long-term solutions to the problems, including on-site septic measures such 

as inspections, corrections, education, and operation and maintenance. Local watershed plans 

must include nonpoint pollution control strategies for addressing on-site septic systems, which 

can include voluntary, educational and regulatory programs. The good news is that stronger 

local septic management programs are helping to effectively protect shellfish beds and preempt 

reactive work in many areas.

When a TMDL or a ground water study indicates that further restrictions must be placed on onsite systems, Ecology may impose those restrictions.

Additives to and loadings from onsite sewage systems have been addressed by restrictions at the 

retail level:

• Chapter 70.118 RCW prohibits the use of Chemical additives in onsite sewage systems 

unless certified by the state Department of Health

• Chapter 70.95L RCW bans the retail sale of laundry and dishwashing detergents which 

contain 0.5 percent or more phosphorus by weight.

Complementing the management and regulation of small on-site sewage systems, the 

Department of Health directly regulates and permits large on-site sewage systems with flows 

between 3,500 and 100,000 gallons per day. There are approximately 570 LOSS statewide, 

roughly half of which are located in the Puget Sound region. The Department of Health provides 

oversight to approve plans and inspects newly constructed systems, issues and renews permits 

annually for all systems, and tracks annual operation and maintenance reports to monitor system 

performance and operational activities.

Water Quality Permits

Ecology will work to ensure that the nonpoint program is well-integrated with our regulation of 

point source pollution. Specifically, Ecology will focus on connections between the nonpoint 

and TMDL programs, and the regulation of stormwater and confined animal feeding operations. 

State Initiatives

Several important initiatives are underway that our nonpoint program supports. Ecology can 

support these efforts through our TMDL and STI implementation efforts, grant and loan 

programs, technical expertise and research support, and by providing a regulatory backstop. 
54

Governor’s Results Washington

Governor Inslee believes we can do more to ensure a faster, smarter and more accountable state 

government — a government focused on key goals that will help strengthen our economy, 

improve our schools and make Washington an ideal place to live and do business.

By setting clear goals and continually tracking results, the state will be better equipped to engage 

its employees, partners and the public in building a healthier, better-educated and more 

prosperous Washington. Indeed, the Governor is delivering on his inaugural address promise that 

“We will provide efficiency, effectiveness and transparency.”

In 2014 the state launched Results Washington, a new system combining the best aspects of 

Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) with a significantly 

expanded Lean initiative that involves all state agencies. Results Washington will use the latest 

technology to routinely gather, review and display performance data which will make it easier 

for citizens to see for themselves how well state government and its many partners are delivering 

services and meeting key performance goals.

The Results Washington Measure that most clearly aligns with the objectives of the NPS plan is 

under the category of Healthy Fish and Wildlife. Under this category the state has committed to 

the following:

2.1 Increase improved shellfish classification acreage in Puget Sound from net increase of 3,038 

acres from 2007-13 to net increase of 8,614 acres by 2016.

2.1.a. Increase percentage of inspections that are current for on-site sewage systems in marine 

recovery areas and other specially designated areas from 37% to 50% by 2016.

2.1.b. Increase the number of implemented agricultural BMPs to improve water quality in 

shellfish areas in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Pacific counties from 345 in 2008 to 750 by 

2016.

More information on Results Washington can be found at: 

http://www.results.wa.gov/

Washington Shellfish Initiative

The Washington Shellfish Initiative is an agreement among federal and state governments, tribes 

and the shellfish industry to restore and expand Washington’s shellfish resources to promote 

clean-water industries and create family-wage jobs.

To restore and expand shellfish resources, Washington must renew its protection, restoration and 

enhancement efforts. These efforts will pay off in increased recreation, additional clean water 

jobs, and a healthier Puget Sound and coastal marine waters. The Puget Sound Partnership has 

targeted a net increase from 2007 to 2020 of 10,800 harvestable shellfish acres, which includes 

7,000 acres where harvest is currently prohibited in Puget Sound.

Shellfish Initiative: 

1. Create a Public/Private Partnership for Shellfish Aquaculture 
55

2. Promote Native Shellfish Restoration and Recreational Shellfish Harvest 

3. Ensure Clean Water to Protect and Enhance Shellfish Beds 

More information on the Washington Shellfish Initiative can be found at:

http://www.psp.wa.gov/shellfish.php

Puget Sound Action Agenda

The Puget Sound Action Agenda is a shared regional road-map for prioritizing Puget Sound 

recovery and protection actions to ensure resources are invested effectively and efficiently. The 

2014/2015 Action Agenda70 identifies key ongoing programs, local priorities for different areas 

of Puget Sound (which participate through Local Integrating Organizations (“LIOs”)) and 290 

specific actions, intended to be implemented over a two-year period. These actions advance the 

region’s efforts towards shared recovery targets. Approximately half these actions are regional in 

scope; the other half are locally developed and focused. Each of nine existing LIOs developed 

and contributed these actions, demonstrating significant local commitment to this recovery 

effort.

The 2014/15 Puget Sound Action Agenda addresses nonpoint source pollution at multiple levels 

in the document (strategies, sub-strategies, actions and targets) and by addressing a number of 

relevant topics such as stormwater runoff, on-site sewage system runoff, runoff from timber 

harvest, and agricultural runoff. There are targets ranging from reducing specific types of 

nonpoint pollution (e.g., from on-site sewage systems) to protecting natural resources and local 

economies by reducing resulting harms from nonpoint pollution. For more information about the 

targets (the “Vital Signs”) see: http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/index.php.

The current Action Agenda emphasizes three areas of priority, referred to as the Strategic 

Initiatives, as follows: 

1. Prevent pollution from urban stormwater runoff. Polluted runoff from roads, roofs, parking 

lots, and other paved areas is the biggest threat to Puget Sound’s water quality. Although 

many tools and technologies exist for reducing stormwater pollution, much broader use of 

them needs to be made for the scale of impact that is necessary for Puget Sound.

2. Protect and restore habitat. The rate of habitat destruction still outpaces recovery efforts; a 

fact that must be reversed. Restoring damaged shorelines and protecting salmon habitat 

along the many rivers and streams that flow into Puget Sound is necessary to save salmon (as 

a keystone species) and honor tribal treaty rights.

3. Restore and re-open shellfish beds. Shellfish harvesting is a major Puget Sound industry, and 

a tribal treaty right. Both are threatened by pollution that has closed more than 7,000 acres of 

Puget Sound beaches. Shellfish health begins on land, through reduction of pollution from 

rural and agricultural lands and maintenance and repair of failing septic tanks. 

State statute requires an update of the Action Agenda every two years. Accordingly, the Puget 

Sound Partnership will be conducting an update in the course of this year, working closely with 

all partners, including state and federal agencies, the LIOs, and the tribes.

 70 http://www.psp.wa.gov/2014_action_agenda_download.php
56

No Discharge Zone Designation-Puget Sound

A No Discharge Zone (NDZ) is a designated body of water where the discharge of sewage 

(blackwater/toilet waste) from boats, whether treated or not, is prohibited. There are currently 90 

NDZs in 26 states. Washington State has no designated NDZs. Consistent with the plan to 

restore Puget Sound, Ecology is considering a NDZ for all or parts of Puget Sound. 

A state can petition EPA for NDZ status under the Clean Water Act under three approaches: 1) 

the water body requires greater protection and has adequate pumpout facilities; 2) protection and 

enhancement of a water body requires establishment of a NDZ – do not have to show pumpout 

capacity; or 3) there is a drinking water intake. In order to assure feasibility of a NDZ, Ecology is 

verifying that adequate pumpout facilities exist.

Over the last three years Ecology has been conducting a detailed evaluation process which has 

included gathering data on Puget Sound vessels, pumpout facilities, the conditions of Puget 

Sound, marine sanitary device performance, boater surveys, research on other states with NDZs, 

an evaluation of implementation, and outreach to stakeholders. Ecology sent out a draft petition 

for public comment in 2014 and received more than 26,000 public comments e-mails or letters, 

with the vast majority supporting the draft petition, and provided a response to comments.

In response to comments, Ecology is now:

• Continuing to meet with stakeholders on concerns.

• Working on adding additional pumpout facilities for certain commercial vessels.

• Conducting an analysis of water and pollution movement in areas of Puget Sound.

• Conducting an analysis of cost impacts to certain commercial vessels.

A potential final petition to EPA will be submitted, at the earliest, in the fall of 2015.

When Ecology submits a final petition to EPA, EPA reviews it and if it is accepted, it will be 

published in the Federal Register for formal comment prior to a final determination by EPA.

More information on this topic can be found at:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/CleanBoating/nodischargezone.html

Ocean Acidification/Marine Resources Advisory Council

The 2013 Legislature enacted Engrossed Senate Bill 5603 Section 4 creating the Washington 

Marine Resources Advisory Council, within the Office of the Governor. The Marine Resources 

Advisory Council’s membership includes legislative, executive, and elected officials, 

nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. Representatives from academic 

institutions and federal agencies have been invited by the Governor to participate.

The Marine Resources Advisory Council has the following powers and duties:

1. To maintain a sustainable coordinated focus on ocean acidification; 

2. To advise and work with the Washington Ocean Acidification Center on the effects and 

sources of ocean acidification; 

3. To deliver recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on ocean acidification; 
57

4. To seek public and private funding resources to support the Advisory Council’s 

recommendations; and 

5. To assist in conducting public education activities regarding ocean acidification. 

The Marine Resources Advisory Council will be informed by the extensive work of the 

Washington Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification. The Council has identified reducing 

local land-based contributions to ocean acidification as one of its key areas for early action. 

Specifically, their strategy looks to implement effective nutrient reduction programs in locations 

where these pollutants are causing or contributing to multiple water quality problems. 

More information can be found at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oceanacidification.html

Salmon Recovery in Washington 

To recover salmon, Washington is trying to protect the wild salmon that remain and help them 

increase their numbers by restoring where they live.

The network of individuals dedicated to restoring salmon starts with people in communities and 

includes watershed groups, regional organizations, state and federal agencies, city and county 

governments, tribes, conservation districts, nonprofit groups, as well as the legislature, Governor, 

and Congress.

Regional Organizations-To coordinate the work of recovery planning and implementation, seven 

regional organizations formed, and recovery plans in each of those regions have been accepted 

by the federal government and are being implemented.

Lead Entities-Lead entities are watershed based organizations authorized by the Legislature in 

1998 (Revised Code of Washington 77.85.050 - 77.85.070) to develop habitat restoration and 

protection strategies, and look for projects to meet those strategies. 

Project Applicants-Project applicants develop habitat restoration and protection projects based 

on regional recovery plans or strategies developed by lead entities. Project applicants typically 

are regional fisheries enhancement groups, local governments, tribes, state agencies, community 

groups, land trusts, and others. They apply for grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board 

and others to pay for projects to protect or restore salmon and bull trout habitat.

More information on Salmon Recovery in Washington can be found at:

http://www.rco.wa.gov/salmon_recovery/index.shtml

and

http://www.stateofsalmon.wa.gov/ 
58

Chemical Action Plan (CAP) Development

Toxic chemicals pollute stormwater, streams and lakes in Washington. Exposure to these 

chemicals affects people’s health and the health of the environment. Ecology will continue to 

use our TMDL and STI approaches to address impairments caused by toxics. In addition, 

Ecology will look for additional tools outside the clean water act to address toxics. For example, 

we will continue to support the development of chemical action plans. 

A CAP is a comprehensive plan to identify, characterize and evaluate all uses and releases of a 

specific persistent, bioaccumulative toxic (PBT), a group of PBTs or metals of concern. A CAP 

is a plan, not legislation or a rule. It recommends actions to protect human health and the 

environment. Some of the recommendations may lead to new legislation or rules. These would 

go through the normal legislative or rulemaking process. 

The CAPs can serve as a list of Best Management Practices for our TMDLs in identifying 

actions to get particular toxic out of the water.

The PBT Initiative focuses on one toxic substance at a time. Ecology develops each CAP in 

collaboration with other agencies and experts representing various business, agricultural and 

advocacy sectors.

More information can be found at:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/pbt/caps.html
59

Chapter 4: Water Quality Partnerships 

Working with Local, State, Tribal and Federal 

Agencies

It is important that Ecology’s NPS Program take a lead role in coordinating interagency efforts 

related to this NPS Plan. It is the responsibility of the NPS Program to reach out to its partner 

organizations, support them in their efforts related to NPS pollution, and coordinate with them to 

ensure that mutual goals are met.

Developing and strengthening partnerships is a continuous process. Efforts to address nonpoint 

source pollution are the most effective when local partners are engaged in getting 

implementation on the ground. Further, the scope of the nonpoint source pollution issue and the 

effect it has on NPDES permittees in the state necessitates multiple agencies and entities working 

to address pollution problems.

Ecology works collaboratively with key local and state entities to coordinate the implementation 

of NPS control measures in high priority watersheds. While recognizing the importance of 

statewide coordination, Ecology also emphasizes the need to coordinate with partners at the local 

level. Regional offices lead local coordination efforts through multiple avenues.

Statewide Coordination

State Advisory groups that Ecology uses to coordinate with stakeholders: 

• Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee; 

• Water Quality Partnership; and

• Water Quality Financial Assistance Council.

Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee

In 2014, Ecology Director Maia Bellon created the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory 

Committee. The committee includes a broad array of agricultural interests. The goal of the 

committee is to improve working relationships, and ensure both water quality protection and a 

healthy agricultural industry.

The committee discusses issues and provides advice and guidance associated with the work 

Ecology does to prevent agricultural pollution, including issues related to the implementation of 

our nonpoint program. The purpose is to provide an open forum for produces and stakeholders to 

meet our staff, learn about our work and provide guidance as we tackle the challenge of ensuring 

water quality protection and a healthy agricultural community.

The Committee meets quarterly, and alternates meeting locations between the west and east sides 

of the state. The public can attend the meetings. More information on the committee, previous 

meetings, and future meetings can be found at:
60

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/Agriculture/AgWQACmtg.html

Representation-Invitations were sent to the following organizations:

Producers

• Cattle Producers of Washington;

• Hop Growers of Washington;

• Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association;

• Pacific NW Direct Seed Association;

• Poultry Growers Association;

• Washington Association of Conservation Districts;

• Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers;

• Washington Cattleman’s Association;

• Washington Cattle Feeders Association;

• Washington Hay Growers Association;

• Washington State Dairy Federation;

• Washington State Farm Bureau;

• Washington State Water Resources Association;

• Washington Horticulture Association;

• Washington Tilth Producers;

• Washington Potato Commission; and

• Washington Wheat Growers.

Environmental Organizations

• Center for Environmental Law & Policy;

• Puget Sound Waterkeepers;

• The Nature Conservancy; and

• Washington Environmental Council.

Tribal

• Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; and

• Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

Water Quality Partnership

The Water Quality Partnership is the standing stakeholder group for the Department of Ecology's 

Water Quality Program. The goal of the Water Quality Partnership is to:

• Help the Water Quality Program maintain a dialogue with key interests about our work. 

• Give key interests regular access to decision makers in the Water Quality Program. 

The Water Quality Partnership meets quarterly at the Ecology headquarters building. 

Stakeholders that attend the Water Quality Partnership meetings include representatives from 

agricultural producer groups, tribes, environmental groups, state and federal agencies, 

businesses, and local government.
61

Financial Assistance Council

The Water Quality Financial Assistance Council provides Ecology with advice and guidance for 

the effective and efficient administration of its state and federal grant and loan programs. The 

council is not mandated in state law but was formed by Ecology to help ensure that the process 

of administering state and federal grants and loans is transparent and is supported by Ecology’s 

clients and stakeholders. The Council is comprised of representatives from cities, counties, 

tribes, conservation districts, special purpose districts, environmental groups, and state and 

federal agencies.

