# 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 contac t:

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 ma terials 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 71 1. 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, WashingtonThis page is purposely left blanki 

# Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. i

List of Figures and Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ .... v Figure s

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. v

Acknowledgements

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ vi

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... vii

Chapter 1: No npoint 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

Stat e Environmental Policy Act

................................ ................................ .......... 12 Land Use Planning: Growth Management Act, and Shoreline Management Act 12

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

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 6 Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA)

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

................................ ................................ ..................... 20 Endangered Species Act

................................ ................................ ...................... 21

Federal Fa rm Bill Programs

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

................................ ................................ ........... 22 Local Ordinances and Regulations

................................ ................................ .............. 23ii 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 Cl ean

- 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 Res ults 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

Financ ial Assistance Council

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

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

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 61

Local Government s

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61

Conservation Districts

................................ ................................ ......................... 63 Local Health Departments and Districts

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

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 64iii 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

Chap ter 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

Wa ter 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

Stre am 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

St ormwater Work Group

................................ ................................ ..................... 89 Other Monitoring Programs

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

................................ ................................ ....................... 90

U.S. Forest Service

................................ ................................ .............................. 90

Habitat Cons ervation Plans

................................ ................................ ................. 90 Shellfish Growing Area Monitoring

................................ ................................ .... 91 Salmon Recovery Act

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

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

................................ ..................... 92iv 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

Effectiv eness 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 Lo ans 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

................................ ................................ .. 10 4 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.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 125v 

# 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

................................ ............ 110vi 

# 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 ( W SCC) 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 LaCassevii 

# Executive Summary

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

n on p oint s ources (NPS) of pollution. This statewide management plan meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act requirements

, and ensures

Wa shington 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 r estoring, 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

, a nd 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
th at are not meeting the state WQ Standards which protect all beneficial uses

.

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

are considered NPS of pollution

, and they represent the largest remaining challeng e in achieving compliance with state WQ Standards . Both point and N PS of pollution must be addressed to reverse the trend of impairment

, and achieve the goals outli ned in state and federal law.

The (NPS) aims to protect public health

, and restore our stat e’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 blank1 

# Chapter 1 : Nonpoint Source Pollution in Washington State

Land u se and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Nonpoint source pollutants are introduced into water through :

• R unoff (typically rainfall and snow melt washing pollutants from the land into rivers, streams, lakes, oce ans
, and underground aquifers);

• D irect deposition of pollutants into state waters;

• Habitat alteration and h ydromodification ( the alteration of the natural flow of water

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

• A tmosphe ric 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 pol lution can be divided into the following categories.



### Categories Associated Land Uses

Agriculture Livestock keeping ; crop production ; grazing; non

- commercial agriculture

Atmospheric Deposition E missions from various sources ; wind bo rne erosion

Forest Practices Road construction and maintenance; harvesting; chemical applications.

Habitat Alteration / Hydromodificcation Filling of wetlands

, and alteration of ripari an 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 q uality of Washington State’s w ater?

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 20022 Integrated Wate r 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 wit h 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 efficient ly by focusing on water bodies that nee d 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 man y water bodies that have not been

monitored yet

.


### Nonpoint p ollution in Washington State

To support development of the N PS 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 revi ew 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 a llocations 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 fe cal coliform bacteria, suspended sediment, turbidity, pesticides, PCBs, nutrients, and pH

, as well as decre ased levels of dissolved oxygen, and elevated water temperatures through loss of riparian shade.

Table 1 Pollutant categories associated with nonpoint pollution from agricultural ar eas.
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, v ehicle 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

uses4 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 ass ociated 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, c oncentration 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

T he primary means by which timber harvest impacts water quality is through: 1) removal of the trees which provide shade, leaf li tter and woody debris, 2) removal of tr ees and vegetation in sufficient amounts to change the flow of water and nutrients, and 3) compact ing and disturb ing

soils such that excess sediment is delivered to strea ms 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 s oil compaction and i ncreased runoff from impervious surface s.

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

. Througho ut the watershed forest h arvest 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
Hydromodi fication or habitat alteration, a category fou nd widely in EPA NPS guidance, is comprised of a variety of impacts, ranging from large dams to development in riparian zones. Typical form s 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 erosion5 This category overlaps with many of the other categories, since agriculture, urban and residential developmen t, 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 h ydromodification 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.

Tabl e 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 water

groundwater 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 t hat 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, aesthetics6 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 no npoint pollution across the U nited

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 nutrie nts

.

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,

aesthet ics

Petroleum hydrocarbons Road runoff, commercial or industrial spills Aquatic life u ses

Temperature Loss of riparian canopy, changes in channel morphology, changes in surface water

groundwater interactions Aquatic life uses7 

# 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

- sew age 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 R CW) 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 l ocal 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

gov erning 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 pollutio n 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 ma tter 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 m ay 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 throw n, 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 Chapte r 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 9 0.48 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 stat e” 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 Dischar ge 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 th e 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 disch arge), 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 practi ces (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 Act 12 and t he 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 p rogram.

The Forest Practices Board, an independent state agency, adopts F orest P ractices R ules. The Department of Ecology needs to concur with proposed r ules 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 R ules requires trees to be left with in streamside a reas 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 als o establish road

construction standards and required road mai ntenance , provide protection for wetlands, and set restrictions on pesticide use. A n approved Forest Practices Application from the state Department of Natural Resources ( DNR ) is required for an y 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 damag e to water quality

. 

### Dairy Nutrient Management Program (DNMP)

The Dairy Nutr ient Management Act 14 is administered by the Washington State Departm ent of Agriculture (WSDA). Chapter 90.64 RCW requires all grade “A” licensed dairies to :

• Register with the DNMP;

• D evelop a nutrient management plan (NMP) , the NMP must be approved with in six months of licensing

, and certified within twenty

- four months of licensing by their local conservation district;

• P revent discharges to waters of the state ; and

• M aintain 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 violation s
, 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 in cludes non

- dairy facilities covered under a NPDES CAFO permit.



