2000 Washington State Water Quality Assessment Section 305(b) Report

In 1994 Ecology issued a wastewater discharge general permit for the fresh fruit packing industry. The permit was recently renewed in July 1999. The permit covers hard or soft fruit packing plants or storage facilities statewide. Any fresh fruit packing or storage facility is eligible to apply.

Another general permit developed in 1994 by Ecology and reissued in 1999 covers sand and gravel mines, rock quarries, clay mines, silica mines, diatomite mines, olivine mines, dolomite mines, and associated operations. Asphalt batch and concrete batch plant facilities including portable operations are also covered, whether or not they are located at a mine site. Process water, mine de-watering water, and stormwater discharges to both ground and surface waters are covered by the general permit. Some facilities may require a permit for stormwater only.

Process wastewater discharges from the diverse mining facilities covered by the permit have a similar potential to adversely affect ground and surface water quality. Pollution can result from the processing of mined materials, stormwater runoff, or discharge of mine de-watering water. Pollution associated with sand and gravel mining or related industrial activities includes pH extremes, dissolved solids, petroleum products, and turbidity.

In December 1992 Ecology issued an industrial stormwater general permit. The permit was renewed in November 1995. The permit regulates discharges of stormwater from industrial facilities and from construction sites that disturb five or more acres. The permit was issued to meet requirements of the federal CWA and regulations adopted by the EPA.

Stormwater is runoff from rainfall or snowmelt. Eleven categories of industries and construction site operations must obtain permits if they discharge stormwater either directly to surface waters, or indirectly, through a storm sewer. Among those categories listed are:

• . Heavy and light manufacturing
• . Mining, oil and gas extraction
• . Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
• . Landfills
• . Recycling operations
• . Steam electric power plants
• . Sewage treatment plants
• . Construction sites that disturb five or more acres
• . Transportation industry facilities with vehicle maintenance equipment maintenance or cleaning, or airport deicing facilities

All permittees are required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and keep it at the facility at all times. Best management practices that are developed in the plans work to keep stormwater pollution from entering the surface waters of the state.

Ecology issued a statewide NPDES/state dairy waste general discharge permit in September 1994. The permit was recently re-issued on March 1, 2000. The permit satisfies requirements of the federal CWA, the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW), and the 1998 Washington State Dairy Waste Management Act (Chapter 90.64 RCW).

The permit applies statewide to all dairy farms meeting the federal definition of a concentrated animal feeding operation. A permit is required for those farms causing pollution by discharging manure or contaminated wastewater directly to surface water.

Discharges to groundwater are also regulated through the State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW).

When a farm is issued a permit, a dairy nutrient management plan is developed within six months. An additional 18 months are allowed for plan implementation. Permitted farms that fully implement their nutrient management plan for 36 months may request a written exemption from the permit.

In 1990 Ecology issued the first general permit to facilities rearing finfish in upland areas. The permit was recently renewed in May 2000. The permit limits the amount of pollution that is discharged from the fish hatchery operations in the state. The hatchery feeding and operations produce wastewater, which is high in nutrients and can be harmful for fish, plants, and animals in the receiving water of the discharges. The new permit requires less reporting and monitoring and is designed to reduce problems with interpreting the permit.

In 1992 Ecology issued a general permit to control stormwater and process wastewater discharges from boatyards. The permit was recently renewed in December 1997. The permit covers service businesses engaged in new construction or repair of small vessels less than 65 feet in length. This includes both mobile and fixed shoreline facilities, as well as haul out services or tidal grids used for cleaning or pressure washing with anti- fouling agents.

In 1998 the Washington State Legislature enacted the State Dairy Nutrient Management Act (Chapter 90.64 RCW). This significantly changed the original 1993 Dairy Waste Management Act and how dairy waste is managed to protect water quality in Washington State. The primary features of the act are:

• . Ecology is to conduct a registration process for all dairy farms every other year to develop baseline information on the status of the industry.
• . Ecology is to inspect all dairy farms at least once between October 1, 1998, and October 1, 2000 for discharges of pollutants to surface and groundwater's of the state.
• Follow up inspections are to be conducted as necessary to maintain compliance.
• . The Conservation Commission is to develop minimum elements for dairy nutrient management planning.
• . Regional Technical Assistance Teams are to be formed to assist dairy farms developing and implementing Dairy Nutrient Management Plans (DNMP).
• . All dairy farms are to develop a DNMP and have it approved by their local conservation district by July 1, 2002.
• . All dairy farms are to have their DNMP fully implemented by December 31, 2003.
• . Ecology is to develop a database to track inspections, enforcement, permitting and the development and implementation of DNMP.

The Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) agreement describes an historic shift in the way we manage natural resources, resolve problems and make changes on our future management. It provides the framework, procedures and requirements for successfully managing our state's forests so as to meet the needs of a viable timber industry and at the same time provide protection for our public resources; fish, wildlife and water, as well as the cultural/archaeological resources of Indian tribes within our state.

The agreement is a comprehensive series of recommendations intended to improve the conduct and regulation of forestry throughout the state of Washington. Implementation of the TFW agreement will requires changes in statutes, regulations, and management procedures, as well as cooperative efforts by forest landowners and various interested parties to carry out both the letter and the spirit of this new approach.

In 1999 the Forests and Fish Report was adopted by the Legislature and embodied in HB 2091. The Forest Practices Board was directed to develop new rules that codify the agreements in the report. Funding was provided for implementing the bill and incentives were provided to forest landowners. The Forests and Fish Report is part of the overall salmon recovery strategy for the state.

