WSR 18-15-073

PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

[Order 16-07—Filed July 17, 2018, 11:40 a.m.]

Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 17-17-077.

Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: We propose to amend chapter 173-201A WAC, Water quality standards for surface waters of the state of Washington. This rule making will set forth revised fresh and marine water quality standards for the protection of water contact recreational use in state waters.

This rule making proposes:

The rule making proposed amendments in the following sections of chapter 173-201A WAC: WAC 173-201A-020 Definitions, 173-201A-200 Fresh water designated uses and criteria, 173-201A-210 Marine water designated uses and criteria, 173-201A-320 Tier II—Protection of waters of higher quality than the standards, 173-201A-600 Use designations—Fresh waters, 173-201A-602 Table 602—Use designations for fresh waters by water resource inventory area (WRIA), 173-201A-610 Use designations—Marine waters, and 173-201A-612 Table 612—Use designations for marine waters.

Hearing Location(s): On August 28, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., webinar only. We are holding this hearing via webinar. This is an online meeting that you can attend from any computer using internet access. The hearing will begin with a short presentation followed by a question and answer (Q&A) session. Testimony will start after the Q&A session. The hearing will conclude once all interested persons provide formal testimony.

Join online and see instructions https://watech.webex.com/watech/onstage/g.php?MTID=e89508b32b3fbe29e50539ccfb6febb48.

For audio call United States toll number 1-204-454-0887 and enter access code 804 961 541. Or to receive a free call back, provide your phone number when you join the event.

On August 28, 2018 at 6:30 p.m., webinar only. We are holding this hearing via webinar. This is an online meeting that you can attend from any computer using internet access. The hearing will begin with a short presentation followed by a Q&A session. Testimony will start after the Q&A session. The hearing will conclude once all interested persons provide formal testimony.

Join online and see instructions https://watech.webex.com/watech/onstage/g.php?MTID=e66c438b9a9ab2be29230dd42cae3c933.

For audio call United States toll number 1-204-454-0887 and enter access code 801 319 021. Or to receive a free call back, provide your phone number when you join the event.

On August 29, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in-person at Tukwila Community Center, Social Hall, 12424 42nd Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98168. We are holding this hearing in-person only. The hearing will begin with a short presentation followed by a Q&A session. Testimony will start after the Q&A session. The hearing will conclude once all interested persons provide formal testimony.

On August 30, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., in-person at CenterPlace, Auditorium, 2426 North Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216. We are holding this hearing in-person only. The hearing will begin with a short presentation followed by a Q&A session. Testimony will start after the Q&A session. The hearing will conclude once all interested persons provide formal testimony.

And on September 5, 2018, at 6:30 p.m., webinar only. We are holding this hearing via webinar. This is an online meeting that you can attend from any computer using internet access. The hearing will begin with a short presentation followed by a Q&A session. Testimony will start after the Q&A session. The hearing will conclude once all interested persons provide formal testimony.

Join online and see instructions https://watech.webex.com/watech/onstage/g.php?MTID=eb07c7e9fb398786a44b57486a41abab7.

For audio call United States toll number 1-204-454-0887 and enter access code 802 977 451. Or to receive a free call back, provide your phone number when you join the event.

Date of Intended Adoption: November 28, 2018.

Submit Written Comments to: Becca Conklin, Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, 300 Desmond Drive S.E., Lacey, WA 98503, submit comments by mail, online, or at the hearing(s), online http://ws.ecology.commentinput.com/?id=sx2WK, by September 14, 2018.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Hanna Waterstrat, phone 360-407-7668. People with speech disability may call TTY 877-833-6341. People with impaired hearing may call Washington relay service 711. To request Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation[s] for disabilities, or printed materials in a format for the visually impaired, call ecology at 360-407-7668 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility, email hanna.waterstrat@ecy.wa.gov, by August 23, 2018.

Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed revisions to the national recommended recreational water quality criteria. The recommendations include the latest science, which quantifies the link between illness and fecal contamination in recreational waters. The recommended criteria are based on two bacterial indicators of fecal contamination, E. coli and enterococci. Washington's current bacterial indicator for contact recreation, fecal coliform, was removed from EPA's recommendations in 1986. This method of determining compliance with water quality standards is outdated. EPA has instructed states that still rely on fecal coliform as an indicator to revise their recreational use criteria and align them with the current national recommendations.