### On

- Site Sewage Systems

Sm all On

- Site Sewage Systems

Small on

- site sewage systems (OSS) , also known as septic systems, treat domestic sewage from private residences

, restaurants

, and other smal l

- 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 70.118 A 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 Health 16 (SBOH)

, and administered by the State Department of Health. Local

codes must be consistent with

, and at least as stringent as the state law s. 17

Chapter 246

- 272A WAC prov ides 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 o fficer prior to

construction.

Local H ealth J urisdictions (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 prop er use and care of systems.

OSS owners are responsible for operating, monitoring and maintain ing 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 excee d the approved design in bot h quantity and waste strength.

T he 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 un d 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

OSS s present added risk to public health or water qual ity. 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 inf ormation 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.

• Ide ntify 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 recor ds 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

, a nd 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 requirem ents.

To see a map that shows coun ties 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 t owns.

The state Department of Health reviews and approves all LOSS project app lications. 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 S tate 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

g overnments within the state to:

• "Utilize a systematic, int erdisciplinary 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 amenitie s 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, includin g 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." Unde r the SMA , each city and county wi th "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 shor eline

- 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 shoreli ne master program guidelines. 23

The GMA requires that each Washington city and count y 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 desig nate 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 regulation s by the

GMA. 24 As d efined by the GMA, "Critical areas" include the follo wing areas and ecosystems: (a) w etlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; an d (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 function s and values of critical areas

. 26

The Voluntary Stewardship Program (VS P) was passed in 2011 as an amendmen t 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 rel ies 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 prot ected 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 D istricts

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 Endanger ed Species Act listings

, Washington State pass ed the Salmon Recovery Act, C hapter 77.85 RCW. The Act provides for a planning and implementation pro cess 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,

commu nity 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 community

based 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 popula tions for future generations.



### Conservation districts

Conservation districts 28 are non

- regulatory providers of technical assistance primarily to agricultural producers

. Each of Washington’s 39 counties has at leas t 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 bar rie r 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 fin ancial and technical assistance, administr ative and operational oversight,

program co ordination, and promotion of district activities and services.



### Biosolids

Biosolids facilities in Washington operate under a statewide General Permit for Biosolids Manageme nt issue d 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 C hapter 70.95J RCW and Chapter 173

- 308 WAC.15 hazardous material incidents. The law also includes prevention and preparedness requirements,

and authorizes Ecol ogy 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 Ha zardous 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, obstr ucts, or changes

the natural f low 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 rep lacement

.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife adminis ters 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 Rules 36 are administered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). Ferti lizer 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 auth ority involving the application of pesticides 37 and fertilizers 38 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, far m, 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. E quipment 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

Act 39 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 Rules 41 and the

Worker Protection Standards

, 42 which are co

- enforced with the Washington State Department of

Labor and Industries. In instan ces 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 c odified 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 a ct.” 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 discern i ble, 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 d emonstrated 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 at tributable 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 sec tions 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 accom plish those tasks.

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

Section 319

- Nonpoint Source Management Programs In the 1987 CWA Amendments, Congress added Section 319 47 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 pla n.

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, wi thin 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, traini ng, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. The state is free to decide the best approaches for solving NPS problems. These approaches may inclu de 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 appro priate mix of these approaches.

(iii) A description of the processes used to c oordinate 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 assis tance 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 thei r 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 t he standard will maintain and protect the existing use and the water quality of the w ater body. Additionally, CWA S ection 303(d) requires states to list surface waters not attaining (or not expected to attain) WQ Standards after the application of techno logy

based 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 water s. The WQ Standards are established to sustain public

hea lth 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 no npoint 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, t he state ensures that this program and other relevant baseline programs
are integrated into, and consistent with, S ection 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 S tandards 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 disch arge 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 w ill meet the WQ

Standards .” 52

The standards require activities which contribute nonpoint source pollution to use best management practices (BMP s ) 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 nonpoi nt 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 S ection 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 (b lackwater/toilet waste) from boats, whether treated or not, is prohibited.

Under S ection 312 of the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the s tate in which the NDZ has been designated may enforce the NDZ requirements. 57

Under existing federal regulations, treate d 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 anywher e 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 nonp oint 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 disch arged in the open ocean beyond three miles from shore.

Sect ion 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 responsib ility 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, educ ators, 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 1972 58 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 S ection 306(d)(16) 59 and

added S ection 6217 60 to focus on NPS pollution problems and the protection of coastal waters.

CZARA S ection 6217 requires state water quality agenci es to develop and implement Management Measures to rest ore and protect coastal waters from adverse impacts of NPS pollution. CZMA S ection 306(d)(16) 61 requires that state CZM programs contain enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement applicable requirements of CZARA S ection 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 Washing ton State Department of Health, through an agreement with EPA, is authorized and responsible for implementing the SD W A 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

Dri nking 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 h azard 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 entere d 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 aquife r. 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:

• H ighway improvements and new road constr uction ;

• P ublic water supply wells and transmission lines ;

• W astewater treatment facilities ;

• C onstruction projects that involve disposal of storm water ;

• A gricultural projects that involve management of animal waste ; and

• P rojects funded through Community Deve lopment 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 de sig nation 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 s tates that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

• Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for viol at ing 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 an y regulation issued thereunder.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federa l 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 a dversely modify their critical habitat.



### Federal Farm Bill Programs

The 2014 Farm Bill was enacted on February 7, 2014. The Farm Bill funds several conservatio n programs that can benefit agricultural producers and forest landowners along with the

environme nt. 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 capitali zation 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 th at 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 assoc iated 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 c oordination of multiple environmental cross

cutters 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 wate r 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, withi n 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 collecte d 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. The se side sewe rs, or service laterals,

are very near the surface (compared to sewer lines burie d in the street) and are susceptible to23 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 suppleme nt 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 ordinance s can provide protec tion to critical areas that

hav e a nexus with water quality.