Landowners, Businesses, and Agricultural Producers

Private landowners in both urban and rural areas, business owners, and agricultural producers are 

the most important partners in protecting water quality. Ultimately, they are the ones responsible 

for implementing BMPs that address nonpoint sources of pollution. Garnering their support and 

participation provides one of the best ways to make direct changes to protect water quality in the 

watersheds where they live. Ecology will continue to look for ways to better communicate and 

partner directly with landowners, businesses and producers.

Agricultural Producer Groups

Based on feedback from the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee, Ecology is 

committed to better utilizing and engaging producer groups as partners in conducting education 

and outreach in watersheds where we are working to address nonpoint pollution problems. 

Producer groups can help provide a more direct line to producers, and their forums (conventions, 

newsletters, and meetings) to communicate our nonpoint goals and strategies.

Grant Recipients

One of our primary strategies to implement the NPS program is our grant program. Our grant 

recipients are the on-the-ground organizations that implement BMPs, provide technical 

assistance, and work with landowners and producers to address pollution problems. One of 

Washington’s strengths is the wide range of recipients that have received grants. Past recipients 

have included conservation districts, salmon enhancement groups, tribes, cities, counties, health 

districts, environmental groups, land conservancies, reclamation districts, universities, and 

groups supporting specific watersheds.

Local Governments

The three basic forms of local government in Washington are:

• Counties

• Cities

• Special purpose districts
62

The 39 counties of Washington were established by acts of the legislature, and are considered 

subdivisions of state government. Basically, the county was designed to serve as an 

administrative unit of the state in rural areas. The same holds true for cities and special purpose 

districts. As subdivisions of state government, all three are called upon to implement state 

legislative mandates.

Prior to 1960, several types of districts were formed to deal with an array of issues, which 

sometimes include environmental protection:

• Conservation districts

• Health districts

• Water districts

• Sewer districts

• Public utility districts

• Weed control districts

Since 1960, many new types of special purpose districts have been authorized by the legislature, 

especially with regard to environmental protection. These environmentally-oriented districts 

include:

• Groundwater protection districts

• Lake protection districts

• Shellfish protection districts

• Solid waste management districts

• Stormwater utility districts

Many state laws are implemented by local governments, with state agencies in an oversight 

and/or support role. With regard to the environment, local governments and special districts have 

primary authority or major implementation efforts in:

• Solid waste management.

• Growth management and land use.

• Stream restoration and rehabilitation.

• Sewage systems, both on- and off-site.

• Road construction and maintenance.

• Shorelands management.

• Stormwater management.

• Drinking water protection.

• Used oil and household toxics.

• Irrigation water and return flows.

Local governments and special purpose districts are the on-the-ground implementers of many 

nonpoint pollution control activities. Ecology relies heavily on the continued commitment of 

energy and resources by these entities. Many current and planned actions in this plan are 

designed to assist them with their implementation efforts to prevent nonpoint pollution and meet 

the WQ Standards. Additionally, local governments can often play an important role in

monitoring and correcting nonpoint source pollution. Ecology is committed to assisting local 

governments with monitoring and enforcement.
63

State agencies can also assist with financial assistance to local governments through the various 

funding programs they administer. Ecology supports the goals of the nonpoint program by 

funding local projects and programs designed to achieve the WQ Standards and support the 

implementation of watershed based plans.

Conservation Districts

Conservation districts are non-regulatory governmental entities. They are providers of technical 

assistance primarily to agricultural producers. Each of Washington’s 39 counties has at least one 

conservation district.

Districts offer a range of voluntary services including assistance with: erosion control, habitat 

restoration, manure management, wildfire prevention/mitigation, stormwater management, forest 

plans, irrigation efficiency, noxious weed control, fish barrier removals, livestock stream 

crossings, and more.

Beyond grant programs, districts are a key partner in the delivery of technical and financial 

assistance to private landowners and producers. Further, districts play a critical role in 

landowner and producer outreach and engagement, and help create support for water quality 

goals in their communities.

Many districts are active participants in the development and implementation of TMDLs. 

Districts represent one of the major recipients of federal 319 grant funds, and many conduct 

monitoring projects to determine effectiveness of completed projects.

Through grants and other opportunities, Ecology partners with districts working on soil erosion, 

stream protection and restoration, and livestock projects. In addition, Ecology supports districts 

working on direct seed projects and the Farmed Smart certification program, along with other 

efforts that support the implementation of the goals of the NPS plan. Some districts have also 

expanded their services to include implementing stormwater BMPs and Ecology sees this as an 

emerging opportunity. Ecology will continue to look for the right opportunities to partner on 

stormwater projects, low impact development, and green infrastructure strategies/initiatives.

Districts are a key partner in our watershed evaluation process. Districts have helped with 

education and outreach efforts, partnered on site visits, and have been a primary resource for 

technical and financial assistance. Ecology will continue to partner with districts during 

watershed evaluations, and look to tailor how we work with individual districts to meet their 

local needs. Across all districts we will work on increasing communication around what we are 

seeing and about the best fixes to assist districts in being able to better serve landowners.

Finally, Ecology will work to respond to feedback from districts that highlighted the need for 

Ecology to be clear about the BMPs needed to protect water quality. With that guidance they

can reduce risk for the landowners they work with. Additionally, they expressed their desire to 

provide flexibility and recognize that there can be multiple ways of achieving equivalent water 

quality results. We will also work to respond to feedback that our strategies and programs need 

to be cost effective and balance environmental goals, available funding, cost benefits, return on 

investment, and landowner participation.
64

Local Health Departments and Districts

Washington has 31 county health departments, three multi-county health districts and two citycounty health departments. We refer to them as local health jurisdictions. They are local 

government agencies that carry out a wide variety of programs to promote health, help prevent 

disease and build healthy communities. Related to nonpoint source pollution, they regulate onsite sewage systems (see Chapter 3), and can fill key roles in PIC programs.

Interagency Project Team

The Interagency Project Team (Team) consists of staff from the surface water departments of 

Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and Thurston counties and staff from the Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The Team formed to improve implementation of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) and total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs in 

Washington State. They developed a report and set of recommendations which they sent to 

Ecology in 2014. The recommendations focused on improving the Water Quality Assessment 

and Total Maximum Daily Load Programs in Washington State, inclusive of the nonpoint 

program. Their recommendations related to nonpoint pollution included:

• Recommendation 2: Implement existing regulatory authority related to unpermitted and 

nonpoint sources— Utilize existing legal authority (WAC 173-201-510 and RCW 

90.48.080) to control unpermitted and nonpoint sources and ensure that LAs and WLAs 

are equitable. 

• Recommendation 9: Develop consistent TMDL implementation expectations— TMDL 

development method(s) must include consistent implementation expectations. Specific 

recommendations include:

o Develop standardized best management practice (BMP) performance measures 

(programmatic and structural) to use in defining wasteload allocations and 

implementation efforts.

o Develop TMDLs that allow flexibility via adaptive management.

o Implement TMDLs in a manner that ensures proportional distribution of WLAs or 

LAs to all major contributing sources.

o Finalize framework for water quality trading and offsets.

Washington Tribes

Washington is home to 29 federally recognized and seven non-federally recognized Native 

American tribes.71 Traditional fishing areas for tribes encompass essentially all of Washington.

Tribal representatives participate in the development and implementation of TMDLs, and are 

also recipients of federal 319 grant funds. They provide technical expertise on natural resource 

issues and are an important partner in implementing the state’s nonpoint program.

 71 Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, 2015. March 2015 access to web link: Tribal Map at the 

following link: http://www.goia.wa.gov/tribal_gov/documents/WAStateTribalMap.pdf and 

Governors Office of Indian Affairs at: http://www.goia.wa.gov/. 

Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. 1999. Summary Statewide Strategy to Recovery
65

Tribal resources, including shellfish and salmonids, continue to be negatively impacted by 

nonpoint source pollution. Many rivers and streams in the state exceed temperature standards. 

High water temperatures threaten the health and survival of salmon. Likewise, nonpoint source 

pollution in the form of sediment and nutrient inputs threaten the health and survival of salmon. 

Pathogen pollution from a variety of nonpoint sources, including on-site sewage systems, farm 

animals, pets, sewage from boats and stormwater runoff can cause shellfish bed closures.

Ecology recognizes the importance of salmon and shellfish resources to the tribes and will utilize 

the following regulations, policies and guidance to implement the NPS plan:

• The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)

• Clear guidance related to best management practices (BMPs) necessary for all nonpoint 

sources to achieve compliance with all WQ Standards. 

• Enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the WQ Standards.

• Transparency and accountability for collecting sufficient implementation data to 

determine whether programs are achieving compliance with WQ Standards. 

• Ecology will work collaboratively to address improper manure management and 

application. At a minimum we will look to work on the following issues:

o Need for manure sources to be analyzed for nutrient content prior to application, 

and include an accurate accounting of N-P-K rates;

o Manure application timing that optimizes nutrient uptake by plants and eliminates

runoff or leaching;

o Manure application occurring in the right location, including adequate setbacks 

from surface waters, drainage and other locations that are likely to result in 

transport away from the root zone;

o Manure being applied in correct amounts, i.e., agronomic rates, such that the 

nutrients applied will be utilized by target crops, and excess nutrients will not 

accumulate in or on soils and be subject to runoff or leaching;

o Manure storage and location and the potential for leaching to groundwater via 

unlined lagoons, overtopping due to insufficient storage capacity, or subject to 

breaches and leaks.

• Implementation of temperature standards and addressing thermal loading.

• Address hydromodification issues include the following sources: agricultural ditching, 

dredging and maintenance of degraded streamside and instream conditions; transportation 

projects, stream crossings, and culverts; flood control projects; and land development.

• Sediment loading issues.

• Water quality and water withdrawal issues and their nexus with water quality.

• The need for a consistent outreach program that can uniformly convey to the public the 

practices needed to achieve compliance with the WQ Standards. 

State Agencies

State agencies play a key role in implementing authorities that can help in preventing and 

controlling nonpoint source pollution. No single state agency has all the tools to solve nonpoint 

source pollution problems. The state natural resource agencies outlined below have some type of 

program or resources that can support the implementation of the NPS plan. The primary 
66

authorities of state agencies are outlined in Chapter 2. Ecology recognizes the need to share 

resources, coordinate efforts and programs, and send consistent messages on what is needed to 

meet WQ Standards and the goals of the NPS plan.

State agencies include:

• Washington State Department of Health (DOH) – The mission of the DOH is to protect 

and improve the health of people in Washington State. Its programs and services help 

prevent illness and injury, promote healthy places to live and work, provide education to 

help people make good health decisions and ensure the state is prepared for emergencies. 

DOH and local health districts regulate on-site sewage systems.

• Puget Sound Partnership (PSP)—PSP serves as the backbone agency for Puget Sound 

recovery. The PSP coordinates the efforts of tribes, scientists, businesses, and non-profit 

groups to set priorities, implement a regional recovery plan, and ensure accountability for 

results.

• Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)—RCO is a state agency 

that manages grant programs to create outdoor recreation opportunities, protect the best 

of the state's wildlife habitat and farmland, and help return salmon from near extinction. 

The Salmon Recovery Fund managed by RCO provides financial assistance to a wide 

variety of projects that address nonpoint sources of pollution.

• Washington State Conservation Commission (WSCC)—The WSCC is the coordinating 

state agency for all 45 conservation districts in Washington State. Together, the WSCC 

and conservation districts provide incentive-based programs that make it easier and more 

affordable for private landowners to implement conservation on their property.

• Washington State Department of Agriculture— (WSDA) is headquartered in Olympia, 

with employees in every county in the state. Their staff carries out a broad spectrum of 

activities that support the producers, distributors, and consumers of Washington's food 

and agricultural products. WSDA manages the Dairy Nutrient Management program.

• Washington State Department of Natural Resources—In partnership with citizens and 

governments, the Washington State DNR provides innovative leadership and expertise to 

ensure environmental protection, public safety, perpetual funding for schools and 

communities, and a rich quality of life. DNR is the primary implementer of the state 

Forest Practices Rules.

• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife—The mission of WDFW is to 

preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable 

fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.

• Washington State Department of Commerce--Grow and improve jobs in Washington 

State by championing thriving communities, a prosperous economy, and sustainable 

infrastructure. Commerce oversees the state Growth Management Act.

• Washington State University—WSU Extension is the front door to the University. 

Extension builds the capacity of individual, organization, businesses and communities, 

empowering them to find solutions for local issues and to improve their quality of life. 

The WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center is the home of the Stormwater 

Center, which serves as a clearinghouse for stormwater technology, information, and 

permittee assistance.

• Washington State Department of Transportation--The Washington State Department of 

Transportation is the steward of a multimodal transportation system and responsible for 
67

ensuring that people and goods move safely and efficiently. Many of the roads, highways 

and bridges managed by DOT are covered by stormwater permits. 

• Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission—The Washington State Parks and 

Recreation Commission cares for Washington's most treasured lands, waters, and historic 

places. State parks connect all Washingtonians to their diverse natural and cultural 

heritage and provide memorable recreational and educational experiences that enhance 

their lives. 

• University of Washington SeaGrant—Washington Sea Grant (WSG) identifies, 

addresses, and funds important marine issues, shares its expertise with coastal businesses 

and communities, provides tools for the management of ocean and coastal resources, and 

engages the public in protecting and sustainably using those resources.

Federal Agencies

There are many federal agencies in Washington that operate with different mandates and 

responsibilities. This is in large part due to the diversity and complexity of Washington's natural 

environment.

For example, the strategic location of the Puget Sound region makes it an ideal home for several 

military installations such as Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bangor 

submarine base, and Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. The Puget Sound region is surrounded 

by USFS lands and the Olympic National Park.

The Palouse region of eastern Washington is the home of some of the most productive 

nonirrigated agricultural lands found anywhere in the United States. These lands are in close 

proximity to the Snake River and Columbia River. Interested federal agencies are the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), The Bureau of 

Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and the Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE).

The Yakima Valley is another good example of federal agency presence. Not only are NRCS 

and FSA actively engaged with agricultural activities, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the 

Corps of Engineers, and the Bonneville Power Administration all have responsible roles and 

mandates. In addition, the US Army's Yakima Firing Range is one of the largest military bases 

in the United States.

These are a few examples of the roles federal agencies play in using and managing land in the 

state. Federal agencies are the second largest group of landowners in the state (next to private 

individuals), and a major source of funding for cost share and restoration efforts.

If Ecology identifies federal lands and activities that are not managed consistently with state 

nonpoint program objectives, we will work with EPA and those federal agencies to resolve 

issues at the federal agency level.

List of Federal Agencies and Responsibilities

Many federal agencies in Washington either contribute to nonpoint source pollution, or help 

control nonpoint source pollution through their water quality programs – or both.
68

• Army Corps of Engineers - COE is responsible for maintenance of harbors and 

navigable waterways and wetlands management. COE operates and maintains many 

large dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

• Bonneville Power Administration- BPA controls numerous dams along the Columbia 

and Snake Rivers.

• Bureau of Land Management - BLM has relatively small holdings within the state on 

which grazing activities occur.

• Bureau of Reclamation - BOR owns and manages hundreds of miles of irrigation 

canals in eastern Washington, and some hydroelectric dams.

• Department of Energy - DOE manages the Hanford Reservation.

• Department of Defense - DOD has several bases in Washington, due to the strategic 

location of the state and its access to the Pacific Rim.

• Environmental Protection Agency administers the Clean Water Act.

• Federal Highway Administration - FHA has hundreds of miles of highways in 

Washington.

• Fish and Wildlife Service - FWS is responsible for habitat conditions related to the 

health and well-being of fish and wildlife. FWS works to protect ESA-listed resident 

fish such as bull trout and cutthroat trout.

• U. S. Geological Survey - USGS routinely monitors both surface and ground water 

through its National Water Quality Assessment Program.

• Natural Resource Conservation Service - NRCS provides financial and technical 

assistance to landowners in developing and implementing conservation practices.

• National Park Service - owns thousands of acres of parkland, including Mount 

Rainer National Park, Olympic National Park, and North Cascades National Park.

