S(UM
Environmental ProtKDon
Ag«ncy
OfNrt of '«v«t«f
and Stanoams
WasMngton. CXC 20*60
vvEPA
Guidance for State Water
Monitoring and Wasteload
Allocation Programs
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Guidance for State Water Monitoring
and Wasteload Allocation Programs
October 1985
Monitoring and Data Support Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
This guidance for State programs will be reviewed and revised periodically to reflect changes m EPA'3
Monitoring Strategy, to include new information, or to clarify/update the text. Comments are invited and
will be considered in these revisions. Comments or inqumes sftouid be directed to:
Monitoring Branch
Monitohng and Data Support Division (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "W" St. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Attention: Morrie Mabbitt
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
To the Reader:
The Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Prccrarv.s
defines the responsibilities of State and Interstate water pollution control
agencies, working in a partnership with EPA, for meeting the monitoring and
wasteload objectives of the Clean Water Act. It is to be used oy the States
and EPA Regions in developing annual section 106 and 205(j) work programs tr.at
focus water quality monitoring and wasteload allocation programs on areas wr.ere
water quality decisions need to be made (i.e., priority waterbodies) while
continuing to assess water quality conditions and trends throughout the Star*-.
I urge all States to work with the EPA in comJucting monitoring and -astt
load allocation activities that provide the data and analyses necessary :rr
setting water quality control priorities, developing water quality-case^ per- •.
limits, measuring compliance with permits, and assessing amhior.t ccndit^crs.
t^ple anting this guidance will provide the data needed to accomplish :xr wa^ :
quality program.
incerel
Edwin L. Johnson
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
in
-------
FOREWORD
The Basic Water Monitoring Program was*devel-
oped in 1977 to provide a framework tor address-
ing national water monitonng prograrrTneeds. This
earlier guidance stressed intensive surveys to as-
sess water quality problems and called for EPA
and the States to operate a national network of
fixed monitonng stations, develop and operate a
pilot biological monitoring program, ind report on
water quality in accordance with Section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act.
With the inception of the Agency's new policies on
monitoring and water quality-based controls and
the development of monitoring strategies for com-
pliance and inland/coastal waters, an expansion
of the Basic Water Monitoring Program docu-
ment was necessary. Revisions were also needed
to take account of new technical information and
guidance. For these reasons, the new Guidance
for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allo-
cation Programs is more oriented towards pro-
gram managment and contains less in the way of
detailed technical guidance. References to tech-
nical guidance on assessing water quality and
developing water quality-based controls are also
included.
In general. States and EPA are to work as partners
in meeting the monitonng and wasteload alloca-
tion reo'iirements of the Clean Water Act. These
requirements include:
• Increasing th« emphasis on identifying
waters needing water quality-based controls
and on developing those controls.
• Implementing EPA's policy on developing
water quality-based controls for toxics by de-
termining wasteload allocations for toxics us-
ing both biomonitoring and pollutant-specific
techniques.
• Focusing resources and new techniques on
areas where designated used are not being
met while, at the same time, screening water
quality in other areas to anticipate problems.
• Focusing on the environmental results gained
through pollution abatement actions.
• Acquinng more information on the nature and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollution, their
impacts on water quality, and the relative suc-
cess of different approaches to control non-
point sources.
'n addition to these requirements, there are other
areas fnat need emphasis. These include:
• Performing more targeted inspec.ons of dis-
charges to reduce noncompliance and as-
sess the impact of dischargers on receiving
waters after controls are in place.
• Increasing the emphasis on oretreatment.
compliance, and enforcement programs.
• Increasing the use of effluent data to help tar-
get areas for ambont water quality moni-
toring.
• Improving EPA's data systems (such as
STORET and the Permit Compliance System,
PCS) to make them more useful for State and
EPA analyses.
In operating water quality programs, States are to
assess the physical, chemical, and biological m-
tagrity of waterways through the use of intensive
surveys, fixed stations, and biological monitoring.
They are also to ensure that all data col lection and
analysis activities are performed in a scientifical-
ly acceptable manner and that all data collected
is used in carrying out needed water quality plan-
ning, wasteload allocation, and standards activi-
ties. EPA also strongly encourages that water
quality assessments be documented by the States
in the form of technical reports.
The Guidance for State Water Monitoring and
Wasteload Allocation Programs is a procuct of
EPA's Office of Water which includes, among
others, the Office of Water Regulations and Stan-
dards and the Office of Water Enforcement anc Per-
mits. Other offices and individuals were also
instrumental in prepanng this document: the EPA
Office of Research and Development: the EPA
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; trie EPA
Regional Water Division Directors and Environmen-
tal Services Division Directors: and the EPA
Regional Monitoring Coordinators and Regional
Wastetoad Allocation Coordinators. During >ts
preparation, this guicance document was dis-
cussed with and reflects the comments of the ^oncy
and Technical Subgroups of me Standing Worn
Group on Monitonng and Wasteload Allocations
which include representatives from EPA, the States,
and several Interstate Commissions. A final draft
was also distributed to all of the States and EPA
Regions who submitted many valuable comments
that were used in preparing this final guidance.
-------
Table of Contents
Pag*,
Foreword v
Introduction :x
Section i. Water Quality Program Monitoring
Chapter 1. Overview of Water Quality Program Monitnnng
Chapter 2. Monitoring for Water Quality-Based Controls 7
Chapter 3. Monitoring for Compliance and Enforcement n
Chapter 4. Water Quality Assessments ''5
Chapter & Quality Assurance ;9
Chapter 6. Data Reporting ^
Section II. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Wasteload Allocations
Chapter 7. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Wasteload Allocations ?3
Appendixes
A. Monitoring Policy, Inland and Coastal Waters A-I
8. Monitoring Checklists R-•
VII
-------
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
This guidance is to be used by the States and the
EPA Regional offices in developing monitoring and
wasteload allocation portions of the annual State
106 and 205(j) work programs. This guidance
serves to define monitoring and wasteload alloca-
tion activities in accordance with EPA regulations
and reflects the objectives of EPA's Environmen-
tal Monitoring Policy, the Water Quality Monitoring
Policy, EPA's Policy for the Development of Water
Quality-based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollu-
tants, the Office of Water's Monitoring Strategy,
and the Policy and Program Requirements to Im-
plement the Quality Assurance Program.
As used in this document, the word "State" in-
cludes State agencies and Interstate Commissions
that receive grants from EPA to help finance water
monitoring and wasteload allocation programs.
Scope
This guidance covers two principal areas. One is
an outline of the objectives of the water monitor-
ing program to conduct sound assessments of the
quality and condition of the Nation's waters and
make the necessary control decisions where they
are needed. The second is a description of the
process for calculating total maximum daily loads
and wasteload allocations for point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. As used in this document, the
phrase "wasteload allocations for point and non-
point sources" is equivalent to "wasteload alloca-
tions for point sources" and "load allocations for
nonpoint sources," as defined in the Water Qual-
ity Planning and Management Regulation (40 CFR
130.2). Annual program priorities are not ad-
dressed in this document: they an included in the
annual Agency Operating Guidance.
Implementation
EPA will evaluate how well this guidance is being
implemented by the States and will continuously
work towards improving EPA and State water
monitoring and wasteload allocation programs.
The actual effectiveness of State and EPA pro-
grams will be judged to a great extent by the
degree to which they in fact deliver Information that
State and EPA administrators need to manage for
environmental results. This will include periodic
reviews of State and EPA programs by EPA. such
as reviews conducted under the Office of Water's
portion of the Agency operating Guidance and the
Office of Water's Evaluation Guide, as well as pos-
sible audits of State programs by the Regional
offices. In conducting periodic reviews. EPA will be
reviewing indicators (including resource and per-
formance estimates outlined in the annual Office
of Water portion of the Agency's Strategic Planning
and Management System, SPMS) to assess the
effectiveness of the State programs. Specific
measures in these systems will include informa-
tion needed by the EPA Regional offices to answer
the following types of questions:
• Did the monitoring program provide adequate
support for making important water quality-
based regulatory decisions? For Instance, in
looking at all the water quality standards re-
visions, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)/
wasteload allocations (WLAS), water quality-
based permit issuances, and nonpoint
source control decisions performed by the
State, did the State have available the water
quality and effluent data and analyses it need-
ed at the time those regulatory decisions were
made? For those decisions where the data
were not adequate, were the data gaps the
result of applying rational priorities to the use
of resources?
• Did the State use EPA recommended metho-
dologies for relating water quality conditions
to effluent limitations? For instance, did the
State calculate TMDLs and did they develop
a WLA using technically valid methods to ar-
rive at water quality-based controls that meet
water quality standards? Did they follow all of
the requirements of the regulations, includ-
ing the antidegradation provisions, in devel-
oping TMDLS?
• Did the State allocate resources to operate
acceptable monitoring and wasteload alloca-
tion programs? For instance, did the State de-
vote needed resources for developing water
IX
-------
quality-based controls, assessing water qual-
ity conditions and trends, ensuring compli-
ance with NPDES permits, and other activ-
ities?
Did the State use effluent data to help target
ambient water quality monitoring activities. If
so, did they consider areas where both tech-
nology and water quality-based controls are
in place?
Did the State conduct chemical and/or biolog-
ical monitoring to confirm and/or characterize
pollution problems in all the waters identified
as 'partially supporting" or "not supporting
designated uses"? If such monitoring was not
conducted for some of these waters, was the
decision not to monitor based on a rational
method for setting priorities?
Did the State develop enough data to evalu-
ate changes or trends in all of the waters inden-
tified as "partially supporting" or "not
supporting designated uses"? If such moni-
toring was not conducted for some of these
waters, was the decision not to monitor based
on a rational method for setting priorities?
Did the State make progress in reducing the
amount of "unassessed" waters (number of
stream miles, shore miles, acres, etc.) report-
ed in their biennial Section 305(b) reports? If
so, did the reduction represent the results of
actual monitoring, or use of a technically valid
method of projecting water quality (e.g., EPA's
bioscreening guidance)?
Did the State undertake any monitoring
and/or screening programs to identify new or
emerging problems (e.g., previously unknown
toxic pollutant contamination)? For instance,
did the State conduct monitoring or screen-
ing to evaluate "unassessed waters"?
Responsibilities of EPA Headquarters,
EPA, Regional Offices, and the States
The EPA Headquarters provides overall policy,
guidance, technical assistance, and overview of
program implementation by the Regions and the
States for ambient monitoring, water quality ana-
lyses, TMDLs, and data reporting. EPA Headquart-
ers also performs national assessments and
evaluates the national water quality effects of water
programs.
The EPA Regional offices provide overall policy,
guidance, and overview of program implementation
by the States to ensure that they are operating ade-
quate monitoring programs in accordance with
Section 106(e) of the Clean Water Act. The Region-
al offices review State programs to ensure that ade-
quate State resources from Section 106 and 2050
grants are directed to priority activities in monitor-
ing, water quality analyses, TMDLs, and data
reporting. The Regional offices also provide tech-
nical assistance and training for States in water
monitoring and wasteload allocation-related activi-
ties, ensure that needed water quality-based con-
trols are developed by the States, that data are
entered into the national data system, and that ap-
propriate quality assurance procedures are used.
The States have primary responsibility for prepar-
ing water quality analyses and TMDLs, States per-
form monitoring and wasteload allocation activities,
prepare assessments and evaluations as required
by the Clean Water Act, and ensure that needed
environmental data are provided to EPA.
Summary
The Guidance for State Water Monitoring and
Wasteload Allocation Programs is summarized
in the matrix on the following page. Chapter refer-
ences are included to expand on the activities
presented.
-------
OVERVIEW Of GUMUNCfc FOR STATE MONJTOWMO AMD WASTELOAO ALU)CATION PROGRAMS
Activity*
HUOtiAW/uJ
IVfMOtOcU
ItoUtatf
»u«miinM tna
f u*< tutu** utt
tMmtmv* to
AJtUIIUMI
•*rx
FtopartMg
f MW MipmiiiiM
0> **< COfuM"
kit PA HM»XI
IMOMgB
EM«M«M*
MoSIDHEIaf
aSKMCIw
CntafMlMM
«t &IOM I w
h«i
-------
OVERVIEW Of CMNOAMCE FOR STATE MOWTOMMa AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PflOGJUMft (con.)