Washington is one of twelve states that have not revised fresh water criteria, and one of eight coastal states that have not revised marine water criteria to meet EPA recommendations.

We intend to improve the water quality standards by:

Reasons Supporting Proposal: In 2012, EPA completed revisions to the national recommended recreational water quality criteria. The recommendations include the latest science, which quantifies the link between illness and fecal contamination in recreational waters. The recommended criteria are based on two bacterial indicators of fecal contamination, E. coli and enterococci.

Washington's current bacterial indicator for contact recreation, fecal coliform, was removed from EPA's recommendations in 1986. This method of determining compliance with water quality standards is outdated. EPA has instructed states that still rely on fecal coliform as an indicator to revise their recreational use criteria and align them with the current national recommendations.

Washington is one of twelve states that have not revised fresh water criteria, and one of eight coastal states that have not revised marine water criteria to meet EPA recommendations.

We are proposing revisions to Washington's water quality standards to:

We are updating Washington's recreational use water quality standards to include new indicators and numeric criteria which protect the public from waterborne disease while boating, swimming, and enjoying other water contact recreational activities in the state waters.

We reviewed our current recreational use categories to ensure that they align with federal water quality recommendations issued by EPA. The current recreational use categories in WAC 173-201A-600 and 173-201A-610 include extraordinary primary contact, primary contact, and secondary contact.

We are also proposing improved fresh and marine use designation tables in WAC 173-201A-602 and 173-201A-612 by:

Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 90.48.035 Rule-making authority, provides clear and direct authority to ecology to revise the water quality standards. Additionally, 40 C.F.R. 131.20 requires states and tribes (with primacy for clean water actions) to periodically review and update the water quality standards.

Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water pollution control.

Rule is necessary because of federal law, Federal Water Pollution Control Act - 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq and 40 C.F.R. Part 131 - Water Quality Standards.

Name of Proponent: Department of ecology, governmental.

Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Bryson Finch, Headquarters, Lacey, 360-407-7158; Implementation: Ben Rau, Headquarters, Lacey, 360-407-6551; and Enforcement: Heather Bartlett, Headquarters, Lacey, 360-407-6405.

A school district fiscal impact statement is not required under RCW 28A.305.135.

A cost-benefit analysis is required under RCW 34.05.328. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis may be obtained by contacting Becca Conklin, Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, 300 Desmond Drive S.E., Lacey, WA 98503, phone 360-407-6413. People with speech disability may call TTY 877-833-6341. People with impaired hearing may call Washington relay service 711. To request ADA accommodation for disabilities, or printed materials in a format for the visually impaired, call ecology at 360-407-7668 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility, email swqs@ecy.wa.gov, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/181007.html.

The proposed rule does impose more-than-minor costs on businesses.

Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS)

Relevant Information for State Register Publication

Proposed amendments to chapter 173-201A WAC, Water quality standards for surface waters of the state of Washington.

This SBEIS presents the:

A small business is defined by the Regulatory Fairness Act (chapter 19.85 RCW) as having fifty or fewer employees. Estimated costs are determined as compared to the existing regulatory environment, the regulations in the absence of the rule. The SBEIS only considers costs to "businesses in an industry" in Washington state. This means that impacts, for this document, are not evaluated for nonprofit or government agencies.

The existing regulatory environment is called the "baseline" in this document. It includes only existing laws and rules at federal and state levels.

This information is excerpted from ecology's complete set of regulatory analyses of the proposed rule. For complete discussion of the likely costs, benefits, minimum compliance burden, and relative burden on small businesses, see the Regulatory Analyses (Ecology publication no. 18-10-027, July 2018).

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The baseline for our analyses generally consists of existing rules and laws, and their requirements. This is what allows us to make a consistent comparison between the state of the world with and without the proposed rule amendments.

For this proposed rule making, the baseline includes:

The proposed rule amendments make the following changes:

Changing definitions:

Baseline: Defines extraordinary primary contact and secondary contact recreation:

Proposed: Removes extraordinary primary contact and secondary contact recreation. Adds definitions of ambient water quality and effluent:

Expected impact: Proposed amendments to definitions are not expected to have an impact on their own, beyond improved clarity. Where they are used in other rule amendments, below, they contribute to the impact of those amendments.