• NOAA Fisheries - NMFS oversees the status of endangered fish species.

• US Forest Service - USFS has large holdings in the state.

Federal Lands-Forestry

Federal agencies are required to conduct their activities so as to be at least as protective as the 

complementary state programs. Thus in Washington, federal agencies must design their 

programs in a manner that will comply with the state WQ Standards. They need not use the 

same forestry prescriptions as those required by the state Forest Practices Rules, but the results 

need to achieve the same regulatory objective of meeting the state WQ Standards. Ecology will 

continue to work with federal agencies to ensure their actions are designed to be as protective as 

what is required by state rules, and that they comply with the WQ Standards.

Although there are numerous federal agencies that affect forest management in Washington, it is 

primarily the USDA Forest Service that affects water quality attainment through forest 

management activities.

United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service

Ecology entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the USDA Forest Service, 

Region 6 in 2000. The purpose of the MOA was to clarify roles and Ecology’s expectations that 
69

the forest Service would achieve compliance with state WQ Standards. The MOA contained a 

specific requirement that roads on Forest Service lands would be brought up to current state 

standards by 2015. Approximately five years into the MOA, the Forest Service announced that it 

would not be able to comply with the road requirement.

There are 22,000 miles of USDA Forest Service roads in Washington. Deteriorating, 

unmaintained and poorly located forest roads add sediment-laden runoff into streams, changing 

stream flow dynamics and harming dwindling runs of threatened and endangered salmon that 

need cold, clear water to thrive and reproduce. Sediment decreases drinking water quality and 

increases the need for expensive community water filtration systems. Two-thirds of the runoff 

from problem roads drains into an already ailing Puget Sound. Unlike private and state forests, 

there is no program designed to aggressively identify and correct road problems on federal forest 

lands. The Forest Service identifies and addresses road problems as funds permit, but the work 

being accomplished has not kept pace considering the large scale of the problem.

Other Federal Landowners

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (only about 

10,000 acres) are the two federal agencies besides the USDA Forest Service with noteworthy 

presence in Washington’s forested watersheds. Similar to the USDA Forest Service, the BLM 

may establish roads and harvest timber so long as the prescriptions applied result in compliance 

with the state WQ Standards.

The BPA primarily harvests timber within and adjacent to power transmission line rights of way. 

BPA rights of way situated adjacent to streams are often targeted for heavy use by recreational 

off road vehicle users. This can result in significant localized damage to stream beds and 

excessive sedimentation. The responsibility of federal agencies to manage their lands in 

compliance with state regulations is unfortunately not always matched with the necessary 

commitment of resources to accomplish that objective. Ecology currently has no written 

agreement with either of these agencies on managing their lands for water quality.
70

This page is purposely left blank
71

Chapter 5: Financial Incentive Programs

Both state and federal funding programs are available to landowners, businesses and agricultural 

producers which can support the goals of the nonpoint program. Ecology will work with 

partners to coordinate funding, and promote consistency with the goals of the state NPS plan. 

Additionally, Ecology will work to coordinate the collection of consistent and detailed 

implementation data to better understand the effectiveness of financial incentive programs.

Coordinated Investment

Ecology will look to support coordinated investment strategies that help meet the goals of the 

NPS plan. Specifically, Ecology will look to support coordinated investments that target projects 

that implement TDMLs and STIs, while also solving multiple environmental problems in a more 

efficient way. Where possible we will work to leverage multiple sources of funding and fund 

projects that meet water quality, salmon and shellfish goals. Further, we will look to support 

efforts that include multiple parcels in a watershed and maximize opportunities to secure 

continuous BMP implementation over longer stretches of streams and rivers.

Key Coordinated Investment Principles Include:

• Focusing on the implementation of BMPs and projects that ensure compliance with state 

WQ Standards at the parcel level. 

• Supporting projects communicating clear standards and compliance expectations.

• Supporting the implementation of TMDLs and STIs.

• Supporting projects that provide multiple environmental benefits—water quality, salmon 

and shellfish goals.

• Focusing on outcomes and accountability through collecting specific BMP 

implementation data.

• Maximizing opportunities to secure continuous BMP implementation over longer 

stretches of streams and rivers.

In March 2015, Ecology formalized creation of a Coordinated Strategic Investment Group made 

up of Ecology managers. The purpose of the group is to coordinate agency investments that 

support salmon recovery, habitat restoration, and toxics cleanup. The idea is that the agency can 

use funds from different sources to create integrated investment packages that will advance 

watershed-based ecosystem improvement and recovery.

Financial Assistance Sources

Here is a summary of key sources of financial assistance available in Washington State:

Ecology Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Program

Department of Ecology runs an annual competitive water quality funding cycle program that 

includes funding from the state Centennial Clean Water program, federal Section 319 nonpoint 

grant program, /State Revolving Fund loan program, and the state Stormwater Financial 

Assistance grant program. Centennial Grants are state funds that provide grants for water quality 

infrastructure and nonpoint source pollution projects. Eligible nonpoint projects include: 
72

livestock fencing, off-stream water development, stream crossings, riparian plantings, and 

subsidization of on-site sewage repair and replacement local loan programs. There is also 

limited funding available for education and outreach.

In addition, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides Section 319 grant 

funds to Washington State. The Section 319 program offers funds for nonpoint source pollution 

control projects similar to the state Centennial program. These two funding sources are 

combined with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program and stormwater grant 

program into a single combined financial assistance funding cycle. The Revolving Fund loan 

program can also fund nonpoint source projects. The Stormwater Financial Assistance Program 

provides funds to reduce impacts of non-point source stormwater runoff from existing 

development. Projects may integrate green infrastructure solutions.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

CREP provides funding to farmers and ranchers to help protect stream corridors and conserve 

priority salmon stocks. Landowners enroll land located along water bodies to create buffer 

zones. These buffers are planted with native trees and shrubs to cool stream temperatures and 

filter polluted run-off. Participants are reimbursed for 100% of the costs to establish the buffer. 

They also receive an annual rental payment per acre enrolled based on NRCS soil rental rates. 

CREP is funded by the USDA Farm Service Agency and the State of Washington. The state 

portion is managed by the Conservation Commission.

Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (Continuous CRP)

The Continuous-CRP program is similar to CREP. It provides cost-share to producers to 

implement riparian buffers on agricultural land. Continuous CRP program pays 90% cost-share 

for fencing, livestock water, and tree planting, and has a rental payment per acre over the 10-15 

year contract. The main difference between CREP and Continuous CRP is that CREP is 

primarily available on streams where threatened runs of salmon or steelhead are currently present 

or part of their historic range.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

BPA funds salmon recovery projects. The funding is appropriated through a process developed 

by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWCC). Over 60 subbasins exist within the 

Columbia basin and each has developed a subbasin plan to help guide salmon recovery and 

wildlife habitat protection. Millions of dollars are made available every year to address priority 

projects throughout the Columbia Basin.

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is designed to promote agricultural 

production, forest management, and environmental quality. Through EQIP, NRCS provides 

financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and air quality, 

wildlife habitat, surface and groundwater conservation, energy conservation, and related natural 

resource concerns. The program requires the development of lists showing practices eligible for 

payment, allowed payment rates, criteria used to rank applications, and a description of the 

program and the application process. This is a locally driven process where ‘local work groups’ 

made up of local governments, agencies, and agricultural producers identify specific annual 

priorities for funding.
73

Salmon Recovery Funds

In 1999, the Washington State Legislature created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The 

board provides grants to protect or restore salmon habitat and assist related activities. Since 

1999, the board has awarded more than $477 million in grants to more than 1,700 projects in 31 

of the state’s 39 counties. The Salmon Recovery funds are offered through an annual 

competitive process. The funds can be utilized for many types of fish passage and habitat 

improvements including projects that can help to protect water quality.

Ecology Direct Implementation Funds (DIF)

The Department of Ecology may identify a small amount of the federal Section 319 funds it 

receives to implement a TMDL or install nonpoint pollution control BMPs in support of an STI 

project. These are small grants that focus on specific implementation actions. The projects are 

sponsored by Ecology staff to achieve a specific water quality objective. Often, these projects 

involve funding riparian protection and planting.

Ecology Coastal Protection (Terry Husseman) grants

The Coastal Protection (Terry Husseman) grants are small grants (less than $50,000) available 

for specific on-the-ground actions. The coastal protection account was created to utilize money 

collected via water quality penalties for water quality protection. Availability of funds varies.

Floodplains by Design

The Department of Ecology’s Floodplains by Design program is intended to reduce flood risk to 

communities while also improving natural ecosystem functions and improving habitat. The 

program seeks to combine efforts for flood reduction and salmon and habitat recovery, while 

also protecting working lands like agriculture, forestry and shellfish production. It relies on 

broad stakeholder support to promote approaches that are beneficial to all involved parties.

State Conservation Commission grants

The Washington Conservation Commission has historically made funds available for projects 

proposed by conservation districts. Additionally, the State Conservation Commission has 

provided salmon and shellfish grants for projects proposed by conservation districts.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) fund is part of the 2014 Farm Bill. It 

promotes coordination between NRCS and its partners to deliver conservation assistance to 

producers and landowners. The Columbia River Basin is one of eight priority watersheds that 

will receive 35% of the annual funding available through the program. Projects that address 

multi-state issues are also prioritized. The fund is competitive and uses the rules of existing 

NRCS programs (EQIP, CSP, ACEP and HFRP).

National Estuary Program Funds

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides federal funding to support efforts to 

protect and restore Puget Sound. Most of the funds are used for financial assistance to state, 

local and Tribal governments for their efforts to implement the Puget Sound Action Agenda. 

EPA passes these grants through state agencies.
74

This page is purposely left blank
75

Chapter 6: Recommended Management 

Measures

Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be implemented to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate 

nonpoint source pollution resulting from a particular land use. Under the Federal Clean Water 

Act (CWA) and the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), Ecology 

is responsible for designating management measures and suites of BMPs that comply with 

Washington State’s WQ Standards. Additionally, Ecology is the agency responsible for 

articulating how nonpoint pollution sources can comply with the state Water Pollution Control 

Act and the state WQ Standards.

Nonpoint source pollution has been documented to occur from urban and residential 

development, hydromodification, marinas and boating areas, agricultural activities, and forest 

practices. Ecology recognizes the need to have specific guidance covering all categories of 

nonpoint source pollution. 

When identifying BMPs and measures to control each category and subcategory of nonpoint 

sources Ecology will meet the following objectives:

• Identified BMPs and measures will be designed to comply with the WQ Standards and 

contribute to the protection of beneficial uses of the receiving waters, and ensure 

compliance with state and federal law.

• Utilize best available science to identify BMPs and measures.

This chapter lays out the process that Ecology will use to identify management measures and 

BMPs for each category of nonpoint pollution in compliance with the CWA and CZARA.

Federal Requirements

Section 319 of the CWA requires that state nonpoint source (NPS) management programs 

“identify best management practices and measures to control each category and subcategory of 

nonpoint sources...” EPA guidance for NPS programs reinforces that state NPS management 

programs must include an “identification of measures (i.e., systems of practices) that will be used 

to control NPS pollution, focusing on those measures which the state believes will be most 

effective in achieving and maintaining WQ Standards.” Furthermore, EPA guidance allows for 

states to identify measures “individually ... or presented in manuals or compendiums, provided 

that they are specific and are related to the category or subcategory of nonpoint sources.”

CZARA requires states to develop management measures necessary to ensure attainment of the 

WQ Standards. Management measures are defined as “economically achievable measures” 

reflecting the “greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable” through the “best available 

nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods or 

other alternatives.” Management measures are intended to prevent and control nonpoint source

pollution, and are implemented through the use of management practices.
76

While the management measures must be developed to ensure attainment of WQ Standards, the 

“management measure” approach is more akin to a technology-based rather than water-qualitybased approach to addressing nonpoint pollution.

Any manuals, compendiums or other guidance that identify BMPs and measures adopted by 

Ecology to fulfill the requirements of Section 319 do not have any independent regulatory 

authority and will not establish new environmental regulatory requirements.

Existing Guidance

Ecology presently has manuals that identify appropriate BMPs in place for several kinds of land 

uses that can generate pollution. Current Ecology manuals and guidelines include:

• Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington

• Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington

Additionally, Ecology’s grant and loan funding guidelines include information on BMPs that are 

eligible for funding with Section 319 grants. One of the key objectives of the funding guidelines 

is to ensure that BMPs implemented with Ecology grants comply with the WQ Standards at the 

site level. In 2013 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notified Ecology that it must take 

additional actions to protect salmon and salmon habitat. EPA required Ecology to include 

conditions on federal pass-through grants to be consistent with National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) buffer guidance to ensure compliance with the WQ Standards, and help protect and 

recover Washington’s salmon runs.

Outside of the information provided in our funding guidelines, Ecology recognizes our state 

lacks freestanding manuals, compendiums or other guidance that identify BMPs for agriculture 

that ensure compliance with the WQ Standards. However, we will continue to address 

agriculture sources of pollution as outlined in Chapter 3.

Existing Regulatory Programs and Permits

Where existing regulatory programs provide specific oversight and enforcement authority related 

to a category of NPS pollution, Ecology will generally defer to the implementation of those 

programs, and not develop independent guidance. Current regulatory programs include:

• Forest Practices Rules

• Onsite Sewage Systems Regulations and Ordinances 

• Dairy Nutrient Management Program

Additionally, some sources that previously may have been considered nonpoint pollution sources 

are now regulated as point source discharges and covered under NPDES and/or State Waste 

Discharge general permits. Any source that is ultimately regulated under a NPDES permit is no 

longer subject to the BMP guidance requirements of Section 319 and CZARA. However, as 

covered in Chapter 3, Ecology will work to ensure that our nonpoint pollution source, CZARA 

and TMDL programs are well-integrated with our permit programs by clearly defining when an 

activity requires a permit versus being covered under our NPS program, and utilizing consistent 
77

guidance to inform the implementation of both programs. Further, state waste discharge permits 

can cover sources that may be considered nonpoint in nature.

Current permits include:

• Aquatic Pesticide Applications

• Boatyards

• Bridge and Ferry Terminal Washing

• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)-Facilities that have a discharge

• EPA Vessel General Permit

• Fresh Fruit Packing

• Sand and Gravel mining operations

• Stormwater: 

o Construction Stormwater

o Industrial Stormwater

o Municipal Phase I and Phase II Permits

o WSDOT Municipal Stormwater 

• Upland Fin-Fish Hatching and Rearing

• Vessel Deconstruction

Information on these statewide regulatory programs and permits is provided in Chapters 2 and 3

and details on the above permits can be found at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/genpermits.html.

Stakeholder Involvement 

Ecology recognizes the need for early stakeholder involvement in any process that develops new 

management measure and BMP guidance, or updates existing guidelines or manuals. Ecology 

will seek involvement from local, state, tribal and federal agencies, as well as public interest 

groups, industries, academic institutions (including the Washington Stormwater Center), private 

landowners and producers, and concerned citizens. Further, Ecology will seek the input of the 

Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee (agriculture related management measures), 

the Water Quality Partnership and the Financial Assistance Council on developing any processes 

necessary under this chapter.

Next Steps

To ensure compliance with Section 319 and CZARA requirements, Ecology will take the 

following actions:

• Perform a gaps analysis by the end of 2016:

o Work with EPA and NOAA to identify current “manuals or compendiums” 

for categories or subcategories of nonpoint pollution that fulfill the 

requirements of CWA Section 319 and CZARA.

o Work with EPA to identify gaps where Ecology does not have current 

“manuals or compendiums” for categories or subcategories of nonpoint 

pollution that fulfill the requirements of CWA Section 319 and CZARA.
78

• As necessary work with EPA, NOAA, stakeholders and tribes to design a process to 

identify measures “individually ... or presented in manuals or compendiums” that fulfill 

the requirements of CWA Section 319 and CZARA for any gaps that are identified, or 

alternatively consider covering under a general permit with the goal of incorporating 

guidance in the next update to the NPS plan (2020). 