Below are t wo example s of local regulatory tools that can be used to address nonpoint pollution: Kitsap County Board of Health’s O nsite Sewage System and G eneral 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. Re gulatory authority includes

non point discharges from failing ons ite 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,

stru ctures, 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. Re gulatory authority includes non point 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 the24 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 acc umulate 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 no n

- 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 s torm 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 au thority and enforcement for non point sources can be a combination of

e fforts by Washington State and local jurisdiction s

.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 group s, 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 qu ality laws and regulations that protect water quality

.

T he NPS aims to protect public health and restore our s tate’s waters by setting clear goals and objectives . Ecology’s strategy to address nonpoint source pollution focuses on cleaning

- up impaired wat ersheds, 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:

• Communicat e clear standards and compliance expectations.

• Implement BMPs that ensure compliance with state WQ Standards and state law.

• I mplement watershed based plans / strategies designed to meet WQ Standards

.

• I dentif y and correct nonpoint pollution sources in impaired watersheds

.

• Be p roactive in address ing pollution problems (i.e. inc entives/education & outreach).

• Escalat e to enforcement when education

, o ut reach, and technical as sistance fail

.

• Be accountable by c ollecting 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 ac hieve 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 ( TMDL s ) and Straight to Implementation (STI) projects;

2. Grant and Loan P rograms; 3. Complaint Response and Inspectors ; 4. Education and Outreach , an d Voluntary P rograms ; and

5. Partnerships

.

Ecolo gy will also support locally le d programs that are designed to identify nonpoint pollution sources and cleanup those sources of pollution. For example

, l ocally led Pollution Identification

and Co rrection (PIC) programs have been developed around the Puget Sound. Also, Shellfish26 Protection Districts provide a framework for locally lead programs to address areas where pollution is impacting s hellfish resources.

W hen 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 F orest Practice Rules;

• Dair y Nutrient Management Program;

• L ocal regul ation 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 a cidification/Washington Marine Resources Advisory Council ; and

• Washington’s efforts to recover salmon s pecies

.

Each of these implementation areas are discussed in detail below.



## Balancing Restoration and Protection

Solving the state’s water quality problems requires correcting existing problem s 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 fo llow the WQ Standard s ’ 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 clean

up projects. There are two related approa ches 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 P ollution I dentification C orrection (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 compli ance with water quality laws.



### Total Max imum 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 inclu de 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 an d future point sources with NPDES permits ; and Load Allocation s (LA s) that include the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing and future nonpoint pollution sources and natural background sources.

The TMDL Process in Washingt on 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 wi thin 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 permit ted 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 an d 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 imp rovement 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 involv ement, 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 poll utant loading the

water body 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 b ody 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 saf ety

. 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 t hey will continue to be adequate in the future.

• Consideration of seasonal variation of flows and contaminant concentrations

. This

ensures that WQ S tandards are met during all seasons of the year.

• An implementation plan. A detailed plan to prevent, redu ce, 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 bot h point and nonpoint

sources, the state must demonstrate reasonable assurance that the load allocations (LAs) will

be achieved and WQ S tandards (WQ S ) will be attain ed. The purpose of reasonable

assurance is to en sure 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 S tandards.

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 t he load reductions re quired 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 multi ple pollutants for an entire water body provided the opportunity for the same set of actions being able to addre ss an array of related pollutan ts. Although focusing on multiple pollutants and the entire watershed gained more for the same set of actions

, t hese TMDLs required more data, more analys es , 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 ou tcomes 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 waste load all ocations , the remedial measures necessary to meet load

allocations are us ually simple, straight forward , practical, low

- tech and inexpensive.

S low pace d implement ation of the load allocation component in TMDLs puts at risk the state’s ability to provide r easonable 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 achie ve compliance with TMDLs. Eventually, the state will reach a point where even a wasteload allocation of zero

f

o r all point sources will not be sufficient to meet the red uctions required by the TMDL

. Nonpoint source pollution, as a significant source of p ollution 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. Ecol ogy 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 imple mentation 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 Ecolo gy will continue to work with and rely on partners to implement load allocation requirements, Ecology will utilize watershed evaluations to identify sites with nonp oint pollution issues and secure the implementation of BMPs that ensure compliance with the WQ Standards and state law. To30 implement BMPs Ecology will first rely on education and outreach efforts, technical assistance and financial assistance from Ecology and partners. I f pollution sources are not addressed, Ecology will utilize enforcement too ls 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 TM DLs, E cology ’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

proact ive 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 a ddress 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 bodie s 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 t hey do not move to Category 1 by the end o f 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 t he watershed. The only exception to this time requirement is for p arameters such as temperature, which might take longer because of the time it takes for trees to grow and achieve site potential shade. H owever, even in this case, all implementation actio ns 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 s taff 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 evaluat ions 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 multipl e types of nonpoint source poll ution, Ecology primarily uses them to address agricultural nonpoint pol lution 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 throu gh the state Forest Practices Rules, and on

- site sewage systems31 Watershed E valuations 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 disch arges. 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

e vents, atmospheric deposition, direct deposition and irrigation. I t 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 issu es.

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 poll ution 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 polluti on 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 recomme nded 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 watersh ed 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 stri ves to continually improve the way it performs its work. As part of this process, in

2014 the D irector of Ecology convened the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory

Committee 65 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

educat ion and outreach in watersheds.

• When contacting producers our letters will include specific information on the pollution problem obser ved 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 Ecolo gy 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 sec ond 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 firs t communication to

the lessee.

The above changes were made to promote better upfront communication, bett er 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 ex isting development and roads is a significant contributor of pollu tion 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 pollutio n/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 W here there is a legal requirement to obtain a permit t he 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 cov er 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 wate r 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) an d (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 implementa tion 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 fund s 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 shar e 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 qualit y 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 prio rity 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 cr iteria 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

match ing 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 proj ect 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 RC W 70.235.070.

• Project Team

— A pplicant 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 Perfo rmance

— 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 an d 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 addit ion 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 fund s for nonpoint source pollution help to provide a n incentive to support the achievement

of clean water objective s and meet the WQ Standards . Eligible a ctivities covered by these nonpoint source funds include implementation of one or more of a limited set of effective BMPs

, education and stewardship progr ams, 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 , restor ing riparian vegeta tion, irrigation system improvements , stream h abitat 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 m easure 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 p rograms is provided in Chapter 5

. Important sources of financial ass istance come from local conservation districts, N atural

Resource C onservation S ervice , the State Conservation Commission, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, and EPA. Eco logy will look to support our partners ’ grant programs and pursue opportunities for coordi nated 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 an d 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 lif e cycle.