Proposed:

Expected impact: The combined rule amendments are likely to result in impacts to the cost of sample analysis for a different parameter being phased in at rule adoption and then required beginning in 2021. Dischargers that must meet water quality limits for downstream uses may have to analyze samples for two parameters. Downstream shellfish harvesting-based effluent limits would continue to be based on fecal coliform and recreational uses in fresh water would be based on E. coli. However, because of the similar treatment technologies for fecal coliform and E. coli, we do not expect impacts to treatment costs beyond potential minor adjustments to existing practices.

Dischargers to waterbodies with established total maximum daily loads (TMDL) are not expected to have their wasteload allocations change under the proposed amendments, as implementation will not change established TMDLs.

Dischargers with fecal coliform technology-based limits are not expected to have their limits affected by the proposed amendments. Revisions to these limits may be addressed in a future rule making.

In Washington, six fresh water dischargers currently reporting bacteria levels are located on waterbodies that would change use designation from secondary to primary contact use recreation. These dischargers currently:

We, therefore, do not expect impacts to these dischargers. Moreover, EPA does not recognize the secondary use designation, and would not approve a rule that included it. While potential future EPA approval is not technically part of the baseline, it is a motivating factor in the proposed amendments.

While initially it may appear that health costs could be associated with elimination of the extraordinary primary use designation, we do not expect costs to arise from this proposed amendment. There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the level of protection of fecal coliform, whereas the uncertainty associated with E. coli would be significantly reduced under the proposed amendments, given that E. coli has a high correlation with illness.

We expect the proposed rule to result in better accuracy of bacterial indicators as related to illness risk. Using a more accurate indicator of illness risk reduces potential costs for both dischargers and the public. This is because a more accurate bacterial indicator is less likely to result in effluent limits and additional application of treatment technologies, or restrict public access to water for recreational purposes.

While we do not expect impacts to existing dischargers on waterbodies changing from secondary use to primary use under the proposed amendments, there is a benefit to setting protections for those and other waters at the same preventative level as other waters of the state. Moreover, EPA does not recognize the secondary use designation, and would not approve a rule that included it. While potential future EPA approval is not technically part of the baseline, it is a motivating factor in the proposed amendments.

Dischargers on waterbodies shared with neighboring states or across international borders, as well as dischargers with multiple locations under the same company, would benefit from consistent methods and requirements across the northwest. States surrounding Washington and the majority of western states have adopted E. coli as the bacterial indicator for fresh water. This continuity provides a potential benefit of clarity and reduced compliance effort.

Establishing a thirty day averaging period for permit compliance, as well as a ninety day averaging period for all other monitoring data, is likely to create a benefit of clarity and consistency, as compared to the baseline. The baseline language is vague, and may result in additional time determining appropriate compliance behavior, as well as potential unnecessary expenditure testing or treating water while working with ecology staff to determine the best method or structure under which to comply. Environmental labs are not directly covered by this rule, and our regulatory analyses do not include indirect costs such as the results of increased demand for E. coli analysis in place of fecal coliform analysis. We acknowledge, however, this shift in demand could cause short-term increases in the price of E. coli analysis and a future need for more labs to become accredited for more types of analyses. Since E. coli is a subset of fecal coliform bacteria, and some labs are already accredited for this analysis, we do not expect a short-term shortage of available accredited labs or displaced demand to labs farther away than those dischargers already use. The two year transition period allowed under the proposed amendments allows more time for labs to become accredited for new bacterial indicators before compliance requirements for the updated recreational criteria are active.

Expected impact: The combined rule amendments are likely to result in higher costs for dischargers who may have to do sample analysis for a different parameter beginning in 2021.

Dischargers to waterbodies with established TMDLs are not expected to have their wasteload allocations change under the proposed amendments, as implementation will not change established TMDLs.

Dischargers with technology-based limits are not expected to have their limits affected by the proposed amendments. Revisions to technology-based limits are not part of this rule making.

Six marine water dischargers currently reporting bacteria levels are located on waterbodies that would change use designation from secondary to primary use recreation. These dischargers currently:

We, therefore, do not expect impacts to these dischargers. Moreover, EPA does not recognize the secondary use designation, and would not approve a rule that included it. While potential future EPA approval is not technically part of the baseline, it is a motivating factor in the proposed amendments.