I
i
i,
li
MOMVWMO
M4M«M*<»
iMIMtMM
• •UP MM tor
f*.
tMM**M*Ml
xii
-------
SECTION I
WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM MONITORING
-------
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM MONITORING
Under the Clean Water Act. the States and inter-
state agencies, in cooperation with EPA, are to per-
form the water quality monitoring necessary to
establish and ravise water Quality standards, cal-
culate total maximum daly loads, assess compli-
ance with permits, and report on conditions and
trends in the ambient waters. Figure 1-1 describes
the annual process for evaluating existing data and
program needs, establishing priorities, and im-
plementing work activities. This process is
described as follows:
A. Determine Water Quality Needs
Water quality information (including data on point
and nonpoint source dischargers) is reviewed by
the States to determine the existing and predict-
ed severity of pollution in its waters. Tnis informa-
tion includes chemical screening data.
bioscreening data (including data on numbers and
kinds of fish), data collected by dischargers on
receiving water quality, fish kill data, information
collected from the NPDES Permit and Enforce-
ment programs (e.g., Form 2c and Discharge
Monitoring Report data), results of analyses of the
dilution available to dischargers, reports from earli-
er water quality analyses, citizen complaints,
results of intensive surveys and fixed station
monitoring, data on existing land uses, and any
other data on water quality.
To evaluate the severity of pollution. States need
to make evaluations based on the most accurate
data available. This includes chemical and biolog-
ical information and. where quantitative data are
lacking, qualitative data such as direct observa-
tions o.- professional judgment. Where "States do
not have information, routine monitoring activities
will provide much of the information needed to fill
data gaps. The types of information to be used for
making sound evaluations are described below.
1. Chemical Screening Data
Ambient chemical data representing water
column, sediment, and tissue samples are
used in the evaluation of water use support.
Analyses of these data, collected through
fixed station monitonng. intensive surveys or
special studies, should be conducted tor
those parameters appropriate for the desig-
nated use of the water body.
2. Biomonitoring Data
a. Bioassays. Biological tests are methods
for assessing the toxic effects of dis-
charges on aquatic life and screening fur
human health hazards. Toxicity tests nave
been developed which provide raoid and
economical results making them adapt-
able for use in assessing hazaras as-
sociated with complex effluents. iA
discussion of assessing nsk to aquatic life
and human health is available in EPA1?
"Technical Support Document for Waif •
Quality-Base^* Toxics Control", see Refr
ence 1.)
b. Biosurveys. Where the designated use ••
a water body includes the suppon s
aquatic life, the biological information
needed to assess whether uses are main-
tained can be obtained from general sur-
veys of fish, macromvertebrate and utrie,
biological communities, fishery studies.
tissue analyses, habitat analyses, creei
censuses, capture-recapture/remcvai
sampling, and other quantitative meas-
ures. Where resources a,low, more m-
depth studies on the survival, propaga-
tion, production, dispersion, community
structure, and species diversity should
also be included as a part of the biostr-
vey. These biosurveys are described .n
Chapter 4.
3. Professional Judgment/Direct Observation
Whenever possible, quantitative assess-
ments should be made based on biotcx^ -:i.
physical, and cn-mical data HCWOVPI. >r
some waterbodies States do not ><;ve
detailed data with which to ^ake these quc n-
titative assessments so that the complete-
-------
Rgure 1-1
Annual Process for Establishing Monitoring Priorities and tracking Implementation
A. Determine Water Quality Need*
Review eftluent data gathered through the
NPDES permit program as well as
Dioscreenmg data, chemical screening
data, citizen complaints, fish kill data, data
from previous water quality analyses (fixed
station, intensive survey, and biological
monitoring data), and lists of waters not
fully meeting uses (Section 305(b)] or
those waters needing TMOL's (Section
303
-------
ness of data varies. Given these limitations
and until such time as quantitative assess*
ments can be made, it is recommended that
the States array all available information and
make informed evaluations based on these
data. For instance, where a State may not
have the biological studies necessary to
evaluate suoport of the aquatic life for a river,
it i.« perfectly reasonable to rety upon a com*
parson of chemical data and water quality
cnteria violations tempered where appro*
pnate by professional judgment.
Another example of the use of professional
judgment is applying stream survey informa-
tion from a series of typical streams to other
streams (where possible) of similar size and
watershed characteristics (vegetative cover,
soils, land use patterns, and topography)
within the same aquatic ecoregion. Aquatic
ecoregkxi maps for all EPA Regions are avail-
able to assist in this (see Reference 2). Profes-
sional judgment of the water pollution control
staff is valuable for assessing data on stream
loadings, dilution ratios, stream models, or
other direct and indirect data where chemical
and bioloqical information is lacking. A
detailed description of the types of profes-
sional judgment information that can be used
in evaluating designated uses are identified
in EPA's Use Attainability Technical Support
Documents (see Reference 3).
Other techniques for evaluating the existing
or predicted seventy of pollution include the
review of data on fish kill reports, citizen com-
plaints, and methods tailored by the analyst's
judgment to evaluate water use support us-
ing available data from intensive surveys.
fixed stations, or data from dischargers. The
physical condition of water bodies as well as
data on adjacent land uses should also be
used.
The list of waiers not meeting designated
uses and the list of waters needing new or re-
vised water quality-based controls also pro-
vide useful information for evaluation. States
are to prepare a list of water bodies where
uses are impaired or threatened and submit
this list to the EPA Regional office along with
descriptive information as to why the water
body does not meet its designated uses.
States should update these lists through the
biennial Section 305(b) report. The States
should also identify and list waters that still
need new or revised total maximum daily
loads and wasteload allocations.
EPA headquarters will maintain a composite
list of water bodies not meeting designated
uses and. over tima, a list of the waters need-
ing new or revised total maximum daily loads.
These will be maintained as a computer file
which will be accessible by the Regions and
the States. As new waterbodies are added to
these lists, the States are asked to identify
each with a River Reach Rle number (where-
ver available) to facilitate data handling. The
EPA Regional offices are responsibb 'or
managing the lirts of water bodies prepared
by the States.
B. Determine Operating Program
Monitoring Needs
State operating program needs are requirements
for water monitoring that exist for reasons that may
not be based entirely on water quality. They may
be based on State initiatives or program priorities
such as monitonng for developing wasteload al-
locations for expiring NPOES permits, obtaining
construction grants to iund municipal treatment fa-
cilities, or conducting surveys of nonpomt source
impacts. In addition, these could be for special lake
surveys, trends monitoring, special key projects.
o- other State program requirements.
To ensure that all State program needs are includ-
ed in the annual plan for data collection, a list of
specific data needs should be requested from all
State offices. These other offices may include the
State permit office, municipal treatment office, the
ambient monitonng office, or other offices that may
have needs for water quality information. By in-
tegrating needs for water quality early in the plan-
ning/budgeting process, maximum utility can be
achieved with the available resources.
In preparing a list of waters where water monitor-
ing data are most needeq to make water quality-
based decisions to prevent or reverse conditions
where designated uses are impaired or threa-
tened, States should tabulate these waters as
snown on Table 1-1. This table lists waters most
needing monitoring as ranked by the State and
should be developed as part of the State's unified
priority waterbody list.
3 -
-------
Monitoring Needs, FY___
t^^AA^M
*maf«
Segment "A"
1* • ••• m m* *«a*t
99Qmvni o
Segment"C"
SegmenfD"
River
naach
No.
Ambient Weter Monitoring Needed
tor Developing Controls
lAJteA^k*
WKatr
Quality
Standard*
^•"WrW^*W
•
•
Waatatoad
Allocation
•
Non point
Sourca
Controia
•
Ambient Water Monitoring
Naadad tor Weter Qualm/
AaeaMmanti
Conditions
and Irends
•
Post"
control
Assessment
a
a
a
Compliance
with Weter :
Quality-
tMsad
Condltlona i
•
• :
I
• • Type of monitoring needed.
C Establish Priorities
After competing needs for monitonng have been
identified and available ambient and effluent data
have been evaluated, the monitoring requirements
of each activity and the effect on State resources
should be estimated. Where needs exceed avail-
able resources, alternatives such as cooperative
monitonng projects (see Reference 4) may be
considered to consolidate or "piggyback" monitor-
ing activities with other Federal, State, or local
agencies. Agreements with dischargers may also
be established as a source of data on receiving
waters where controls have been implemented.
Based on the severity of pollution, the designat-
ed uses of the State's waters, and actions needed
(o satisfy operating program needs. States should
determine where monitoring activities are most
needed. In determining these priority activities.
States should consider the unified priority water-
body list in accordance with EPA guidance and
assess their long-range (generally 3-5 years) ob-
jectives to meet the goal of restoring the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of all State
waters. They should then make decisions that will
help them achieve this goal. Over time, it is expect-
ed that State monitoring programs will emphasize
monitoring needed for environmental results and
deemphasizs monitoring for short-term operating
program needs.
D. Complete Monitoring Checklists
Ate- the monitoring priorities have been set by the
State, they stould be described in their annual
work programs. Monitoring Checklists (see Appen-
dix B) should be completed to provide EPA with a
minimum of information on monitonng activities
planned by the State (or the budget year (although
the Regional wfflca may request additional infor-
mation on a case-by-case basis). One Monitonng
Checklist may describe a number of similar activi-
ties (e-g,, a fixed station network) or it may describe
a more complex single activity (e.g.. an intensive
survey for a complex wastetoad allocation study)
This checklist is to be developed in conjunction
with the EPA Regional office as a part of the
monitoring discussion in the State's annual work
program. (Other activities may be discussed IP the
work program, such as infrequent or irregular
monitoring for background levels, for which a
checklist is not necessary.) This checklist is intend-
ed to help the States plan monitoring actrvrties and
serve as a means for the Regional offices to tracn
State activities that are funded, at least m pan. o\-
EPA grants. Data from the checklists are aiso
needed by EPA Headquarters to assess the na-
tional program (e.g., on a national basis, tracking
the types of parameters States are monitonng, the
amount of data collected, types of surveys con-
ducted, the uses of the data, etc). This includes
-------
assessing implementation of the Guidance for
State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Alloca-
tion Program* and as a source of information for
EPA program reviews under the Agency Operat-
ing Guidance and the Office of Water Accounta-
bility System.
Frequently, State priorities or operating program
needs necessitate changes in a State's planned
monitoring activities, if the changes are significant.
a new or updated checklist is sent to the Region-
al office along with a brief explanation of the
changes. If-the Regional office agrees that the pro-
posed changes are of a relatively minor nature,
submission of revised checklists is not necessary.
It is important that revised checklists for major
changes be sent to the EPA Regional office.
Checklists for completed surveys are not normal-
ly expected since water quality data is to be provid-
ed to EPA, and periodic reviews will provide
sufficient information on the status of individual ac-
tivities.
Along with these checklists. States should submit
(Da State map or other suitable scale map show-
ing the location of the waters discussed in the
checklist and (2). if available, a copy of the QA/QC
project plan for each activity (or reference an ex-
isting QA/QC project plan). If the project plan is not
available, the State and the Regional office will
agree upon a schedule for its submission.
E. Submit Checklists to EPA as Part
of the Annual Work Program
In reviewing planned monitonng activities, thq EPA
Regional offices will conside. the technical as-
pects of each monitoring activity along with over-
all progi am activities and priorities contained in the
annual State 106 and 205<]} work program. They
will also assess how well they reflect national pro-
gram priorities and national operating guidance.
Technical aspects include the balance between
ambient fixed stations and intensive surveys, the
balance of biological and chemical monitonng, the
use of effluent and mstream toxicity testing, study
design, parametric coverage, sampling frequen-
cy, and the feasibility of cooperating with other
State agencies, 'ederal agencies, or .ndivtdua! dis-
chargers for activities that directly or ndirectty
affect wat*r quality. National program priorities are
provided in the EPA's operating guidance and in
national policies (see References i. 3, 4. and Ap-
pendix A).
F. Implement Program
Monitoring Checklists included as part of a State s
approved Section 106 ana 205(j) *ork program
describe work that is to be earned out by the State.
and the appropriate data is to be reported to E7J/-.
(seeChapter 6). Followup monitoring d e.. "after"
studies) are also important to assess compliance
with controls and the attainment of designated
uses. Technical reports documenting "before"
conditions, controls implemented, and "aftar" con-
ditions are strongly encouraged by EPA.
The EPA Regional offices will evaluate the pog-
ress made by the States dunng periodic revirws
(such as midyear and end-of-year reviews) of the
State monitoring activities. These penodic reviews
will evaluate the work that has been completed by
the States, the manner in which it has been cone.
the work that remains to be.done. and how well the
protects address State and national monitonng pn
onties.
References
1. Technical Support Document for Water Guainy-
Based Toxics Control. Office of Water, U.S. f
vironmental Protection Agency, Septemt>c .
1985.
'e.. Aquatic Ecoregion Map of the USEPA Regions
I-X. June. 1985. Office of Researcn anc De-
velopment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis. Oregon.
