United States
Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA841-B-93 004
Agency (WH-553) May 1993
<&EPA Guidelines for Preparation of
the 1994 State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports)
no Printed on Recycled Paper
',.'
-------
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 6 WM ««*
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1994 State Water
Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)
FROM: Robert H. Wayland III, Director;
Office of Wetlands, Oceans &
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached are the Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1994
State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports). These
Guidelines reflect continuing efforts by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the States through the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup to refine the water quality assessment and
reporting process under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup consists of representatives
from 21 States, 6 Federal Agencies, the 10 Regions and EPA
Headquarters. This group met in June and October 1992 and
established the following goals for the 1994 305(b) reporting
cycle:
* more detailed guidance for aquatic integrity
assessments;
* improved consistency of reporting information; and
* improved data quality and utility.
The Workgroup recommended against extensive changes in the
Guidelines in order to provide a relatively stable set of
requirements between 1992 and 1994 cycles, and to serve as a
springboard for considering more extensive changes, such as more
specific assessment guidance for 1996. Changes for 1994 should
have minimal impact on most State 305(b) programs.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
These Guidelines reflect the recommendations of the
Consistency Workgroup, as refined by State comments during the
review process. To increase awareness of biological assessment
tools, Appendix B: "Making Use Support Determinations" now
provides more detailed guidance for aquatic life assessments
including appropriate methods for using biological as well as
physical/chemical data. To improve consistency, the Guidelines
clarify reporting requirements by including tables for many
additional types of information to be reported. A later addendum
will also provide the computer software for refined Total Waters
estimates in a format requested by the States.
Finally, to improve data quality and utility, EPA has
revised the Waterbody System (WBS) in response to detailed
recommendations from the WBS Advisory Group comprised of both
State and Federal WBS users. WBS Version 3.1 incorporates such
refinements as a 303(d)/TMDL tracking module, the ability to
produce all the 305(b) report tables except groundwater and
wetlands, and greater speed of operation.
a*. . We are issuing these Guidelines eleven months before the
State 305(b) reports are due to EPA. By mid-summer of 1993 we
will issue the two remaining tools for States to use in producing
tneir reports:
o the new software for the WBS Version 3.1 (States may
request a beta test version now if they desire) and;
o computer software with updated estimates of total
stream and lake acreage estimates for each State, with
special categories for border miles.
This additional software will supplement the attached Guidelines,
?«,?? delay the development or submittal of the 1994
305(b) reports.
Please ask your Regional 305(b) Coordinators to transmit
^r^QQA^n^f5 t0 y°Ur States' in order to begin preparation of
the 1994 305(b) reports. If you elect to develop supplemental
Regional guidance, please be sure to send an informational copy
to Barry Burgan, the National 305(b) Coordinator (WH-553) Any
questions regarding the above should be directed to Barry at
(202) 260-7060.
Attachment
cc: Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs
Regional Field Branch Chiefs
Regional 305(b) Coordinators
Regional Waterbody System Coordinators
Regional Monitoring Coordinators
305(b) Consistency Workgroup
-------
Guidelines for Preparation of the
1994 State Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports)
May 1993
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
Cover: A stream with progressive
impairment of aquatic life use.
Suspended sediment, siltation,
toxicants, and nutrients may be the
causes or stressors of interest here.
Suspended sediment and siltation, for
example, can abrade fish gills,
suffocate macroinvertebrates, and
smother cobbles where fish lay eggs.
EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division will distribute the Waterbody System
(WBS) Version 3.1 program in mid-summer to
support these 1994 305 (bj Guidelines. This
distribution to WBS Coordinators in the States
and Territories will include the new software and
an updated WBS User's Guide. See page 4 of
these Guidelines for more information about
WBS Version 3.1. WBS can now generate all
but two tables in these Guidelines (wetlands and
ground water tables are exceptions).
EPA will also distribute updated estimates
of State total waters in mid-summer to
support these Guidelines. The estimates
will include total stream mileage and lake
acreage estimates for the State, with
special categories for such waters as
border rivers and intermittent streams. In
response to State requests, EPA will also
provide mileages by stream order and
total waters estimates for each USGS
Cataloging Unit.