Water is our state's most valuable natural resource. Ample, clean water is vital to maintaining our most precious resource, the restoration and survival of our fisheries and for continued economic growth and development. However, our most valuable resource is threatened by pollution and over use. Water supplies in many areas of the state are overdrawn or dwindling rapidly. Increasing population growth is placing greater demands on our water resource.

In 1998 the Legislature passed the comprehensive Watershed Planning Act (WPA) (Chapter 90.82). The Bill provides a framework for developing local solutions to water issues on a watershed basis. Framed around WRIAs, the comprehensive watershed planning process is designed to allow local citizens and local governments to join with tribes to form watershed management planning units for developing watershed management plans. State agencies provide technical assistance and, if requested, serve on the planning units.

Planning units organized under the legislation are required to do a detailed assessment of the planning area's current water supply and uses, and recommend long-term strategies to provide adequate water for fish and future growth. The planning units may also choose to develop strategies for improving water quality, for protecting or enhancing fish habitat, and, in collaboration with Ecology, may set minimum instream flows. The watershed planning units are currently addressing issues in 38 WRIAs. All are required to address water quantity for fish and future growth. Of these WRIAs, 11 are still in the startup phase, 22 will address water quality, 18 will address flows and 18 will address habitat.

Under treaties signed with the federal government, many tribes in Washington State have retained rights to fish, hunt, and gather on and off reservation lands. These off reservation lands are considered the tribes' usual and accustomed lands. Thus, the tribes have direct management concerns with the preservation and maintenance of fisheries, wildlife habitat, and water quality in those off reservation ceded lands.

The state and federal agencies are bound under the supremacy clause of the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, clause two, to observe and carry out the provisions of the treaties of the United States.

Since there is a common concern of the tribes and agencies for the protection and preservation of the natural environment in Washington, a coordinated tribal water quality program was established and provides a way to manage water quality. Tribes are involved with TMDL studies, the federal CWA Section 303(d) listing process, and watershed planning at the local level.

The Agriculture Compliance Memorandum of Agreement In September 1988 Ecology and the Washington Conservation Commission signed the Agriculture Compliance Memorandum of Agreement. The purpose of the agreement is to:

• . Recognize the relationship between Conservation Districts, the Conservation Commission, and Ecology in protecting the quality of Washington State waters.
• . Outline a process by which water quality complaints stemming from agricultural practices will be managed by conservation districts.

The agreement applies to all types of commercial agriculture except dairy farms. Dairy farm water quality issues are addressed under the 1998 Dairy Nutrient Management Act.

All but one of Washington's 48 districts have formally entered into the agreement at a specific level of participation.

In May 1997 Governor Gary Locke and 13 agency heads signed a memorandum of agreement to establish a forum to serve as the formal and ongoing institutional framework to promote interagency communication, coordination, and policy direction on environmental and natural resource issues. This forum was named the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet (JNRC or Joint Cabinet) and is chaired by the Governor's special assistant for natural resources.

As a way to bring together a wider forum to assist with the review and development of the three part effort to recover salmon, which includes the Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy, state and federal budget proposals, and a comprehensive legislative package, the Government Council on Natural Resources (GCNR or government council) was developed. This group includes representation from the JNRC, the Legislature, tribes, cities, counties, federal government, and ports.

To assist the joint cabinet and government council in accomplishing their mission, the Governor's Salmon Recovery Office was established by the Legislature through the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2496). The Governors Salmon Recovery Office's role is to coordinate and produce a statewide salmon strategy, assist in the development of regional salmon recovery plans, and submit the strategy and plans to the federal government. The office will also provide the biennial state of the salmon report to the Legislature.

The Salmon Recovery Act (SRA) (Chapter 75.46 RCW) is also known as SB 5595. The intent of this legislation is to address salmonid habitat restoration in a coordinated manner and to develop a structure that allows for the coordinated delivery of federal, state, and local assistance to communities for habitat projects.

Under the SRA, a committee is formed involving all restoration interests. A limiting factor analysis is carried out with the assistance of state fish biologists. The committee is provided with the analysis and information related to fish distribution, habitat requirements and limitations, and instream flow data and recommendations. The committee uses this information to identify viable habitat restoration projects and potential funding sources. Next, a prioritization project list and a schedule intended to produce habitat capable of sustaining healthy salmon populations is developed.

Schedules are to be updated on an annual basis, and projects may be added. Currently, there are 41 WRIAs involved in limiting factors analyses, anticipated for completion in 2001. Eleven areas have actually formed committees to undertake the full SRA process.

Local governments are working to coordinate the WPA and the SRA. The data and habitat information generated during the SRA process can provide baseline information to a WMA planning unit for the instream flow and optional habitat plans. The WMA is designed for the long-term watershed planning. The SRA is designed to see that habitat restoration funding is wisely spent.

Together, these two processes are the foundation of long term watershed planning in Washington. Both rely on local governments assuming responsibility for planning and action. Both bring together various levels of government, tribes, conservation or special districts, nonprofit groups, citizens, and others. Both are funded through the Washington State Legislature. These are efforts that involve a major commitment from all the interests.

In 1999 the JNRC released a complete working draft of Extinction is Not an Option: A Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon, a guide for recovering salmon. The JNRC carefully listened to pubic comments on the strategy and indicated recommendations to improve our collective efforts to recover salmon.

The 1999 Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill 5595, the Salmon Recovery Funding Act, which required the Governor to submit the strategy to the NMFS and the USFWS. The legislation also requires the Governor to begin revision of the strategy in September 2000 through public outreach efforts.

An early action plan has been developed which specifies activities related to salmon recovery that state agencies are undertaking in the 1999-2001 biennium. Also included are expected outcomes from those actions and performance measures. Many of the early actions are nonpoint source control activities. To ensure consistency between the Salmon Strategy and the Nonpoint Plan, we have incorporated 50 actions from the Salmon Strategy as recommendations in the Nonpoint plan.