3. Technical Support Manual: Water Body Surveys
and Assessments (or Conducting Use Attaina-
bility Analyses. Office of Water Regulations ?nd
Standards. U.S. Environmental Prctei .on
Agency. Washington, D.C.:
Volume I — General. November 1983
Volume II — Estuanne Systems. November
1983
Volume li: — Lake Systems, November ^'84
4. Planning anl Managing Cooperative Men Cor-
ing Projects. Office of Water, U.S. Environmen-
tal Proteaion Agency. Washington, D.C.. (July
1984) EPA 440/4-84-Oia
-------
CHAPTER 2
MONITORING FOR WATER
QUALITY-BASED CONTROLS
The development of controls based on receiving
water quality is a very high priority. It involves the
collection and analysis of effluent and ambient.
data to develop water quality-based NPDES per-
mit limits and assess compliance with these per-
mits. It also involves the collection of data neces-
sary for establishing water quality-based targets
for nonpotnt sources. This type of monitoring thus
supports the standards-to-permits process.
Overview of the
Standards-to-Permita Process
The general elements of the standards-to-permis
process are shown in Fgure 2-1; these elements
are also addressed in the Water Quality Planning
and Management Regulation (40 CFR Parts 35
and 130. Fedora! Rsgistor 5Q. 1774. dated January
11. 1985). The first element in the process is to
identify waters needing water quality-based con-
trols and set control priorities in accordance with
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. This sec-
tion requires Stales to establish "«ter quality-
based control pnonties taking into account the
uses of the waters and the seventy of the pollution.
In setting prionties. Stales may consider the
amount of cleanup progress possible with the
available resources, and the need to make deci-
sions on expiring permits and on construction
grants. In areas where information is not available
or is insufficient to assess the magnitude of the
pollution problem, additional water quality data
should be collected. Consideration should also be
given to acquiring data from cooperative monitor-
ing efforts earned out by dischargers, public in-
terest groups, universities, and otners (see
Reference 1). A more detailed discussion on the
identification of waters still needing water quality-
based controls is given in Ch?pter 7.
The second element in the process is to review
and, if necessary, (evise the water quality stan-
dards for the selected water body. The Water Qual-
ity Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131} sets forth
the policies and procedures States are to use m the
development, review, revision, and approval of
water quality standards. This regulation has been
revised and consolidated, with me changes ap-
pearing in FtdoraJ Register 4fi: 51400 (November
8,1963). EPA has retained the concept of allowing
the State to select specific water bodies for an
in-depth review, and. where needed, it would De
logical to review standards in the waters identified
in the first element of the process.
Where existing water quality standards are net
adequate, States are to adopt numerical or narra-
tive criteria for the toxic or other pollutants of con-
cern. Where narrative cnteria are adopted, the
States should indicate as part of its water quality
standards submission how it intends to implement
these criteria.
EPA recommends adopting two-number ac'
and chronic criteria (defined m Reference '<;
whenever needed. National criteria may be uscc
directly, or may be adopted using site-specific
criteria development protocols outlined n the
WBBrQua/Wy Standard* Handbook (see Reference
3). Although the new water quality standards regu-
lation requires that the State's process for impie-
meriting their narrative cntenon be descrtoec iy
the State, there is no requirement that this concen-
tration be adopted as a numerical cntenon m State
water quality standards pnor to use m deveicsing
water quality-based controls. Additional technical
information on use attainability is available ;om
the TecnrMca/SupportMtnu*i senes. Volumes '
II. and III (see References 4, 5, 6).
The third element of the process is to use water
quality standards as the basis for developing water
quality-bas^d effluent limitations, i.e.. wastcioad
allocations. For nontoxic pollutants such as Bio-
chemical oxygen demand (which may deuress
dis»sorved oxygen levels in the receiving water
arid nutrients (which may cause eutrophicanon).
mathematical modeu may be used to determine
the pollution loading consistent with the water
quality standards and ev&Juate point-source/
nonpoint-source tradeoffs. In some noncomplex
-------
Figure 2*1
General Elements of the Water Quality-Based Standards-to-Permita Process
1. Identify Waters Naming Water Quality-Baaed Control!
• Sat control priorities
• Implement local monitoring program, if necessary
2. Review and Revise/Reaffirm Watar Quality Standard*
i t
3. Oavalop Watar Quality-Baaad Raquiramanta
4. Updata Witar Quality Managamant Plans-With
• Ust of waters naading watar quaiity-oasad controls ana pnontias
• TMOLs and affluant limits
• Faasibla nonpoint sourca controls
• Ravisad watar quality standards
S. Implamant Controla
• Issua watar quality-oasad parmits
• MaKa watar quality-oasad construction grant dacisions
• imoiamant noncoint sourca controls
6. Aaaaaa Rasultt of Control*
• Monitor municipal/Industrial scurcas for compliance
• Parform ambient monitoring to document protection of designated uses
8
-------
situations, simple dilution aquations may be ade-
quate for these analyses. Final technical guidance
on the use of mathematical models for developing
wasteload allocations is available from EPA for a
number of oollutants and types of receiving waters
(see References 7 through 13).
For toxic pollutants such as heavy metals, water
quality analyses can be done using one or both of
two techniques: me pollutant-specific approach
and the biomonitonng approach. The pollutant-
specific approach is best suited for situation* with
a few weU-charactenzed pollutants or whet i human
health is a concern. The biomonitonnq approach
should be used when the effluent is complex or
when interactions of erfiuents in the receiving
water are of co.icem. In many cases, both ap-
proaches will be needed. As discussed in Section
II, EPA prepares technical guidance on the devel-
opment of toxics controls using the pollutant-
specific and the biomonitonng approaches.
At this point, the State Water Quality Management
Plans should be updated to include any revisions
to the list of waters needing water quality-based
controls, any revisions to established State priori-
ties, existing water quality standards, wasteload al-
locations/total maximum daily loads, and effluent
limits.
The next element, which may actually occur be-
fore the water quality-based limits are incorporat-
ed into water quality management plans, is to
incorporat* the water quality-based limitations into
permits for industrial or municipal facilities cr as
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for nonpomt
source controls. Monitoring may also be required
of'dischargers (with appropriate quality control by
the regulatory authority) if existing information is
inadequate to determine whether water quality-
based controls are needed. As with permits, con-
struction grant decisions also must be based on
the most stnngent of technology-based or water
quality-based limitations. These decisions are
coordinated so that the decision taken on the treat-
ment facility is generally consistent with the limi-
tations m the permit. (The word "generally" is used
stmoiy to recognize those instances where fac'i-
ties that needed to meet permit limits are not eligi-
ble for Federal construction grants, such as when
advanced treatment facilities are found not to be
eligible according to EPA's policy on advanced
treatment review (see Reference 14].)
Once water quality-based controls are m place.
dischargers are required to provide reports on
compliance with NPDES permit limits. They also
may be required to assess the impact of their dis-
charge on the receiving water to ensure that the
expected water quality is obtained and water qual-
ity standards are met (cf. Chapter 3, Monitoring for
Compliance and Enforcement). Effluent and am-
bient data collection requirements may be written
into the permits of dischargers (with appropriate
quality control by the regulatory authority) for iden-
tifying waters needing controls, developing con-
trols, and assessing the effectiveness of ine^e
controls to ersure that the designated use is main-
tained. If a State has not been approved to imple-
ment thfc NPDES program, permitting ?nd
compliance reviews of all permittees m that State
are the responsibility of the EPA. In a State with ap-
proved NPDES authority, EPA retains overs"-;nt
responsibility for the State compliance prog-^m
and authority to conduct compliance and enforce-
ment m that State as necessary.
EPA Responsibilities
EPA Headquarters is responsible for seeing that
the mandates regarding TMDLs m the C;r ^
Water Act are carried out. providing oversigtu -J
the Regional offices and the States. developing
wa^teload allocating program policy ana ci • '••<-
ar.ce. developing computer software for caic; •'-.!•
mg wasteload allocations, developing tecnm 31
guidance documents, and providing tecnri;a
training and assistance.
The EPA Regional offices are responsible ':: •: s-
sisting Headquarters m developing policy anc
guidance and distributing this policy and guidance
to the States, awarding grants to the States :o cro-
vide them with resources for developing and .m-
plementing wasteload allocations, and providing
oversight and technical assistance to the States
In addition, the Regional offices are responsible
for reviewing and approving, or disapproving -icr
State's: wasteload allocation process -he
wasteload allocation element of the annua
106/205(J) work program; the list of waters -^e"
WLAs. LAs. or TMDLs are needed: me n nnr
ranking of these waters; and scacific Wl As. As
or TMDLs. The EPA Regional offices ia~ is
responsible for reporting on State impiemc' i - c-
to Headquarters.
-------
References
1. Planning and Managing Cooperative Monitor* *
ing Projects, US, EPA, Office of Water. Wash-
ington. D.C.. (July 1984) EPA 440/4-84-Om
2. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for trie Protection of
Aquatic Ufe and its Uses. federrn/ Aegtsflar, Vol.
45. page 79341, November 28,1980, Appendix
B. (This guidance has been revised and pub*
lished in the ftderaV flegsfcr See 50 FR 307B4.
July 29, 1985.)
a Water Quality Standards Handbook. U.& EPA,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C, December 1963.
4. Technical Support Manual: WHertoody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Attainability
Analyses, volume I. U.S EPA, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington. DC,
November 1983.
5. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Attainability
Analyses, volume II: Estuarine Systems. U.S.
EPA. Office of Water'Regulations and Stan-
dares, Washington, D.C, June 1984.
& Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Attainability
Analyses:, volume :il: Lakes, U.S. EPA, Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, Washing-
ton, D.C.. November 1984.
7. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing
Wasteload Allocations, Book II: Streams and
Rivers: Chapter 1. BOD/DO Impacts, (October
a 1983) EPA-440/4-84-020.
a Technical Guidance Manual for Performing
Wasteload Allocations, Book II: Streams and
Rivers: Chapter 2, Nutrient/Eutrophication Im-
pacts. (November 30,1983) EPA-440/4-64-021.
9. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing
Wasteload Allocations, Book II: Streams and
Rivers; Chapter a Toxic Substances, (June 18,
1984) EPA-440/4-84-022.
10. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing
Wasteload Allocations, Book IV: Lakes and
Impoundments; Chapter 2, Nutrient/Eutrophi-
cation Impacts, (August 29, 1963)
EPA-440/4-84-019.
11. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing
Wasteload Allocations. Book VII: Permit Aver-
aging Periods, (September 28. 1984)
EPA-440/4-84-02a
12. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Pro-
cedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants.
(August 29. 1983) EPA-600/6-82H.J4 a. b. c.
ia Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Tcxics Control. U.S. EPA. Office
of Water. Washington. D.C. September 1985.
14. Policy for Review of Advanced Treatment
Projects Notice, federal Register, vol. 49. page
21482, May 21. 1984.
10
-------
CHAPTER 3
MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the
creation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) to issue permits for dis-
charges into navigaJle waters. The NPDES permit
is the principal regulatory tool for reducing the
quantity of pollutants discharged to the nation's
waters and for obtaining data on point-source dis-
charges. Permits issued pursuant to Section 402
of the Act contain specific and legally enforceable
effluent limitations and self-monitoring require-
ments.
As used by EPA, "compliance monitoring" is a
generic term which includes all activities taken by
Federal or State regulatory agencies to ascertain
a permittee's adherence to the conditions of its
NPDES permit. Generally, compliance monitoring
data collected as part of the NPDES program are
used m compliance evaluations and in support of
enforcement actions. Data collected in conjunction
with compliance monitoring is also an essential
element of a complete water monitoring program.
P roc'am Description
The primary functions of the compliance monitor-
ing program are the determination and verification
of compliance with permit conditions including ef-
fluent limitations and compliance schedules.
Monitoring information can also be required from
a discharger utilizing authority provided to EPA
under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. EPA
may require dischargers to collect and submit
physical, chemical, and biological data on the
effluent and. where pertinent, ambient conditions
m the waters that receive the effluent. The infor-
mation derived from these programs pius permit
application data is an important part of the infor-
mation needed to identify and set limits for waters
needing wa;er quality-based controls.
Compliance —onitoring comprise? two elements:
Como.'/ance flev/ew and Compliance inspection.
Guidance for compliance monitoring and enforce-
ment is provided in the Enforcement Management
System Guide (currently being revisec)
activities are described below.
Compliance review
Compliance review is the process of determining
the compliance status of the permittee. The review
covers all written material relating to the status of
a perm-ttee's compliance with an NPDES permit
including Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR).
Compliance Schedule Reports (CSR). and Com-
pliance Inspection Reports (CIR). These materi-
als originate from the permittee, regulator/
authorities, or third parties including public and
private interest groups. Permittee-generated, seif-
monitoring data reported in the DMRs are the larg-
est source of information-used to monitor NPDES
compliance.
If a State has not been given authorization •:
plement the NPDES program, compliance revels
of =ill permittees in the State are the response" •
ty of tne EPA. In a State that has NPDES autno,' -
zation. EPA retains oversight responsibility 'or .• e
State compliance program and may conduct cr.r--
pliance monitoring and enforcement m the £:: 'e
a3 necessary. EPA uses the computerized Pen it
Compliance System (PCS), the Quarterly Ncn-
compliance Report (QNCR). State audits, ana r = A
State Enforcement Agreements to overview
NPDES State activities.