-------
-------
Pace
THE 305(b) PROCESS 1
GOALS FOR THE 1994 CYCLE 3
Expand Use of Biological Integrity Reporting 3
Improve Consistency of Reported Information . . . 3
Improve Data Quality and Utility 4
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE 1994 305(b) GUIDELINES 6
1994 305(b) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS 8
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW ... 11
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART II: BACKGROUND 12
Total Waters t
Maps "'".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 14
Summary of Classified Uses 14
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT . . 15
Chapter One: Surface Water Monitoring Program 15
Chapter Two: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data ... 16
Chapter Three: Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment ...... 20
Chapter Four: Lakes Water Quality Assessment 27
Chapter Five: Estuary and Coastal Assessment 35
Chapter Six: Wetlands Assessment 37
Chapter Seven: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1994 305{b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT . . 47
Overview ._
Ground Water Quality 40
Ground Water Indicators '.'.'.'.'.'. 50
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART V: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM
Chapter One: Point Source Control Program 60
Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source Control Program 60
Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment 51
Chapter Four: Special State Concerns and
Recommendations
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT . .
APPENDIX B MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
APPENDIX C KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX D DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Paoe
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Paoe
1 Atlas 12
2 State 303(d) List of Waters Needing TMDLs 18
3 Overall Use Support Summary 20
4 Individual Use Support Summary 21
5 Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses by Various
Cause Categories 23
6 Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses Affected by
Various Source Categories 25
7 Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes 29
7a Example Table for Reporting Trophic Status of Private Lakes 29
8 Lake Rehabilitation Techniques 32
9 List of Clean Lakes Program Projects 33
10 Acid Effects on Lakes 34
11 Sources of High Acidity in Lakes 34
12 Trends in Significant Public Lakes 35
13 Extent of Wetlands, by Type 38
14 Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards 39
15 Total Size Affected by Toxicants 42
16 Waterbodies Affected by Fish and Shellfish Consumption Restrictions . 44
17 Waterbodies Affected by Fish Kills and Fish Abnormalities 44
18 Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination 44
19 Waterbodies Affected by Shellfish Advisories due to Pathogens 45
20 Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area Closures 45
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
21 Waterbodies Affected by Surface Drinking Water Restrictions 45
22 Major Sources of .Ground Water-Contamination 49
23 Ground Water Contaminants 51
24 Number of MCL Exceedances for Ground Water-based or Partial Ground
Water-supplied Community PWSs for Selected Contaminants in
Four Contaminant Groups 55
25 Number of Ground Water-based or Partial Ground Water-supplied
Community PWSs with MCL Exceedances 57
26 Number of Sampling Detections Between 50 and 100 Percent of
MCLs for Four Contaminant Groups 59
27 Number of Ground Water-based or Partial Ground Water-supplied
Community PWSs that Have Local Wellhead Protection Programs
in Place 5g
IV
-------
THE 305(b) PROCESS
n ? A f ' ° IUtl°n C°ntro1 Act (PL92-50°' commonly known as the
^f» )f 8S l3St reauthorized by the Water Quality Act of 1987
(PL 100-4) establishes a process for developing information on the quality of
the Nation s water resources and reporting this information to the U S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Congress, and the'citizens
?nS i °^\' J rec»ujrements for this process are found in Sections
106
-------
6. Ensure that water pollution control programs are focused on achieving
environmental results efficiently
7. Help determine the workload remaining in restoring waters with poor
quality and begin to assess the extent of threatened waters
8. Evaluate the effectiveness of interstate compacts in improving water
quality
9. Maintain and update statutorily required lists of waters identified under
Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 303(d), 314, and 319.
In addition, 305(b) assessments are important to the implementation of the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), which
require additional management measures for waters identified as threatened
or impaired by assessments such as the State 305(b) reports. EPA
encourages coastal States to increase emphasis on assessments and
reporting for waters within their CZARA Section 6217 coastal areas to
support their nonpoint source management programs. See Part V, Chapter 2
of these Guidelines for further information about CZARA requirements.
