It is one thing to identify polluted waters in Washington state; it is quite another to clean up the pollution. A recent report from the consulting firm Tetra Tech examines the state’s process for developing pollution-cleanup plans, and it offers suggestions for getting more plans out the door and into action.
The consultant report, funded by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, arose out of a 2023 legal settlement with Northwest Environmental Advocates, an environmental group that has been waging a 35-year legal battle against the Washington Department of Ecology. NWEA has maintained, since the first lawsuit in 1991, that Ecology should be developing and approving far more cleanup plans, known as TMDLs, than the agency has been completing each year.
For its part, Ecology was cooperative with Tetra Tech in examining agency processes. In the end, Ecology officials agreed with some of the ideas posed by the consultants and disagreed with others. Some of the findings were already being accomplished when the report came out in March, officials said in a detailed response to the report.
“Washington has one of the most active TMDL programs in the country,” said Jon Kenning, manager of Ecology’s Water Quality Program in a written statement. “We are committed to improving the pace of developing water cleanup plans and will continue our work to balance developing high-quality plans, making clear implementation pathways with local partners, and continuing our other Clean Water Act responsibilities.”
Nina Bell, executive director of NWEA, said Ecology has not only failed to produce an adequate number of cleanup plans, but most of the completed ones have been ineffective at controlling pollution from nonpoint sources, such as farming and logging, and even permitted discharges largely fail to meet water quality standards.
Bell was reluctant to discuss the consultant’s report because of the ongoing litigation, including final settlement negotiations in the current lawsuit.
“Ecology is failing to serve the needs of Washington’s waters,” Bell said in an email. “The question is: Does it have the commitment to change?”
In a related case (PDF) brought by NWEA, the U.S. District Court in Seattle ruled that Ecology cannot be compelled to draft a TMDL for the entire Puget Sound as long as the agency pursues its Puget Sound Nutrient Reduction Plan for controlling nitrogen. That plan, according to the court, represents “a reasonable interim measure rather than an abandonment of any future plans to prepare a TMDL.”
TMDL, which stands for total maximum daily load, gets its name from portions of the plan that allocate the “maximum daily load” of pollution from various sources that can enter the waterway without violating water quality standards. In this way, goals are set for each source of pollution.
Organizational issues
The Tetra Tech report analyzed Ecology’s TMDL issues within three categories: organizational, managerial and technical. In all, 15 broad recommendations were made.
On the organizational front, the report notes that TMDL development falls under two separate programs. The Water Quality Program focuses on planning, stakeholder engagement, plan review, plan approval and implementation. The Environmental Assessment Program works on data collection, technical analysis and modeling work.
“The most straightforward way to address this could be to eliminate the siloed effect of two disconnected programs by bringing staff together under an umbrella TMDL development program with a single manager in each region,” the report states. “This approach would increase accountability, foster a sense of being on the same team, improve coordination and communication, and potentially create fewer conflicting requests.”
In its response, Ecology said the idea is under consideration but must be approached with thorough discussions before any decisions are made.
“We understand that sometimes reorganization of a program results in better use of existing resources, but any reorganization effort has a high potential for disruption in staff morale, position retention and output,” the response says. “Reorganization can also be expensive.”
Making “pace” a priority was another suggestion from the consultants, but Ecology says it is already dedicated to that idea, as seen by recent cleanup plans, process changes and staff increases. A meaningful balance is needed among the rate of plan development, quality of work and implementation to get to cleanup, Ecology says.
The consultants had many detailed ideas related to pace, including long-term planning, adherence to deadlines and establishing measurable goals. It was not clear, they said, why the number of approved cleanup plans completed statewide each year had undergone an “observable decline” following a 2013 deadline related to NWEA’s lawsuit.
Ecology says it supports the recommendation of adding a TMDL policy leader in the headquarters office of the Water Quality Program to work with TMDL staffers in the various regional offices. The person could develop training and guidance materials, serve as a central policy contact and lead strategic-planning efforts. It would require new funding or a shift in existing personnel.
Ecology also supports standardized training for new staff regarding technical, regulatory and policy concepts. Current training often occurs at the regional offices with help from existing employees. “We will be evaluating our options for allocating staff to implement this recommendation,” Ecology said in its response.
The consultants note that staffing of TMDL work has been a problem at times. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of full-time equivalent staff working on TMDLs in the Environmental Assessment Program dropped by 50 percent — from 20 to 9.75. In 2024, the number rebounded to 15.11. Meanwhile, TMDL staff within the Water Quality Program in 2024 was lower than any year since 2001. Besides requesting more money for the program, Ecology could consider contracting out some of the work, the consultants suggested.
Program strengths
In addition to a variety of recommendations, the consultants identified several strengths related to Ecology’s cleanup-planning effort. As early as 1986, Ecology was considered a leader in completing TMDLs, the report says. More recently, Ecology has been leading cleanup activities that come before the initiation of formal TMDLs, such as “advance restoration plans” and “straight-to-implementation” projects.
“Washington’s TMDLs are technically sound and of high quality,” the report says. “Ecology completes almost all TMDLs in-house using highly skilled modelers and a strong mentorship program to help new modelers learn Ecology’s methods and bring their skillsets up to par with experienced modelers… Models being used by Ecology to support TMDL development are consistent in complexity with many other states and programs.”
Ecology is innovative in technological applications to increase efficiency and public service, the report says. Modeling tools posted on a website are available for others to use; an assessment automation tool can bolster water-quality assessment; and the Water Quality Atlas puts information in the hands of anyone with a web browser.
“Over the past few years, Ecology has made progress in streamlining TMDL processes and addressing acknowledged challenges related to program integration and communication between WQP and EAP,” the report states.
One thing that has slowed development of cleanup plans in recent years is the EPA’s disapproval of the state’s natural conditions provisions (PDF) associated with state water quality standards. Natural conditions criteria, based on prehistoric conditions, must be invoked when normal cleanup standards cannot be met — even with the prospect of extreme cleanup actions.
“To paraphrase EAP staff, there is no efficient, systematic process to address temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH listings — which constitute a large portion of Washington’s listings — without natural conditions (criteria),” the report says.
The EPA revoked the state’s natural conditions criteria in 2021 following a lawsuit. Ecology resubmitted proposed criteria in September of last year, yet EPA has yet to act on the change. Ecology contends in its response that the “delayed approval has been a significant barrier to completing water cleanup plans for many impairments across the state, as the (consultant) report indicated.”
Ecology says it also needs guidance on the “acceptable components of a cleanup plan.” Agreeing, the Tetra Tech consultants said improved communications between the EPA and Ecology could be beneficial throughout the entire development of cleanup plans.
“We are always interested in finding ways to improve our program,” said Kenning of Ecology. “In our response, we have provided our initial thoughts on the Tetra Tech report but recognize that more time is needed to fully evaluate the recommendations and make decisions.”
No Comments yet!