The States' biennual Section 305(b) reports in-
cluding the lists of waters not meeting uses arc
waters needing total maximum daily loads) "ray
provide histoncal data on water problems to ne
-------
and report this information to EPA in a Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR). Monthly reporting is
usually required of major sources which are evalu-,
ated by EPA within 30 days of receipt. Draft EPA
policy requires entry of this data into the Agency's
data management system. PCS.
The PCS contains erfli lent data from the Discharge
Monitoring Reports. Parametnc data includes con-
ventional pollutants (e.g.. BOD, TSS, and nutrients)
and toxic pollutants requi.ed by the permit. Data.
is available m PCS for 3 to 5 years on many fac-li-
ties. with DMR data being ente.'ed on major per-
mittees in FV86. All parametric data is entered
using STORET parameter codes which will allow
easy cross-referencing of PCS data and water
quality data. PCS will also contain all the permit
pollutant limits.
Once a specific facility has been identified as hav-
ing apparent permit violations, EPA or the ap-
proved State proceeds to review the facility's
compliance history. A number of data manage-
ment mechanisms (including the compliance
tracking systems) provide the necessary informa-
tion. These are:
1. Permit Compliance System (PCS), a data
management system for stonng and retrieving
all relevant facts about a facility's permit con-
ditions, its self-monitoring data, the inspections
performed, and any enforcement actions
taken.
2. The Strategic Planning and Management Sys-
tem (SPMS) and the Office of Water Account-
ability System, two tracking systems that pro-
vtoe information on permittees with compliance
problems and on State and Regional annual
v.'ork programs.
3. The Quarterly Noncompliance Reports
(QNCR). which provide the compliance history
of significant violators.
Compliance review focuses on the magnitude, fre-
quency, and duration of violations and any correc-
tive action taken ay the permittee. It is used to
identify significant permit violations and to provide
information for determining appropriate enforce-
ment foilowup action. Identification of significant
violations dunng compliance review may provide
the basis for requesting a survey of the receiving
water to evaluate water quality impacts,
CompHance Inspection
Compliance inspection refers to all field-related
regulatory activities conducted to verify permit
compliance status. Such field activities may in-
clude evaluation inspections fnonsampling), sam-
pling inspections, other specialized inspections,
and remote sensing, depending on the need tor
compliance information. Compliance inspections
are conducted by all States and EPA. Each year
EPA provides training for Slate and EPA compli-
ance. Certain inspections, such as Diagnostic in-
spection* (DO and Performance Audit Inspections
(PAI). m addition to prov.ding information to sup-
port enforcement action, also aid a permittee m
evaluating the facility s problems. Compliance Bio-
monitoring Inspections (CBI) are specifically tar-
geted at facilities whos* effluent is suspected or
identrfied as causing toxtcity problems that threat-
en the ecological balance of the receiving waters.
Biomonitoring is a toxictty-screening tool that may
be used in lieu of more resource-intensive pollu-
tant sampling and analyses.
A Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CE1) pro-
vides basic information common to all compliance
inspections and is undertaken for one or more of
the following purposes:
1. Ensure that permit requirements are being
met.
2. Check the completeness and accuracy of
permittee's performance and compliance
records.
3. Assess the adequacy of the permittee s self
monitonng and reporting program.
4. Evaluate the permittee's operation and main-
tenance activities.
5. Observe the status of construction required
by the permit.
6. Address water quality and other specific
problems and follnwup m areas whera water
quality-based controls were implemented.
For more detailed guidance on procedures for con-
ducting a Compliance Evaluation Inspection, refer
to the NPDES Compliance Evaluation and Inspec-
tion Manual (see Reference 2) and the NPDES
Compliance Inspection Manual (see Reference 9).
A sampling inspection involves effluent sampling
or btomonrtoring and should satisfy all of th« aoove
purposes, it may be appropriate m the case of
some facilities to sample or monitor m-piant
processes and influent sources to verify permit
requirements. (See References 1, 5, and 9 for
detailed guidance on conducting sampling inspec-
tions.) Procedures are currently being developed
12
-------
for pretreatment aspects of both sampling and
nonsampling inspections.
Folkwup monitoring
Once water quality-based controls are in plate, fol-
lowup monitohng is needed to ensure that the
NPOES permit limits are met and that the expect-
ed water quality is obtained. Dischargers are re-
quired to provide reports en compliance with
permit limits and also may be required to assess
the impact of their discharge on the receiving
water. States may require dischargers to monitor
as needed to supplement State and Regional
regulatory monitoring. Effluent and ambient data
collection and reporting requirements (as well as
QA/QC requirements) may be written into permits
to identify the effectiveness of these controls to
ensure that use is maintained or restored (see
Reference 10).
Quality Control
Since the NPDES compliance monitoring system
relies heavily on sample analyses performed by
the permittees, maintaining high data quality re-
mains top priority. The Discharge Monitoring
Report Quality Assurance (DMRQA) program
serves as a basis for both data quality evaluation
and administrative followup. A Performance Audit
Inspection (PAD of both field and laboratory
resources and techniques (see Reference 3) may
result due to failure to perform adequately on
DMRQA.
Monitoring to Support Enforcement
Section 309 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the
Agency to bnng civil or criminal action against
facilities who violate their NPOES permit condi-
tions. The EPA Regions and the approved States
have specific procedures for reviewing self-
monitoring and inspection data and for deciding
what type of enforcement action, if any, is warrant-
ed. In cases where a facility has received an order
(or the State equivalent) imposing legally binding
requirements for returning to and maintaining
compliance with permit conditions, EPA or the
States conduct periodic inspections to verify that
these requirements are being fulfilled.
In cases where the regulatory agency collects
samples for evidence in judicial procedures,
thoroughly documented chain-of-custody proce-
dures will be used as described m the referenced
NPDES Inspection Manuals.
Annual State/EPA Compliance
Inspection Plans
The Agency's annual operating guidance directs
that a Compliance Inspection Plan be developer-
for each State as part of the annual EPA
Region/State agreement process. This plan
should be incorporated as part of the Section iOf.
grant documents and included m the State/EPA
agreement.
Program Responsibilities
EPA Headquarters oversees and coordmau
regional activities, provides technical assistance
to Regional offices upon request, and deveicc
guidance, and regulations in nondeiegated State:
oversee and coordinate activities n ceiegatec
States, and provide technical assistance to :nc
States.
States, which are delegated the NPDES program.
monitor permittees and implement the NPDES
program. In nondelegated States, these respon-
sibilities are assumed by the EPA Regional off ic e.
with States providing input on a case-oy-case
basis.
Permittees conduct self-r-omtonng and report
these data to EPA.
13
-------
References
1. Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection Manu-
al (MCD-62. EPA, 1981)
2. Compliance Evaluation Inspection Manual
(MCD-75, EPA. 1981)
a Compliance Evaluation and TtoubleshooHng at
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
(EPA-430/9-78-001)
4 Compliance Flow Measurement Inspection
Manual (MCD-77, EPA. 1981)
5. Compliance Sampling Inspection Manual
(MCO-51, EPA. 1979)
a Multi-Media Compliance Audit Inspection Man-
ual (EPA 297/2 83-002)
7. Performance Audit Inspection Manual (EPA-
330/1-79-004).
8. NPOES Compliance Inspection Manual (EPA/
OWEP-6/84)
9. Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S EPA, Office
of Water, September 1985.
10. Agency Memorandum from Deputy Adminis-
trator to Assistant Administrators, Regional
Administrators et al.. Implementing the State/
Federal Partnership in Enforcement: State/
Federal Enforcement "Agreements," June 26,
1964.
11. Agency Memorandum from Assistant Admi n-
istratorfor Water to Regional Administrators.
Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Permits.
July 6.1985.
14
-------
CHAPTER 4
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
The Congress, EPA program managers, and State
administrators need to assess the quality of the
aquatic environment so that they can make deci-
sions concerning water program priorities and
regularly provide reports to the public on the state
o( the environment, important trends over time,
and accomplishments. They also need to evaluate
the effectiveness of control measures. National,
regional, and State assessments provide this type
of cnt'cal information; environmental statutes,
regulations, and policies provide the mechanisms
through which these assessments are conducted.
Program Description
States are to conduct statewide assessments of
water quality conditions and trends that cor-
respond to measures expressed in the Section
305(b) guidance. In conducting these assess-
ments the States should address their waters us-
ing the following order of priority:
1. Waters that are not supporting designated
uses and are Priority Waters (Priority Waters
are those waters for which pollutant abate-
ment and control decisions are most needed
to prevent or reverse the impairment of a
designated use).
2. Waters '-at are not supporting designated
uses and. while not currently designated as
Priority Waters, will likely become Priority
Waters in the near future.
3. All other waters that are not supporting desig-
nated uses or are threatened and are not in-
cluded under the above categories.
4. All other waters not included under the above
categories.
In conducting these assessments, the State
should carry out the following types of activities as
part of a balanced monilonng program:
• Monitor the number and kinds and the gener-
al health of biological organisms and the
presence of toxics in fish, shellfish, and sedi-
ments. The purpose of this type of monitor-
ing is to detect toxics in the food chain, evalu-
ate trends, and establish baselines for neces-
sary control actions.
• Monitor chemical and biological parameters
for the purpose o' determining statewide
water quality trends. This ;s particular1'/ -se-
ful for documenting trends m water quality
resulting from pollution abatement and con-
trol actions. This monitonng includes the tis-
sue analysis described above.
• Monitor chemical and biological parameters
using simple monitonng surveys including
where appropriate, btoscreening surveys or
periodic sampling at fixed stations for the pui •
pose of evaluating unassessed waters. States
are encouraged to conduct short-term toxic-
ity tests and biosurveys in these waters.
Each of these activities is discussed below.
1. Monitoring the Number and Kinds and the
General Health of Biological Organisms and th-
Presence of Toxics in Rsh, Shellfish, and Sec
iments
States should conduct bioassessments mc!uci"c
monitonng the number and kinds and genet.•
health of biological organisms and the present, c
of toxics in fish, shellfish, and sediments '
monitoring the number and kinds of biologic,
organisms, the States are encouraged to focus < •.<•
the fish community where practicable. Cthen*'s<-.
the States should monitor other available Dicicgi-
cal communities. While this monitoring sncuia se
conducted in waters not supporting designates
uses due to toxics, the States may also elect to mo-
nitor for toxics in waters meeting designated uses
if an emerging toxics problem is suspected 01 :o
simply venfy the absence of problems. Where 'Ms
monitoring is conducted to screen for tones
problems, biosurveys are recommended. Where
this monitonng is done routinely to assess trencs.
fixed stations are recommended.
In analyzing tissue, each State should address
those problem pollutants that are of special o< lo-
cal concern. In addition, each State is encour^ceo
to analyze tissue for the toxicants listed in Table <" • v
which are known to bioaccumulate m tissue
15
-------
"ftsjct Ofgtnte and MetaJi Anatyila for
nah/Sheilflsh Tissue and Sediments
Parameter
STOHCT Parameter Cod*
Weight, fisn/snetfflsn only. (Ib) 00023
Rlflcent liptd content. 39105
fisft/sneHfisn only ()
Tissue S«4tm«nta
(mq/laj, (4/g)
PCBs
(39515)
(39519)
ca isomer of chtordane
trans isomer of cftordane
as aomer of nonachtar
trans nomer of nonacNor
Total DOT
Endrtv- tissus
(34482)
(39063)
(39066)
(39069)
(39072)
(39404)
(39378)
(34686)
(34691)
(39351)
(39064)
(39067)
(39070)
(39073)
(39383)
(39359)
(39393)
(39403)
Mooocydfc A/omaUcs
Pentachtoroohenol
(39060)
(3906D
MetsJs (mgrtcg)
Cadmium
Laad
Mercury
(71940)
(71938»
(71930)
(01028)
(01052)
(71921)
All tissue sampling generally should be earned out
in the (all of the year. This is because pesticides
are most heavily used during the agricultural grow-
ing season and pesticide residues are often more
severe at this time. There are also mere resident
populations of fish in the fall since migrations
usually occur in the spring and, since the summer
months are the active feeding season for fish, food
chain relationships are better defined and peak in
the fall.
In conducting tissue analyses, the States must set
reasonable objectives. If human health is the
prime consideration, the States shouk* analyze
fish fillets, if aquatic life impacts or "early warn-
ing" screening is the prime consideration, two
replicate whole fish composite samples of a
representative fish species should be analyzed. *
Each composite sample should include at least
five fish, bach of approximately the dame size.