Indian Tribes are exempted from the Section 305(b) reporting requirement
(Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 68, April 11, 1989, p. 14357). EPA
encourages Indian Tribes to prepare and submit 305(b) reports where
sufficient data allow description of tribal waters. Tribes lacking sustained
monitoring programs for tribal waters are encouraged to work with
appropriate Federal or State agencies to ensure accurate reporting under
Section 305(b).
EPA requires Tribes to provide a summary of water quality monitoring data
that were collected using EPA funding. A Tribe must perform its monitoring
and/or analysis in accordance with EPA quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) guidelines.
Throughout these 305(b) Guidelines, the term "State" refers to the States of
the United States, U.S. Territories, Interstate Commissions, the District of
Columbia, and those Indian Tribes that are treated as States under specific
sections of the Clean Water Act.
-------
GOALS FOR THE 1994 CYCLE
loader to coordinate reporting efforts among the States, Territories
Interstate Commissions, and Tribes (where applicable), EPA establishes goals
or themes for each 305(b) reporting cycle. The goals for 1994 are to
expand use of biological integrity reporting, improve consistency of reported
information, and improve data quality and utility.
Expand Use of Biological Integrity Reporting
EPA and the States have long recognized the importance of developing
implementing, and supporting ambient biological assessment programs to
report on the b.ological integrity and aquatic life use attainment of surface
waters. EPA strongly recommends this approach, preferably in an integrated
assessment mvolvmg physical, chemical, and toxicological monitoring
However, b.ological community/assemblage and habitat data can help to
determ.ne attainment of aquatic life uses if physical, chemical, and
tox.colog.cal data are not available. (Please refer to the discussion in
Appendix B on "Making Use Support Decisions Using Biological Data ")
InH r*°nlhTrtthe IK994 ""??* Cyde is tO increase the States' awareness of
and capab.l.ty m the use of b.ological assessment tools for assessing use
attainment. Increased capability and use at the State level will result in more
consistent and accurate reporting of designated use attainment in the
National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
Improve Consistency of Reported Information
In recent years, workgroups made substantial progress in improving the
cons,stency of water quality reporting. However, further progress is needed
to increase the usefulness of water quality measures reported by the States
and summarized in the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
QQo a 305(b) Consistency Workgroup in 1990, and expanded it in
1992, to address issues of consistency in water quality reporting and to
improve accuracy and coverage of State assessments. The 1994 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup consists of representatives from 21 States 6
Federal agencies, the 10 EPA Regions and EPA Headquarters. This'standing
Workgroup, wh.ch will develop future 305(b) guidance, met in June and
October 1992 and made the following recommendations to improve 1994
gu.dance to the States:
-------
1. Refine the 1992 total waters estimates and distribute them to the States
in time for the 1994 cycle. These refinements will include: reporting
total stream miles by stream order; refining border waters, coastline, and
Great Lakes shoreline estimates; refining total lakes estimates; and
providing documentation of Reach File 3/Digital Line Graph (RF3/DLG)
total waters estimates to the States.
2. Develop more detailed guidance for aquatic life assessments, including
appropriate methods for using biological as well as physical/chemical
data.
Guidance developed as a result of these recommendations is incorporated in
Part II (Background), Part III (Surface Water Assessment), and Appendix B
(Making Use Support Decisions) of these Guidelines. In addition to the
above changes, these Guidelines clarify reporting requirements for the Clean
Lakes Program and for public health/aquatic life impacts, among other
topics. The Workgroup reviewed all changes, which are summarized in the
section titled "Summary of Changes in the 1994 305(b) Guidelines."
The changes should have minimal impact on most State 305(b) programs
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup recommended against extensive
changes to the Guidelines in order to provide a relatively stable set of
requirements between the 1992 and 1994 cycles, and to serve as a
springboard for considering more extensive changes, such as more specific
assessment guidance, for 1996.