## Complaint Response and Inspectors

Ecology’s complaint response system provides a tool t o address reported nonpoint pollution problems through technical assistance, education, referrals, or in limited circumstances,36 escalating enforcement. All of Ecology’s regional office s have staff dedicated to responding to nonpoint source pollution compla ints

.

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, c onduct ing field visits or inspections, providing technical assistance, highlight ing financial assistance opportunities, and refer ring landowners (if need be) to local

conservation district s or other re sources 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 (PI C and Shellfish Protection), and other programs with a nexus to water quality.



## Education and Outreach , and Voluntary Programs

P ublic outreach and education are an important part of the state’s NPS program. Developing

education and outreach programs that in crease the public ’s understand ing of nonpoint source pollution , the technical and financial assistance resources available to address nonpoint pollution,

and how the public can be involv ed in prevent ing pollution before it happens are fundamental to

the su ccess 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 , conserva tion 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 collaborati ve efforts take adv antage of the skills and kno wledge of partner organizations to complement education and outreach expertise at Ecology

.

Ecolo gy will also support locally le d voluntary programs that address nonpoint sources of pollution and promote compliance wi th 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 program s, 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 measu res. 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 TMD Ls or STIs, administering our grants and loans program, responding to complaints or developing education and outreach programs, partners are fundamental to successfully imple menting our nonpoint program.37 Additionally, we recognize the importance of existi ng locally le d 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 suppo rt programs that bring together farmers, landowners, communities and local organizations to address nonpoint pollution.

Chapter 4 provides a detailed description of current a nd future partnership efforts.



## Locally Led Water Clean

- up Programs

Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Programs

Pollution I dentifi cation and C orrection (PIC) prog rams identify and address pathogen and nutrient pollution from a variety of nonpoint sources, including on

- site sewage systems, farm animals, pets, sewage from b oats, and stormwater runoff. The corrective actions taken by local agencies or tribes may include outreach and education, technical assistance, incentives for best

manage ment practices, and enforcement.

To promote PIC programs, the state Department of H ealth and Ecology have offer ed 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 integrat ing planning across local water quality pro grams, 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, pe t 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. Asses sments 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 a s 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 th e 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, a s 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 enf orcement 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 crea ted 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 St ormwater Division. S tormwater 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 s ome programs that are uniq uely relevant to the State N PS Plan.

Water Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) at Kitsap Public Health District

Kitsap’s PIC program is nationally recognized for its innovation and effectiveness. The ir 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 use s standard procedures for doing PIC w ork, 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

K itsap start s 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 b eginning 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 t hey locate the source, they work with property owners to eliminate it. When sources are from failing septic system s 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 sto rmwater 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 K itsap 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 are a 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, improp er 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 sample s 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 po or 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 Shell fish Protection Districts can be found at: http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Shellfish/GrowingAreaRestoration/Shell fis hProtectionDistrictsLibrary



## Other Tools to Promote Implementation

In addition to the ongoing nonpo int efforts outlined above, Ecology continues to pursue and support other tools and strategies to add ress nonpoint source pollution.



### Draft Water Quality Tr ading Framework

Ecology’s Water Quality Program has developed a water quality trading framework 69 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 t o 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 an d 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 oxygen

related pollutants, and sediment. We will con sider trades involving temperature, although the lengthy time lag to produce shade may prohibit temperature trades in many watersh eds.



### Certification and Certainty Programs

Certification programs take a market based approach to address environmental problem s. They

can verify to retailers and consumers that a product has been produced using environmental ly

sustainab le management practices. Ecology supports the concept of certification programs that include a focus on protecting water quality from nonpoint s ources 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 landowne rs, business es , 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

Asso ciation (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 w ere developed using best management practices from multiple environmental and conse rvation entities, including NRCS, and Ecology. The certification program has been vetted by SureHarvest, a third party certification company and several regional commodity mark eting 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 f ield 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 co ver 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

– R educing 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 Progra ms

Forest Practices

Washington’s streams benefit from a well regulated F orest P ractices P rogram. 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 Envi ronmental 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 F orest P ractices R ules 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, environme ntal groups, and state and federal resource agencies. These diverse stakeholders outlined ways to protect water quality and aquatic and riparian

- depend e nt species on non

- Federal forestlands in Washington.

The FFR identified four goals:

1. Provide compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for aquatic and riparian

depend e nt species o n 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 qual ity

. 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 Bo ard, 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 re gulatory 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 provid e 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 timberl and owners have spent considerable effort and time to develop the Forests and Fish Report (RCW 76.09.055), and authorized the development of F orest P ractices R ules 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

resourc e 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 practic es 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 jurisdict ion of the Forest Practices Program.

The state Forest Practices Act ( C hapter 76.09 RCW) and the Stewardship of Non

- industrial Forests and Woodlands ( C hapter 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 eigh t other HCPs that cover some of the state and private forest lands.

The Forest Practices Rules

The F ores t P ractices R ules 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 of44 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 protec tion are worth noting. These include leaving s treamside forested buffers that range from 90

- 200 feet wide along each side of

fish

- bearing streams w est of the Cascade Mountains and 75

- 130 feet wide buffers on the e ast
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 w estside, with an allowance for more variable

width buffers on the eastside to mimic historic forest fire cycles

.