Commercially or recr - ationalry important species
should be collected wherever possible, and resi-
dent fish are preferred over migratory fish. Be-
cause of their great water-filtering capabilities,
shellfish are excellent concentrators of con-
taminants. Therefore, wherever possible, repre-
sentative shellfish samples should be collected
and analyzed, especially m estuarine environ-
ments.
Where tissue samples reveal elevated levels* * of
a particular toxicants), sediment samples should
be collected and analyzed for these toxicants,
wherever possible.
2. Monitoring of Selected Areas for the Purpose
of Determining Statewide Trends
States should continue to monitor waters that col-
lectively will help them evaluate statewide water
quality trends. Monitoring conducted in these
waterbodies should be designated to show the
current condition of the waterbody and whether
that condition is improving, staying the same, or
getting worse. Priority should be given to water-
bodies where control actions have taken place.
The States should carefully select areas for the
purpose of determining statewide trends. A sta-
ble network of reaches selected according to a
predetermined statistical design will help ensure
the development of informative water quality
trends. State? are to select parameters that meas-
ure water quality in terms of the waterbody's
designated use and site-specific conditions. They
should also monitor ior toxics in tissue at these
sites. States must also select a sampling frequen-
cy that provides sufficient information for comput-
ing reliable trends (see Reference 1 for EPA
guidance on computing water quality trends), it is
expected that States will continue to maintain a
fixed- siation network or some other valid ap-
proach for computing statewide water quality
trends.
3. Monitoring of Waters That Have Not Been
Previously Asaeeaed
States should continue to btoaden the data base
for assessing water quality conditions throughout
the State. States should collect information for
' Research is currently underway to determine the ap-
propriateness of analyzing specific organ* m compar-
ison vmth fillet and whole (issue analysis. Technical
guidance on this subpct should be available m the near
future.
* * Elevated levels are defined here to be exceec'ances
of State water quality standards. 304a) catena and/or
FDA action level*, or levels of State concern (when
numeric cntena do not exist).
16
-------
previously unassessed waters using less
resource-intensive monitoring surveys or with peri-
odic monitoring at fixed stations. These surveys
might include screening biosurveys or simple
chemical/physical measurements. Where
resources allow, short-term toxicity tests should be
employed, especially where toxicity is suspected.
Data from these assessments will allow EPA and
the States to (1) check for any emerging problems,
<2) ensure that existing water quality is maintained.
(3) preoar? more representative water quality trend
assessments, and (41 provtda a baseline ot water
quality against which future water quality condi*
tions can be compared. This latter purpose is most
important to ensure successful studies of the water
quality effects of future point and nonpoint source
dischargers.
Screening biosurveys generally involve bnef site
visits in which water quality is evaluated using a
checklist of simple field indicators such as habitat
conditions or the composition of the biological
community. EPA is preparing a Bioscreenmg
Handbook which will provide additional guidance
on biosurvey screening techniques (see Refer-
ence 2). New toxicty tests are also available for
sensitive and fairly economical screening of am-
bient watt's and effluents (see Reference 3). At
fixed stations. States should collect infopmation
that will best measure the degree to which desig-
nated uses are being attained.
As a target, the States should assess approximate-
ly 20 percent of these unassessed waters per year
until all waters that the States believe should be
monitored are monitored. This process should be
repeated every 6 years and should be syn-
chronized with the 6-year trend-assessment cycle
as descnbed m the Section 305(b) guidance
document.
Conduct National Surveys to
Supplement State Analyses
The Office of Water will conduct national assess-
ments as needed to meet immediate needs. As-
sessments ongoing or planned by the Office of
Water include: (1) completing the National DIOX-
in Study, (2) participating in the National Surface
Water Survey (on atmospheric deposition). .31
evaluating persistent and bioaccumulative ooitu-
tants as a followup to the National Dioxm Stu»Y
and (4) evaluating toxicants m sediments '.Vrn.e
most of these efforts are being conducted at 'he
Federal level, it is likely that the States will be asKed
to provide seme information. During the cesign
phase of any national assessment, the degree cf
involvement by the States will be carefully eva
-------
CHAPTER 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Effective quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures and a clear delineation of
QA/QC responsibilities are essential to ensure 'he
.tility of environmental monuonng data. These
procedures must be applied throughout the meas-
urement and assessment process, including field
sample acquisition, sample preservation and con-
trol, laboratory analyse*, and data assessment.
The terrr "quality control" refers to the routine ap-
plication of procedures for obtaining prescribed
standards of performance in the monitoring and
measurement process, The term "quality assur-
ance" includes the quality control functions and
involves a totally integrated program for ensuring
the reliability of monitoring and measurement
data. It involves a system for integrating quality
planning, quality cont.tji, and quality assessment
efforts. The commitment of top-level management
(o the QA program is of key importance for its suc-
cess. Management must also be involved in estab-
lishing data quality objectives designed to meet
the intended use of environmental monitoring
data.
Program Description
The EPA QA/QC program requires that all EPA na-
tional program offices, EPA Regional offices, and
EPA laboratones participate in a centrally planned.
directed, and coordinated Agency-wide QA/QC
program. This requirement also applies to efforts
earned out by the States and interstate agencies
that are supported by EPA through grants, con-
tracts, or other formalized agreements. The EPA
QA program is based upon EPA order 5360.1.
"Policy and Program Requirements to Implement
the Quality Assurance Program" (see Reference
D. which describes the pclicy, objectives, and
responsibilities of ail EPA Program and Regional
offices.
Each office or laboratory that generates data un-
der EPA's QA/QC program must implement, at a
minimum, the prescribed procedures to ensure
that precision, accuracy, completeness, compara-
bility, and representativeness of data are Known
and qocumented. In addition. EPA's QA/QC proce-
dures apply throughout the study design, sample
collection, sample custody, laboratory analysis.
data review (including data editing and storage;.
and data analvsis and reporting phases.
Data Quality Objectives
A full assessment of the data quality needed to
meet the intended use should be made prior to
specification of QA/QC controls. The determina-
tion of data quality is accomplished through the cie-
velopmentof data quality objectives. Data quality
objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative
statements developed by data users to specify the
quality of data needed to support specific ten-
sions or regulatory actions. Establishment cf
DQOs involves interaction of deoisionmakers and
the technical staff.
The process for developing OQOs includes a .->
of any time and resource constraints. The r:f xt
stage in developing DQOs involves clarification •„ (
the specific problem. Here, the technical start r;r c
decisionmaker interact to establish a detai-nc
specification of the problem and any constrc .j
imposed on data collection. The third stage ;n-
volves developing alternative approaches to data
collection, selecting the approach to be used, anc
establishing the final data quality objectives. Once
the data collection approach and data quality oo-
jectives have been established, a clear under-
standing of what data quality is to be expected will
help ensure that the effort will be successful
Reference 2 describes the process for aeveicumg
DQOs in more detai'.
Quality Assurance Program Plans
and Project Plans
To provide adequate control and guidance, the
Agency's QA program relies on the deveiopn ent
19
-------
and implementation of two QA documents: the QA
Program Plan and the QA Project Plan. These
plans are required of all recipients of EPA grants
and assistance programs. Grant regulations, 40
CFR Part 30. require submission of QA Program
Plans to EPA as a prior condition of receiving an
EPA grant. QA Protect Plans also must be deve-
looed according to an acceptable schedule within
th« QA Program Plan. The QA Program Plan (see
Reference 3) describes management polices, or-
ganization, objectives, principles, and general
procedures that establish how data of known and
acceptable quality will be produced.
The QA Protect Plan describes and defines specif-
ic objectives, network design, procedures,
methods, and controls that will be applied to a
specific project to ensure the production of data of
known and acceptable quality. Two guidance
documents are available to assist in preparation
of the QA Project Plan: a general guidance docu-
ment (see Reference 4) and a more detailed
guidance document that combines a work plan
with the QA Project Plan (see Reference 5). These
guidance documents also provide guidance on the
use of a short form for limited surveys.
The following information should be included in a
QA Project Ran: designated QA officer and protect
officer project description (including the objec-
tives, the monitoring network, etc.); a schedule of
tasks and products: the project organization and
responsibilities: a specification of data quality re-
quirements for the intended use (including preci-
sion, accuracy, comparability, completeness, and
representativeness); sampling procedures (includ-
ing preservation, sample custody, instrument and
equipment calibration, and maintenance): quali-
ty control procedures such as field blanks, lab and
reagent blanks, blind field spikes and duplicates,
lab spikes and duplicates, standard reference
materials, etc; the procedures for data documen-
tation, data reduction and reporting, data valida-
tion, and performance and systems audits: other
checks for quality control, handling outliers and
corrective actions, and reports documenting
results as well as discrepancies with original plans.
Documented QA programs with specific controls
described can ensure the integrity and utility of en-
vironmental monitoring data. In recognition of the
hazards of utilizing data of unknown and suspect
quality, a QA Program Plan with well-conceived
DQOs is an essential part of every activity
designed to achieve sound environmental results.
EPA Responsibilities
EPA Headquarters is responsible for providing
guidance for developing required Quality Assur-
ance Program Plans and Quality Assurance
Project Plans. This includes updates necessitat-
ed by new Agency requirements and additional
technical guidance for the Regional offices and
States to develop sound plans. In addition, Head-
quarters is responsible for developing Data Quality
Objectives for Quality Assurance Plans that will
meet the Headquarters data use needs and pro-
vide guidance to the Regions on application of the
OQO development process.
EPA Regional offices are responsible for develop-
ing Quality Assurance Program Plans and Quali-
ty Assurance Project Plans for the activities that
they conduct In addition, they are responsible for
ensuring thnt States prepare QA Program P'ans
and Project Plans in conformance with grant re-
quirements specified in 40 CFR Part 30. The
Regions are responsible for developing OQO re-
quirements compatible with Headquarter's re-
quirements and meeting the Regions' specific
needs. The Regions are also responsible for as-
sisting the States in developing OQO requirements
that meet State needs.
References
1. EPA Order 5360.1, Policy and Program Re-
quirement to Implement the Quality Assurance
Program, April 17,1984.
2. The Development of Data Quality Objectives,
prepared by the EPA Quality Assurance
Management Staff and the OQO Workgroup,
September 25,1984.
a Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing
Quality Assurance Program Plans.
QAMS-004180. September 1980.
4. Intenm Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans,
QAMS-OOS180, December 1980.
5. Guidance for Preparation of Combined
Work/Quality Assurance Project Plans for Envi-
ronmental Monitoring, OWRSQA-1. May 1984.
20
-------
CHAPTER 6
DATA REPORTING
There are two principal vehicles for the States to
use in reporting water quality monitoring data to
EPA. The first is through the statewide water qual-
ity report required by Section 305{b) of the Clean
Water Act. The second reporting vehicle is the
transmission of monitoring data as technical
reports or as data entered into EPA data systems.
in accordance with EPA's Water Quality Monitor-
ing Policy for inland and coastal waters (see Ap-
pendix A), all water quality data collected by the
States for developing water quality-based controls
and all appropriate data for water quality assess-
ments and screening are to be reported to EPA by
entering these data into STOflET or by providing
a hardcopy of data in STORETcornpatible format.
All data should be submitted to EPA by the States
within 60 days of the time that the data was
reviewed and approved. All technical reports
should include cross-references to STORET.
EPA Headquarters and the Regional offices will
use these data to track implementation of State
programs funded under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act. The EPA Regional offices will review
both the quality and the quantity of the data
reported by the States.
Data on Water Quality Assessments
In accordance with EPA's Water Quality Monitor-
ing Policy for inland and coastal waters, States are
required to report appropriate water quality data
collected in conjunction with water quality assess-
ments to EPA. The States and EPA Regional
offices will discus* the State monitoring programs
to determine what data is appropriate and the form
m which it is to be reported. Assessments data to
be reported to EPA include data from the following:
1. Rxed stations operated for water quality aa-
seesments (I A, water quality condition* and
trends only) — Physical, chemical, and biolog-
ical data on water column, sediment, and tis-
sue samples.
2. Intensive surveys conducted for water qual-
ity assessments (I.e., water quality cond!
tions and trends only) — Physical, cnemio'•••
and biological data on water column, sea:
ment. and tissue samples at representative
stations that accurately represent the condi-
tions during the survey. States ore also to pre-
pare brief abstracts of the intensive survey
summarizing the results of the survey ano
submit them
required to report alt water quality data collects
m conjunction with water quality-based controls ;o
EPA. The States and EPA Regional offices will
jointly determine the form in which it is to be sub-
mitted. This includes data from all phases of tne
process, as follows:
1 Water quality standards reviews — All phys-
ical, chemical, and biological data on water
column, sediment, and tissue samples col-
lected in areas to review or revise water qual-
ity standards.