Improve Data Quality and Utility
Information from the 305(b) process is becoming critically important as
water pollution control efforts shift from technology-based to water quality-
based approaches. Waterbody-specific information is needed to comply with
requirements under Sections 319, 314, and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
and to answer key programmatic questions. To improve data consistency
and usefulness, simplify preparation of State reports, and provide a
management tool for States, EPA developed a computerized data system
£6 ^fJfu!50^ SyStem (WBS)'to mana9e the waterbody-specific portion'of
the 305(b) information.
In 1992, approximately 40 States either used the WBS or provided WBS-
compatible data. The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup referred several
technical issues concerning WBS to a new WBS Advisory Group which first
met in September 1992. The Advisory Group, which consists of 20 State
and Regional WBS users, made the following recommendations and provided
detailed background information for them:
-------
Enhance WBS report generation
Maintain stability in basic database structure
Focus software enhancements on greater ease of use
Provide additional hands-on WBS and RF3 training
Promote the establishment of a full-time position for water quality
assessments .and WBS use in each State and Region.
EPA is implementing these recommendations for the 1994 cvcle The
updated version of WBS, Version 3.1, retains the same core programs and
user-friendly concepts (pop-up windows, pick lists) and similar screens as
the previous version. EPA will provide WBS Version 3.1 and installation
instructions to States by mid-summer to support these 305(b) Guidelines
rnffnT M°? f°^ ±^S 8re the Regi°nal WBS Coordinators and Jack '
Clifford, National WBS Coordinator, (202) 260-3667.
EPA expects States to fully implement the WBS or a WBS-compatible
sinc^Tg^lnH^-.f^ ^S Pr°VLded WBS USers with technjcal assistance
since iys/ and will continue to do so in 1993-94.
-------
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE 1994 305(b) GUIDELINES
The following list summarizes changes between the 1992 and 1994 305(b)
Guidelines. The 1994 Guidelines document
Expands guidance for making aquatic life use support decisions with
biological data (Appendix B)
Asks States to identify waterbodies for which independently applied
biological, chemical, or toxicological data suggest different assessment
results. WBS contains new codes for this (page 22 and Appendix B)
Requests that States report total number and acreage of significant
publicly owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds in the atlas providing the State
overview (Table 1)
Clarifies reporting guidance for preparing 303(d) lists and provides a table
(Table 2)
Clarifies guidance for primary contact recreation use support
determinations based on bacteriological data (Appendix B)
Revises guidance for reporting ground water indicators. These new
indicators provide a snapshot view of the condition of ground water
quality over time to enable States to begin to track trends (page 50)
Asks States to document changes in monitoring and other programs
resulting from basinwide planning, watershed-oriented water quality
management, and point source/nonpoint source trading (page 15)
Reflects changes to the WBS (Version 3.1 will be distributed by mid-
summer to support these Guidelines; page 10).
[Note: By mid-summer, we will send a diskette with refined RF3/DLG
estimates of total waters and documentation as an appendix to these
Guidelines. EPA is working with other Federal agencies and States to
continue to refine RF3 estimates (page 13).]
These 1994 Guidelines also contain some format changes-none of the
following are new reporting requirements. The Guidelines document
-------
Changes the phrase "In-place contamination" to "Contaminated
sediments" as a source of impairment (Table 6)
Provides example tables to facilitate reporting of the information required
under the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program (Tables 7 through 12)
Provides example tables to facilitate reporting information that has been
requested previously in narrative format for documenting Public
Health/Aquatic Life Impacts. Tables include: fish and shellfish
consumption advisories, fish kills and abnormalities, sediment
contamination, shellfish advisories, drinking water advisories and
closures, and bathing area closures (Tables 16 through 21)
Moves the chapter on Surface Water Monitoring Programs from Part V to
Part I and adds a chapter on Rivers and Streams Water Quality
Assessment to Part I.
-------
1994 305(b) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS
The Clean Water Act requires that the .States transmit their water quality
assessments (Section 305(b) reports) biennially to the EPA Administrator
The next reports are due by April 1, 1994. States should provide draft
reports to their EPA Regional Offices for review and comment no later than
February 1, 1994. EPA requests that the States submit five (5) copies of
their final reports to
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA Regional Office may require additional copies.