We expect the proposed rule to result in better accuracy of bacterial indicators as related to illness risk. Using a more accurate indicator of illness risk reduces potential costs for both dischargers and the public. This is because a more accurate bacterial indicator is less likely to result in limits and unnecessary application of treatment technologies, or restrict public access.

While we do not expect impacts to existing dischargers on waterbodies changing from secondary use to primary use under the proposed amendments, there is a benefit to setting protections for those and other waters at the same preventative level as other waters of the state. Moreover, EPA does not recognize the secondary use designation, and would not approve a rule that included it. While potential future EPA approval is not technically part of the baseline, it is a motivating factor in the proposed amendments.

Dischargers with multiple locations under the same company would benefit from consistent methods and requirements across the northwest. States surrounding Washington and the majority of western states have adopted enterococcus as the bacterial indicator for marine water. This continuity provides a potential benefit of clarity and reduced compliance effort.

Establishing a thirty day averaging period for permit compliance, as well as a ninety day averaging period for all other monitoring data, is likely to create a benefit of clarity and consistency, as compared to the baseline. The baseline language is vague, and may result in additional time determining appropriate compliance behavior, as well as potential unnecessary expenditure testing or treating water while working with ecology staff to determine the best method or structure under which to comply. Environmental labs are not directly covered by this rule, and our regulatory analyses do not include indirect costs such as the results of increased demand for E. coli analysis in place of fecal coliform analysis. We acknowledge, however, this shift in demand could cause short-term increases in the price of E. coli analysis and a future need for more labs to become accredited for more types of analyses. Since E. coli is a subset of fecal coliform bacteria, and many labs are already accredited in this analysis, however, we do not expect a short-term shortage of available accredited labs or displaced demand to labs farther away than those dischargers already use. The two year transition period allowed under the proposed amendments for labs to perform analyses before they are required to be accredited is intended to mitigate these potential issues.

Baseline: The existing rule contains tables indicating the designated recreational uses of areas of waterbodies.

Expected impact: These proposed amendments do not impact rule requirements, and so only have a benefit of clarifying the rule for implementation and ease of compliance. They do not create any costs on their own, though they may reflect changes to other parts of the rule.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: EQUIPMENT: Compliance with the proposed rule, compared to the baseline, is not likely to impose additional costs of equipment.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: SUPPLIES: Compliance with the proposed rule, compared to the baseline, is not likely to impose additional costs of supplies.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: LABOR: Compliance with the proposed rule, compared to the baseline, is not likely to impose additional costs of labor. Note that we assumed testing would be performed externally, and these costs are reflected below under "Costs of compliance: Professional services." If it is possible and less expensive to perform sample analyses in house, those costs would instead be represented in this section.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Assuming weekly E. coli testing at fresh water dischargers (12,116 samples across all identified dischargers), the proposed amendments would result between an annual cost-savings of approximately $92 thousand, and annual cost increase of $79 thousand, compared to baseline testing for fecal coliform.

Assuming weekly enterococcus testing at marine water dischargers (4,524 samples across all identified dischargers), the proposed amendments would result in annual cost increases of between $142 thousand and $240 thousand, compared to baseline testing for fecal coliform.

An annual fresh water cost-savings of $92 thousand beginning in 2021 translates to a present value cost-savings of $1.4 million over twenty years. An annual cost increase of $79 thousand beginning in 2021 translates to a present value cost increase of $1.2 million over twenty years.

An annual marine water cost increase of between $142 thousand and $240 thousand beginning in 2021 translates to a present value cost increase of between $2.2 million and $3.6 million over twenty years, as compared to the baseline.

While potential future EPA approval of the rule is not technically part of the baseline, it is arguable that if we assume approval is a necessity, a reasonable baseline for comparison could also be the alternative indicator and criteria recommended by EPA. If the baseline was limited to criteria acceptable to EPA under its guidance, it would mean comparing the proposed amendments to using enterococcus for fresh waters (it would be the only other option that would receive EPA approval) and enterococcus for marine waters (the only option recommended by EPA). Under this scenario and using the same assumptions as in the primary calculation, the proposed amendments would result in:

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: Where applicable, ecology estimates administrative costs ("overhead") as part of the cost of labor and professional services, above.