2. TMDU/WLAa — All physical, chemical, and
biological data on water column, sedimc i,;.
and tissue samples collected to determine
which waterbodies will require TMOLs
wastetoad allocations or data collected in cut t
junction with develoomg a TMDL or a waste-
-------
load allocation. Where an intensive survey is
conducted, data is to be from representative
stations that accurately represent the condi-
tions dunng the survey. States are also
strongly encouraged to develop complete
technical reports describing the water quali-
ty conditions and trends found: the cause
-------
SECTION II
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
-------
CHAPTER 7
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
The Clean Water Act requires the States and EPA
to institute water quality-based controls in areas
where technology-based controls are not sufficient
to meet water quality standards. In so doing, the
States are to determine the total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) for a particular waterbody and de-
velop wasteload allocations (WLAS) for point
sources and load allocations (LAS) for nonpoint
sources. (These terms are defined in the Water
Quality Planning and Management Regulation, 40
CFR Section 130.2.)
A recent court decision has brought previously un-
recognized duties relative to the development of
TMDLs and WLAs to EPA's attention. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(see Reference 1) stated that:
If a State fails over a long period of time to sub-
mit proposed TMDLs, this prolonged failure may
amount to the "constructive submission" by that
State of no TMDLs. (Scott Decision, p.8)
We think the States' inaction here, in view of the
short statutory deadlines may have ripened into
a refusal to act. A refusal to act would amount to
a determination that no TMDL is necessary and
none should be provided. In effect, we may have
a "constructive submission" of no TMDLs. As a
matter of law, under CWA Section 303(d) (2) ...
a State determination to set no TMDLs must be
reviewed by the EPA, and the EPA is then re-
quired to approve or disapprove the submission.
(Scott Decision, p. 10)
In addition, we think that the CWA should be
liberally construed to achieve its objectives-
in this case, to impose a duty on the SPA to es-
tablish TMDLs when the States have defaulted
by refusal to act over a long period. (Scott Deci-
sion, p.10)
Therefore, if a State defaults, EPA must act to iden-
tify the waters needing new or revised TMDLs and
establish such TMDLs as necessary to carry out
the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act.
Process for Identifying Waters
and Developing TMDLs
An overview of the process for identifying waters
needing new or revised TMDLs, establishing pri-
orities, and developing the needed pollution con-
trols is provided in Figure 7-1. In carrying out this
process, States evaluate environmental data and
perform analyses to identify waters needing new
or revised TMDLs. The States then establish pri-
orities for developing TMDLs as part of the over-
all State priority waterbody list. Once EPA has
approved the list of waters needing new or revised
TMDLs and the priority ranking for these waters,
States should prepare Monitoring Checklists (see
Appendix B) describing the wasteload allocation
work to be done during the coming year. The list
of waters and their priority ranking are submitted
as part of the annual 106/205(j) work program of
the biennial Section 305(b) report, and the check
lists are submitted as part of the annual Section
106/2050 work programs. States implement the
approved programs and submit the resulting
TMDLs to EPA for approval. Once approved, the
TMDLs and their component WLAS and LAS are
incorporated into the water quality management
plans. (Also see the Water Quality Planning and
Management Regulation [40 CFR Parts 35 and
130; 50 174 January 11, 1985.)
Identification of Waters Needing
New or Revised TMDLs
In accordance with the Clean Water AU. States and
to identify and prepare a list of the waters within
their boundaries for which existing pollution con-
trol requirements are not or will not be stringent
enough to meet the applicable water quality stan-
dards over the next 5 years. These are the water
quality limited segments that need new or revised
TMDLs. This list is one component of the State pri-
ority waterbody list. Existing pollution control
requirements that States should consider in
23
-------
Figure 7-1
The Process for Identifying Waters Needing TMOLs, Establishing Priorities,
and Developing Needed Pollution Controls
Evaluate Water Quality Needs
Sioscreening data, cnemicaj screening
data, analyses of dilution available to
discnargers, desktop modeling, citizen
complaints, fisn kills, historic water quality
analyses, results from fixed stations, lists of
waters not fully meeting uses [§ 305(b)],
and lists of waters needing TMDLs
(§303(d)|.
Determine Operations* Program Needs
Wasteload allocations for grants, permits,
other key protects, etc.
NOTE. Under the Scott Decision. EPA must
identify waters, establish a priority ranking for
these waters, and develop TMOLs if a State
fails to act.
Develop List of Waters
Approved list of waters needing r,ew or
revised TMDls. (List goes into 305(b)
report or annual 1 06/205(1) work program).
i
r
Establish Priorities
Environmental results to be obtain jd.
seventy of pollution, uses of waters, need
for action to meet program goals, action to
meet program goals.
^
r
Comp'ete Monitoring Checklists for WLAs
Brief checklists describing work to be done
that year for each protect. States submit
these as part of their 106/205 (j) work
programs.
i
r
EPA Review and Approval
EPA reviews State submission and. if
needed, requests and reviews more
detailed work plans for specific protects.
1
r
Implement Plans
Stales implement 106/205(J) work
programs. EPA and (he States continue to
discuss the work dunng the year and at
mid-year and end-of-year reviews.
i
r
Approve TMOLs
EPA approves the States' proposed TMOLs
or establishes 'I'MDLs as necessary to
carry out the goals of the Clean Water Act.
24
-------
identifying these waters include:
• Technology-based effluent limitations re-
quired by:
— Sections 301 (b), 306. 307, or other sec-
tions of the CWA
— State or local authonty preserved by Sec-
tion 510 of the CWA (or)
— Federal law, regulation, treaty, permit,
lease, or other authority
• Water quality-based effluent limitations re-
quirea by:
— Section 301 (b)(D (Oof the CWA and in-
corporated into an approved NPOES
permit
— State or local authority preserved by Sec-
tion 510 of the CWA (or)
— Federal law, regulation, treaty, permit,
lease, or other authority
• Other pollution control requirements (e.g..
Best Management Practices) required by
either Federal, State, or local authonty.
Guidance on using simple screening methods for
identifying waters needing new or revised TMDLs
is provided in Reference 2. The use of biological
tests for screening for aquatic life impacts and
health hazards is provided in Reference 3. In ad-
dition, guidance is available on identifying waters
presently not meeting designated uses (see Chap-
ters 2 and 4).
The process for identifying waters needing new or
revised TMOLs is shown in Figure 7-2. A bnef dis-
cussion of this process follows.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires
each State to identify those waters withi.i its
boundanes for which new or revised TMOLs are
needed to implement water quality standards. Fur-
ther, it requires each State to establish a priority
ranking for these waters. The list of waters need-
ing new or revised TMOLs should include all seg-
ments where TMOLs are needed to support
permits or construction grants during the coming
year. This list should be incorporated into the
States' priority waterbody list to assure that
programmatic interrelationships are recognized
and that proper sequencing of activities occurs.
Many of these waters do not fully support desig-
nated uses; others may fall into the "threatened"
category. States may choose to submit this infor-
mation to EPA along with the Section 106/205(j)
work program, or they may elect to report this
information in the Section 305(b) report.
Factors that States should carefully consider m set-
ting priorities include:
• The severity of the pollution and the uses of
the waters
• National policies and priorities .r documents
such as the Policy for the Develooment of
Wa»r Quality-Based Permit Lmitancrs 'cr
Toxic Pollutants, Policy for me Review of Ad-
vanced Tfoatment (AT] Pro/acrs. and the EPA b
annual Operating Guidance
• Court orders and decisions
• Short-term water program needs: e.g..
wastetoad allocations needed for permits tnar
are coming up for revisions or for construc-
tion grant applications. EPA is developing ad-
ditional guidance or criteria for approval of
State identifications of waters needing new or
revised TMDLs and their priority ranKmgs
EPA Regional offices will review the State lists and
determine whether they have listed all of the waters
needing TMDLs and whether the State priorities
are acceptable. The Regional offices snould work
with the States on needed changes to the list of
waters identified or their priority ranking, includ-
ing waters that now support the designated use-
but may soon need TMDLs to prevent future wait-:
quality problems. As resources allow. EPA Heac
quarters will work with the Regional offices anc :*e
States to improve the initial State lists to ensure
that all significant toxics problems are inciucec
and to account for new information on effluent con-
centrations associated with best availade tecmci
ogy (BAT), new water quality criteria, etc.
In cases where additional monitoring or
is needed to determine if a TMDL is needed, re
Regional office and the State should negotiate a
schedule for doing this monitoring and modeling
as part of the States Section I06or205(j)workrif<>-
gram. If the work program does not provide for co-
ing this work on the high-ononty waters >n a timeiy
manner, then the Regional office will perform :ms
work consistent with the availability of resources
If EPA determines that a particular water snouc
be listed, out the State.does not agree to iisi t n
a timely manner, then EPA must add this watci :o
the list. Once the list identifying waters needing
TMDLs and their priority ranking is approveo . t ' >e
State shall incorporate the list into the current water
quality management (WQM) plans.
25
-------
Flgura 7-2
ktentitlcatton ol watoi* n««ding TMOU
26
-------
Developing TMOLs
Each year the Regional office and the States
should reach agreement on work plans for de-
veloping TMOLs as part of their annual Section
106 and 205(j) grant negotiations. To accomplish
this, each State should prepare a WLA element in
its annual work program that is submitted to EPA
for approval. These submissions should include
a Monitoring Checklist (see Appendix 8) for each
WLA project (or group of similar and straightror-
ward WLA projects) that the State plans to focus
on in the next fiscal year
One way that States could show their pnorrty rank-
ing is given in Table 7-1. For example, if a particu-
lar State plans to develop TMOLs for five segments
during the coming fiscal year, and if there are an
additional five segments for which the State feels
it should develop TMOLs as soon as resources be-
come available, their priority lists could be con-
figured as shown in the table. States may assign
the same priority ranking to groups of wcters,
provided that these groups do not include too
many segments. Such groups may be particular-
ly appropriate for segments in which no TMOL de-
velopment is planned for the next fiscal year,
because a less detailed priority ranking is need-
ed for lower priority WLA projects. States may find
it helpful to include additional information m this
table, such as: segment descriptors (e.g.. State 10
numbers, River Reach File numoers or USGS
hydrologicaJ codes if River Reach numbers are not
available), segment length, parameters causing
the water quality problems, uses supported or im-
paired, or special segment designations (e.g., pn-
onty waters or national resource waters).
An overview of the process for calculating TMOLs
is provided in Figure 7-3.
If a State is planning to develop relatively simple
and routine WLAs for a number of segments dur-
ing the coming year, it may submit one Monitoring
Checklist for these WLA protects rather 'nan a
separate checklist for each individual project
However, in any segment where developing waste-
load allocations is more complex or is critical to the
Table 7-1
Waters Needing TMOU and Their Priority Ranking1
TMDL
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
7
7
a
Segment Description
(r-me, number, etc.)
Set A*
Segment A
Segments
Segment C
Segment D
Segment E
SetB**
Segment F
Segment G
Segment H
Segment)
Segment J
SetC*"
TMOL* Needed to ;
Control Priority
WQ Problems
e
e
e
e
•
e
e
Issue
Permit*
e
•
e
e
e
e
e
Issue Con.
Grants
e
e
Support Other
Actions
I
•
e
"Sat A mdudae me n atari tor wftch tha StsM plans to devatop TMOLs dunng fta coming vaat
•*S«t 8 includes the watanj tor wMcf) TMOLs should be devetopad as soon as nnoufcas o?coma
'"Set C indudaa ins .'ann (not latad individually) tor wtwd) nMattoty low pnonty TMOLs an
not v« bsan determined whether TMOLs are
or tor wrwcfi it -.; .
'This « a supptamantal list to (ha Sato's unified pnonty wateroody list
-------
Figure 7*3
Calculation of TMOLs
Approved lnt> of wran rait
TMOLi nnktd by pnonty
provide) priority TMOLi for
poihitviti oct •
Approved TMOLi
ineorporrod into Stm
WQMptm
approval of a large construction grant* or major
permit, the Regional office may, at its option, re-
quire the State to submit additional information
descnbtng the proposed wastetoad allocation
project .In either event, the Regional office and the
State should reach an agreement on the leveTof
detail that is appropriate for each checklist.
EPA Regional offices review the annual State
106/205(1) work program* If EPA disapproves a
States list of waters needing new or revised
TMOLs, then the Region (working dosery with the
State) identifies those waters within the State
where new or revised TMDLs are necessary to im-
plement the applicable water quality standards. If
•Procedure* snouM also comply with the requirements
am* Pnitcts Node*, if applicable, published in ;he fi»tf-
Aegitteron May 21, 1964 (49 PR 21462).
EPA disapproves a State's priority rank; g of these
waters or the checklist, then the Region and State
are to negotiate acceptable revisions to the pnonty
ranking and the checklists.