All new forest roads must be c onstructed 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 200 8

. 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 depar tments (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 environ mental 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 re search 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 pr ovisions of the state’s F orest P ractices R ules 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 acceptabl e 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 sup port 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 com munity ;

• 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 Administratio n 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

re commendations 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 lea st 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 r elevant 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 an d 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 si x objectives towards this goal:

1. State critical research and monitoring questions that are pertinent to evaluating rule, guidance, and DNR pr oducts (i .e., rule tools) effectiveness;

2. Organize these questions into coherent program groupings;

3. Assess feasibility, resource risk, and scientific uncerta inty 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 S tate law (Chapter s 90.48 RCW & 76.09 RCW ) F orest P ractices R ules are to be developed so as to achieve complian ce 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 me et the requirements of that Act. The original Clean Water Act assurances (CWA assurances) granted by Ecology in 1999 as part of the F orests and Fish Report (FFR) were reviewed after June 30, 2009. The assurances established that the state’s F orest P racti ces R ules 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 assur ances was the belief that the F orest P ractices R ules

w ere 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 fo rest practices program for an initial ten

- year period. It was assumed in 1999 that research and monitoring would occur to demonstrate that implementing the F orest P ractices

R ules would improve water quality and eventually bring forested waters into full c ompliance

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 man agement 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 progra m 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, Ec ology 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 speci fic actions were taken to impr ove the program’s performance.

Taken in total, the forest practices program provides a substantial framework for bringing the

F orest P ractices R ules and activities into full compliance with the WQ Standards . Ecology

conclude d 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 the48 existing program. Ecology therefore conditionally extended the CWA assurances wit h 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 mee ting 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 t o 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 o perational issues, compliance monitoring, and assessing progress under Road Maintenance, Abandonmen t, and Pla nning (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 withdrawin g the assurances at that time.

The 2009 corrective milestones included 21 operational or administrative milestones, and phase

specific milestones covering 20 research projects examining prescription effectiven ess 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 n or the c omplexity 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 wate r quality research is either in field implementation or in the study design pha se.

Currently the CMER research program invests about 3.2 million dollars per year in examination

of the effectiveness of the F orest P ractices R ules. To be successful in meeti ng 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.

Sm all Forest Landowners

- Alternat e 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 qua lity and other public

resources in recogni tion of the disproportionate impact the F orest P ra ctices R ules 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.



### Agricult ural

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

, E cology 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 i ncluding:

• 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 vio lations of water quality and re cordkeeping 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, loc al agencies) to identify and correct actual or potential violations from non

- dairy livestock operations in watershed s 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, notice s of correction and, when necessary, civil penalties. RCW 43.05 (Technical Assistance) requ ires 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 loca l 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 req uirements 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 addre ss these gaps and challenges.

Program Requirements

- Regulatory agency does n ot 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 operatio ns

.

 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 Qual ity 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 u nless 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 90.48.1 44) ;

 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

en richment of receiving wat ers.

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. Condition s for permits and system design requirements are

set in state and local code

, includ ing minimum land area, horizontal setback and other site

characteri stic s, 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

. L ocal hea lth jurisdictions are authorized to inspect on

- site systems under construction as p art of the permitting process.

As noted above, l ocal health jurisdictions implement front

- line provisions of Chapter 246

- 272 A

WAC and have authority to promulgate more stri ngent regulations (RCW 70.118.050). Enforcement of rules related to onsite sewage systems is au thorized 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 Heal th.” The Department of Ecology also has the authority to take enforcement action under t he 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

enfor cement authority if a local health jurisdiction fails to enforce the state public health rules.52 The Department of Health uses a t echnical advisory group made up of government and industry representatives to provide advice on technical wastewater issues an d 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 owner s and the local health jurisdictions

. System owner s

are responsible for properly operating their system s
, periodically evaluating them, and pump ing when necessary to avoid problems and to ensure ongoing performance

. The Department of Health and local health jurisdictions provide technical support, oversight services, and

i nformation on proper operati on and maint enance (O &M) to homeowners. On e e xample of an

information source on the Department of health website : http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvir onment/WastewaterManagement/OnsiteSewageSys

temsOSS/HomeownerEducation

Local health jurisdiction s 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. Th e Department of

Health has produced numerous guidance document s and administers a small amoun t 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 statu s 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 ot her 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 risk s a re 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 f ailing 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 t o 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, corre ctions, 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 stro nger 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 on

site systems, Ecology may impose those restrictions.

Additives to and loadings from onsite sewage systems have been addressed by re strictions 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 inspect s newly constructed systems, issue s and renew s permits annually for all systems, and track s 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 a nimal 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 strengthe n 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 healthi er, 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 us e 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 Re sults 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 r ecreation, 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 curr ently prohibited in Puget Sound.

Shellfish Initiative:

1. Create a Public/Private Partnership for Shellfish Aquaculture55 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 prioritizin g Puget Sound recovery and protection actions to ensure resources are invested effectively and efficiently. The 2014/2015 Action Agenda 70 identifies key ongoing programs, local priorities for different areas of Puget Sound (which participate through Local I ntegrating 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 h alf 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 mul tiple 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 ran ging 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 st ormwater 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 tha t 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 keys tone 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 P artnership 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.php56 

### 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 f acilities 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 su rveys, 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 a nalysis 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 t o 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 Ac idification /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 t he following powers and duties:

1. T o 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 ac idification;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 i mplement 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 i ndividuals 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 legi slature, 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 b eing 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 App licants

- 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, sta te 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 al l 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.html59 

# 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 i n coordinating interagency eff orts
related to this NPS Plan. It is the responsibility of the NPS Program to r each 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 partners hips 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 necessitate s 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 c oordinate with partners at the local level. Regional offices lead local coordination efforts thr ough multiple avenues.



## Statewide Coordination

State Advisory groups that Ecology uses to coordinate with stakeholders:

• Agriculture and W ater Quality Advisory Committee ;

• Water Quality Partnership ; and

• Water Quality Financial Assistance Council

. 

### Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee

In 2014, Ecology Director Maia Bellon c reated 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

wa ter 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

me etings, and future meetings can be found at:6 0 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 ;

• Washin gton Association of Wine Grape Growers ;

• Washington Cattleman’s Association ;

• Washin gton 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 Conserv ancy ; 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 Ec ology'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 age ncies,

bus inesses, and local government.61 

### Financial Assistance Council

The Water Quality Financial Assistance Co uncil provides Ec ology 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 repres entatives from cities, counties, tribes, conservation districts, special purpose districts, environmental groups, and state and federal agencies.