In 1999 the Forests and Fish Report was adopted by the Legislature and is embodied in ESHB 2091. The Forests and Fish Report is the result of negotiations between landowners, federal and state agencies, local governments and tribes. It contains recommendations to enhance forest practices in the state to improve water quality and fish habitat. The Forests and Fish Report is part of the overall salmon recovery strategy for the state.

The Legislature enacted legislation, which requires the Forest Practices Board to adopt regulations consistent with the report. In addition, assurances have been received from the NMFS, the USFWS, and the EPA that the recommendations, if implemented, meet the requirements of the ESA and the federal CWA. The Forests and Fish Report addresses two key water quality concerns on forestlands.

The first key water quality concern, addressed in the Forests and Fish Report, is streamside management areas. Streamside management areas will be increased to include a 50 foot no touch zone where harvest will be prohibited, plus an inner and outer zone, which will allow some harvest. The goal of streamside management areas is to create riparian conditions that will meet the stand characteristics of a mature riparian forest at approximately 140 years of age. The attainment of resource objectives for fish bearing streams includes protections for stream temperature and for producing adequate levels of large woody debris and nutrients, such as detrital material, to meet habitat objectives. The buffers will also reduce sediment and protect streambanks. These zones will be designated using a formula that is a function of the 100 year potential height of the resident forest, the width of the stream, and other ecosystem and site characteristics.

The inner zone will allow some thinning of trees, and the outer zone will allow more significant harvest. Specific standards are established for western and eastern Washington.

Protection measures will also be provided to non-fish bearing streams as they are considered waters of the state and can deliver water, organic matter, and sediments to fish habitat. Non-fish streams will fall into two categories: perennial and seasonal. Perennial non-fish habitat streams will have a 50 foot wide no harvest buffer on each side of the stream for at least 50 percent of their length. The buffering could increase up to 100 percent where sensitive sites such as perennial seeps, springs, unstable inner gorge slopes, alluvial fans and perennial stream intersections occur. All sensitive sites will receive buffering to protect perennial waters and amphibian habitat. A 30 foot equipment limitation zone on each side will border any remaining perennial and all seasonal non- fish habitat streams. This zone is designed to preserve streambank vegetation, prevent bank erosion and significantly limit the potential for sediment delivery to the streams.

The eastside non-fish habitat stream protection will be equal to the westside strategy but will allow for a continuous buffer for the entire stream length with limited entry.

The second key water quality concern addressed in the Forests and Fish Report is road plans. A road plan will be required of all major forest landholders in the state. The plan will identify and prioritize roads to be repaired and abandoned. Special emphasis will be on culvert replacement and proper abandonment of roads near or in riparian areas. Plans will also focus on future road development and methods to minimize road densities in forestlands. Timelines for repair and abandonment projects will be established in the plan, with annual reports submitted to the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Buffering would also be required in sensitive, unstable areas such as springs and headwalls.

Additional efforts will be focused on identifying and protecting unstable slopes, improving classifications of and protection for streams including streams that have the potential for fish presence once the instream and habitat conditions have recovered, pesticide applications, wetland protections, watershed analysis, and development of alternate plans to provide resource protection equal to the standard Forests and Fish Report. In addition, the report recognizes that current scientific knowledge lacks answers to some water quality and fish habitat resource questions. Specific technical research projects are listed in the report and an adaptive management process is recommended for completing those projects. The process includes planning, budgeting, and project management along with technical and policy review and dispute resolution. The recommendations place final authority in the hands of the Forest Practices Board, with federal agency oversight to determine whether the board is responding to the new scientific findings.

Washington applies Section 401 certification to all appropriate federal permits and licenses. Washington does not have a 401 certification regulation. Guidelines and best professional judgment are used to set condition requirements. For wetlands, the primary permit for which the state applies 401 certification is the Section 404 permit administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The state has worked closely with the Corps on developing regional conditions and state 401 conditions for the nationwide permits that minimize impacts to wetlands and provide for compensatory mitigation for all impacts over 1/3 acre.

The state has conducted an analysis of wetland compensatory mitigation to determine how effective compensatory mitigation is at replacing the functions that are lost when wetland impacts are permitted. Phase I evaluates whether mitigation projects were constructed and whether they are meeting required performance standards. If Phase II is funded, the state will evaluate how well mitigation activities are creating, restoring and enhancing functioning wetlands and attempt to determine what types of activities are most effective.

Ecology's wetland river basin restoration initiative focuses on a coordinated approach to watershed planning and assessment for wetland restoration. Using public input and existing technical information, the program identifies wetland restoration sites that will contribute to solving identified problems within individual watersheds. The result is a Geographic Information System (GIS) and a database that indicates potential wetland restoration sites in a river basin and identifies the primary functions that will be increased if the wetland is restored. This process has been completed in the Stillaguamish and Nooksack River watersheds and has begun in the Snohomish River watershed.

Additionally, technical assistance and training are provided to all individuals, organizations, local jurisdictions, and tribes interested in restoring wetlands.

Ecology, the EPA, and the USFWS have been working in concert with Snohomish County and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) since 1992 to develop and implement the Spencer Island intertidal wetlands restoration project.

Recent work at Spencer Island intertidal wetlands restoration project has consisted of responding to an invasion of purple loosestrife. Ecology Conservation Corps conducted a manual removal in fall of 1998. This was followed by an Ecology meeting to mobilize local, state, and federal stakeholders in the lower Snohomish River to collectively address use of the bio-control beetle Galerucella to inoculate the entire drainage. The agencies have collectively proceeded on this path, which will take several years to determine success of the effort.

