  |
|
|
Starting with the 2010 Water Quality Assessment, Ecology, with EPA approval, went to a rotating system for completing the assessment. The 2010 cycle focuses on marine waters. The next cycle will focus on freshwater. The focus will continue to alternate between marine and freshwater cycles. The primary reason for moving to this process is due to the volume of new data and the time required for organizing, assessing, and reviewing the affected listings.
The Query Tool has undergone significant improvements. Foremost is the ability to search with multiple criteria, such as multiple Listing IDs or WRIAs. We have also added the ability to search for listings based on information in the Remarks section.
Ecology is presenting the Category 3 listings for review. Category 3 is where we have place listings that we do not have enough information to make another category determination. In many cases the Basis reports no excursions, but there haven’t been enough samples to comply with the minimum requirements for Category 1. Additionally, there may be a number of other reasons for including such data quality concerns in Category 3. The data may be unusable for the purposes of the Water Quality Assessment.
The changeover to the 1:24,000 scale National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) hydrology does not affect the 2010 marine listings because the NHD is a stream/river based system. Expect to see workshop announcements regarding the change to the Reach-based segmentation system from the Section-based segmentation system.
The assessment of raw data is now being performed by Ecology’s Environmental Assessment Program instead of the Water Quality Program.
The 2008 Water Quality Assessment (WQA) and 303(d) list continued the process of reporting waters by using a category system.
The hydrology layer was changed from the 1:100,000 scale Washington Surface Water Identification System (WASWIS) layer to the Longitude/Latitude ID (LLID) layer. The result is greater definition at the 1:24,000 scale and is an intermediate step in changing over to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). This change primarily affected the stream/river waters. Lakes and marine waters are still the same as they appeared in the 2004 assessment. Ecology plans to move to the 1:24,000 scale NHD water layer for the next assessment.
The contaminated sediment listings now appear as ¼-sized grid cells. The grid cells are displayed on the mapping tool as well as selectable through the query tool. Previously, the sediment listings were kept in a separate database and were not viewable on the mapping tool.
The Credible Data Act was passed and as a result, Ecology now requires that data submitted for the WQA be submitted to Ecology through the Environmental Information Management (EIM) system. This addition has increased the transparency of the assessment process.
The mapping tool now has the ability to select listings by the Puget Sound Actions Areas (PSAAs) as defined by the Puget Sound Partnership.
Listings can be downloaded in Excel or PDF format using the query tool. The results will be based on individual queries, so the results can be tailored to the user’s needs.
In consultation with EPA it was decided that there would be no “2006” assessment and 303(d) list . Instead, it would be called the 2008 assessment. The 2008 listing cycle satisfies the Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements for both the 2006 and 2008 assessment periods.
The 2004 WQA and 303(d) list took the nearly-completed 2002 WQA and added a large amount of new data. The 2004 assessment and 303(d) list used the same GIS layers, water identification system, and segmentation used in the 1998 and 2002 assessments. There was still a concern about segment size, but Ecology decided to keep the current system for the sake of having some data that could be compared to the 1998 list. Such direct comparisons to the 1996 303(d) list were not possible because of the segmentation system. We updated the Simple Query Tool and the Interactive Mapping Tool to the latest technology. Judging by the overwhelmingly favorable responses received from the public, the electronic presentation was a success.
More information about the 2004 Assessment
The 2002 WQA and 303(d) list used the same GIS layers, identification system, and segmentation system as the 1996 303(d) list. However, the 2004 list added a new complexity: categories of impairment. Category 5 represents the 303(d) list. All other categories represent the information that was provided to EPA in the 305(b) report. This consolidated format was dubbed the "Integrated Report" by EPA. Washington State, however, adopted the name "Water Quality Assessment".
The number of records tracked in the database increased by tenfold. Providing this information to the public as paper documents would have consumed an excessive amount of paper. So, Ecology decided to present the information using two tools: the Simple Query Tool and the Interactive Mapping Tool. It took an enormous amount of time to prepare this new combined list. The final product was nearly complete in 2004. An agreement was made with EPA that if the Ecology conducted an additional call for data in 2004, this data could be incorporated into the 2002 list and submitted as a 2002/2004 list. The 2002 list was never submitted to EPA for approval because of this reasonable agreement.
The 1998 303(d) list introduced a new GIS water layer set: the Washington State Water Identification System (WASWIS). The WASWIS consisted of three separate GIS layers: one for streams, one for lakes, and one for the marine areas and lakes larger than 1500 acres. This third layer is frequently referred to as the grid layer. A new segmentation system was also used. The segment lengths of streams were shortened by tying them to the Public Land Survey System (PLSS). The PLSS is a system of land division that is in wide use today and is based on Townships, Ranges and Sections (TRS). A stream segment was defined as that portion of the stream within any particular section. Streams were then identified by what has been referred to as a "license plate number". Typically this was two letters followed by two numbers followed by two more letters. In the case of Fishtrap Creek, the WASWIS identification number became "RN53NC". However, there was no hidden meaning to the code. The segments were identified by using two address points on the stream. The Upper Route Address identified the point where the stream entered a section and the Lower Route Address identified the point where the stream left the section. The addresses represented the distance, in kilometers, from the mouth of the stream identified by the WASWIS ID number. To identify any particular stream on the WASWIS GIS layer, we needed to know the ID for the stream and the Lower Route Address. These numbers were derived by overlaying the TRS layer over the stream layer and identifying the address. The segments typically, though not necessarily, represented approximately one mile in length. This is because a typical section is one mile square. The result was that entire streams were no longer identified as impaired. Only the portion of the stream where the impairment had been found was identified. This segmentation system was decried by various environmental groups as masking the amount of polluted streams by using artificially small segments. This situation was compared to a pendulum - the 1996 segments were too large; the 1998 segments were too small.
More information about the 1998 Assessment
The 1996 303(d) list used a GIS water layer that we now refer to as the Water Body Identification (WBID) layer. Streams were identified using a code. Typically the code consisted of the letters "WA-", followed by the WRIA number, and then given a 4 digit identifier for that particular stream. For example, the Fishtrap Creek in WRIA 1 was identified as WA-01-1115. This creek also had a further text description of MOUTH AT NOOKSACK RM 13.2 TO HEADWATERS, WDF #01.0228. The segmentation system was also the stream identification. Therefore, this particular creek was one segment and represented the creek in its entirety. If impairment was noted, the entire creek would be identified as impaired.
While this system was fairly simple, it would be abandoned because it was determined that industry and agriculture could be restricted unnecessarily due to the broad length of the segment.
Contact us for more information
Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.