## Landowners , Businesses, and Agricultural Producers

Private l andowners 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 Gro ups

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

assistanc e, 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, sal m on enhancement groups, tribes, cit ies, counties, health districts, environmental groups, land conservancies, reclamation districts, universities, and

groups s upporting specific watersheds.



## Local Governments

The three basic forms of local government in Washington are:

• Counties

• Cities

• Special purpose districts62 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. Th e 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, whic h 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 legis lature, especially with regard to envi ronmental protection. These environmentally

- oriented districts

include:

• Groundwater protection districts

• Lake protection districts

• Shellfish protection districts

• Solid waste management districts

• Stormwater utility dist ricts

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 househo ld 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 t hese 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

monitori ng and correcting nonpoint source pollution. Ecology is committed to assist ing local governments with monitoring and enforcement.63 State agencies can also assist with financial assistance to local governments through the various funding progra ms they administer. Ecology support s 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

Conservatio n districts are no n

- 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 assistan ce 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 p rograms, d istricts 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 qu alit y 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 fund s, and many conduct monitoring projects to determine effecti veness of completed projects.

Through grants and other opportunities, Ecology partner s 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 implement ation of the goals of the NPS plan . Some districts have also

expa nded 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 infrast ructure strategies/initiatives.

D istricts are a key pa rtner 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 durin g 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 bes t fixes to assist districts in being able to better ser ve 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 th e landowners the y work with. Additionally, they expressed their desire to

p rovide 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 b e 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 a nd two city

county 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 nonpoin t source pollution

, they regulate on

site 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, Pie rce, 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 recommendat ions which they sent to Ecology in 2014. The recommendations focused on i mproving 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

recommend ations include:

o Develop standardized best management practice (BMP) performance measures (programmatic and structural) to use in defining wasteload allocati ons and implementation efforts.

o Develop TMDLs that allow flexi bility via adaptive management.

o Implem ent TMDLs in a manner that ensures proportional distribution of WLAs or

LAs to all major contributing sources.

o Finalize framework for wat er 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 develop ment and implementation of TMDLs, and are also recipients of federal 319 grant funds. The y 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 Recovery65 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)

• C lear 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

.

• T ranspa rency and accountability for colle cting sufficient implementation data to determine whether programs are achieving compliance with WQ Standards

.

• Ecology will work collaboratively to a ddress improper manure management and application. At a minimum we will look to work on the following iss ues :

o Need for m anure 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 optimize s nutrient uptake by plants and eliminate s runoff or leaching;

o Manure applicati on 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 n eed 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

contr olling 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 N PS plan. The primary66 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 a gencies 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 s erves as the backbone agency for Puget Sound

r ecovery. The PSP coordinates the efforts of tribes, scientists, businesses, and non

- profit groups to set priorities, implement a regional recovery plan, and e nsure 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 hel p 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 ( W SCC)

— The W SCC is the coordina ting state agency for all 45 conservation districts in Washington State. Together, the W SCC and conservation districts provide incentive

- based programs that make it easier and more

affordabl e for private landowners to implement conservation on their property.

• Washington State Departm ent 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 pr imary implementer of the state

Forest Practices R u l es.

• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

— The mission of W DFW is t o 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.

• Wash ington 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 Departme nt of Transportation is the steward of a multimodal transportation system and responsible for67 ensuring that people and goods move safely and efficiently. Many of the roads, highways and bridges managed by DOT are covered by stormwater permits.

• Washingto n 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 an d 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 Bas e 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 th e 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 Servic e 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 ac tivities, 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

in dividuals), and a major source of funding for cost share and r estoration 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 Wash ington, 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 Protec tion 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 wildli fe. 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 Conservatio n 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 st ate Forest Practices R ules , 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 des igned to be as protective as what is require d 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 that69 the forest Service would achieve compliance with state WQ S tandards. 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 Ser vice announced that it would not be able to comply with the road requ irement.

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. Tw o

- thirds of the runoff from problem roads drain s 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 r esult in compliance

with the state WQ Standards

.

The BPA primarily harvests timber within and adjacent to power transmission line right s of way

. BPA right s of way situated adjacent to streams are often targeted for heavy use by recreational

off road vehi cle 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 necessar y 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 blank71 

# Chapter 5: Financial Incentive Programs

Both s tate 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 I nvestment

Ecology will look to support coordinated investment strategies that help meet the goals of the

NPS plan. Specifically, Ecology will look to support coordinated investment s that target projects that implement TDMLs and STIs

, while also solving mu ltiple 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 multip le 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 compli ance with state WQ Standards at the parcel level

.

• Supporting p rojects c ommunicating clear standar ds and compliance expectations.

• Supporting the implementation of TMDLs and STIs

.

• Supporting p rojects that provide multiple environmental benefits

— water quality, salmon and shellfish goals.

• Focus ing on outcomes and a ccountability through c ollecting 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 o f 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 l oan 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 S tate R evolving Fund loan program and stormwater grant

program into a single combined financial assistance funding cycle. The Revolving Fund loan program can al so fund nonpoint source projects. The Stormwater Fi nancial Assistance Program provides funds to reduce impacts of non

- point source stormwater runoff from existing development. Projects may integrate green infrastructure solutions

.

Conservation Reserve E nhancement 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 fu nded by the USDA Farm Service Agency and the State of Washington. The state portion is managed b y 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 rec overy projects . The funding i s 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. Mil lions 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 qual ity. 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 relat ed 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 Fundi ng 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 pr ojects are sponsored by Ecology staff to achieve a specific water quality obj ective. Often, these projects involve funding rip arian 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 salmo n 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 prop osed by conserva tion 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 tha t address

multi

- state issues are also prioritized. The fund is competitive and uses the rules of existing NRCS progra ms (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 as sistance 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 blank75 

# Ch apter 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 suit es of BMPs that comply with Washington State’s WQ Standards . Additionally, Ecology is the agency responsible for articulating how nonpoint p ollution 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 ac ti vities, 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.