Additionally, a GIS assessment of vegetation changes on Spencer Island was conducted by Ecology. Significant changes in vegetation communities and species have been documented.

Ecology has completed a wetlands stewardship directory containing summaries of stewardship programs for technical or financial assistance and a broad range of information about stewardship approaches such as use of conservation easement, and mutual covenants. This directory is intended as a reference for technical agents and provides a comprehensive reference of information to assist landowners with wetlands preservation and restoration actions. In 1999 this document was updated to incorporate new programs such as the Washington salmon recovery fund and watershed action grants.

The Washington's Open Space Taxation Act is a strategic watershed action tool. The act allows landowners to apply for property tax relief when they commit to retaining natural features and open space on their land in its undeveloped state. This program is significant in that it is a strictly voluntary, incentive based option that currently is available in all counties in Washington for watershed application.

Amendments to Washington State's water quality standards include specific provisions for stormwater (Chapter 173-201A-160 WAC). These amendments have greatly improved the ability to ensure stormwater is treated and discharged in an appropriate fashion. Considerable information on preventing and treating stormwater runoff, using wetlands for stormwater treatment, and determining the appropriateness to include a wetland in a stormwater treatment system are now available.

Shellfish beds serve as a good indicator of the health of marine waters. Water pollution, development of shoreline areas, poor land use and failing septic systems all affect the health of shellfish beds.

Failing on site sewage systems and poor agricultural practices cause shellfish bed downgrades in many areas. Because of this, local governments play an important role in the management structure. Local health departments implement domestic sewage ordinances, provide technical and financial assistance to homeowners, inspect systems and enforce for compliance. Local health agencies cooperatively develop joint plans of operation with the WDOH to assess the health and sanitary status of recreational shellfish harvest beaches. Conservation districts work with farmers to install management practices that protect water quality.

Local governments receive funding for water quality programs that address land-use issues related to shellfish downgrades. The programs, which may also be partially funded by local utility revenues, primarily develop and implement locally developed watershed action plans to prevent pollution from nonpoint sources. Threats to shellfish resources are also addressed in the Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows Program.

Most tribes in the Puget Sound basin have treaty rights outlining their usual and accustomed shellfish harvest areas and are becoming more involved in protection efforts beyond reservation boundaries.

The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan called for expanding Ecology's existing shellfish program and integrating it with the nonpoint source pollution program.

The plan also calls for improving the WDOH's monitoring program to test for paralytic shellfish poisoning, fecal coliform and toxicants at selected sites; developing a recreational shellfish program; annually inventorying contaminated beds; developing a fund assessment; and improving public involvement and education.

Revisions to the plan in 1989 and 1991 primarily called for ongoing implementation of the two main portions of the program: protecting commercial shellfish beds and implementing the recreational shellfish program. In addition, these revisions called for Ecology and the WDOH to develop a strategy to respond to shellfish bed downgrades.

Ecology, the WDOH, the WDNR, the DFW, the Washington Department of Agriculture, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, local and tribal governments continue to work cooperatively and aggressively to protect and restore water quality in recreational and commercial shellfish areas. These efforts target priority watersheds in the Puget Sound basin with valuable recreational or commercial shellfish areas that currently meet, or could be expected to meet, state water quality standards but are threatened with contamination from existing or projected land and water uses. State funding and technical assistance are provided to local and tribal governments to develop and implement programs aimed primarily at preventing any degradation or downgrade in the classification of the Sound's threatened shellfish growing areas.

Washington State's Shellfish Restoration Program is a multi-agency protection effort guided by the WDOH in cooperation with Ecology, tribal governments, local health departments, conservation districts, and watershed management committees. Shoreline surveys and water quality monitoring studies are routinely conducted in shellfish areas to select restoration project areas.

The WDOH classifies and monitors commercial shellfish areas using standards and guidelines established by the FDA National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Whenever an area is re-certified or downgraded, the WDOH prepares a sanitary survey report detailing the shoreline and water quality conditions that have resulted in the reclassification. The report includes the criteria that have been set as the water quality goal for the area.

When an area classification is downgraded, the WDOH, Ecology, and the PSAT initiate a closure response process involving local governments, tribes, and other groups that can provide resources to solve the problem. A final Closure Response Plan includes the actions needed to identify the pollution sources, a schedule for implementing remedial actions, and the funding sources for these actions.

A shellfish area restoration project contains both public involvement and education elements. These elements are identified in the final closure response plan. They typically address on site sewage system maintenance or problems associated with agricultural practices.

As part of a restoration project, the WDOH conducts a monitoring program to track the results of the watershed remediation activities. Areas that have been successfully upgraded as a result of a restoration project are placed back on the commercial program monitoring schedule. In this program, water quality is monitored monthly for conditionally approved areas and bimonthly for restricted or approved areas.

Recently, the state has had tremendous success in assisting local government in the development of locally driven groundwater protection programs or initiatives. As a result of this success, the state is now spending a majority of its groundwater resources in continuing to assist local government and interest groups in developing local groundwater protection plans which fall under established state law or regulation. It should be noted that these plans primarily address area wide groundwater concerns and do not normally address site-specific contamination. Site specific contamination, like that noted previously, are addressed through a variety of regulatory tools including RCRA corrective action, state clean-up regulations, CERCLA, and state groundwater quality regulations.