These Guidelines describe the types of water quality information that provide
a comprehensive description of statewide water quality (both surface and
ground water), and that in turn are compiled on a State, Regional, and/or
national basis as appropriate. These Guidelines describe the baseline of
water quality information required for the Section 305(b) report; however
each State may expand on this baseline where it sees fit or as agreed upon
between the State and EPA Region. If a State has no information on a given
measure or topic, the report should clearly indicate that this is the case.
Appendixes may be used to supplement the report with information
considered too detailed for general reading.
Each State's assessment should be based on the most recent water quality
data available. However, coverage should not be restricted to only those
waters assessed in the 1992-93 reporting period. In order to produce a
comprehensive portrayal of the State's water quality, the assessment should
include all waters for which the State has currently accurate information.
States should collect and evaluate data from all available sources, including
State fish and game agencies, health departments, dischargers, and Federal
agencies. Assessments should reflect rotating basin surveys and basinwide
planning over the last planning cycle, which is typically 5 years for States
using that approach.
States should involve designated management agencies for nonpoint source
control programs in assessments for their respective source categories and
8
-------
1994 305(b) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS
^^^
The Section 305(b) reports should indicate which
FPA f, ,rth* information for the various nonpoint source categories.
EPA further encourages States to increase the involvement of Federal
agencies in conducting assessments, especially nonpoint source
assessments, for waters on Federal lands. In addition, where a Tribal
authority has agreed to work with a Federal or State agency to collect and
evaluate water quality data, each entity should have an opportunTty to
review the data. Finally, States involved in interstate compacts shouW
describe any impacts of these agreements on water quality and identify any
water quality information from those compacts used in the report.
The Section 305(b) report may be used to satisfy a State's reportinq
requirements under Section 303(d), promulgated July 24, 1992 If a State
wishes to use the Section 305(b) report to transmit Section 303(d)
Sprt!^°nV^e rfPOIt ^ 6e reCeiVed by EPA on time
-------
If the 305(b) Report is not used to report information under Sections 303(d)
and 319, data should be compatible and in agreement among the separate
reports. If inconsistencies occur, States should explain them in a cover
letter to EPA Headquarters and the Regional Office.
States can use the WBS to manage the waterbody-specific, quantitative
information concerning surface water quality and sources of pollution For
the 1994 305(b) cycle, EPA has modified the WBS to track 303{d)/total
maximum daily loads (TMDL) lists as well as 305(b) assessments (see
page 22). States should transmit their WBS datasets or other waterbody-
specific datasets in electronic form to the National and Regional WBS
Coordinators. As in previous reporting cycles, EPA will continue to provide
States with technical assistance in implementing the WBS. A WBS Users
Guide is also available to assist users in the operation of the WBS. In mid-
summer, EPA will mail the WBS Users Guide to State WBS Coordinators
concurrently with the WBS Version 3.1 software. For more information
contact Regional WBS Coordinators or Jack Clifford, National WBS
Coordinator, at (202) 260-3667.
To ensure comparability of information developed by many States,
consistent measures, terms, and definitions are necessary. Appendix C
contains key terms, with a discussion of their definitions and uses.
The text of a Section 305(b) report should include five sections. The
contents of each section are described below (see Parts I through V) EPA
and the Workgroup have made the following organizational changes since
publication of the 1992 Guidelines: the chapter on Surface Water
Monitoring Programs is now in Part I instead of Part V, and Part I now
contains a new chapter, Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment.
This chapter does not represent a new reporting requirement.
10
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS -PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
- -Each-State should provide a concise .executive summary/overview that is
comprehensive and clear enough to stand alone. For both surface and
ground water, it should
Describe overall State water quality (for surface water, include a
summary of the degree of designated use support for the different
waterbody types)
Describe the causes and sources of water quality impairments
Discuss the programs to correct impairments
Discuss the general trends in water quality
Briefly recap the highlights of each section of the report, particularly the
State s monitoring programs, the objectives of the State water quality
management program, issues of special concern to the State, and any
State initiatives or innovations in monitoring and assessment
11
-------
1994305(b) CONTENTS - PART II: BACKGROUND
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART II: BACKGROUND
To put the report into perspective for the reader, States should provide a
brief State overview, as shown in Table 1. States may choose to add
categories to the atlas table to reflect special areas of interest (e.g., acres of
playas; acres of riparian areas outside of wetlands; miles of streams and
acres of lakes on tribal lands).