Additionally, Ecology will support updates to existing guidance as necessary.

• Support updates to the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.

• Support updates to the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington.

• Support the Forest Practices Rules adaptive management process.
79

Chapter 7: Monitoring

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) gives states the primary responsibility for implementing 

programs to protect and restore water quality, including monitoring and assessing the nation's 

waters and reporting on their quality. In Washington State, the Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) is the delegated agency primarily responsible for implementing the requirements and 

provisions of the CWA. Consequently, Ecology is also the agency responsible for satisfying the 

majority of the water quality monitoring and reporting requirements of the CWA. The purpose 

of this section is to describe Washington State’s current water quality monitoring program.72 

While the monitoring program’s focus is broader in scope than the nonpoint program, it supports 

the nonpoint program in a variety of ways. For example, the monitoring program is used to 

identify waters of the state that have impairments, help connect impairments to nonpoint sources 

of pollution, help identify unimpaired waters, help prioritize waters for implementation, and 

support effectiveness monitoring.

This section starts by describing the overall state monitoring strategy and Water Quality 

Assessment (WQA). Then key monitoring programs are briefly described to provide an 

overview of ongoing monitoring efforts in the state. After describing these key Ecology 

monitoring efforts, a brief description of other monitoring programs in the state is included to 

provide a more complete picture of ongoing monitoring that can support the state’s nonpoint 

program. Finally, this section concludes with a description of effectiveness monitoring, quality 

assurance and data management.

Ecology’s Monitoring Strategy

Washington State has adopted a tiered approach to monitoring in order to most efficiently meet 

its highest priority monitoring objectives at the various geographic and temporal scales needed 

for effective environmental management. This means that Ecology and its partner agencies will 

continue to conduct a variety of extensive and intensive, short- and long-term monitoring 

programs, and employ a number of monitoring designs to meet a wide range of monitoring 

objectives.

At Ecology the Environmental Assessment Program (EAP) serves as the technical arm of the 

agency and conducts much of the water quality monitoring needed to inform regulatory actions. 

The mission of EAP is to “To measure, assess, and communicate environmental conditions in 

Washington State.”

 72 More information on Ecology’s Monitoring program and strategy can be found at [Report title] and [link to EAP’s 

webpage]. 
80

Figure 2 Ecology’s Tiered Monitoring Strategy

Water Quality Assessment

The Water Quality Assessment (WQA) is the main tool for identifying impaired waterbodies for 

clean-up projects. The WQA uses all available data from Ecology’s monitoring programs, plus 

data submitted by external entities.

Compiling Existing Sources of Data and Information

Ecology encourages all interested parties to submit data for the water quality assessment. Data 

are specifically solicited from many sources including federal, state, and local government 

agencies, and tribal governments. Ecology also publicizes a “call for data” period and assesses 

all data from all sources that are received.

Data Quality Requirements

Ecology’s policy specifies the quality assurance requirements that must be met by all data used 

for the assessment. Sampling and analysis must be conducted under a documented Quality 

Assurance (QA) Project Plan or other quality assurance procedures that Ecology determines to 

be equivalent for providing high quality data. Documentation must be provided with all data 

submitted for assessment indicating that the objectives of the QA Project Plan or equivalent 

quality assurance procedures were met. If this documentation (or other equivalent assurance) is 
81

not provided, the data are not to be used in the assessment. If Ecology determines there are flaws 

in quality assurance planning or implementation that significantly reduce confidence in any 

submitted data, including in data previously provided during earlier assessment cycles, then 

those data are not to be used as a basis for placing a water segment on the CWA Section 303(d) 

list, known as Category 5.

Data Review, Verification, and Validation

Once the measurement results have been recorded, they are examined to ensure that:

• Data are consistent, correct, and complete, with no errors or omissions

• Results for quality control (QC) samples accompany the sample results

• QC results indicate that acceptance criteria were met

• Data qualifiers are properly assigned where necessary

• Data specified in the sampling design were obtained

• Methods and protocols specified in the QA Project Plan were followed

Data review involves examination of the data for errors or omissions. Data verification involves 

examination of the QC results for compliance with acceptance criteria. Laboratory results are 

reviewed and verified by qualified and experienced laboratory staff and documented. Data 

validation involves detailed examination of the complete data package using professional 

judgment to determine whether the procedures in the methods, standard operating procedures, 

and QA Project Plan were followed. Validation is the responsibility of the project manager, who 

may wish to arrange for a qualified specialist to conduct the validation and document it in a 

technical report.

Once the data have been verified and validated, they are examined to determine if the 

management quality objectives (MQOs) have been met. MQOs are established for precision, 

bias, and required reporting limit. An experimental design for preliminary estimation of 

precision and bias and the use of control charts provide the best way to determine whether 

MQOs have been met. Results of QC samples analyzed during the project can also provide an 

indication as to whether the MQOs have been met.

Data Analysis Procedures

Ecology’s Policy 1-11 specifies assessment criteria and describes assessment methods for 

different media and indicators. Specific assessment criteria are described for toxic pollutants in 

sediment and water, temperature, dissolved oxygen as well as for fecal coliform bacteria, and 

other pollutants. In addition to assessing data using numeric standards, the assessment of water 

quality can be based on narrative information. For example, listings may be based on toxics in 

edible fish tissue, or swimming, fishing, or shellfish advisories from appropriate agencies. 

Impairments can also be caused by non-pollutants, as legally defined. Examples of nonpollutants are: Physical habitat alterations (e.g., stream channelization, loss of spawning gravels, 

reduced pool/riffle ratios, loss of large woody debris), physical barriers to fish migration (e.g., 

dams and culverts), loss of habitat due to invasive exotic species, flow alterations (e.g., low 

flows and flashier systems), and impaired biologic communities.
82

Reporting

Ecology’s primary means of reporting on the status of water quality is through the development 

of Washington State's Water Quality Assessment, based on EPA’s guidance, which integrates 

Clean Water Act requirements for both Section 305(b) water quality reports and the Section 

303(d) list of impaired waters. Ecology’s Water Quality and Environmental Assessment 

programs have jointly adopted Policy 1-11 that describes the methods used for assessing 

information to evaluate attainment of WQ Standards. The Policy includes criteria for compiling, 

analyzing, and integrating data on ambient conditions with project implementation information. 

In preparing the assessment, Ecology evaluates data from all sources that are received during the 

“call for data” period. This includes not only data from Ecology’s freshwater and marine 

ambient monitoring program and other Ecology studies, but also data from a wide array of 

entities external to Ecology who collect and submit data, including: 

• Federal, state, and local government agencies 

• Tribes 

• Quasi-governmental entities, such as watershed planning councils 

• Businesses 

• Academic institutions 

• Not-for-profit groups 

• Private citizens 

Ecology uses the Water Quality Assessment report to assign waterbody segments into one of five 

categories (see descriptions below). All waters in Washington State (except on tribal reservation 

lands) fall into one of the five categories describing our knowledge of the status of that 

waterbody. 

Category 1 - Meets tested standards for clean waters: placement in this category does 

not necessarily mean that a water body is free of all pollutants. Most water quality 

monitoring is designed to detect a specific array of pollutants, so placement in this 

category means that the water body met standards for all the pollutants for which it was 

tested. Specific information about the monitoring results may be found in the individual 

listings.

Category 2 - Waters of concern: waters where there is some evidence of a water quality 

problem, but not enough to require production of a water quality improvement (WQI) 

project (including total maximum daily load [TMDL]) at this time. There are several 

reasons why a water body would be placed in this category. A water body might have 

pollution levels that are not quite high enough to violate the WQ Standards, or there may 

not have been enough violations to categorize it as impaired according to Ecology’s 

listing policy. There might be data showing water quality violations, but the data were 

not collected using proper scientific methods. In all of these situations, these are waters 

that we want to continue to test.

Category 3 - Insufficient data: water where there is insufficient data to meet minimum 

requirements according to Policy 1-11.

Category 4 - Polluted waters that do not require a TMDL: waters that have pollution 

problems that are being solved in one of three ways:
83

o Category 4a - has a TMDL: water bodies that have an approved TMDL in place 

and are actively being implemented.

o Category 4b - has a pollution control program: water bodies that have a program 

in place that is expected to solve the pollution problems. While pollution control 

programs are not TMDLs, they must have many of the same elements and there 

must be some legal or financial guarantee that they will be implemented.

o Category 4c - is impaired by a non-pollutant: water bodies impaired by causes 

that cannot be addressed through a TMDL. These impairments include low water 

flow, stream channelization, and dams. These problems require complex 

solutions to help restore streams to more natural conditions.

Category 5 - Polluted waters that require a TMDL or other WQI project: the traditional 

list of impaired water bodies traditionally known as the 303(d) list. Placement in this

category means that Ecology has data showing that the WQ Standards have been violated 

for one or more pollutants, and there is no TMDL or pollution control program in place. 

TMDLs or other approved WQI projects are required for the water bodies in this 

category.

Washington State's Water Quality Assessment can be found on Ecology's website at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html.

Ecology Monitoring Programs

Water Quality Improvement (WQI) Projects

Under the CWA and implementing federal regulations, Ecology is required to develop Water 

Quality Improvement Projects for impaired waters listed under Category 5 of the Water Quality 

Assessment (the 303(d) list). These projects could be Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

projects, or could involve simply implementing the appropriate pollution controls in watersheds 

impaired by nonpoint pollution. Implementing nonpoint pollution controls without a TMDL in 

place works well in watersheds in which the pollution problems are easy to identify and the 

solutions are known. Many of these projects are led by Ecology staff, but successful projects are 

also being implemented by a county, a watershed planning group, and the U.S. Forest Service.

When an impaired body is selected as a priority for a TMDL project, Ecology conducts scientific 

studies to identify sources and amounts of pollutants causing the water quality problem, and a 

technical analysis to determine how much pollution sources must be reduced to protect the water. 

These studies typically consist of multiple, several-day field surveys over the course of several 

months to a year or more. The studies may focus on conventional pollutants, or they may be 

conducted for a variety of metals and organic compounds. The most complex toxic projects may 

require sampling a wide range of media including surface water, stormwater, effluents from 

municipal and industrial facilities, suspended particulates, bottom sediments, bottom cores, and 

resident fish. In addition, biological evaluation of surface waters is being incorporated into

TMDL study designs to provide a broader approach because degradation of sensitive ecosystem 

processes is more frequently identified. Since many of the waters identified on the CWA Section 

303(d) list have diffuse pollutant sources, Water Cleanup Plans are usually conducted on a broad 

watershed scale. Implementation plans are developed to implement TMDLs.
84

River and Stream Ambient Monitoring

Ecology’s river and stream monitoring program will continue to rely predominantly on a fixed 

station monitoring design. Ecology currently collects samples monthly from 66 long-term (core) 

and 11 basin, and 5 sentinel monitoring stations (82 total) (Hallock and Von Prause 2013). The 

66 core stations were all selected using a “judgmental sample survey monitoring design” (EPA, 

1997) which is based on the nonrandom selection of sampling sites to infer estimates of overall 

water quality for these basins. Core stations are generally located in a downstream reach of a 

mainstem river (often at bridge crossings for efficient sampling).

Data from these stations are used to assess overall condition or status of their respective basin, 

and to evaluate long-term trends. A few core stations are located in upper watersheds to reflect 

un-impacted conditions. Many core stations have been sampled for extended periods (some for 

over 40 years) allowing for site-specific trend analyses.

Basin stations are sampled monthly for (usually) one year, and new station locations are chosen 

each year to support Ecology’s five-year watershed management process or to target specific 

concerns identified by Ecology’s regional office staff. Ecology also records continuous 

temperature data at about 60 stations to determine compliance with current and proposed WQ

Standards. Furthermore, Ecology conducts continuous monitoring for temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, pH and conductivity at 10 stations, including six stations in support of “Intensively 

Monitored Watersheds” (IMW) research which is funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding 

Board (SRFB) and two stations supporting effectiveness monitoring efforts. Results are 

delivered in near-real-time to the Internet by satellite telemetry at most continuous stations.

Marine Water Ambient Monitoring

Ecology’s Marine Waters Monitoring (MWM) Program employs a monitoring strategy

composed of multiple components in order to assess marine ecosystem processes and water 

quality status and trends at various spatial and temporal scales. The Marine Flight and JEMS 

Programs focus on monthly sampling of the water column at 39 core monitoring stations in 

Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and from Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor on the 

Washington coast, using consistent techniques to determine long term trends in water quality 

over sufficiently long temporal scales. Station redundancy in each basin allows for a better 

statistical representativeness of monthly conditions. A monthly temporal resolution allows for a 

representative description of the seasonality of the system. While physical variables are 

continuously resolved in the vertical with in situ sensors, discrete samples are resolved at higher 

resolution in the upper 30m of the water column to account for the connectivity between nutrient 

loading and freshwater inputs.

Data from the monthly water column monitoring provides the temporal backbone of Ecology’s 

Marine Waters Monitoring program. These data are augmented by continuous in-situ mooring 

observations, higher spatially-resolved information from en route ferry transects and aerial 

photography.

The program deploys in situ sensors in restricted waterways or at key sites in Puget Sound and 

coastal bays to capture the variability of the inter-basin mass (water, biomass), and solute (salt 

and oxygen) transport. Monitoring focuses on events such as tides, weather, storm water 
85

discharge, and large-scale oceanographic intrusions. The moorings provide high temporal 

resolution to understand:

• Variability of inter-basin transport (e.g. visualizing intrusions)

• Impact of water exchange on low-oxygen and local water quality

• Day-to-day variability and real time information.

Within the complex morphology of Puget Sound, near-surface variability in physical, chemical 

and biological constituents is very high. Regional influences by rivers, local winds, density 

structure, tides, variable phytoplankton species and growth create a horizontally patchy and 

dynamic environment. Taking representative near-surface point samples is therefore challenging 

and to overcome this challenge the program has expanded monitoring by using en route ferry 

observations to capture this variability and integrate these observations into a spatially and 

temporally nested monitoring approach. En route sensors obtain comprehensive data records 

with high horizontal and good temporal resolution which can be used to reconstruct the evolution 

of near surface features (e.g. stormwater, algal bloom, location of isotherms and isohalines). 

Fundamental to the en route ferry approach is its integration into large-scale, regional products 

by using the information to provide spatially calibrated information for remote sensing 

observations.

Remote sensing and aerial observations from aircraft and satellite cover a wide range of 

geographic scales. Spatial distribution maps of debris, freshwater, suspended sediments and 

algae are information products of high public interest and are delivered on a monthly basis. 

Satellite images and processing procedures are obtained from available sources. The goal of 

remote observations is to statistically describe the extent and location of hydrographical 

boundaries and optical features (e.g., water clarity, water color, suspended sediment 

concentration, algae blooms and the accumulation of debris and oil) and relate them to physical 

processes. Environmental anomalies in surface water characteristics can be monitored using 

time-averaged baseline conditions and statistical distribution maps that delineate geographic 

change. Over time, remote sensing provides the statistical, spatial and historical context to 

identify regions with frequent biological responses to eutrophication. Remote sensing also 

supports the strategic placement of monitoring stations and focused studies (e.g. TMDL). 

The scale of the sampling network allows for the quantitative separations of internal and external 

drivers of water quality. By separating the drivers, environmental management can raise water 

quality issues to the appropriate levels of attention.

Marine Sediment Monitoring

Ecology maintains a network of ten long-term, fixed marine sediment stations, which are 

sampled annually for infaunal community structure and every fifth year for chemical 

contaminants, to estimate trends in chemical contamination and benthic community structure. 