Initiative	Description
Groundwater Management Area	Blaine (Whatcom), Clark County (Clark), Clover-Chamber Creek Basin (Pierce), Columbia Basin (Adams, Grant, Franklin), Deer Park (Spokane), East King County (King), Gig Harbor Peninsula (Pierce), Island County (Island), Issaquah Creek Valley (King), Kitsap County (Kitsap), Methow River Basin (Okanogan), North Thurston County (Thurston), Redmond-Bear Creek (King), South King County (King), Vashon-Maury Islands (King), West Snohomish (Snohomish).
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area	All 39 counties and selected cities, and towns where a majority of public and private water supplies are groundwater derived.
2514 Watershed Planning	Chamber-Clover (Pierce), Deschutes (Thurston), Elwah-Dungeness (Clallam), Entiat (Chelan), Grays-Elokoman/Cowlitz(Grays Harbor/Cowlitz), Lewis/Salmon-Washougal (Lewis/Clark), Little/Middle Spokane (Spokane), Lower/Upper Skagit-Samish (Skagit), Upper/Lower Yakima/Naches (Yakima, Kittitas), Methow (Okanogan), Moses Coulee/Foster (Grant), Nisqually (Thurston/Pierce), Nooksack (Whatcom), Pend Oreille (Pend Oreille), Quilcene-Snow (Jefferson), San Juan (San Juan), Skokomish-Dosewallips (Jefferson/Mason) Upper/Lower Chehalis (Lewis).

The goal of the project is to rank soils by high, medium, and low susceptibility for use with the Pesticide State Management Plan (SMP). The project examines potential contaminant sources, groundwater quality, and the location of highly susceptible soils and shallow unconfined aquifers.

The project is currently in the third phase, which looks at susceptibility. The modeling software being used is Pesticide Assessment Tool for Rating Investigations Of Transport (PATRIOT), which is produced by the EPA with Aqua Terra consultants. PATRIOT contains information on rainfall, soil, pesticides and cropping practices, as well as groundwater databases and information on 32 types of crops. The groundwater database also contains seasonal variations. Cropping information may be put together down to the sub-county level. Other variables also include the wilting point; field capacity; organic carbon content; pesticide decay rate; irrigation moisture level; and day of pesticide application.

Output options include unit leaching analysis, area-weighted leaching analysis, and Monte Carlo simulation versus non-exceedence probability. Up to three of the Monte Carlo variables may be altered, from which a probability curve may be developed.

PATRIOT gives results by state, county, hydrologic unit code and major land use resource areas.

Groundwater quality protection is an important element of the recently completed nonpoint source pollution management plan. Groundwater's linkage to existing nonpoint surface water quality protection initiatives is examined and potential methods for including groundwater quality concerns are proposed. Groundwater linkages to existing TMDL efforts under the federal CWA are included in the plan, and will become a substantial element in the state's water quality protection goals.

Amendments in 1996 to the SDWA established a new section for source water quality assessments. States with Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) primacy shall submit source water assessment programs to the EPA for approval no later than 18 months after the EPA publishes guidance. A state program is automatically approved 9 months after submittal to the EPA unless the EPA disapproves the program. Washington State's program has been submitted to the EPA Region 10, pending approval is anticipated. To avoid duplication, assessments may make use of sanitary surveys, state wellhead protection programs, pesticide state management plans, state watershed initiatives including efforts under the Surface Water Treatment Rule, and efforts under the federal Water Pollution Control Act and the federal CWA. Groundwater concerns will provide a major element in the source water assessments submitted by the water system purveyors.

Additionally, source water assessments will provide additional linkage between drinking water concerns, groundwater quality protection, and federal CWA issues.

Ecology has developed a fundamentally new approach to evaluating the role of water in river basins in the Pacific Northwest. This new process was supported, in part, by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the WDFW and was designed to address the need for a basin level assessment tool to be used by state agencies and local communities to address salmon habitat, flooding, water use and water quality.

The characterization process seeks to better understand:

• . Key basin processes
• . Man made changes to those processes
• . The extent of past changes
• . The effects of future change

. Where preservation and restoration of basin processes have the best chance of success The assessment carried out as part of the characterization is at a large scale and is meant to provide an overview and guidance to people attempting to address both sub-basin and site specific problems. It integrates watershed process calculations around the common theme that natural system processes create and maintain functions important to residents.

The outcomes of the characterization include:

• . A picture of natural processes in the basin and how they have been altered.
• . Sub-basins ranked by their potential for process alteration.
• . Identification of multiple process problems.
• . Recommendations for further activities.

The tool was developed in the Snohomish River Basin of western Washington. Local watershed groups are currently assessing how the information can be best put to use in the basin. Further refinement is underway, and testing in other parts of the state is planned before the process is made available for broader application.

These plans are a product of Ecology's five year, five step watershed approach to water quality management. During the first year of the five year cycle, Ecology staff work with local communities to develop a needs assessment for the management area. After some supporting studies and fieldwork, the plan of action is produced to address priority problems identified in the needs assessment. The Plan outlines long and short range needs and water quality strategies that Ecology and local entities will implement during the next five years, including TMDLs, as resources allow. It includes point source activities such as permit writing and issuance. It also includes nonpoint source activities such as providing technical assistance for implementation of BMPs or watershed plans, and participation on technical workgroups issues. It identifies success measures and designs follow-up monitoring.

Washington has maintained a viable lake restoration program since 1976. All projects are initiated at the grass roots level and a public entity must serve as the local sponsor and provide 25 percent of the project cost. State funding has been provided to projects sponsored by state agencies, tribal and local governments, municipalities, and county governments.