In accordance with the approved pnonty ranking
for those waters and the annual work program.
eacn State develops its proposed TMOLs for those
pollutants that are expected to cause water quali-
ty standards violations (indudiiig genenc toxioty)
and for the approved list of wtters identified as
needing new or revised TMOLs. States ure expect-
ed to follow EPA's guidance if they wish to receive
funding for advanced treatment (AT) protects.
States are encouraged to use EPA's guidance
when developing TMOLs, copies of which may de
obtained from the Wastetoad Allocation Coordina-
tor in each Regional office.
If the State chooses not to develop the needed
28
-------
TMDLs for appropriate pollutants on a timely basis.
EPA will establish the TMOLs. This will be done by
focusing available EPA resources on the mosj crit-
ical water quality problems.
Section 303(d) (2) of the CWA requires EPA to ap-
prove or disapprove all of the States' proposed
TMDl s. EPA may nor delegate this responsibility
The most efficient way to meet this requirement is
to tailor EPA's level of review to what is reasona-
ble and appropriate (see Reference 1). Thus.
where a State has clearly descrbed its TMDUWLA
process in its continuing planning process (as re-
quired under 40 CFR Pan: 130.7 [a]) and EPA has
approved this process, the Regional office may
satisfy the Act's requirement for review of all
TMDLs by:
• Conducting an in-depth review of a sample of
the State's TMOLs to determine how well the
State is implementing its approved TMDU
WLA process.
• Conducting a less detailed review of each of
the State's other TMOLs.
In either case, EPA must, at a minimum, determine
whether the State's proposed TMOLs are "estab-
lished at a level necessary to implement the ap-
plicable water quality standards with seasonal
variations and a margin of safety that takes into ac-
count any lack of knowledge concerning tne rela-
tionship between effluent limitations and water
quality" (C'.VA Section 303 (d)[l]). For those
States that do no' have an approved WLA process.
Regions are expected to conduct in-depth reviews
of all of the proposed TMOLs. When Regions
review the State TMOLs. they should also consider
how well the States arc following the EPA techni-
cal guidance for conducting wasteload allocations.
For those WLA projects that EPA reviews in detail.
States should prepare a report Describing each
project and submit it to the Regional office for ap-
proval. This submission should contain: (1) the
proposed TMOLs, WLAs, LAs, and (2) supporting
information that the Region will need tc evaluate
the State's water quality analysis and determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
TMOLs. WLAs. and LAs. During thetr grant negoti-
ations. Regions and States should reach an agree-
ment on the specific information that these
wasteload allocation reports should contain and
determine the individual WLA projects for which
such reports are necessary.
If EPA disapproves a State s TMDL and the State
does not agree to correct the proolems. then EPA
shall, within 30 days of the disapproval date, es-
tablish, such TMOLs as necessary to implement
the water quality standards. However, the Region
should inform the State that EPA would prefer to
have the State develop the TMDLs. since tne sncr
time available for EPA's estacnsnment of tne
TMOLs wculd likely necessitate using simplistic
and overly conservative techniques :n deveiccn-g
the TMOLs and also because negative publicity
might arise should EPA be forced to step m.
Quality Assurance for
Wasteload Allocations
Quality assurance requirements must oe met to
obtain grants under which wasteload allocations
are performed. In addition, specific technical
QA/QC controls are necessary m the use o< en-
vironmental data and models. Considerations also
apply, however, wnen utilizing models, sucrt as
wasteload allocation models which involve "real"
environmental data as well as parametric anc;
mathematical relationships. In such cases, mode
sensitivity studies can tieip es»aoiish the levels of
QA/QC required for specific data. For exarrcie. tre
allowab'e range of uncertainty m the data can oe
established through model sensitivity stucies ~u;t
allowable range of uncertainty may indicate. *cr ex-
ample, the need for tight limits on precision -or *
particular pollutant parameter. The general '?•
quirements for quality assurance are ciscussec n
Chapter 5.
EPA Responsibilities
EPA Headquarters is responsible for seeing that
the mandates regarding TMDLs m tne Clean
Water Act are earned out. providing oversight of
the Regional offices and the State, deveio^i g
wasteload allocation program pcncy a. c
guidance, developing computer software 'or cal-
culating wasteload ailoca;ions. cevefoomg recn-
rical guidance documents, and providing
technical training and assistance.
The EPA Regional offices are responsible for as-
sisting Headquarters m developing policy and
guioance and distributing this policy and guidance
to the States, awarding grants to the States :o
29
-------
provide them with resources for developing and
implementing wasteload allocations, and provid-
ing technical assistance to the States. In addition.
the Regional offices are responsible for reviewing
and approving, or disapproving, each State's:
wasteload allocation process: the wastetoad allo-
cation element of the annual 106/205(J) work pro-
gram; the list of waters where WLAs, LAs. or
TMDLs are needed: the priority ranking of these
waters; and specific WLAs, LA&, or TMDLs. The
EPA Regional offices are also responsible for
reporting on State implementation to Mead-
quarters.
References
1. S
-------
Appendix A
MONITORING POLICY
INLAND AND COASTAL WATERS
-------
Monitoring Strategy, U.S. EPA, Office of Water
June 1984
Purpose of This Policy
The purpose of this policy is to establish overall
goals and objectives for those key elements of the
water quality monitoring program that are most
needed to achieve tne "fisnable/swimmable" goal
of tne Clean Water Act (CWA), to implen»ent applic-
able EPA regulations, and to implement the EPA
Environmental Monitoring Policy. Water quality
monitoring 13 required by th» Qe*n Water Act and
provides the data needed to regulate sources ol
water pollution, assess the quality of the Nation's
waters and evaluate the environmental effective-
ness of national water quality programs.
Scope of This Policy
"Water quality monitoring" is defined as the set of
activities that provide chemical, physical, geolog-
ical, biological, and other environmental data re-
quired by environmental managers. For the
purpose of this policy, water quality monitoring is
limited to those activities involved in the EPA and
State implementation of tha Clean Water Act in
inland/coastal waters. "Regulatory monitoring" is
the collection and analysis of effluent and ambient
data needed for establishing water quality-based
permit requirements and for assessing and enforc-
ing compliance with permits. Regulatory monitor-
ing also provides data necessary for establishing
water quality-based controls for nonpotnt sources.
Regulatory monitoring for assessing and enforc-
ing compliance with permits is not addressed in
this policy.
Statement of Policy
Major Objectives: This policy establishes three
major odiectives for th* Nation's wster mcnitonng
program.
I. Advance the Regulatory Monitoring
Program
Regulatory monitoring for establishing and
enforcing water quality-based permit require-
ments and determining needed nonoomt
source abatement actions is the Highest pri-
ority of this policy. The goal is to strengthen
the process for identifying waters not fully
meeting designated uses and provide com-
pntwo/v* ntiatil* data to EPA Regions and
States for water quality management, con-
struction grant and permit decisions. Atten-
tion should be given to identifying new
problems as well as controlling known prco-
lems.
In view of the need for regulatory monitoring
data on sources of pollution and impacted
waters, EPA may require dischargers to col-
lect chemical, physical, and biological data
on their effluents and ambient conditions m
their receiving wafers as a National PaDffa.o)
Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) per-
mit requirement. Ambient data requirements
in NPOES permits will be established, m con-
sultation with the State and the dischargers.
when the potential exists for non-attainment
of water quality standards. EPA will a.so sue-
port State requirements for data collection cy
dischargers.
It. Conduct Sound Assessments
Water quality assessments are defined as the
ana/ysjs of errvfronmenta/ data fn determine
the quality of the ambient environment. As-
sessments are usually done for fairly large
geographical areas. 5uch as States, and may
use a number of different Kinds of data. eg..
concentrations of pollutants m receiving
waters, number of reported fish kills, ana
the amount of impact detected m natural tin-
logical communities. Projections of future
A-1
-------
conditions may also be dona using detect-
ed ambient trends and data on expected pol-
lution loads.
National, regional and State assessments of
water quality are to be done at least every 2
years using, at a minimum, information col-
lected to meet ths requirements of Sections
305(b) and 205
-------
Regions and States reflect national monitoring pri-
orities and support EPA regulations and policies.
Improving Beta Quettty: Quality assurance/qual-
ity control will continue to be a high priority The
goal is that all data used by EPA or States for deci-
sionmaking will be of known and sufficient quali-
ty for the intended uses. Also, for monitoring used
for national and regional assessments, where
feasible, the data should be of comparable quali-
ty to allow for effective use of regional and nation-
al data bases.
Beta Management The goa'is that data systems
will be made more usefu! so that EPA ard State
managers will be able to use ambient data and as-
sessments to determine the environmental im-
pacts of decisions. This will be accomplished by
cross-linking existing data systems and develop-
ing interactive data retrieval and analysis mechan-
isms usable by line managers.
Roles of the EPA and the States in
Implementing this Policy
ERA Headquarters: Provide overall policy, guid-
ance, technical assistance, and overview of pro-
gram implementation by the Regions and States.
Specific responsibilities follow:
• Prepare guidance and ensure that technical
training and technical assistance is available
for monitoring, water quality analysts, and
data reporting.
• Perform national assessments and evaluate
the national water quality effects of CWA
programs.
• Make national data systems more useful for
national, regional, and State managers by up-
grading and cross-linking the existing sys-
tems and developing interactive data retrieval
and analysis mechanisms for line managers.
Continue support of the River Reach and In-
dustrial Facility Discharge files.
• Ensure that appropriate quality assuranca/
quality control procedures are used in all na-
tional data collection efforts and provide
needed laboratory capability for national
studies of pollutants requiring special ana-
lyses, e.g.. dioxm.
• Prepare Headquarters budget requests, and
in consultation with the Regions, prepare re-
quests for regional and State water quality
monitoring and analysis programs.
• Peer review major agency program activities
involving water monitonng and consult with
other program offices on water monitonng ac-
tivities.
Regional offices: Provide overall policy, guid-
ance, and overview of program implementation by
States. Provide oversight of the States to ensure
that adequate State resources From Section?
106/205(J) granti are directed to priority activities
ir monitoring, water quality analysis, and aaia
reporting. Provide technical assistance and train-
ing for States. Ensure that needed water quality-
based controls are developed, and provide need-
ed water quality-cased controls if the State fails to
act in a timely manner. Implement Section I06(e)
requirement for adequate State monitoring pro-
grams. Ensure .that data are entered into national
date systems. Specific responsibilities follow:
• Ensure that the appropriate regulatory mon-
itoring is performed by States, the Region, or
dischargers needed for developing and im-
plementing water quality-based controls and
identifying neecied nonpoint source controls.
This includes data required to identify watery
needing water quality-based controls, date-
needed to develop controls, and data need
ed to assess the effectiveness of controls. En-
sure that the developed controls art
implemented, and provide controls if the
State fails to act in a timeiy manner
• Provide technical assistance and training .>
the States. Ensure that each Regional off iff
has the capability to conduct water quality
monitcring and analyses. For work involving
toxics, where feasible, tho Region is expect-
ed to have a capability in both the pollutant-
specific and the biomomtonng approaches,
• Ensure that appropriate quality assur-
ance/quality control procedures are used for
all regional and State water quality data an<;
for all data used in regional decisionmaku ^.
including data reported by permittees.
• Perform regional water quality assessments.
primarily based on State data, as needed to
prepare Environmental Managerm >!
Reports.
• Ensure that regional data systems are co v
patible with and do not unnecessarily du^ii-
cate national data systems. Ensure that data
collected by the States and the Regions are
A-3
-------
entered into the national system, including
data needed to update the Industrial Facilities
Discharge Pie.
States: Perform regulatory monitoring, assess-
ments and program evaluations as needed to meet
the requirements or the Clean Water Act. States
have the pnmary responsibility (or monitoring and
water quality analysis. In carrying out this respon-
sibility. States are expected tc implement a
balanced monitoring program. Specific responsi-
bilities follow:
• As the first pnonty. States should collect and
analyze data as needed to make water qual-
ity management decisions:
— Identify: (a) waters not iul)y supporting
designated uses and (b) priority water-
bodies, i.e., those waters most needing
water quality-based and nonpomt source
controls or other actions to prevent or
reverse an impairment of the designated
use. Determine the reason's) for nonsup-
port and the actions needed to prevent or
reverse the impairment of the use. Include
this information in the biennial Section
305(b) report to Congress. Focus on tox-
ics as well as conventional pollutants.
Simple screening techniques may be ap-
propriate for many situations.
— Develop Deeded water quality-based con-
trols for both conventional and toxic pol-
lutants. For toxics, use both the pollutant-
specific and the biomonitonng tech-
niques, as appropriate.
— As needed to supplement State and
regional regulatory monitoring, write ef-
fluent and ambient data collection re-
quirements into permits for identifying
waters needing controls, developing con-
trols, and assessing the effectiveness of
these controls to ensure that use is main-
tained or restored.