COSTS OF COMPLIANCE: OTHER: Not applicable.

COMPARISON OF COMPLIANCE COST FOR SMALL VERSUS LARGE BUSINESSES: Ecology calculated the estimated per entity costs to comply with the proposed rule amendments, based on the costs estimated in Chapter 3. In this section, ecology summarizes compliance cost per employee at affected businesses of different sizes.

The average affected small business likely to be covered by the proposed rule amendments employ averages of:

The largest ten percent of affected businesses employ averages of:

Based on cost estimates from Chapter 3, we estimated the following compliance costs per employee.

Twenty year present value costs per employee

We conclude that the proposed rule amendments are likely to have disproportionate impacts on small businesses, and therefore ecology must include elements in the proposed rule amendments to mitigate this disproportion, as far as is legal and feasible.

CONSIDERATION OF LOST SALES OR REVENUE: Businesses that would incur costs could experience reduced sales or revenue if the fee changes would significantly affect the prices of the goods they sell. The degree to which this could happen is strongly related to each business's production and pricing model (whether additional lump-sum costs significantly affect marginal costs), as well as the specific attributes of the markets in which they sell goods, including the degree of influence of each firm on market prices, as well as the relative responsiveness of market demand to price changes.

The additional sampling costs estimated in Chapter 3 could impact sales or revenues at individual firms if they significantly impact the price they must charge, and that in turn disproportionately affects the number of units they sell. As many of the affected businesses are in inelastic markets (markets from which there is limited ability to substitute to other goods), they may raise prices without a disproportionate reduction in sales units resulting in a reduction in revenue. Those businesses are more likely to incur compliance costs without impacting their competitiveness.

MITIGATION OF DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT: The Regulatory Fairness Act (RCW 19.85.030(2)) states that: Based upon the extent of disproportionate impact on small business identified in the statement prepared under RCW 19.85.040, the agency shall, where legal and feasible in meeting the stated objectives of the statutes upon which the rule is based, reduce the costs imposed by the rule on small businesses. The agency must consider, without limitation, each of the following methods of reducing the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses:

(a) Reducing, modifying, or eliminating substantive regulatory requirements;

(b) Simplifying, reducing, or eliminating recordkeeping and reporting requirements;

(c) Reducing the frequency of inspections;

(d) Delaying compliance timetables;

(e) Reducing or modifying fine schedules for noncompliance; or

(f) Any other mitigation techniques including those suggested by small businesses or small business advocates.

Ecology considered all of the above options, and included the following legal and feasible elements in the proposed rule amendments that reduce costs. In addition, ecology considered the alternative rule contents discussed in Chapter 6 of the preliminary regulatory analyses, and excluded those elements that would have imposed excess compliance burden on businesses.

SMALL BUSINESS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: Ecology involved small businesses and local government in its development of the proposed rule amendments, by:

NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODES OF INDUSTRIES IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE: The proposed rule is likely to impact NAICS codes:

IMPACT ON JOBS: Ecology used the Washington state office of financial management's 2007 Washington input-output model to estimate the impact of the proposed rule on jobs in the state. The model accounts for inter-industry impacts and spending multipliers of earned income and changes in output.

The proposed rule amendments will result in transfers of money within and between industries; these estimates assume increased sampling compliance costs are transferred to environmental laboratory services.

Under the low-end cost assumptions discussed in Chapter 3, the Washington state economy, beginning in 2021, could experience between a net loss of one full-time employee (FTE) equivalent, to a net gain of 2.5 FTEs. This range depends on the distribution of costs across relevant NAICS codes transferring costs to environmental labs.

Under the high-end cost assumptions discussed in Chapter 3, the Washington state economy, beginning in 2021, could experience between a net loss of 1.6 FTE equivalent, to a net gain of 3.8 FTEs. This range depends on the distribution of costs across relevant NAICS codes transferring costs to environmental labs.

Some dischargers may not pay external labs, choosing to continue to analyze samples in house, reducing the degree of these estimated impacts, positive or negative.

These prospective changes in overall employment in the state are the sum of multiple small increases and decreases across all industries in the state. Decreases are primarily in industries directly incurring compliance costs under the proposed rule. Increases are primarily in environmental labs and related industries.