Lake restoration projects are conducted by a community based interest group. A project begins with a physical, chemical, and biological characterization of the lake. Various lake restoration approaches are evaluated to determine which are most feasible for implementation. At the end of Phase I of a lake restoration project, the planning group recommends a restoration plan. The recommended strategy must result in meeting identified water quality goals. The lead agency must satisfactorily complete the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, including the public participation requirements. Public input is solicited in a public meeting on water quality goals and acceptable alternative strategies.

Phase II consists of implementation of the restoration plan. After construction or implementation activities are complete, a minimum of two years of post restoration data is collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the chosen approach. In Phase II, the planning committee also develops a long-term watershed management plan to ensure that prevention and improvement efforts continue after a lake's restoration grants have finished.

Five years after implementation of the Phase II projects, lakes are eligible for phase three post restoration assessment funding. The purpose of these projects is to evaluate the effectiveness and longevity of the restoration efforts. Water quality in lakes has improved under lake restoration projects.

Coordinated Water System Plans serve to integrate water utility development with land use planning. The plan normally consists of two parts: individual water system plans for each water system within a critical water supply service area and an area wide supplement which addresses water system concerns pertaining to the area as a whole.

Source water protection plans are prepared by water purveyors to ensure that drinking water sources are protected from contaminants that could impact the safety of drinking water. Water systems are required to develop watershed control programs for surface water sources or wellhead protection programs for groundwater sources. Source water protection plans will help achieve drinking water quality objectives in basins identified as impaired. These plans are also part of the state's source water assessment program being developed in accordance with the EPA requirements.

Conservation plans document how purveyors intend to comply with the state's water conservation requirements. Conservation plans are developed to ensure efficient water use and adequate water rights for existing and future needs. They will be important vehicles for achieving water conservation objectives in those basins where ecological impairment criteria, such as declining fish stocks, are linked to insufficient in-stream flows.

Coordinated water system plans and water system plans are required to contain water demand forecasts and strategies for ensuring adequate water supplies to meet future needs. The strategies, developed to meet future needs of public water supplies, will have a direct impact on the quality of the aquatic resources in a given region.

TFW, federal and state agencies, tribes, landowners, and environmental groups developed the watershed analysis to address the cumulative effects of forest practices on fish, water, and capital improvements. TFW cooperators conduct watershed analysis and evaluate forest practices as well as other land use activities. An interdisciplinary team made up of certified state, tribal, or private resources conducts each analysis. Certification requires a minimal level of education and field experience, and the completion of a weeklong training course.

The analysis uses various modules: mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrology, riparian, stream channel, fish habitat, water quality, water supply, and routing. The modules are then brought together, and prescriptions are developed and become tools for improvements leading to compliance with water quality standards. The WDNR enforces these prescriptions as conditions on forest practice permits, through road maintenance plans or other means. Where land use activities other than forest practices harm water quality, the information is forwarded to the appropriate agency.

Before beginning an analysis in a watershed, the WDNR tells landowners, tribes, agencies, and the public how they can participate or comment on drafts. The WDNR approves the prescriptions developed through watershed analysis after public comment through SEPA.

Western Washington's landscape is defined and characterized by the estuaries in Puget Sound. Estuaries are some of the most productive ecosystems in the world, supporting diverse populations of plants and animals.

The goals of Ecology's marine water monitoring program are to:

• . Characterize ambient water quality conditions in the marine waters of Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay.
• . Identify significant changes in key environmental indicators throughout the marine waters of the state.
• . Provide water quality information to support specific Ecology programs, other agencies, and projects identified in the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
• . Determine the effectiveness of regulations to improve marine water quality.
• . Support environmental research activities through the availability of consistent, scientific and statistically valid data.
• . Provide baseline water quality data to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, private institutions and other data users.

The Washington State Legislature established the Water Quality Account in 1986. The purpose of the account is to provide local governments, tribes, and state agencies with technical and financial assistance to protect and improve the quality of water in the state.

The enabling statute directs that $45 million a year should be deposited into the Water Quality Account. Approximately $27.8 million comes from the tax on tobacco products each year. The balance comes from the state's general fund, although in recent years these monies have not been appropriated.

Most of the funds are passed to local government through the Centennial Clean Water Fund grant and loan program. Below is a breakdown of the distribution of funds from the account for the 1999-2001 biennium:

• . $3.9 million for the administration of grants and loans by Ecology and to provide technical assistance to grant and loan recipients.
• . $23.4 million for grants and loans for water quality implementation and planning.
• . $15 million for the extended grant payment to King County (Metro) for the West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• . $10 million for an extended grant payment to Spokane to protect the Spokane-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
• . $3.6 million for a grant to the city of Connell for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant.
• . $11.6 million to the WDOH, the WDNR and the Conservation Commission.
• . $0.7 million to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority for Public Information and Education grants.
• . $16.35 million for the state to match federal capitalization grants for the state revolving fund program that get passed on to local government to finance water quality protection and improvement projects.

The Washington State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides low interest loans to public bodies for high priority water quality needs. In the federal CWA Amendments of 1987, Congress responded to shrinking federal funds by phasing the construction grants program into the SRF program. Loan payments and interest are the sole source of revenue for the SRF. As loans are repaid, those dollars are available for additional projects. This approach ensures that funding is available in perpetuity for water quality needs of future generations. To date, the SRF has received $295 million from the EPA through congressional appropriations. The state's Water Quality Account has provided $59 million in matching funds.

Ecology has charged fees to cover the administration of wastewater discharge permits since 1989. Historically, the administration of wastewater discharge permits was funded from the state general fund and federal grants.

In 1988 the Washington State Legislature passed a bill requiring Ecology to establish a fee system to partially fund permits. The bill was written to decrease pressure on the general fund and to strengthen water quality protection in the state.