Annual analyses of benthic communities at some of these stations date back to the 1960’s with 

research conducted by the University of Washington and others. Beginning in 1997, Ecology 

also developed a program to collect samples from an additional 40 sediment stations each year 

using a probabilistic (random), rotating panel design. Stations are selected from one of eight 

estuarine regions defined by the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) 

according to their unique hydrologic, bathymetric, and geological features. Separate Chemistry, 
86

Toxicity, and Benthic Indices, and an overarching Sediment Quality Triad Index are used to 

characterize sediments based on levels of chemical contamination and toxicity of the sediments, 

and on the composition of the benthic invertebrate communities. In 2007, funding from 

Ecology’s Urban Waters Initiative was secured to begin similar sampling and characterization of 

sediments in six urban bays, with sampling conducted at 30 stations collected from one bay/year 

over a 6-year period.

Stream Biological Monitoring

Traditional measurements of chemical and physical components for rivers and streams may not 

provide sufficient information to detect all surface water problems. Biological evaluation of 

surface waters provides a broader approach because degradation of sensitive ecosystem 

processes is more frequently identified.

The Environmental Assessment Program at Ecology has three major projects monitoring 

biological condition in Washington’s streams and rivers. The Sentinel and Ambient Biological 

Projects monitor macroinvertebrates and periphyton from 80 reference or ‘least impacted’ sites 

throughout the state. Sixteen Sentinel sites are sampled annually; while an additional 64 sites are 

sampled on a rotating basis for the Ambient Biological Project. Since 2009, Ecology has 

collected samples from 159 reference site visits throughout Washington. This monitoring has 

provided a base of information describing biological characteristics of reference or ‘least 

impacted’ condition. Additionally, since 2009 the Watershed Health Monitoring Project has 

sampled macroinvertebrates from over 375 randomly selected sites throughout Washington. 

Using a Washington master sample list and a probabilistic sampling design, 50 sites from each of 

seven Status and Trends Regions (STRs) throughout the state are sampled on a rotating basis (i.e. 

1-2 STRs sampled per year). Each time an STR is revisited, 25 new randomly selected sites are 

sampled and another 25 sites visited previously are sampled again.

One of the goals of Ecology’s monitoring program is to develop biocriteria using benthic 

macroinvertebrates, and to apply these biocriteria appropriately within the framework of the 

CWA. Two types of numeric biocriteria, based on biometrics and predictive modeling, are being 

developed for use throughout Washington State. When used alone or together, these criteria can 

give a statistically defensible case for determining the overall condition of a stream or 

waterbody.

Ecology now uses macroinvertebrate samples to assess potential streams for listing on the state’s 

303(d) list.

Stream Flow Monitoring

Ecology manages 73 streamflow monitoring stations across the state. Sixty-six of the 73 stations 

consist of automated, telemetered capabilities providing near real time reporting. Streamflow, as 

well as other parameters depending on the configuration of individual stations are presented on 

Ecology’s web site.

The remaining seven stations include two stand alone and five manual-stage-height stations.

Stand-alone stations record continuous flow data however they do not have near real time 

reporting capabilities. The manual-stage-height stations provide instantaneous flow information 
87

although not a continuous record. Stand alone and manual stage height stations are usually 

associated with special projects and operate through the duration of the project, typically one or 

two years.

Washington’s Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy recommends additional stream gages be 

installed on ungaged mainstem rivers and major tributary streams in priority (i.e., salmoncritical) watersheds first, but in all watersheds eventually.

Invasive Aquatic Plant Monitoring

Ecology has been monitoring the occurrence and distribution of aquatic plants in lakes and rivers 

throughout the state since 1991. The program’s main objective is to track aquatic plant 

community changes, concentrating on invasive non-native species such as Eurasian milfoil. 

Other objectives are to provide technical assistance on aquatic plant identification and control of 

invasive species, and to conduct special projects evaluating the impacts of invasive non-native 

species and their control. To date, aquatic plant (macrophyte) data have been obtained from 

approximately 550 lake, reservoirs and rivers across Washington. Monitoring locations are 

targeted each year based on requests or problems identified by regional office staff and local 

cooperators.

Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication and Health 

(BEACH) Prgm

EPA initiated the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Communication, and Health (BEACH) 

Program in response to the passage in 2000 of the BEACH Act. The Act amends the Clean 

Water Act and authorizes EPA to appropriate funds to states for the development of monitoring 

and notification programs to provide a more uniform system for protecting the users of marine 

waters.

In Washington, a BEACH Coordinator manages the development and implementation of the 

Program including facilitating the Inter-agency BEACH Committee. The committee includes 

Ecology, the state Department of Health, and nine county health jurisdictions including: Grays 

Harbor, Tacoma-Pierce, Seattle-King, Whatcom, Clallam, Jefferson, Island, Thurston and 

Kitsap. 

The monitoring program focuses on sampling for indicator bacteria at about 60 public marine 

beaches in Washington State. Ecology implements the BEACH program collaboratively with 

the Department of Health and with the assistance and cooperation of local county health 

jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, volunteers and universities. The information is 

communicated to the public on the Department of Ecology’s BEACH Program website and by 

signs posted on the beaches.

Freshwater Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program

The Freshwater Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (FFCMP) was developed to address 

continuing concerns about toxic compounds in Washington’s aquatic environments. Historical 

monitoring efforts identified many areas where levels of contamination were high enough to 

harm humans and wildlife, sometimes resulting in fish consumption advisories issued by the 

state Department of Health. The goal of the FFCMP is to provide information to resource 
88

managers and the public about the status of toxic contamination in edible fish tissue from 

freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams that have not yet been monitored or to track trends over 

time in areas that are undergoing cleanup activities. The FFCMP has conducted exploratory 

monitoring to identify occurrences of toxic contamination in fish tissue since 2003. 

Approximately 10-15 lakes, reservoirs, and rivers are sampled annually. 

Lake/Reservoir Monitoring

National Lakes Assessment

Ecology participated in EPA’s National Lakes Assessment (NLA) in the summers of 2007 and 

2012. Sites were randomly selected using a probability-based sampling design which resulted in 

locations throughout the state. These surveys help to assess current conditions, evaluate change 

over time and monitor the impacts of key stressors on lake environments (NLA; EPA 2012).

Sites sampled include:

• 30 lakes in 2007

• 33 lakes in 2012

Aquatic Plants Monitoring

Aquatic plant monitoring, focused on invasive species, takes place at 40 to 60 lakes per year.

Results are maintained in a publically accessible database 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/lakes/aquaticplants/index.html.

Lakes Coastal Atlas Module

Information about lakes will be added to Ecology’s Coastal Atlas database in 2014. The lakes 

module will provide cohesive access to Ecology’s lake data.

Toxic Algae Program

Ecology’s Water Quality Program hosts the toxic algae program. In 2005, the Washington State 

Legislature established funding for an algae control program and asked the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) to develop the program. Reducing nutrient input to lakes is the 

only long-term solution to prevent algae blooms. However the amount of money available for 

this program (about $250,000 per year) is not enough to fund comprehensive lake-wide and 

watershed-wide nutrient reduction projects. Instead the program focuses on providing local 

governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. The program targets blue-green 

algae (also known as cyanobacteria) because these algae pose a health risk to humans, pets, and 

livestock. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/algae/index.html

Groundwater Monitoring

There is currently no state-level program to monitor ambient groundwater quality trends over 

time in Washington, and no long-term funding source has been identified to date to support such 

an effort. In late 2007, Ecology’s Watershed Advancement Group (WAG) convened an internal 

agency workgroup to develop a strategy for implementing a state-level ambient groundwater 

monitoring and reporting program, to support the sustainable management of Washington's 

groundwater resources. The resulting 2008 report, adopted by WAG, laid out a phased approach 

which we are using as a road map to form a foundation for a statewide program, in the absence 

of dedicated funding. To date, accomplishments include:

• Inventory and consolidation of Ecology groundwater monitoring data (ongoing)
89

• Standardization of data collection and quality assurance procedures (ongoing)

• Development of an agency-level groundwater data management interface for Ecology’s 

EIM system (completed)

• Creation of an agency-level web site to improve access to state groundwater information 

(completed)

Future steps include:

1. Capture and, where appropriate, migration of external groundwater data to Ecology’s 

EIM system

2. Evaluation of existing ambient groundwater data

3. Expansion of regional water level monitoring networks already in operation

Establishment of a state-level groundwater status and trends monitoring program, by compiling 

data from an established network of index wells.

Intensively Monitored Watersheds

Ecology and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are cooperating on a program to 

intensively monitor water quality, habitat conditions, and salmon response in paired sets of 

watersheds at four key locations in Washington (Hood Canal, Lower Columbia River, northern 

Olympic Peninsula, and the Skagit River estuary). The main objective of this approach is to 

understand the complex relationships between salmon habitat restoration actions and the 

response of fish habitat, and targeted salmonids species (parr numbers, overwinter survival, 

smolt production, and number of spawners). The cause-effect relationships between restoration 

actions and salmon response is needed to assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions 

implemented to restore salmon. Concentrating and integrating monitoring and research efforts at 

a few locations may enable enough data on physical and biological attributes of the system to be 

collected to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting salmon production 

in fresh water.

Water Quality Grants Projects

Ecology grant projects capture environmental outcomes and performance measures in the grant 

and loan competitive application process and in funding agreements. The program does not 

require water quality monitoring, but where monitoring is conducted under a grant or loan, 

monitoring data must be entered into EIM as a funding condition. The program coordinates with 

the technical arm of Ecology regarding BMP effectiveness monitoring and use of this data to 

help quantify benefits. The grant program has integrated “post project assessment” language in 

agreements that ensures follow-up to review the status and capture a summary of ongoing 

environmental outcomes or water quality improvements after 3 years.

Stormwater Work Group

The Stormwater Work Group (SWG) is a coalition of federal; tribal; state and local governments; 

business; environmental; agriculture; and research interests that was convened at the request of 

the Puget Sound Partnership and Department of Ecology to develop a Stormwater Monitoring 

and Assessment Strategy for the Puget Sound Region. The strategy is intended to provide a 

coordinated, integrated approach to quantifying the stormwater problem in Puget Sound and to 

help us efficiently and effectively manage stormwater to reduce harm to the ecosystem. 
90

The SWG has numerous subgroups overseeing implementation of regional stormwater 

monitoring and developing recommendations. Each subgroup has its own purpose and goals. The 

chair, staff, and meeting schedule support each work group in achieving its goals. Subgroups 

include:

• Agricultural Runoff

• Effectiveness Study Selection

• Small Streams Status and Trends Oversight

• Marine Nearshore Status and Trends

• Pooled Resources Oversight

• Source Identification and Diagnostic Monitoring

• Roads and Highways

Other Monitoring Programs

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts monitoring for the National Water-Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Data collected from NAWQA are used to summarize the status 

and trends of the surface water and groundwater quality, describe the processes affecting water 

quality and aquatic ecology, and provide timely results to watershed managers, policy makers, 

and the public.

The USGS also operates and maintains the National Streamgaging Network collecting long-term 

streamflow data nationwide. Although the National Streamgage Network is operated primarily 

by the USGS, it is funded by a partnership of federal, state, tribal, and local agencies.

USGS also manages the National Streamflow Information Program which was created in 

response to Congressional and stakeholder concerns about (1) a loss of streamgages, (2) a 

disproportionate loss of streamgages with a long period of record, (3) the inability of the USGS 

to continue operating high-priority streamgages when partners discontinue funding and (4) the 

increasing demand for streamflow information due to new resource-management issues and new 

data-delivery capabilities.

U.S. Forest Service

The U.S. Forest Service conducts monitoring of aquatic resources in support of two broad scale 

plans: (1) the Northwest Forest Plan (i.e., Western Washington) and (2) Pacfish/Infish Biological 

Opinion (PIBO). Both plans require implementation and effectiveness monitoring of 

management activities that address issues with the Endangered Species Act. The individual 

forest plans also have implementation and effectiveness monitoring of best management 

practices. Each national forest produces a Forest Plan Monitoring Report each year that covers 

all the implementation and effectiveness monitoring accomplished.

Habitat Conservation Plans

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Most of the HCPs in 

Washington are focused on the conservation of salmonids. These include programs administered 
91

under the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Power Act, the Clean Water Act, and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, among others. The HCP program provides policy and technical 

expertise to non-federal entities that want to develop HCPs.

Monitoring is a mandatory element of all HCPs and is part of the permittee’s implementation 

obligation. The scope of a monitoring plan is directly related to the significance of the HCP’s 

biological impacts. Monitoring data are needed to ensure proper compliance with an HCP and to 

determine whether biological goals and objectives are being met. Monitoring serves not only to 

ensure compliance and gage the effect and effectiveness of HCPs, it also informs choices under 

the adaptive management provisions and assists in redefining biological goals. Applicants work 

with the Services to determine the level of monitoring appropriate for their specific HCP.

Four HCPs have been issued by NOAA Fisheries in Washington for the protection of 

anadromous salmonids.

Shellfish Growing Area Monitoring

The Office of Environmental Health and Safety of the Washington State Department of Health 

(DOH) is mandated to evaluate commercial shellfish growing areas to determine if shellfish are 

safe to eat. To this end, DOH operates a variety of monitoring programs that track conditions in 

marine waters. One program monitors the level of the marine biotoxins Paralytic Shellfish 

Poison (PSP), Diarrhetic Shellfish Poison (DSP) and Amnesic Shellfish Poison (ASP) in mussels 

sampled biweekly from sentinel mussel cages or scraped off substrate from 70-80 points 

throughout Puget Sound and the coastal estuaries. In addition, commercial shellfish species from 

active commercial harvest areas are sampled. When biotoxin levels in the mussels or 

commercial shellfish species from individual areas exceed the appropriate FDA levels, DOH 

informs the public and orders a halt to commercial/recreational harvest. DOH also operates a 

phytoplankton monitoring program that acts as an early warning system for Harmful Algal 

Bloom (HAB) events. This network helps the DOH to prioritize where shellfish samples are 

collected and to test samples more frequently during HAB events resulting in more effective 

closures that better protect public health.

DOH also operates other monitoring programs to support the classification of commercial 

shellfish areas. At present, there are 102 actively classified growing areas. DOH uses standards 

and guidelines set by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guide for the Control of 

Molluscan Shellfish to monitor and classify the growing areas. Classification is based on 

analysis of water quality, meteorology, hydrography, and an intensive survey of shoreline and 

uplands for fecal pollution sources. An area cannot be approved for harvest if there are 

significant pollution threats, despite acceptable water quality.

Once classified, all active growing areas are regularly monitored. Marine water samples are 

collected throughout the year. Shoreline surveys are conducted less frequently, but each year 

dozens of shellfish growing areas are surveyed. During those surveys, all potential pollution 

sources that may impact water quality are evaluated. The purpose of continued water sampling 

and shoreline surveys is to make sure that growing areas continue to meet the standards 

associated with their classification, to modify classifications when needed, and to notify the 

responsible agencies about identified and potential pollution sources. If a commercial shellfish 

growing areas has its classification downgraded due to nonpoint pollution, state law calls for 
92

local governments to form a shellfish protection district within 180 days. The shellfish 

protection district is tasked with developing a shellfish closure response in order to address the 

pollution sources and improve water quality.

Salmon Recovery Act

The Salmon Recovery Funding Board funds several types of monitoring related to salmon 

recovery. These include: project effectiveness monitoring, intensively monitored watersheds for 

validation monitoring, and implementation monitoring of the funded projects. In the past, they 

funded habitat status and trends monitoring. This is now funded by the Department of Ecology.

Strategy to Recover Salmon

In 1999, the State of Washington Joint Natural Resources Cabinet published the statewide 

strategy to recover salmon (JNARC, 1999). To evaluate success of the recovery strategy, the 

state uses the Salmon Recovery Scorecard published in the biennial State of the Salmon report. 

The Scorecard essentially is the state's business plan for salmon recovery. It's a performance 

management system for tracking data, measuring progress, and changing course where needed. 

However, of the 18 indicators tracked on the scorecard, only one is an outcome indicator related 

to nonpoint pollution sources. Scorecard element E-2 tracks the percentage of WRIAs that have 

acceptable scores according to Ecology’s Water Quality Index (WQI).