A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Becca Conklin, Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, 300 Desmond Drive S.E., Lacey, WA 98503, phone 360-407-6413. People with speech disability may call TTY 877-833-6341. People with impaired hearing may call Washington relay service 711. To request ADA accommodation for disabilities, or printed materials in a format for the visually impaired, call ecology at 360-407-7668 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility, email swqs@ecy.wa.gov, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/181007.html.

July 17, 2018

Polly Zehm

Deputy Director

Category	Highest 7-DADMax
Char Spawning and Rearing*	12°C (53.6°F)
Core Summer Salmonid Habitat*	16°C (60.8°F)
Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration*	17.5°C (63.5°F)
Salmonid Rearing and Migration Only	17.5°C (63.5°F)
Non-anadromous Interior Redband Trout	18°C (64.4°F)
Indigenous Warm Water Species	20°C (68°F)

*Note:	Some streams have a more stringent temperature criterion that is applied seasonally to further protect salmonid spawning and egg incubation. See (c)(B)(iv) of this subsection.

Category	Lowest 1-Day Minimum
Char Spawning and Rearing	9.5 mg/L
Core Summer Salmonid Habitat	9.5 mg/L
Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration	8.0 mg/L
Salmonid Rearing and Migration Only	6.5 mg/L
Non-anadromous Interior Redband Trout	8.0 mg/L
Indigenous Warm Water Species	6.5 mg/L

Category	NTUs
Char Spawning and Rearing	Turbidity shall not exceed:
	• 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or
	• A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.
Core Summer Salmonid Habitat	Same as above.
Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration	Same as above.
Salmonid Rearing and Migration Only	Turbidity shall not exceed: • 10 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or
	• A 20 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.
Non-anadromous Interior Redband Trout	Turbidity shall not exceed: • 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or
	• A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.
Indigenous Warm Water Species	Turbidity shall not exceed: • 10 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or
	• A 20 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.

Category	Percent Saturation
Char Spawning and Rearing	Total dissolved gas shall not exceed 110 percent of saturation at any point of sample collection.
Core Summer Salmonid Habitat	Same as above.
Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration	Same as above.
Salmonid Rearing and Migration Only	Same as above.
Non-anadromous Interior Redband Trout	Same as above.
Indigenous Warm Water Species	Same as above.

Use Category	pH Units
Char Spawning and Rearing	pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5, with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.2 units.
Core Summer Salmonid Habitat	Same as above.
Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration	pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.5 units.
Salmonid Rearing and Migration Only	Same as above.
Non-anadromous Interior Redband Trout	Same as above.
Indigenous Warm Water Species	Same as above.

((Category)) Bacterial Indicator	((Bacteria Indicator)) Criteria
((Extraordinary Primary Contact Recreation	Fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 50 colonies/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 100 colonies/100 mL.))
E. coli	E. coli organism levels within an averaging period must not exceed a geometric mean value of 100 CFU or MPN per 100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained within the averaging period exceeding 320 CFU or MPN per 100 mL.
((Primary Contact Recreation)) Fecal coliform (expires 12/31/2020)	Fecal coliform organism levels within an averaging period must not exceed a geometric mean value of 100 ((colonies/100)) CFU or MPN per 100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained ((for calculating the geometric mean value)) within an averaging period exceeding 200 ((colonies /100)) CFU or MPN per 100 mL.
((Secondary Contact Recreation	Fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 200 colonies/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 400 colonies /100 mL.))

Category	Highest 1-DMax
Extraordinary quality	13°C (55.4°F)
Excellent quality	16°C (60.8°F)
Good quality	19°C (66.2°F)
Fair quality	22°C (71.6°F)

Category	Lowest 1-Day Minimum
Extraordinary quality	7.0 mg/L
Excellent quality	6.0 mg/L
Good quality	5.0 mg/L
Fair quality	4.0 mg/L

Category	NTUs
Extraordinary quality	Turbidity must not exceed: • 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or • A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.
Excellent quality	Same as above.
Good quality	Turbidity must not exceed: • 10 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or • A 20 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.
Fair quality	Same as above.

Use Category	pH Units
Extraordinary quality	pH must be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.2 units.
Excellent quality	pH must be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.5 units.
Good quality	Same as above.
Fair quality	pH must be within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.5 units.