Shortly after the bill passed, citizen's Initiative 97 was passed by voters requiring full funding of permit administration through annual fees. Each biennium, the Legislature establishes a fee appropriation level and Ecology adopts a corresponding fee schedule by rule to recover expenses for permit activities. Ecology then collects the fees from permitted dischargers.

Activities that are funded with permit fees include administration of permit applications, permit issuance and appeals, inspections, engineering, data and information management, and pretreatment. Enforcement activities are not paid for with permit fees. They are funded from the state general fund.

Ecology prepares a report to the Legislature every biennium detailing the fee revenues and expenditures for that period. During the 1997 -- 1999 biennium, the appropriation level established by the Legislature to pay for the permit administration was $21 million.

Congress amended the federal CWA in 1987 to establish the Section 319 Nonpoint Point Source (NPS) Management Program because it recognized the need for greater federal leadership to help focus state and local NPS control efforts. Under Section 319, states, territories and tribes, hereinafter referred to as states, follow a two step process to qualify for grant money. First, states must complete a NPS assessment report, identifying NPS water quality problems. Second, states develop NPS management programs describing what they are going to do about their nonpoint water quality problems. Ecology last updated their nonpoint source management plan in April 2000.

Lake restoration is the protection and enhancement of water quality of lakes. Lake water quality problems cause reductions in aesthetic, recreation and habitat values. Toxic blue- green algae blooms can cause recreation closures and noxious odors. Low dissolved oxygen levels can kill fish and other aquatic life.

These water quality problems are nearly always caused by excessive dissolved nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Excessive phosphorus, which is nearly always the problem nutrient, comes from nonpoint sources of pollution (i.e., nearby septic systems, runoff from pavement, roofs, lawns and construction sites, forest practices, farms, and natural conditions).

Ecology manages grants and loans that are available to restore publicly owned and accessed lakes. Recipients of funding include cities, counties, and state agencies. From 1998 through 1999, $597,332 in grants and loans were offered (grant and loan requests totaled $2,023,907) to improve water quality in Washington State lakes. $4,500 was awarded through the 319 program. Congress currently has not authorized funds for the Clean Lakes Program under the federal CWA.

Invasive, non-native aquatic plants are a serious threat to the health of lakes, rivers, and streams throughout the state. Excessive weed growth impairs fish and wildlife habitat and restricts recreational activities. Traditionally, residents and property owners have borne the high costs of controlling these plants.

The Legislature established the Freshwater Aquatic Weeds Account to provide financial and technical support to address problems on a statewide level. This account provides funding for technical assistance, public education, and grants to help control aquatic weeds. Revenue for the account comes from a $3 increase in annual license fees for boat trailers.

Grants are provided for projects that prevent and/or control freshwater, invasive, non- native aquatic plants. The types of activities funded include planning, education, monitoring, implementation, pilot/demonstration projects, surveillance and mapping projects. For the fiscal year 2000-2001, legislation has appropriated $1,300,000 to manage the problems caused by freshwater weeds in Washington's waters.

Section 303(d) of the federal CWA requires states to identify and report to the EPA, every two years, all waterbodies not expected to meet state surface water quality standards after using technology based controls. This report is referred to as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies.

Ecology submitted its candidate 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies to the EPA on June 29, 1998. On August 26, 1999, Ecology received a partial approval/disapproval letter from the EPA in response to the list. The EPA approved the list that Ecology submitted and proposed adding an additional 130 waterbody/parameter combinations to the list. On January 28, 2000, the EPA transmitted their final response to Ecology. As a result of the EPA's action, 116 new waterbody/parameter combinations were added to the list.

The final 1998 Section 303(d) list identifies 643 impaired and threatened waterbodies and the type of pollution they suffer from. This list may be found at Ecology's water quality web site.

Waterbodies on the Section 303(d) list are selected and prioritized for further studies within Ecology's water quality management areas. These studies are referred to as TMDL determinations. TMDL studies include a problem formulation and an analysis on how to meet water quality standards. They have five main components:

• . Identification of the type, amounts, and sources of water pollution in a particular waterbody or segment.
• . Determination of the capacity of the waterbody to assimilate pollution and still remain healthy.
• . Allocation of how much pollution each source may discharge.
• . A strategy to attain the allocations.
• . A monitoring plan to assess effectiveness.

Strategies may include setting permit limits and recommending BMPs such as fencing, planting trees, and ensuring buffers next to streams.

TMDLs are used to control the discharge of pollutants to surface waters and still maintain water quality. When a technology based pollution control, such as secondary treatment of a wastewater discharge, does not adequately protect water quality, the federal CWA requires states to set limits on the amounts of pollutants that the waterbody can receive from all pollution sources and still remain healthy.

TMDLs are implemented through conditions set in discharge permits and nonpoint source management plans. These TMDL control actions are developed through a public involvement process prescribed by federal regulations. All TMDLs also have a monitoring plan designed to test the effectiveness of the control action for meeting water quality standards.

Ecology is required by the federal CWA, section 305(b) to assess the quality of the states surface waters. The section 305(b) report assesses beneficial uses as per the State Water Quality Standards, the causes and sources of impairment and the pollutants present according to the EPA's 305(b) reporting guidelines.

State water quality standards are used to categorize waterbodies as fully, partially or not supporting specific designated uses based on the number of times an appropriate criterion is exceeded. These determinations consider criteria for chemical, physical, biological, toxicological or habitat parameters that have been established to provide a level of water quality that supports designated uses. These criteria are either shown numerically or in the form of a narrative statement.

Designated use support status is determined for entire waterbodies or portions of waterbodies based on the amount of area represented by monitoring data or other evaluation criteria. Area representation of sampling stations is determined by Ecology guidelines or best professional judgment. In many cases, different portions of a waterbody support different uses. In certain cases where information is not available to determine the limits of impaired areas, the entire waterbody is considered impaired.