Perform any additional monitonng needed tor
the Section 30S(b) report to Congress, includ-
ing monitoring needed to determine the sta-
tus of waters not meeting designated uses
and the reason(j) for nonattainment.
Ensure that needed environmental data are
provided to EPA. including appropriate as-
sessment data; appropnate.screenmg data:
and all regulatory data including data need-
ed for approvals of water quality standards
and wa&tekj&d allocations/total maximum
daily loads.
Ensure that aopropriale quality assur-
ance/quality control procedures are used for
all data used in State decisionmakmg and for
all dam reported to EPA, including data
reported by dischargers.
A-4
-------
Appendix B
MONITORING CHECKLISTS
Form A:
For Intensive Surveys/Wasteload
Allocations/Special Studies
Form B:
For Fixed-Station Networks
-------
Preparation and Submission of
Monitoring Checklists
Monitoring checklists should be prepared b/each
Slate to describe their planned monitoring and
wasteload allocation activities m the upcoming
(budget) year. One Form A checklist describing
planned intensive surveys. w*stelo?d allocations,
or special studies should be prepared for each sur-
vey/study or group of activities requiring similar
monitoring (such as groups of intensive surveys
that are conducted for the same purpose but on
different waterways). One Form 8 checklist
describing fixed-station networks should also be
prepared for each network of stations. When
reporting on groups of intensive surveys, waste-
load allocations, special studies, or when report-
ing on fixed-station networks, the States should
attach a list of the locations (i.e., sites for the sur-
veys/studies and stations for networks) with key lo-
cation information (see instructions for completing
the forms). Other information may also accompany
these forms, such as maps, outlines of proposed
studies, or other information to help explain or clar-
ify the submission.
States are to work with the EPA Regional office in
developing their annual 106/2C5(j) work programs
and they should submit completed checklists to
the Regional offices as part of the work programs.
These checklists are intended as planning docu-
ments and are not intended to replace detailed
study plans or protect plans. The States and the
Regional office should work together during their
preparation and implementation, and the Regional
office should use these checklists to track planned
State activities that are funded, at least in part, by
EPA grants.
Modifications to checklists that have been submit-
ted to EPA may be necessary as State program
needs change or new information becomes avail-
able. When changes or revisions are necessary.
the States should contact the Regional office to
discuss these changes. If the Region agrees that
'he proposed changes are of a relatively minor na-
ture, submission of revised checklists is not neces-
sary. It is important that revised checklists be sent
to the EPA Regional office for major changes.
Checklists for completed surveys are not normal-
ly expected since water quality data is to be provid-
ed to EPA and periodic reviews will provde
sufficient status.
States are strongly encouraged to prepare written
reports adequately describing the study, dates.
purposes, findings, etc, and provide copies of
them to EPA (see Chapter 6). Wntten reports
should also include references to data m the
STORET data system.
Instructions for Completing
Monitoring Checklist
Form A—Intensive Surveys Wasteload
Allocations/Special Studies
Primary water—Name of the waterbody on which
the survey/study will be conducted. If more than
one, wnte as primary/secondary.
Nearest town—If feasible, the name of the nearest
city or town of sufficient size to locate the area on
a map.
State—The State in which the survey will be con-
ducted. If interstate, write as primary/secondary
Planned start date—The estimated date that field-
work for the survey will begin.
Planned end date—The estimated date that the
fieldwork will be completed.
EPA River Reach number—The River Peach Re
numbers) for the affected reach(s). If the Reacn
Number is not known (and cannot be provided ay
EPA), the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code may be
used. This code consists of four separate 2-oigit
codes that identify the USGS Region. Subregicn.
Accounting unit, and Cataloging unit. River miler
of upstream and downstream limits or other
descriptors may be added to the Comments sec
tion to help locate the site.
Designated/actual use—Designated use or uses
of thewaterbody(s).
Waterbody type, principal objective/purpose, sig-
nificant land use—Check, as appropriate. More
than one for each may be checked.
Number of samples by media—Give estimated
numbers of samples for each media, as ap-
propriate.
Sources of problems—Give the estimated num-
ber of facilities (or discharge points, if nonpomt
sources) to charactenze the causes of pollution ir
the study areas that are being assessed in the
survey.
B-1
-------
Parametric coverage: physical, biological, chem-
ical measurements—Check which media will be
assessed in the survey, as appropriate.
Sample frequency—Check anticipated frequency
of sampling. Additional comments or explanation
nay be written in the Comments section on pg. 2.
Data to be entered Into STORET?—Check whetn-
ar alt. some, or ,ione of the data (by media) will be
entered by the State into STORET. Also, add the
anticipated date when all data (by media) will be
entered, if datawill not be entered into STORET by
the State, give the date that "hardcopy" of the data
will be sent to EPA.
Intensive survey tor modeling/model daacrip-
tion—If the intensive survjyis) is done to calibrate
a model, check the appropriate item describing
special considerations for the planned survey.
Quality assurance—Self explanatory.
Comments—Can be used to provide clear/con-
cise explanations of other sections of the check-
list, if more space is needed, the reverse of the
form may be used.
State contact—Self explanatory.
Estimated resources—Provide estimates of work-
years and any contractor costs anticipated for
operating the survey, wastetoad allocation, or spe-
cial study. These should include all costs for plan-
ning, field work, lab work, quality assurance/
quality control, etc. Also include an estimate of the
percent of the total cost :hat is funded by grants un-
der Section 106 and 205(j) of the Clean Water Act.
if other EPA grant funds are used, specify
sources) of funds.
Form B—Fixed-Station Networks
Name of network—Self explanatory.
Network purpcsets)—Check why the network is
operated. More than one may be checked, as ap-
propriate.
Waterbody type—Check the types of waterbodies
on which the monitoring stations are located.
Parametric coverage: physical, btotogicsi, and
chemical measurements—Check which media
are assessed.
Sample frequency—Check planned frequency for
collecting and analyzing samples at each station.
Also, indicate in the Comments section if modifi-
tations are necessary (for example, tf sampling is
curtailed during the winter months).
Oats to be entered In STORET?—Check whether
all. some, or none of the data (by media) will be en-
tered into STORET. Also, add the anticipated date
when all data will be entered. If the data will not be
entered into STORET, indicate the date that "hard-
copy" of the appropriate data (as agreed upon by
the Regional office) will be sent to EPA.
Quality assurance—Self explanatory.
Cuinriiaim Self explanatory. Can be used to pro-
vtde dear/concise explanations of other sections
of the checklist (such as sampling frequencies or
parameter coverage where there may be signifi-
cant variations between stations). If more space is
necessary, the reverse of the form may be used.
State contact—Self explanatory.
Estimated resources Provide estimates of work-
years and any contractor costs anticipated for
operating the network. These should include all
costs for planning, field work, lab work, quality
assurance/quality control, etc Also, include an
estimate of the percent of the total cost that is fund-
ed by grants under Section 106 or 205 of the Clean
Water Act. If other EPA funds are used, specify
sources) of funds.
Attached Hat of monrtoring stations. For sta-
tions that are in STORET, the following infor-
mation (at a minimum) should be provided for
each station:
1. STORET Agency code
2. STORET Station number
a EPA River Reach number (or USGS
Hydroksgtc Unit if the Reach number is
unknown). River mile may also be
added to help locate each site.
For stations that are not in STORET the fol- '
lowing information (at a minimum) should be ;
provided for each station: '
1. Name of waterbody j
2. EPA River Reach number (or USGS
Hydrologic Unit if the Reach number is ,
unknown). River mile may also be
added to help locate each site.
3. Latitude-longitude coordinates
4. Nearest town
S State
8-2
-------
MONITORING CHfcCrVUSi—rorm A, intensive ourveys/ >v43i«iw<*u «i
State af FY
Primary Water NeareetTowri SIM* Planned Start OatO:
EPA Rrver Reacfi Number (or USOS Hydiotoajc Number if unknown) Planned End Oat*:
Oestqnated Use Actual UM
Watereody Type: Survey
Z Stream ~ c
- "-*«• Z 81
_ impoundment ~ ^
Z Estuary/Bay ~ VV
_ wwiand ~ M
= Oca^n - M
_ GrounOwaMr ~ n
SiemHcam Land Ua*: ~ ft
Purpoaei — Nonpomt sourca mailman?
f indusina* - Owwr
_ Aoncultural
_ SiNwuiturai
~ Uroan
_ Cfftca/Snopping
Om«r
SOIMCM o( Promina (anow number):
Municipal, primary
Municipal, secondary
Municipal, advanced
indunnai permittee, maior
industnai permittee, minor
Storm or comomed sewer
Oil/Ga* well
^4onpo•nt source, agriculture
Nonpomt source, silviculture
Nnnpoint imirfu ufBan
Puirophic«i]r>n
Mine drainage
Land rti»oO»*l
IrnnAlion
Number of Samples oy Media:
Suf'SCt water
5'^ne Aii»f
Sediment
Fisn/sneii'isn
Bioioqicai
Other
Hazardous waste Disposal
Haiaraoui watt* «nrag*
Pow«rien«fgy
Oin«f'iisi)
PARAMETRIC COVERAGE
Physical Meaaurementt
~ Mydroiooxal
'2 Maooat
! CiimaioiogKal
MeteoroiogKal
Sample frequency:
Z Oarfy
Z MuMpie par day
n
Oetaie Be entered UMoSTOACT?
C Yea C NO G Partial
EaLOatt:
Stoloycal Meaaurementa
Z Pianmon
C Penpnyton
G Fisn/Sneiitisn tissue
G BactenoiogKai
fl Macromveneorates
; . Effluent txoassay
i- Stream Otoassay
' . Species t aiverSJiy
9ampve Frequency;
G Daily
l! Multiple per day
n
n
Data to be entered into STOftfT?
G Yea G NO Partial
Est Oa*
Chemical Measurements
Water
Column Sediment
Dissolved oivg»n
O»vgen oemanaing
Muinems
SOIKJS
Oil and grtase
Organic*
Metais
Pesticides
Cyanides ana :^«"c ^
Reaction rates
nadionuc»ces
Sample Frequency:
Daily
Multiple oer say
Data to be entered into STORE! ?
ves No Partial
ESI Date:
-------
Farm A. paaa 2
MODELING
! IM ;
_ Mum-day synoptic
i no. o«yt
nmaot iraval
_ NO
now Racorda AvatlaMa/Uaad?
~ vti Z NO
Wow CondKtona
Mod* Nwna:
Other 0««on Condtttoos:
1
~L SttMv Siait
2-Oim«n»on«i
3-0a Hatd and laboratory m*tnoda ba uaad? Z
• WUI QA audita ba partermad? Z >^M Z NO Z Unknown
• WIH praciaion and accuracy aaUmaiaa lor tha data ba datarmmad? Z VM
_ No _ unknown
Z No Z Unknown
COMMENTS
STATtCOHTACT
Total work 1*ar»
(Slaw * t**J
H (o« totatl lundad
by
-------
M4JNI ivjninu *»ncv»<\tioi—rui me, I-IAMU
Stmtmnl
MMMOfNMWOCk
Z Condition and trend* asM*sm«nt
_ Wat*f Quality nanda/Qi attainment/maintenance
_ Basin status
_ Post-controii a*****m«nt
_ Nonooint source assessment
FY
W*t*roody IVp**:
Z Slrtims
_ tan**
Z Wetlands
._ Oc*an
PARAMETRIC COVERAGE
Z Hydrotoojcai
—
—
Z Oarfy
Z Montfify
Z Quarterly
_ Otner
Data le 6* *nt*r»d Into STORCT?
Z V\M Z NO
Eat Dat*:
E Plankton
Paiionyion
Z R«n/»n»»iflsn ti*»vM
Z 8act*notogic*J
L^ Efnuent oioaaaay
__ Str**m oioaaaay
Z Sp*o*a A diversity
r~i
_
i i
r
Z Daily
Z W*«kty
u^ MofKhly
Z Ouan*rty
Z Othw:
Oat* 10 b* *nt*f*d into STORfT 7
Z >*« ~ NO
EJI. Oat*:
W*»f
Column S*dlm*nt
Z _ Ois*oed7 ~ Yw
• WIN EPA spewed or acc*pla*<*
• WIN OA audit* b* pw«anM«T I
* WIN pc*)ct9tofi twd •ocuvwy •GO
_ No EH. 0
No Plan Ma
H Y»* Z No Z Unknown
IMt*W VOC tfM OfltB D9 4*9%*VflfMO9Q7 ^^ i
•M-
^^ *%& ^M n4o - -_, Unfcoowpo
M Z No Z Unknown
COMMENTS
STATl COffTACT
t^ittmmm
KSTiMATio aesounccs
lot*! Work >««f* H (al total) fund*d
by |1M grants:
H d«d &r
CPAfund*:
ATTACH LIST OF ALL STATIONS IN THIS NETWORK (Se« Instructions)
------- |