The WQI is represented by numbers ranging from 1 to 100, indicating the general water quality 

at each station. The higher index numbers are indicative of better water quality. Multiple 

constituents of the water quality measured are combined, and the results are aggregated to 

produce a single score for each sample station. The WQI was calculated for the long-term 

monitoring locations in each WRIA sampled by Ecology in 2002. Results show that 5% of the 

WRIAs are in poor condition, 61% are fair, and 34% are considered in good condition.

Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan

The purpose of the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Management Plan is to 

coordinate all ANS management actions currently in progress within Washington, and to identify 

additional ANS management actions, especially those relating to ANS animals. The development 

of a state management plan is called for in Section 1204 of the National Invasive Species Act of 

1996, which provides an opportunity for federal cost–share support for the implementation of 

state plans approved by the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Management actions 

are undertaken and funded by the responsible state agencies. The Washington State Plan 

published in December 1998 was developed by the Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Planning Committee.

Several agencies are responsible for current efforts to monitor for ANS populations already 

present in Washington. The Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Committee 

continues to revise the monitoring program to quickly detect new ANS introductions or the 

spread of those already present. They are working to collect accurate information about which 

ANS are present, where they are present, and an estimate of their population numbers and/or 

densities. The Committee has established the following “Strategic Action”: Monitor waters that 

are vulnerable to new ANS introductions and track the distribution of existing ANS populations. 

Survey Washington lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands, and coastlines on a periodic basis to 
93

establish an accurate assessment of the presence of non-native species that have become, or have 

the potential to become, nuisance species, and make these data available statewide.

Yakima Ground Water Management Area

Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has been heavily involved with the nitrate 

groundwater contamination issues in the lower Yakima valley for over a decade. Recent work on 

the GWMA has included staffing the technical committees and committing resources through an 

interagency agreement to conduct a comprehensive nitrogen loading assessment. Completion of 

this assessment will allow members of the GWMA to focus nitrogen management actions on 

land uses that contribute excess nitrogen most significantly to degradation of groundwater 

quality in the area.

Surface Water Monitoring for Pesticides in Salmon-Baring Streams

WSDA’s Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmon-Bearing Waters is 

entering its 13th year of existence and 2nd year where all field work, data analysis, and report 

writing is completed exclusively by WSDA. The study assesses pesticide-presence in salmonbearing streams during a 27-week typical pesticide use period (March – September). Currently, 

the assessment evaluates samples for more than 200 pesticide active ingredients and their 

breakdown products, and compares those results with known toxicity criteria. The 2015 season 

will include glyphosate (RoundupTM) monitoring at all sample locations (14 statewide) for five 

weeks in the spring. This is a first for our program and we hope it will alleviate some concerns 

about possible glyphosate concentrations. Finally, sediment samples will be collected at 5 of our 

sites during three different seasons (spring, summer, fall) for pyrethroids and other chemical 

classes that bind to organic material.

The data generated by the monitoring program is used by WSDA, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to refine 

exposure assessments for pesticides registered for use in Washington State. Understanding the 

fate and transport of pesticides allows regulators to assess the potential effects of pesticides on 

endangered salmon species while minimizing the economic impacts to agriculture.

Identifying Viable Mitigation for Reducing Malathion Pollutant Loading 

to Streams

WSDA is working cooperatively with the Washington Red Raspberry and Blueberry 

Commissions to conduct a study assessing the effectiveness of streamside vegetation in reducing 

pesticide loading during aerial applications of malathion. The Biological Opinion (BiOp) for 

malathion is scheduled to be completed by 2017, and WSDA worked closely with National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to design a study that would generate data that could offer 

growers buffer mitigations when the BiOp is complete. The goal is to assess aerial (helicopter) 

applications of malathion to red raspberry and blueberry plants in Whatcom County during the 

Summer of 2015.The sites will include three raspberry (two vegetated, one control) and three 

blueberry (two vegetated, one control) fields. Both water and depositional samples will be 

collected.
94

Assessing Effectiveness of Pesticide Rule Pertaining to Cranberry 

Growing Areas

Since 2011 WSDA has conducted surface water monitoring and provided technical assistance to 

growers of cranberries in the Grayland, Washington area. Using the EPA approved Pesticide 

Management Strategy, and implementation of new regulations, WSDA has sampled the 

Grayland Ditch for two insecticides, residues of which has resulted in the waterbody’s listing on 

the states class 5 303(d) list. The results of the sampling show continued improvement and were 

the basis for a targeted effort by WSDA compliance staff to assess operations at each farm in the 

area. Sampling will continue in 2015 coinciding with the application of the insecticides to assess 

progress and compliance with the rule.

Tribal Monitoring

Most of the monitoring reported by tribal governments has a geographic focus at the watershed 

level and, to a lesser degree, upon the area within the jurisdictional boundaries. More 

information on monitoring programs conducted by tribal governments is available in Crawford et 

al. (2003).

Local Government Monitoring

Most of the monitoring conducted by local governments has a geographic focus at the watershed 

level and, to a lesser degree, upon the area within the local government’s jurisdictional 

boundaries. Only 26% of local governments surveyed for the CMS (2002) had been monitoring 

for more than five years. More information on monitoring programs conducted by local 

governments is available in Crawford et al. (2003).

Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring uses a combination of monitoring types to evaluate whether specified 

activities have achieved the desired effect. It is an essential component to the adaptive 

management process when best management practices are implemented to control human-caused 

pollution. It is also one of the several required components when (1) we develop Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) or other watershed-based pollution control plans, or (2) state and federal 

funds are used to implement nonpoint-source pollution control strategies. 

In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is the agency primarily responsible for 

implementing the requirements and provisions of the Clean Water Act, including monitoring the 

effectiveness of water pollution cleanup plans. In 2013, Ecology released the guidance document 

“Guidance for Effectiveness Monitoring for Total Maximum Daily Loads in Surface Waters” 

(Collyard, S 2013). This document will serve as a guide for determining the effectiveness of 

TMDL projects and other water quality clean-up efforts, and informing adaptive management.

Effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether management activities have achieved the desired 

effect. Rather than monitoring the effectiveness of a particular project, it is the intent of 

Ecology’s NPS effectiveness monitoring program to measure the cumulative effect of all 

activities in the watershed. 
95

Effectiveness monitoring is a fundamental component of any water clean-up project and its 

associated implementation activity. It is an important tool in the adaptive management process 

because it informs and allows restoration strategies to be adjusted if clean-up goals are not being 

achieved. If implemented thoughtfully, it will increase the likelihood that activities to control 

NPS pollution will succeed.

The benefits of effectiveness evaluation include: 

• More efficient allocation of funding. 

• Optimization in planning/decision-making (program benefits). 

• Watershed recovery status (how much restoration has been achieved, how much more 

effort is required). 

• Adaptive management or technical feedback to refine restoration treatment design and 

implementation. 

The effectiveness evaluation addresses four fundamental questions about restoration or 

implementation activity: 

• Is the restoration or implementation work achieving the desired goal of significant 

improvement? 

• How can restoration or implementation techniques be improved? 

• Is the improvement sustainable? 

• How can the work become more cost-effective? 

Effectiveness Monitoring of the Forest Practices Rules

Ecology is participating in a monitoring program to evaluate the performance of the riparian 

management prescriptions in the Washington Forest Practices Rules. The program combines 

passive monitoring elements to evaluate the effect of existing prescriptions, with an active 

monitoring approach that compares the effectiveness of alternative treatments. See the 

discussion above in Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of the Forest Practices Rules and 

the adaptive management program.

Forest practices research examines the effectiveness of current and alternative riparian buffering 

strategies in protecting key water quality (stream temperature, water chemistry, sediment), 

habitat/channel stability (LWD), and riparian (vegetation type, mortality rates, LWD 

recruitment) resources. The following table illustrates the type of projects and the current pace of 

monitoring the effectiveness of Washington’s forestry rules.

Table 7 Projects-Forest Practice Rules Effectiveness

Projects Completed in 2014

Forest Practices and Wetlands Systematic Literature Review

Wetlands Program Research Strategy

Eastside Type N Forest Hydrology (model and 

characterization)

RMZ birds (response to harvest)

Projects in Study Design or Initial Field Phase in 2015

Eastside Type N Riparian Effectiveness
96

Unstable Slopes Criteria Evaluation and Development

Westside Type F Riparian Prescription Monitoring

Forested Wetlands Effectiveness Monitoring Study

Road Prescription-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring

Van Dykes Salamander Project

Extensive Alternative (remote sensing pilot study)

Projects Completed or expected in 2015-2016

Tailed Frog Literature Review

Glacial Deep Seated - Develop Research Strategy 

Glacial Deep Seated – Literature Review

Buffer Integrity - Shade effectiveness (amphibian response)

Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project in Hard Rock 

Lithologies (initial 2 year post harvest response)

Eastside Riparian Assessment Project (riparian vegetation)

Ongoing Projects to be completed by 2017-2020

Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project - Hard RockAmphibian Genetics, Nutrients, Temperature – (longer-term 

effects and recovery pattern analysis)

Type N Experimental Buffer Treatment Project - Soft Rock 

Lithologies (initial 2 year post harvest response)

Riparian Hardwood Conversion (efficacy – post year 5 and 10)

Unstable Slopes Criteria Evaluation and Development

Projects to be completed or designed after 2020

Eastside Type N Riparian Effectiveness

Westside Type F Riparian Prescription Monitoring

Road Prescription-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring

Van Dykes Salamander Project

Research priorities after 2020 

Wetlands Management Zone Effectiveness Monitoring

Wetlands Intensive Monitoring

Road Sub-Basin-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring (Resample)

Watershed Scale Assessment of Cumulative Effects (roads and 

riparian)

Amphibians in Intermittent Streams

Windthrow Data Synthesis

As these research projects are completed their findings are provided to the Forests and Fish 

Policy Committee. The Policy committee then determines what action, including changes in 

regulations or further clarifying research, should be recommended to the State’s Forest Practices 

Board.
97

Quality Assurance

Most of the monitoring activities conducted by Ecology identify the primary use of the data in a 

Quality Assurance (QA) Project Plan. Ecology’s Executive Policy 22-01 states that “A Quality 

Assurance Project Plan is prepared for each environmental study/activity that acquires or uses 

environmental measurement data.” It further states that “This policy applies to environmental 

data collection studies/activities conducted or funded by Ecology.” The Guidelines for Preparing 

Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies (Ecology, 2004b) describes 14 

elements to be addressed in a plan and provides supporting information and examples relevant to 

the content of each element.

Quality assurance and quality control responsibilities for management and staff are described in 

the most recent Ecology Quality Management Plan, which can be found at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/quality.html. EPA’s approval of the Quality Management 

Plan delegates to Ecology the authority to review and approve QA Project Plans prepared in that 

agency.

Washington State's Water Quality Assessment has specific quality assurance requirements 

identified in Water Quality Policy 1-11. Policy 1-11 directs the reader to several sources for 

guidance on how to develop the proper QA Project Plan.

• Washington State Department of Ecology: Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance 

Plans for Environmental Studies, publication 04-03-030 (available at 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/0403030.html).

• Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix: Guidance on the Development of 

Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plans Meeting the Requirements of the Sediment 

Management Standards, December 1995 Draft.

• Washington State Department of Natural Resources: Timber/Fish/Wildlife Monitoring 

Program Method Manual for the Stream Temperature Survey, TFW-AM9-99-005, DNR 

publication 107.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: The Volunteer Monitor’s Guide To Quality 

Assurance Project Plans, EPA 841-B-96-003.

In 2004, the Washington State Legislature passed the Credible Data Act (engrossed substitute 

Senate Bill 5957) with the intent to ensure that credible water quality data are used as the basis 

for the assessment of the status of a waterbody relative to the surface WQ Standards.

The Act requires Ecology to use credible information for:

• Determining whether any water of the state is to be placed on or removed from any 

Section 303(d) list.

• Establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for any surface water of the state.

• Determining whether any surface water of the state is supporting its designated use or 

other classification.
98

The Act further states that data interpretation, statistical, and modeling shall be those methods 

that are generally acceptable in the scientific community as appropriate for use in assessing the 

condition of water.

In collecting and analyzing water quality data for any of these purposes, the Credible Data Act 

specifies that data will be considered credible if: 

• Appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures were followed and 

documented in collecting and analyzing water quality samples. 

• The samples or measurements are representative of water quality conditions at the time 

the data were collected. 

• The data consist of an adequate number of samples based on the objectives of the 

sampling, the nature of the water in question, and the indicators being analyzed. 

• Sampling and laboratory analysis conform to methods and protocols generally acceptable 

in the scientific community as appropriate for use in assessing the condition of the water.

Data Management 

Environmental Information Management System (EIM and MyEIM)

The Environmental Information Management System (EIM) is the Department of Ecology's 

main database for environmental monitoring data. EIM is a database containing data collected 

by the Washington State Department of Ecology and affiliates such as local governments and 

cleanup sites.. EIM contains records on physical, chemical, and biological analyses and 

measurements. Supplementary information about the data (metadata) is also stored, including 

information about environmental studies, monitoring locations, and data quality. In 2013, EIM 

was upgraded and now includes a new search app with an improved map. Many fields were 

updated in the database and we added the ability to accept time series data from field 

instruments.

Finally, MyEIM was added to EIM. It is an advanced toolset for searching and analyzing data. 

MyEIM replaced SEDQUAL, the former sediments database. MyEIM allows users to customize 

searches, analyze chemical and biological data, and map EIM data.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/

303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report Viewer (formerly known as WATS)

Washington State's Water Quality Assessment uses the 303(d) / 305(b) Integrated Report Viewer 

(WATS) to manage the five category listings of waterbody segments in the state. Data come 

from a variety of Ecology sources as well as sources outside of Ecology. The 303(d) / 305(b) 

Integrated Report Viewer was upgraded in 2013 with improved search and mapping tools and the 

ability to create and save queries.

http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wats/ 
99

Ecology Administrative Grants and Loans Database (EAGL)

EAGL is an integrated web-based grant and loan management system. EAGL allows Ecology’s 

grant and loan clients to complete grant applications, submit payment requests with progress 

reports, collect specific BMP implementation data,submit closeout reports, and request 

amendments on line. The system provides a streamlined application and reporting process for 

both external clients and Ecology staff. EAGL is used to manage State Revolving Fund loans; 

Centennial Grants; and Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/funding/EAGL.html

Laboratory Information Management System

The Laboratory Information Management System is a database that contains analytical data for 

samples analyzed by Ecology’s Manchester Environmental Laboratory. It is also a software 

system that provides capabilities in project management, sample scheduling, sample receiving 

and sample control. The LIMS also interfaces with analytical instrumentation allowing direct 

upload of data results. The LIMS provides a platform allowing for statistical analyses of data, 

quality assurance monitoring and data review, approval and reporting in both electronic and 

hardcopy formats.

The Pacific Northwest Water Quality Data Exchange

The Pacific Northwest Water Quality Data Exchange (Exchange) comprises a number of related 

information management projects that collectively seek to facilitate the aggregation of and access 

to a comprehensive source of data related to water quality in the Pacific Northwest. The project 

is supported by funds allocated from the EPA Network Challenge Grant program, and with these 

projects, the States are applying the concepts embodied in the National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network.

http://deq12.deq.state.or.us/pnwwqx/ 

Coastal Atlas

The Coastal Atlas contains information about Washington’s marine shorelines and the land areas 

near Puget Sound, the outer coast, and the estuarine portion of the Columbia River, including 

public access and beach closures.

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/

TMDL and Nonpoint Source Implementation Tracking Database

As state in Chapter 3, tracking implementation data is important for accountability, transparency, 

effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management. At a minimum, Ecology will track the 

following implementation data for TMDLs and STI projects:

• The location of nonpoint source problems identified by Ecology during watershed 

evaluations.