The EPA guidance for the 305(b) report defines use support according to the percentage of data exceeding the criterion. The EPA defines uses as fully supporting if 10 percent or less of the data exceed the criterion, partially supporting if between 11-25 percent of the data exceed the criterion and not supporting if there is an exceedance rate greater than 25 percent.

The EPA guidelines outline aquatic life use as the result of physical, chemical, biological, toxicological and habitat information. Aquatic life use support assessments are a compilation of the assessments of related individual designated uses classified in the state water quality standards. Contact recreational uses are based on state criteria for bacteriological indicators.

The WDOH commercial and recreational shellfish classification inventory was used to assess shellfish harvesting. Classified areas were assessed from the WDOH 2000 shellfish inventory report. Some areas are classified based on assumed risk and not sanitary surveys. Assessments were not made for unclassified areas.

Approved commercial shellfish areas and open recreational shellfish beaches were assessed as good for the support of the shellfish harvest use. Restricted and conditionally approved commercial shellfish areas and conditional recreational shellfish beaches were assessed as fair for the support of the shellfish harvest use. Prohibited commercial shellfish areas and closed recreational shellfish beaches were assessed as poor for the support of the shellfish harvesting use. Harvesting restriction due to biotoxins were not included in the assessment since these are not likely human caused impairments.

The characteristic use most directly related to trophic status of lakes is aesthetic enjoyment. This use is highly valued laden and therefore difficult to assess. To derive an assessment, the assumption is made that at least some of a lake's users would find a eutrophic lake aesthetically impaired and that most users would find a hyper-eutrophic lake impaired.

Mesotrophic and Oligiotrophic lakes were assessed as having good support of aesthetic enjoyment. Eutrophic lakes were assessed as having fair support of aesthetic enjoyment.

Lakes with trophic state index values between eutrophic and Mesotrophic status were assessed at the higher trophic level and considered fully supporting aesthetic enjoyment use. Hypereutrophic lakes were assessed as not supporting aesthetic enjoyment use.

Information from the REMAP report (Merritt, 1999) was used to assess the designated use of wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat is defined in the standards to include terrestrial habitat and aquatic habitat. In the REMAP report, a habitat quality score was assigned by combining five metrics. The habitat quality score represents the relative comparison to reference sites. Habitat quality scores were assessed for small streams in only one ecoregion. The REMAP project is a fairly new project and the assessments needed for the Section 305(b) report have not been fully developed yet.

The criteria from the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131) was used with metals data collected by Ecology Ambient Monitoring Program to assess the safety of fish consumption. The criteria specified for a one-per-million carcinogenic risk to human health for the consumption of organisms was used.

Causes are described as one of twenty-seven categories used by the EPA for the national report, depending on the parameter exceeding the criteria. The pollution sources are described as one of ten categories now used by the EPA for the national report. A description of the EPA pollution source categories appears in the table below.

Possible pollution sources were identified by the best professional judgement of staff from Ecology's regional offices. Regional office staff have the best local knowledge of impacts to water quality. Stations for which no judgement was made were identified as unknown sources for the statewide extrapolation of sample data.

Causes and pollution sources for assessed waterbodies that did not fully support their designated uses were categorized according to the EPA definitions. Both the causes and the sources are identified for each station assessed with use impairment. No causes or sources were identified for waters fully supporting their uses.

Table 8: Description of the EPA Pollution Source Categories

Source Category	Description of Sources
Industrial Point Sources	NPDES permitted discharge of industrial wastewater
Municipal Point Sources	NPDES permitted discharge of domestic wastewater
Combined Sewer Overflows	Sanitary sewer overflows due to excessive stormwater infiltrating the system
Stormwater Runoff	Runoff from urbanized areas
Septic Tanks	On-site sanitary wastewater treatment systems
Agriculture	Crop production; pasture land, feedlots, aquaculture, animal holding and management areas, manure lagoons, etc.
Silviculture (Forest Practices)	Harvesting, restoration, residue management, forests management, road construction and maintenance, etc.
Construction	Highway, road, or bridge building land development, etc.
Resource Extraction	Surface mining, mine tailings, etc.
Land Disposal	Wastewater land application, landfills, hazardous waste, etc.
Hydromodification	Channelization, dredging, dam construction, flow regulation or modification, removal of riparian vegetation, streambank modification or destabilization, draining or filling of wetlands, etc.
Other Sources	Storage tank leaks, spills, in place contaminants, recreational activities, upstream impoundment, etc.
Natural Sources	Use impairment is not human caused. For example, surface heating in estuaries resulting from solar radiation can cause exceedance of temperature criteria.
Unknown Sources	A pollution source could not be identified

Stratification

• Ecoregion 1 Coast Range
• Ecoregion 2 Puget Lowlands
• Ecoregion 3 Willamette Valley (Clark County Area)
• Ecoregion 4 Cascades (includes the Olympic Mountains)
• Ecoregion 6 East Cascades and Foothills
• Ecoregion 7 Columbia Basin
• Ecoregion 8 Northern Rockies (Pend Oreille County Area)
• Ecoregion 9 Blue Mountains (Asotin County Area)

Within each ecoregion, streams were further stratified into the following subpopulations:

• . Small streams were defined as those reaches that are in the coverage as a single line.
• . Large streams were defined as those reaches that are shown with double-banked cartographic features in the Washington Rivers Information System (WARIS) GIS coverage.

Within each ecoregion, lakes were further stratified into the following subpopulations:

• . Small lakes are defi