• Utiliz e 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

Sec tion 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 mana gement 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 .” Fur thermore, 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

“m anagement measure” approach is more akin to a technology

- based rather than water

- quality

based 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

• Stormwa ter 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 tha t BMPs implemented with Ecology grants comply with the WQ Standards at the

site level. I n 2013 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notified Ecology that it must take

additiona l actions to protect salmo n 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 S tandards, and help p rotect and recover Washington’s salmon runs.

Outside of the information provided in our funding guid elines, Ecology recognizes our state lacks freestanding manuals, compendiums or other guidance that identify BMPs for agriculture that ensure compliance wi th 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 Practice s Rules

• Onsite S ewage 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 p rograms by clearly defining when an activity requires a permit versus being covered under our NPS program, and utilizing consistent77 guidance to inform the implementation of both programs . Further, state waste discharge permits can cover sources that may b e 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 Packin g

• 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 regu latory 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 Quali ty 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”

f

or categories or subcategories of nonpoint pollution that fulfill the requirements of CW A Section 319 and CZARA.

o Work with EPA to identify gaps where Ecology does not have current
“manuals o r compendiums” for categories or subcategories of nonpoint pollution that fulfill the requirements of CWA Section 319 and CZARA.78 • As necessary w ork with EP A, NOAA, stakeholders and tribes to de sign 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 coverin g 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 Wash ington.

• 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 i mplementing 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 Was hington 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

i dentify waters of the state that have impairments, help connect impairments to nonpoint sources of pollution

, help i dentify unimpaired waters, help prioritize waters for implementation , and

support effectiveness monitoring.

This section starts by describing the o verall 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 desc ription 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

a ssurance 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 e ffective 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 wate r 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 rece ived.



### 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

su bmitted 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) is81 not provided, the data are not to be used in the assessment. If Ecol ogy 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

• Met hods 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 a re 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 oper ating 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 veri fied 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 bact eria , 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 shellfi sh advisories from appropriate agencies. Impairments can also be caused by non

- pollutants, as legally defined. Examples of non

pollutants 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 pri mary 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 S ection 303(d) list of impaired waters. Ecology’s Water Quality and Environmental Assessment

p rogram s ha ve jointly adopted Policy 1

- 11 that describes the methods used for assessing

information to evaluate attainment of WQ Standards

. The Policy includes cr iteria 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 govern ment 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 f ive 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 wate rs : 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 standard s 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 pro per 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 wat ers 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 finan cial 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 problem s 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 p rogram in place

. TMDLs or other approved WQI projects are required for the water bodies in this

ca tegory.

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 watersh eds 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 meta ls and organic compounds. The most complex toxic projects may require sampling a wide range of media including surface water, storm water, effluents from municipal and industrial facilities, suspended particulates, bottom sediments, bottom cores, and

resid ent fish. In addition, biological evaluation of surface waters is being incorporated into TMDL study design s to provide a broader approach because degradation of sensitive ecosystem processes is more frequently identified. Since many of the waters identif ied 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 predomina n tly 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 esti mates 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 sampl ed 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 proce ss 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 continuou s monitoring for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity at 10 stations, including six stations in support of “Intensive ly Monitored Watersheds” (IMW) research which is funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and two stations supporti ng 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 monitor ing 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 vertic al 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 tem poral 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 trans ects and aerial photography.

The program deploys in situ sen sors 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 water85 disc harge, 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 vari ability 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 phytop lankton 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

observati ons 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 t o 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 c over 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 ob tained 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

res earch 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 selec ted 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 Sedime nt 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 c omponents 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 ident ified.

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 vi sits 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 macroinvertebrate s 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

ma croinvertebrates, 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 tog ether, 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 list ing on the state’s 303(d) list.



### Stream Flow Monit oring

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 configurati on of individual stations are p resented 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 information87 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 proj ect, 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., salmon

critical) 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 identifi cation 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 bas ed on requests or problems identified by regional office staff and local

cooperators.



### Beach Environmental Assessment, Communi cation and Health (BEACH) Prg m

EPA initiated the Beaches Environm ental 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 program s 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

Ecol ogy, 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 resource88 managers and the public about the status of toxic contamination in edible fish tissue from freshwater lakes, rivers, and strea ms 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 s ampling 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 20 07

• 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



### Groun dwater 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 Adva ncement 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 groundwate r 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 impr ove 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,

sm olt 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 monito ring 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 conduc ted 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 Gro up (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 Monitori ng 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 t o 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 ach ieving 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 Highway s



## 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 agencie s.

USGS also manages the National Streamflow Information Program w hich 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 w hen 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 effective ness 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 Monito ring Report each year that covers all the implementation and effectiv eness monitoring accomplished.



### Habitat Conservation Plans

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and th e U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Most of the HCPs in Washington are focused on the conservation of salmonids. These include programs administered91 under the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Power Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Magnuson

- Stevens Act, amo ng 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 complianc e 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 speci fic 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, co mmercial 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 commercia l/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 g rowing 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, hy drography, 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, des pite acceptable water quality.

Once classified, all active growing areas are re gularly 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

resp onsible agencies about identified and potential pollution sources. If a commercial shellfish growing areas has its classification downgraded due to nonpoint pollution, state law calls for92 local governments to form a shellfish protection district within 18 0 days. The shellfish protection district is tasked with developing a shellfish closure response in order to address the pollution so urces 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, t he 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 ch anging 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 Ecolog y’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 measu red 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 conditi on, 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 f or 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 Decembe r 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 Plan ning 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, river s, estuaries, wetlands, and coastlines on a periodic basis to93 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 c ommittees 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 exces s nitrogen most significantly to degradation of gro undwater 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 13 th year of e xistence and 2 nd year where all field work, data analysis, and report writing is completed exclusively by WSDA. The study assesses pesticide

- presence in salmon

bearing streams during a 27

- week typical pesticide use period (March

– September). Currently,

th e 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 s tatewide) 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 (spri ng, 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 th e 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 Ras pberry 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 depositi onal 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 a pproved 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 samplin g 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 complia nce 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 co nducted 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 go vernment’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).