• Sites that Ecology has contacted after the evaluations.

• The BMPs that were implemented in the watershed and their location.
100

A specific description of the BMPs that are implemented at a site is the most important 

information to track to support effectiveness monitoring efforts, and promote accountability and 

transparency. For BMPs implemented with funds from an Ecology grant, specific information is 

collected on our BMP approval form. For other BMPs implemented in support of a TMDL or 

STI, Ecology will collect data consistent with the BMP approval form. Additionally, we will 

work with partners to promote the collection of consistent implementation data, and share that 

data with partners and the public.

Finally, to support implementation tracking, Ecology is working to develop a TMDL and 

Nonpoint database.
101

Chapter 8: Groundwater

A majority of Washington State citizens (approximately 60%) get drinking water from 

groundwater. Not counting Seattle, which is supplied by a surface water reservoir, the 

percentage of citizens who rely on groundwater is even higher. In fact, most rural residents get 

water from groundwater wells, although some get water from springs and surface water. A 

significant number of wells in specific areas of the state have been shown to violate standards. 

Impacts to groundwater are not distributed evenly throughout the state.

Figure 3 Public water supply system groundwater sources

Because ground water is recharged from precipitation and snow melt, various chemicals and 

constitutes of other materials used or dumped on the ground's surface can infiltrate into the 

ground, and pollute groundwater. Once these pollutants enter ground water, they can be difficult 

to detect by taste or smell, and difficult to remove. The pollutants can then end up in drinking 

water and water used for irrigation. Because ground water also supplies many of our rivers and 

streams, especially in the late summer, pollutants in ground water can end up in those water 

bodies.

The most typical nonpoint pollutants associated with groundwater pollution are nitrates, 

pathogens, and chemical constituents of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. Failed residential 

septic systems, forestry and agriculture are common sources of these pollutants
102

The affects of nonpoint source pollution of groundwater is costly. Costs are typically incurred 

when wells must be deepened or replaced, treatment systems are installed and maintained, water 

delivery infrastructure to alternative sources are developed, and when bottled water has to be 

supplied to affected citizens until permanent clean water sources can be secured. 

For example, millions of dollars have been spent to address nitrate contamination of groundwater 

in Washington State. Royal City alone had to remove an existing well due to high nitrates and 

then construct a new well at a cost of nearly $1.5 million dollars (Washington State Dept. of 

Health, 2012.

Causes of Nonpoint Pollution in Groundwater

Cities, rural residences, agriculture and forestry can all contribute to nonpoint pollution of 

groundwater. Pesticides and fertilizers are used on crops, lawns, park fields, and golf courses. 

Animal manure is used as a fertilizer, and human waste is delivered to the ground by septic 

systems or land application of biosolids. All of these pollutants have migrated to groundwater in 

some areas of the state. There are demonstrably many locations in various areas of the state 

where nitrate has exceeded 10 mg/L in groundwater. Fertilizer and manure land application in 

sensitive areas is a major nonpoint nitrate contamination source.

Regulatory Framework Nonpoint Pollution Control for 

Groundwater

Water Pollution Control Act

Under Chapter RCW 90.48 RCW, Ecology has authority for water pollution control. Under 

RCW 90.48.030, Ecology has the jurisdiction to “control and prevent the pollution of streams, 

lakes, rivers, ponds, inland waters, salt waters, water courses, and other surface and underground 

waters of the state of Washington.”

Under RCW 90.48.80 it is illegal to pollute waters of the state including groundwater. 

Discharges to waters of the state, including groundwater, require a State Waste Discharge 

Permit.

Ground WQ Standards

Ground WQ Standards lists criteria for a variety of groundwater contaminants. The numeric 

criteria values and the narrative standards represent contaminant concentrations which are not to 

be exceeded in groundwater. 

WQ Standards are designed to protect the beneficial uses of the waters of the state. Examples of 

such beneficial uses are drinking water and other domestic uses, stockwatering, industrial, 

commercial, and agricultural uses, and fish and wildlife maintenance and enhancement. For 

example, the criteria for nitrate is 10 mg/L which is established to protect drinking water uses.
103

Washington’s ground WQ Standards require that groundwater is kept as clean as possible and to 

prevent man-made groundwater pollution. To achieve this, dischargers must implement "all 

known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment" (AKART) to 

reduce the contaminant load sufficiently to assure the criteria will not be exceeded, and AKART 

must be applied to all wastes prior to entry into ground water.

Additionally, antidegradation policy mandates the protection of background water quality, and 

prevents degradation of water quality which would harm a beneficial use or violate the Ground 

WQ Standards. Whenever ground waters are of a higher quality than the criteria assigned for 

said waters, the existing water quality shall be protected. Additional treatment may be necessary 

to achieve the antidegradation policy.

Washington State’s Safe Drinking Water Act

Washington has a formal agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (PDF, 75 

KB) for meeting the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which was 

passed in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996.

The SDWA includes WQ Standards, sampling, treatment, and public notification requirements. 

The 1996 amendments added new requirements related to annual water quality reports, operator 

certification requirements, system capacity, and source water assessment and protection.

Generally, the SDWA applies to water systems with 15 or more connections, or those regularly 

serving 25 or more people daily, 60 or more days per year. Approximately 4,200 public water 

systems in Washington are subject to the SDWA.

Current Groundwater Pollution Control for Nonpoint 

Sources

Nonpoint pollution control programs that have a nexus to groundwater in Washington State 

include the following:

Washington State Department of Ecology

Ecology has regulatory authority to prevent pollution, require the Ground WQ Standards to be 

complied with and require that dischargers to waters of the state obtain a permit. Permits include 

the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation General Permit, Biosolids General Permit and 

individual State Waste Discharge permits for land application of wastewater.

Ecology has regulatory authority over Ground Water Management Areas, which apply both to 

water resources and water quality. The department also administers state financial assistance for 

pollution prevention/mitigation through grants and loans.

Washington State Department of Agriculture

WSDA administers the following programs:

• Dairy Program under the Dairy Nutrient Management Act.
104

• Pesticide use, which regulates the use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

On-Site Sewage System Regulation

See Chapter 3 for more information on the regulation of on-site sewage systems.

Washington State Department of Health Drinking Water Program

The DOH Drinking Water program requires that public water systems inventory potential 

contamination sources within their wellhead protection zones and report results to the state.

Ground Water Management Areas (GWMAs)

Washington State Law (RCW 90.44.400) allows the Department of Ecology to identify 

groundwater management areas in order to protect groundwater quality, to assure groundwater 

quantity, and to provide for efficient management of water resources for meeting future needs. 

The intent of groundwater management areas is to develop partnerships between local, state, 

tribal and federal interests to cooperatively protecting the state's groundwater resources. Chapter

173-100 WAC establishes rules for establishing GWMAs.

Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area

The Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area consists of Adams, Franklin, Grant and 

Lincoln counties. Nitrate control efforts focused on voluntary incentives. Incentives included

distributing cost-share funds for converting irrigation systems to conserve water. They also 

conducted soil tests so that producers could find out how much nitrogen was being lost below the 

root zone. This was an educational effort to encourage producers to use less fertilizer.

Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area

In 2011, the Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area was formed to address 

nitrate contamination in groundwater. The GWMA is a response to the elevated nitrate levels 

found in the Lower Yakima Valley which often exceed the state groundwater standard of 10.0 

mg/L. The goal of the Lower Yakima Valley GWMA is to reduce nitrate contamination 

concentrations in groundwater below state drinking water standards.

Yakima County requested that Ecology recognize the GWMA and provide assistance for helping 

reduce the nitrate level in the groundwater. Tasks include: 

• Data Collection, Monitoring and Analysis. 

• Public Education and Outreach. 

• Problem Identification. 

• Potential Measures or Practices for Reducing Groundwater Contamination. 

Pollution prevention will be a guiding principle for all work in the Yakima GWMA. Further, 

they are looking to get nitrate contamination addressed by:

• Identify the primary sources of nitrate contamination using scientific data. 

• Identify or develop practices that will minimize nitrate contamination of groundwater 

• Develop a plan that recommends strategies for implementing improved practices 

• Provide appropriate education and outreach on health risks and how to prevent exposure.
105

Nitrate

Nitrate is a primary indicator of nonpoint groundwater pollution and is one of the most 

widespread known nonpoint contaminants of groundwater in Washington State. Groundwater 

contamination by nitrate has increased as use of fertilizer, and manure production has increased,

and the population of the state has increased.

Many studies over the years have clearly demonstrated that there are areas of the state where 

groundwater has been particularly susceptible to contamination from nonpoint sources. Both 

public water supply wells and individual residential wells have been contaminated in multiple 

areas of the state. The detection of excessive levels of nitrate in groundwater also indicates that 

chemicals used on land can reach groundwater.

The primary way nitrate pollution of groundwater is prevented and controlled is to reduce 

loading at the land surface. Nitrate is needed to grow crops, and this makes it especially 

challenging to regulate as a pollutant. Loading can be reduced by applying only what is needed 

by growing crops and lawns, timing nutrient applications closest to plant utilization, placing 

nutrients away from surface waters, eliminating late season nutrient applications, and managing 

irrigation to prevent over-watering and subsequent nitrate leaching.

Although most drinking water wells in Washington State have not been contaminated by nitrates

(see Figure 5 at the end of this chapter), a significant number in specific areas have (see Figure 4

at the end of this chapter). Among others, these include the Sumas Blaine Aquifer in Whatcom 

County, the Lower Yakima Valley and the Columbia Basin. Millions of dollars have been spent 

to cope with nitrate contamination of groundwater.

• Sumas Blaine aquifer in Whatcom County is impacted. Several public water supply 

systems are under state compliance orders for exceeding the nitrate limit. New treatment 

systems are being installed, bottled water is being provided and the area is investigating

ways to transport in clean water.

• The Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area was formed to address widespread 

nitrate contamination in Adams, Franklin, Grant and Lincoln Counties.

• In the Lower Yakima Valley many people depend on ground water as a drinking water 

source. Past study results show that 12% of the valley’s wells that have been tested do 

not meet drinking WQ Standards for a chemical called nitrate. About 20% have elevated 

levels of nitrates, and many are above the background level for the area.

Nitrate Prioritization Project 

This project was an outcome of a multi-agency discussion at the director level which focused on 

how resource agencies could coordinate their data to produce tools to help address identified 

water quality concerns. This project aggregated available groundwater data throughout the state 

to identify areas where nitrate contamination of groundwater is of greatest concern and to 

examine information that would help us understand why these areas are more at risk of 

contamination than other area.
106

Objectives: 

• Identify areas of the State where groundwater has been contaminated by nitrates.

• Examine the conditions that lead to contamination.

• Prioritize these areas by the affected population and severity of contamination.

Through the nitrate prioritization project, Ecology collected and aggregated nitrate sampling data 

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, DOH and Ecology. The sampling history shows 

where monitoring has been done and where nitrates were found to be high.

Ecology also examined the conditions that lead to contamination. This information is used to 

understand where the nitrate contamination “hot spots” are in our state. Based on the nitrate 

monitoring data and examination of regional conditions, Ecology has developed preliminary 

nitrate prioritization boundaries and risk categories. These area boundaries and categorization 

may change upon review.

Maps in the report show statewide landscape patterns of conditions that tend toward nitrate 

contamination of groundwater or indicate these conditions are present. These include where 

soils and geologic materials drain water quickly, where loading sources are concentrated and 

where numerous wells that have tested for high nitrates are clustered.

Figure 4 Groundwater Nitrate Sample Record Max <5 mg/L as N.
107

Figure 5 Groundwater Nitrate Sample Record Max >5 mg/L as N.
108

This page is purposely left blank
109

Chapter 9: Goals and Strategies

This chapter addresses Element No. 1 of the “Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint 

Source Management Program” guidance issued by the USEPA in April 2013. It contains set of 

goals, objectives, and strategies to restore and protect surface water and groundwater in 

Washington State. The table also provides measurable outputs that could be used to track 

progress and specific measurable milestones that will be used over the next five years.

Ecology’s ultimate goal for tracking our goals, strategies, and accomplishments is to use a 

database instead of the following table. Use of a database would offer several advantages:

1. Could track implementation in real time, instead of simply providing a snapshot in time.

2. Would provide an up-to-date accounting of what’s been implemented and what hasn’t.

3. Would contain information that would help us assess the effectiveness of our 

implementation work and to make management decisions if we need to change or adapt 

strategies.
110

Table 8 Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Measurable Milestones

Goal 1: Clean-up impaired waters.

Objectives Strategies Measurable Outputs Measurable Milestones (2015-

2020)

Provide incentives to drive 

implementation of 

watershed based plans.

Provide grants and loans to applicants for 

projects that will meet WQ Standards, 

ensure compliance with state law and 

implement a watershed based plan.

• Number and types of BMPs 

implemented. Number of sites 

where complete suites of BMPs 

were implemented.

Develop and implement 

watershed clean-up plans 

(TMDLs and STI projects).

Complete TMDLs and STI individual work 

plans that include all elements of a 

watershed based plan.

• Number of TMDLs and STI 

workplans completed.

• Number of watershed 

evaluations completed.

• Number of sites identified as 

having nonpoint source 

pollution problems.

• Number of these sites that now 

have BMPs that protect water 

quality

• Number and type of BMPs 

implemented to address 

nonpoint sources of pollution.

• Watersheds where we are 

doing effectiveness monitoring 

and results of that effectiveness 

monitoring

Complete 265 TMDLs/STI by 

2020 (average 53 per year).

Implement TMDLs and STIs. • Focus on a minimum of 8 

priority watersheds to 

implement our nonpoint 

strategy per year.

• In the 8 watersheds 

implement 10% of the 

STI/TMDL per year.

Completing watershed evaluations.

• Identify sites with nonpoint pollution 

sources.

• Implement BMPs (stormwater, septic, 

forestry, agricultural) that ensure 

compliance with the WQ Standards.

If working in agricultural areas, implement 

the key changes to Ecology’s Watershed 

evaluation process as recommended by the 

Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory 

Committee.

Respond to complaints 

received.

Resolve complaints received by confirming 

whether a water quality problem exists and 

implementing BMPs as necessary.

• Number of complaints received, 

and responded to by Ecology. 

• Number of complaints resolved.

Respond to 100% of 

complaints received.

Support local PIC Programs 

that help meet WQ 

Standards and promote 

compliance with state law

• Ecology and DOH will provide technical 

and policy support to develop PIC 

programs as necessary.

• Ecology will provide a regulatory 

backstop for PIC programs as 

necessary.

• Number of PIC programs 

developed.

• Number and type of BMPs 

implemented to address 

nonpoint sources of pollution.

4 PIC programs established in 

accordance with DOH and 

Ecology guidance.
111

Support market based 

programs that help meet 

WQ Standards and support 

compliance with state law.

Support water quality trading programs that 

address WQ Standards and promote 

compliance with state law.

• Continue to coordinate with regional 

partners in Idaho, Oregon and EPA 

Region 10 as water quality trading 

markets emerge in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

• Coordinate with State Conservation 

Commission to complete its project of 

determining whether there are potential 

credit purchasers.(add bill number)

• Provide technical and policy support to 

develop water quality trading programs 

as necessary.

• Number and type of BMPs 

implemented to address 

nonpoint sources of pollution in 

these programs.

• Conservation Commission 

report completed.

• Number of NPDES Permits 

using water quality trading as a 

method to meet their permit 

limits.

Support certification/certainty programs 

address WQ Standards and promote 

compliance with state law.

• Support the implementation of the 

Farmed Smart certification program.

• Continue to coordinate with the Pacific 

Northwest Direct Seed Association on 

the Farmed Smart Certification. 

• Work with other groups interested in 

similar certification or certainty 

programs. 

• Number of acres enrolled in the 

Farmed Smart program.

• Number of certification or 

certainty programs developed 

with Ecology support.

• Number of BMPs implemented 

to address nonpoint sources of 

pollution.