((Category)) Bacterial Indicator	((Bacteria Indicator)) Criteria
Enterococci	Enterococci organism levels within an averaging period must not exceed a geometric mean value of 30 CFU or MPN per 100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample values exist) obtained within the averaging period exceeding 110 CFU or MPN per 100 mL.
((Primary Contact Recreation)) Fecal coliform (expires 12/31/2020)	Fecal coliform organism levels within an averaging period must not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 ((colonies/100)) CFU or MPN per 100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained ((for calculating the geometric mean value)) within an averaging period exceeding 43 ((colonies/100)) CFU or MPN per 100 mL.
((Secondary Contact Recreation	Enterococci organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 70 colonies/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 208 colonies/100 mL.))

Abbreviation	General Description
Aquatic Life Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-200(1))
Char Spawning/Rearing	Char spawning and rearing. The key identifying characteristics of this use are spawning or early juvenile rearing by native char (bull trout and Dolly Varden), or use by other aquatic species similarly dependent on such cold water. Other common characteristic aquatic life uses for waters in this category include summer foraging and migration of native char; and spawning, rearing, and migration by other salmonid species.
Core Summer Habitat	Core summer salmonid habitat. The key identifying characteristics of this use are summer (June 15 - September 15) salmonid spawning or emergence, or adult holding; use as important summer rearing habitat by one or more salmonids; or foraging by adult and subadult native char. Other common characteristic aquatic life uses for waters in this category include spawning outside of the summer season, rearing, and migration by salmonids.
Spawning/Rearing	Salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration. The key identifying characteristic of this use is salmon or trout spawning and emergence that only occurs outside of the summer season (September 16 - June 14). Other common characteristic aquatic life uses for waters in this category include rearing and migration by salmonids.
Rearing/Migration Only	Salmonid rearing and migration only. The key identifying characteristic of this use is use only for rearing or migration by salmonids (not used for spawning).
Redband Trout	Nonanadromous interior redband trout. For the protection of waters where the only trout species is a nonanadromous form of self-reproducing interior redband trout (O. mykis), and other associated aquatic life.
Warm Water Species	Indigenous warm water species. For the protection of waters where the dominant species under natural conditions would be temperature tolerant indigenous nonsalmonid species. Examples include dace, redside shiner, chiselmouth, sucker, and northern pikeminnow.
Recreational Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-200(2))
((Extraordinary Primary Cont.	Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.))
Primary ((Cont.)) Contact	Primary contact recreation.
((Secondary Cont.	Secondary contact recreation.))
Water Supply Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-200(3))
Domestic Water	Domestic water supply.
Industrial Water	Industrial water supply.
Agricultural Water	Agricultural water supply.
Stock Water	Stock watering.
Miscellaneous Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-200(4))
Wildlife Habitat	Wildlife habitat.
Harvesting	Fish harvesting.
Commerce/Navigation	Commerce and navigation.
Boating	Boating.
Aesthetics	Aesthetic values.

Key:
1. Nooksack	21. Queets/Quinault	41. Lower Crab	61. Upper Lake Roosevelt
2. San Juan	22. Lower Chehalis	42. Grand Coulee	62. Pend Oreille
3. Lower Skagit/Samish	23. Upper Chehalis	43. Upper Crab/Wilson
4. Upper Skagit	24. Willapa	44. Moses Coulee
5. Stillaguamish	25. Grays/Elochoman	45. Wenatchee
6. Island	26. Cowlitz	46. Entiat
7. Snohomish	27. Lewis	47. Chelan
8. Cedar/Sammamish	28. Salmon/Washougal	48. Methow
9. Duwamish/Green	29. Wind/White Salmon	49. Okanogan
10. Puyallup/White	30. Klickitat	50. Foster
11. Nisqually	31. Rock/Glade	51. Nespelem
12. Chambers/Clover	32. Walla Walla	52. Sanpoil
13. Deschutes	33. Lower Snake	53. Lower Lake Roosevelt
14. Kennedy/Goldsborough	34. Palouse	54. Lower Spokane
15. Kitsap	35. Middle Snake	55. Little Spokane
16. Skokomish/ Dosewallips	36. Esquatzel Coulee	56. Hangman
17. Quilcene/Snow	37. Lower Yakima	57. Middle Spokane
18. Elwha/Dungeness	38. Naches	58. Middle Lake Roosevelt
19. Lyre/Hoko	39. Upper Yakima	59. Colville
20. Soleduck/Hoh	40. Alkaki/Squilchuck	60. Kettle