## Eff ectiveness 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 implemen t 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 po llution 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

TMD L 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 activ ity. 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 co ntrol 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 fundame ntal 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 Ru les. 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 chemist ry, 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 r ule s.

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 bird s (response to harvest)

Projects in Study Design or Initial Field Phase in 2015
Eastside Type N Riparian Effectiveness96 Unstable Slopes Criteria Evaluation and Development
Westside Type F Riparian Prescription Mo nitoring

Forested Wetlands Effectiveness Monitoring Study
Road Prescription

- Scale Effectiveness Monitoring
Van Dykes Salamander Project
Extensive Alternative ( r emote s ensing 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 Rock

Amphibian 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 Devel opment

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 p riorities after 20 20
Wetlands Management Zone Effectiveness Monitoring
Wetlands Intensive Monitoring

Road Sub

- Basin

- S cale Effectiveness Monitoring ( Resample )
Watershed Scale Assessment of Cumulative Effects (roads and riparian)
Amphibians in Intermittent Str eams 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 resear ch, 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/ac tivity 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 Managemen t
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 Meetin g 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

- A M9

- 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 ensu re 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 t o use credible information for:

• Determining whether any water of the state is to be p laced on or remove d from any Section 303(d) list.

• Establishing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for any surface water o f the state.

• Determining whether any surface water of the state is supporting its designat ed 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 indicat ors being analyzed.

• Sampling and laboratory analysis conform to methods and protocols generally acceptable in the scientific community as appropriate for use in assess ing the condition of the water.



## Data Management

Environmental Information Management Sy stem (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 affili ates 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 biol ogical data, and map EIM data.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/



### 3 03(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 wate rbody 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 quer ies.

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.e cy.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

sys tem that provides capabilities in project management, sample scheduling, sample receiving and sample control. The LIMS also interfaces with analytical instrumentation allowing direct upl oad of data results. The LIMS provides a platform allowing for stati stical 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 Colum bia 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, t racking implementati on data is important for accountability, transparency, effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management. At a minimum, Ecology will track the following implementation da ta 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

inform ation to track to support effectiveness monitoring efforts, and promote accountability and transparency. For BMPs implemented with fund s from an Ecology grant, specific information is collected on our BMP approval form. For other BMPs implemented in suppo rt 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 shar e that data with partners and the public.

Finally, to suppo rt implementation tracking, Ecology is working to develop a TMDL and Nonpoint database.101 

# Chapter 8 : Groundwater

A majority of Washington State c itizens (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 prec ipitation 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 smel l, 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 t hose 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 comm on sources of these pollutants102 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, wat er 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 Was hington 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 deli vered to the ground by septic systems or land appli cation 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 nonpoi nt 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 i t 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 S tandards lists cr iteria 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 S tandards 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 m g/L which is established to protect drinking water uses

.103 Washington’s ground WQ S tandards require that groundwater is kept as clean as possible and to

prevent man

- made groundwater pollution. To achieve this, dischargers must implement "all known, availab le, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment" (AKART) to reduce the contaminant load sufficiently t o assure the criteria will not be exceeded, and AKART must be applied to all wastes prior to entry into ground water.

Additionally, antid egradation 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 assigne d 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 report s, 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. A pproximately 4,200 public water systems in Wash ington are subject to the SDWA.



## Current Groundwater Pollution Control f or 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 Ma nagement 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 r equires that public water systems inventory potential contamination sources within their wellhead protection zones and report results to the state

.



### Ground Water M anagement 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 partnership s between local, state

, tribal and federal interests to cooperatively protecting the state's groundwater resources. Chapter

173

- 100 WAC establishes ru les 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 pro ducer s to use less fertilizer.

Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area In 2011, the Lower Yakima Valley Gr oundwater 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 i s to reduce nitrate contamination concentrations in groundwater below s tate 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 r ecommends 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 kno wn 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 c ontaminated 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 r educe 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 close st 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 ha ve not been contaminated by nitrates (see Figure 5 at the end of this chapter) , a significant number in specific areas have (see F igure 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 nitrat e 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 tha t 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 c oordinate their data to produce tools to help address identified water quality concerns. This project aggregated available groundw ater 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:

• Ide ntify 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, Ec ology 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 l ead 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 prioritizati on bo undaries 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 Sampl e 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 blank109 

# 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 . T he 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 in st ead 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 comple ted.

• 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 ef fectiveness 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

nece ssary. • 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 trad ing 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

l imits.

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)
Development112 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

. U tilize best available

science. Support updates to the forest practice rules based on adaptive management process. • Number and type of efforts Ecology initiates or participates in to achieve this goal. Support updates to stormwater manuals. 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 distr icts, 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

Ecol ogy. • 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 drivin g 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

.

• G rants R eporting T racking
S ystem (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/
Centen nial 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. O ne 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 blank117 

# 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.html118 

## Appendix B. Letter from Ron Lavigne, Assistant Attorney General, concerning Ecology’s authority to prevent Nonpoint Source Pollution and Require Implementation Of Management Measures119120 

## A ppendix 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 s till 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. T hese 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 r elated 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

- caus ed 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 suburban121 watersheds may need to be developed and impleme nted 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 fe edlots 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?

Yo ur 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 impairm ents, you will set goals to meet (or exceed) the appropriate WQ S tandards 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 relev ant WQ S tandards.

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 standa rds. 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 cr ops, 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 th e 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 S tandards 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 S tandards.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 implement ed 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 imple mentation 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, veg etated 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 techn ical 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 pla n. 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 impleme nting 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 oper ation 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 sho uld 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 outre ach 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 a s 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 incl ude 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 o ver time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining WQ S tandards.

What does this mean?

As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track progress towards attaining WQ S tandards. 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, “Mea sures 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 th e 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 W Q S tandards 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 a chieving loading reductions and meeting WQ S tandards. 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 ty pe 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, (wa ter.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/ind ex.cfm).125 

## Appendix D. Letter from the Department of Health to Ecology concerning shellfish protection126127