Support no discharge zone 

designation for the Puget 

Sound.

Complete final petition to EPA. • Marine waters with no 

discharge zone designation.

Submit final petition to EPA by 

2020 or earlier. 

Work to coordinate our 

nonpoint program with state 

initiatives.

Support the Governor’s Results Washington • Each one of these initiatives 

has its own set of performance 

measures that have a 

connection to the goals and 

strategies in the Nonpoint 

Source Plan. More information 

on these initiatives is found in 

Chapter 3.

Support the Washington Shellfish Initiative 

Support the Puget Sound Action Agenda

Support the Marine Resources Advisory 

Council and efforts to address ocean 

acidification.

Support Salmon Recovery in Washington

Support Chemical Action Plans (CAP) 

Development
112

Support implementation of 

other state authorities and 

promote consistency with 

the WQ Standards.

Support the implementation of forest 

practice rules statewide.

• Periodic reviews of the Forest 

Practices Rules adaptive 

management program and the 

Clean Water Act Assurances 

performed.

• MOU between Ecology and 

WSDA is followed and updated 

as necessary.

• Continue to fund projects that 

will address failing OSS. 

Support implementation of the Dairy 

Nutrient Management Program.

Ecology and WSDA continue to work on the 

gaps identified in the Dairy Nutrient 

Management Act.

Support DOH and LHJ implementation of 

OSS laws.

Support education and 

outreach and support for 

voluntary programs.

Use public education and outreach to build 

support of Ecology’s nonpoint program by 

explaining nonpoint problems in clear and 

engaging language and pictures.

Support partners’ education and outreach 

programs and voluntary programs

• Number of workshops.

• Number of students/attendees.

• Number of outreach tools used 

to explain nonpoint issues.

Goal 2: Ensure clear standards

Objectives Strategies Measurable Outputs Measurable Milestones (2015-

2020)

Identify BMPs and 

measures that are designed 

to comply with the WQ 

Standards and contribute to 

the protection of beneficial 

uses of the receiving 

waters, and ensure 

compliance with state and

federal law.

Utilize best available 

science.

Support updates to the forest practice rules 

based on adaptive management process.

• Number and type of efforts 

Ecology initiates or participates 

Support updates to stormwater manuals. in to achieve this goal.

Continue work to provide information about 

what BMPs or suites of BMPs Ecology 

considers provide presumed compliance 

with state water quality laws.

Support DOH in updates to Washington’s 

OSS rules if needed.
113

Goal: 3 Develop and strengthen partnerships

Objectives Strategies Measurable Outputs Measurable Milestones (2015-

2020)

Strengthen relationships 

and receive input from 

stakeholders.

Continue using the Agriculture and Water 

Quality Advisory Committee to receive input 

and recommendations from agriculture 

stakeholders, environmental stakeholders 

and tribes on agriculture related issues.

• Ideas generated by these 

groups are used by Ecology to 

improve its work.

• Number of meetings at which 

Ecology solicits ideas for 

improvement.

Hold a minimum of 4 meetings 

per year for each group.

Continue using the Financial Assistance 

Council to receive input from stakeholders 

on the administration of Ecology grants and 

loans.

Continue using the Water Quality 

Partnership to maintain a dialogue with key

interests on our nonpoint source pollution 

work.

Strengthen relationships 

with federal and state 

agencies, and local 

governments and special 

purpose districts.

Coordinate with local governments and 

special purpose districts including 

conservation districts, and local heath 

districts.

• Regional staff meet with CDs to 

talk about regional nonpoint 

priorities.

• Continue to meet with the other 

resources agencies on water 

quality.

Hold a minimum of 4 meetings 

with NRCS.

Coordinate with other state agencies

• Implement MOA with Department of 

Agriculture

• Support DNRs implementation of the 

forest practices rules.

Coordinate with state and federal land 

managers to ensure they meet the WQ 

Standards and prevent nonpoint pollution 

from reaching state waters.

Coordinate with federal agencies

Strengthen relationships 

with Tribes.

Coordinate with tribes. Invite tribes to 

provide input on nonpoint policy 

development early in the process.

Strengthen relationships 

with producer groups and 

agricultural producers. 

Find opportunities to meet with producer 

groups to explain nonpoint issues.

• Number of producer groups 

Ecology staff met with.
114

Goal 4: Monitor waters for nonpoint source impairments, and program effectiveness.

Objectives Strategies Measurable Outcomes Measurable Milestones (2015-

2020)

Continue monitoring efforts. • Perform monitoring in locations and 

using methods that help Ecology make 

management decisions.

• Ensure all Ecology monitoring efforts 

are supported with up-to-date QAPPs.

• Ensure all Ecology funded monitoring 

efforts are supported with up-to-date 

QAPPs and work with partners to 

ensure the use of QAPPs for monitoring 

efforts and studies that will be used by 

Ecology.

• All projects (both Ecology 

projects and external projects) 

are guided by QAPPs.

• All QAPPs are approved by 

Ecology environmental 

assessment program before 

data collection begins.

100% of Ecology led projects 

have an approved QAPP.

Effectiveness Monitoring. Ensure adequate implementation data is 

collected prior to starting effectiveness 

monitoring.

• Number of effectiveness 

monitoring projects performed 

in which there is adequate 

implementation data to 

determine whether or not our 

efforts are driving a change in 

water quality.

Initiate 3 effectiveness 

monitoring studies per year in 

TMDL/STI watersheds.

Goal 5: Ecology will administer its Nonpoint Source Program as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Objectives Strategies Measurable Outcomes Measurable Milestones (2015-

2020)

Align the nonpoint program 

with other relevant 

programs.

Align the nonpoint program with the 

following programs:

• TMDL

• CZARA

• Point source program

• National estuary program.

• Annual Section 319 project 

reports document 

accomplishments in aligning 

programs.
115

Promote accountability. Develop TMDL and nonpoint 

implementation tracking system.

• TMDL/nonpoint implementation 

tracking system completed.

• Grants Reporting Tracking 

System (GRTS) data entered by 

EPA deadlines.

• Ecology identifies gaps in 

implementation data.

• Achieve the following 

reductions per year:

o 14,000 lbs. of 

phosphorous.

o 8,000 tons of 

sediment.

o 40,000 lbs. of 

nitrogen.

• 70 OSS repair/

replacement projects 

completed by SRF/ 

Centennial funded local 

loan programs.

Continue support of EAGL.

Continue using BMP approval form to track 

specific BMP implementation metrics. 

Work with partners to collect consistent 

implementation data.

Information about projects funded with 319 

funds entered into GRTS.

Keep the nonpoint program 

up-to-date.

Update plan as necessary but at least once 

every five years. 

• Nonpoint plan updated in 2020 

or before.

One updated plan submitted to 

EPA in 2020.

Complete interim updates as necessary. • Interim updates completed to 

new certainty programs or other 

accomplishments as soon as 

they are achieved.

Administer grants and 

loans.

Oversight of grants and loans ensures that 

projects proposed are completed and that 

public money is spent appropriately.

• Final project reports document 

that project was completed.

• Projects are closed out as soon 

as possible after completion.
116

This page is purposely left blank
117

Appendices

Appendix A. Assessment of Nonpoint Pollution in 

Washington State

Appendix A, which includes the report titled Assessment of Nonpoint Pollution in Washington 

State is attached as a separate pdf on the web. See also:

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1403028.html
118

Appendix B. Letter from Ron Lavigne, Assistant Attorney 

General, concerning Ecology’s authority to prevent 

Nonpoint Source Pollution and Require Implementation Of 

Management Measures
119
120

Appendix C. Minimum Elements of a Watershed-based 

Plan

Although many different elements may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has identified nine 

minimum elements that are critical for achieving improvements in water quality. In general, 

EPA requires that nine-element watershed-based plans (WBPs) be developed prior to 

implementing project(s) funded with § 319 watershed project funding. In many cases, state and 

local groups have already developed watershed plans and strategies for their rivers, lakes, 

streams, wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters that address some or all of the nine elements. 

EPA encourages states to use these plans and strategies, where appropriate, as building blocks 

for developing and implementing WBPs. If these existing plans contain all nine elements listed 

below, they can be used to fulfill the WBP requirement for watershed projects. If the existing 

plans do not address all nine elements or do not include the entire watershed planning area, they 

can still provide valuable components to inform, develop, and update WBPs. 

For example, some watershed management plans contain information on hydrology, topography, 

soils, climate, land uses, water quality problems, and management practices needed to address 

water quality problems but lack the quantitative analysis of current pollutant loads or expected 

load reductions from proposed management practices. In this case, the WBP developer could 

incorporate such existing information into the plan to help fulfill the nine WBP elements. If 

separate documents contain information that help meet the nine WBP elements listed below but 

are too lengthy to be included in the WBP, they can be summarized and referenced in the 

appropriate sections of the plan, as long as the information is readily available. 

Note: EPA recognizes that in select cases (outlined in section IX.B.ii of these guidelines) 

alternatives to WBPs can provide an effective roadmap to achieve the water quality goals of a § 

319 funded watershed project. These alternative plans do not need to address the nine elements 

listed below, but must include the planning components listed in section IX.B.ii of these 

guidelines. EPA still encourages plan developers to build on prior planning efforts and 

incorporate related information, as described above, when developing these alternative plans. 

Nine Elements of Watershed-based Plans (WBPs) 

The nine elements, as well as short explanations of how each element fits in the context of the 

broader WBP, are provided below. Although they are listed as a through i, they do not 

necessarily take place sequentially. For example, element d asks for a description of the 

technical and financial assistance that will be needed to implement the WBP, but this can be 

done only after you have addressed elements e and i. 

The level of detail needed to address the nine elements of WBPs will vary in proportion to the 

homogeneity or similarity of land use types and variety and complexity of pollution sources. For 

example, densely developed urban and suburban watersheds often have multiples sources of 

pollution from historic and current activities (Superfund sites, point sources, solid waste 

disposal, leakage from road salt storage, oil handling, stormwater-caused erosion, road 

maintenance, etc.) in addition to some agricultural activities. Plans will be more complex than in 

predominantly rural settings in these cases. For this reason, plans for urban and suburban 
121

watersheds may need to be developed and implemented at a smaller scale than watersheds with 

agricultural lands of a similar character.

Element a. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar 

sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals 

identified in the watershed plan. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the 

significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the 

watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate 

of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management 

or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation). 

What does this mean? 

Your WBP source assessment should encompass the watershed of the impaired waterbody(ies) 

throughout the watershed, and include map(s) of the watershed that locates the major cause(s) 

and source(s) of impairment in the planning area. To address these impairments, you will set 

goals to meet (or exceed) the appropriate WQ Standards for pollutant(s) that threaten or impair 

the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the watershed covered in the plan. 

This element will usually include an accounting of the significant point and nonpoint sources in 

addition to the natural background levels that make up the pollutant loads causing problems in 

the watershed. If a TMDL or TMDLs exist for the waters under consideration, this element may 

be adequately addressed in those documents. If not, you will need to conduct a similar analysis 

(which may involve mapping, modeling, monitoring, and field assessments) to make the link 

between the sources of pollution and the extent to which they cause the water to exceed relevant 

WQ Standards.

Element b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.

What does this mean?

On the basis of the existing source loads estimated for element a, you will similarly determine 

the reductions needed to meet WQ standards. After identifying the various management 

measures that will help to reduce the pollutant loads (see element c below), you will estimate the 

load reductions expected, as a result of implementing these management measures, recognizing 

the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time.

Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope described 

in element a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, eroded 

streambanks, or implementation of a specific stormwater management practice). For waters for 

which TMDLs have been approved or are being developed, the plan should identify and 

incorporate the TMDLs; the plan needs to be designed to achieve the applicable load reductions 

in the TMDLs. Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water 

delivered to a downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the WQ Standards for the 

pollutant of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for reductions 

in pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL as necessary to attain 

the applicable WQ Standards.
122

Element c. A description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be 

implemented to achieve load reductions in element b, and a description of the critical areas in 

which those measures will be needed to implement this plan. 

What does this mean? 

The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the 

load reductions estimated under element b, as well as to achieve any additional pollution 

prevention goals outlined in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection). 

Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical 

areas (critical areas are those producing disproportionately high pollutant loads) in which those 

measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be detailed enough to 

guide needed implementation activities throughout the watershed and can be greatly enhanced by 

developing an accompanying map with priority areas and practices. Thought should also be 

given to the possible use of measures that protect important habitats (e.g. wetlands, vegetated 

buffers, and forest corridors) and other non-polluting areas of the watershed. In this way, 

waterbodies would not continue to degrade in some areas of the watershed while other parts are 

being restored. 

Element d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated 

costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan. 

What does this mean? 

You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the entire plan. 

This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management 

measures, information/education (I/E) activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You 

should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan.

Plan sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private funds or resources that 

might be available to assist in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available 

resources should be identified and addressed in the plan. 

Element e. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of 

the plan and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and 

implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented. 

What does this mean? 

The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach activities or 

actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may support the adoption 

and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support stakeholder 

involvement efforts. 

Element f. Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in 

this plan that is reasonably expeditious. 

What does this mean? 
123

You should include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in your 

watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g and you should 

begin implementation as soon as possible. Conducting baseline monitoring and outreach for 

implementing water quality projects are examples of activities that can start right away. It is 

important that schedules not be “shelved” for lack of funds or program authorities; instead they 

should identify steps towards obtaining needed funds as feasible. 

Element g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint 

source management measures or other control actions are being implemented. 

What does this mean? 

The WBP should include interim, measurable implementation milestones to measure progress in 

implementing the management measures. These milestones will be used to track implementation 

of the management measures, such as whether they are being implemented according to the 

schedule outlined in element f, whereas element h (see below) will develop criteria to measure 

the effectiveness of the management measures by, for example, documenting improvements in 

water quality. For example, a watershed plan may include milestones for a problem pesticide 

found at high levels in a stream. An initial milestone may be a 30% reduction in measured 

stream concentrations of that pesticide after 5 years and 50 percent of the users in the watershed 

have implemented Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The next milestone could be a 40% 

reduction after 7 years, when 80% of pesticide users are using IPM. The final goal, which 

achieves the water quality standard for that stream, may require a 50% reduction in 10 years. 

Having these waypoints lets the watershed managers know if they are on track to meet their 

goals, or if they need to re-evaluate treatment levels or timelines. 

Element h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being 

achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining WQ Standards. 

What does this mean? 

As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track 

progress towards attaining WQ Standards. The criteria in element h (not to be confused with 

water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure against 

through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform 

concentrations, nutrient loads) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach 

closings). These criteria should reflect the time it takes to implement pollution control measures, 

as well as the time needed for water quality indicators to respond, including lag times (e.g., water 

quality response as it is influenced by ground water sources that move slowly or the extra time it 

takes for sediment bound pollutants to break down, degrade or otherwise be isolated from the 

water column). Appendix B of these guidelines, “Measures and Indicators of Progress and 

Success,” although intended as measures for program success, may provide some examples that 

may be useful. You should also indicate how you will determine whether the WBP needs to be 

revised if interim targets are not met. These revisions could involve changing management 

practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution 

concentrations to respond to treatment.
124

Element i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts 

over time, measured against the criteria established under element h. 

What does this mean? 

The WBP should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made 

toward attaining or maintaining the applicable WQ Standards for the waterbody(ies) addressed in 

the plan. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established schedule and 

interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to 

assess progress in achieving loading reductions and meeting WQ Standards. Watershed-scale 

monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over 

time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type 

of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project. 

For more detailed information on developing watershed-based plans, please see A Handbook for 

Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, U.S. EPA, EPA 841-B-08-002 

March 2008, (water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm ). Other resources for watershed 

planning are available on the Watershed Central website - including the Watershed Central Wiki 

and Plan Builder tool at (water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/datait/watershedcentral/index.cfm).
125

Appendix D. Letter from the Department of Health to 

Ecology concerning shellfish protection
126
127