((

))

Abbreviation	General Description
Aquatic Life Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-210(1))
Extraordinary	Extraordinary quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.
Excellent	Excellent quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.
Good	Good quality salmonid migration and rearing; other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.
Fair	Fair quality salmonid and other fish migration.
Shellfish Harvesting:	(see WAC 173-201A-210(2))
Shellfish Harvest	Shellfish (clam, oyster, and mussel) harvesting.
Recreational Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-210(3))
Primary ((Cont.)) Contact	Primary contact recreation.
((Secondary Cont.	Secondary contact recreation.))
Miscellaneous Uses:	(see WAC 173-201A-210(4))
Wildlife Habitat	Wildlife habitat.
Harvesting	Salmonid and other fish harvesting, and crustacean and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.) harvesting.
Com./Navig.	Commerce and navigation.
Boating	Boating.
Aesthetics	Aesthetic values.

(( ))

(( ))

Use Designations for Marine Waters	Aquatic Life Use	Recreational Use	Harvest Use
Budd Inlet south of latitude 47°04'N (south of Priest Point Park).	Good	Primary Contact	Excludes Shellfish
Coastal waters: Pacific Ocean from Ilwaco to Cape Flattery.	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Commencement Bay south and east of a line bearing 258° true from "Brown's Point" and north and west of a line bearing 225° true through the Hylebos waterway light.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Commencement Bay, inner, south and east of a line bearing 225° true through Hylebos waterway light except the city waterway south and east of south 11th Street.	Good	Primary Contact	Excludes Shellfish
Commencement Bay, city waterway south and east of south 11th Street.	Fair	Primary Contact	No Harvest Use Supported
Drayton Harbor, south of entrance.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Dyes and Sinclair inlets west of longitude 122°37'W.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Elliott Bay east of a line between Pier 91 and Duwamish Head.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Everett Harbor, inner, northeast of a line bearing 121° true from approximately 47°59'5"N and 122°13'44"W (southwest corner of the pier).	Good	Primary Contact	Excludes Shellfish
Grays Harbor west of longitude 123°59'W.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Grays Harbor east of longitude 123°59'W to longitude 123°45'45"W (Cosmopolis Chehalis River, river mile 3.1). Special condition - Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 5.0 mg/L.	Good	Primary Contact	Excludes Shellfish
Guemes Channel, Padilla, Samish and Bellingham bays east of longitude 122°39'W and north of latitude 48°27'20"N.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Hood Canal.	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Mukilteo and all North Puget Sound west of longitude 122°39'W (Whidbey, Fidalgo, Guemes and Lummi islands and State Highway 20 Bridge at Deception Pass), except as otherwise noted.	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Oakland Bay west of longitude 123°05'W (inner Shelton harbor).	Good	Primary Contact	Excludes Shellfish
Port Angeles south and west of a line bearing 152° true from buoy "2" at the tip of Ediz Hook.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Port Gamble south of latitude 47°51'20"N.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Port Townsend west of a line between Point Hudson and Kala Point.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Possession Sound, south of latitude 47°57'N.	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Possession Sound, Port Susan, Saratoga Passage, and Skagit Bay east of Whidbey Island and State Highway 20 Bridge at Deception Pass between latitude 47°57'N (Mukilteo) and latitude 48°27'20"N (Similk Bay), except as otherwise noted.	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Puget Sound through Admiralty Inlet and South Puget Sound, south and west to longitude 122°52'30"W (Brisco Point) and longitude 122°51'W (northern tip of Hartstene Island).	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Sequim Bay southward of entrance.	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
South Puget Sound west of longitude 122°52'30"W (Brisco Point) and longitude 122°51'W (northern tip of Hartstene Island, except as otherwise noted).	Excellent	Primary Contact	All
Strait of Juan de Fuca.	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Totten Inlet and Little Skookum Inlet, west of longitude 122°56'32"W (west side of Steamboat Island).	Extraordinary	Primary Contact	All
Willapa Bay seaward of a line bearing 70° true through Mailboat Slough light (Willapa River, river mile 1.8).	Excellent	Primary Contact	All