Table 1. Atlas
State population
State surface area
Total miles of rivers and streams3
- Miles of perennial rivers/streams (subset)3
- Miles of intermittent (nonperennial) streams (subset)3
- Miles of ditches and canals (subset)3
- Border miles of shared rivers/streams (subset)3
Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds3
Number of significant publicly owned iakes/reservoirs/ponds (subset)
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds3
Acres of significant publicly owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds (subset)
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Miles of ocean coast3
Miles of Great Lakes shore3
Acres of freshwater wetlands
Acres of tidal wetlands
3 Available from EPA RF3/DLG estimates.
NOTE: Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic behavior, either as
stream channel miles under rivers or as total surface acreage under
lakes/reservoirs/ponds, but not under both categories. In general, impoundments
should be reported as lakes/reservoirs/ponds unless they are run-of-river
impoundments with very short retention times.
12
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART II: BACKGROUND
Total Waters
The State/EPA 305(b) Consistency Workgroup has agreed that the best
estimates of total State waters available on a consistent basis nationwide
are obtained using the EPA River Reach File Version 3 (RF3) and the
database from which it is derived, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital
Lme Graph (DLG) traces. These computerized databases reflect hydrolodc
features found on 1 : 1 00,000 USGS hydrologic maps. nY°r°'°9'C
To support use of the RF3/DLG database, EPA has developed estimates of
total waters, by State, as follows: total river miles, with breakdowns for
perennial streams, intermittent streams, ditches and canals, and border
rre»t''i T K6 8Cref; "Umber °f lakes; total ocean coas*" "«<*: and total
te inC,uHBHSn rn m,"eS' F°r,the State 305(b) contacts- thes« es imates will
c^ntatn »n FPAan 6tte *° be maNed '" mid-summer; the diskette will
contain an EPA discussion paper explaining their derivation and use.
EPA will be citing the RF3/DLG estimates of total waters (i.e., total river
^94 305e «" to
1994 305 b) Report to Congress and urges States to use them in their State
water quality assessments. EPA, in consultation with individua States and
USGS, will continue to refine these estimates where appropriate States
' ^tTT °f ^^ reS°'Uti°n than those °"
are based may choose to report their own
, with appropriate explanation in the text of their reports.
EPA recognizes that variation in cartographic density exists among the maps
reflet ,h 6 DLG' and that the RF3/DLG total water """bars also
n««H«H Variatl°"S- AIS0' RF3 is a new database and users may identify
"S- StateS 8nd °ther users are Uf9ed to Participated
r the "eXt few vears' N<theless, the use
. . represents an important step forward in arriving
aCUmm °f the Nation/s total waters- prior to the RF3/S?G
aao wi hrH USi"9 t0tal waters estimates made decades
ago with crude maps or measurement techniques. The new estimates hLe
°f h°UrS Of "abo" irrremeasu" S
Burgan
Until improved approaches are available to determine total estuarine and
sho^diln^ fh StateS f °U'd C°ntinue t0 use best availab|e methods and
should identify those methods. The National Wetlands Inventory is
recommended for State wetland acreage estimates.
13
-------
Maps
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART II:
States should include maps and other graphical depictions of background
information relevant to water quality assessments. For example, the 305(b)
report should include maps of basins or watersheds used in rotating basin
surveys or watershed planning, ecoregions, physiogeographic provinces,
tribal lands, and other significant characteristics of the State.
Summary of Classified Uses
States should discuss briefly the extent to which they classify (e.g.,
establish designated uses for) rivers, lakes, and estuarine/coastal waters
consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act. States should also explain
what kinds of waters are not classified as to designated use and how they
determine which waters should be classified. Last, the 305(b) report should
include a brief discussion of changes in water quality classifications that
have occurred since the previous report.
14
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter One: Surface Water Monitoring Program
To provide a perspective on their activities to evaluate water quality, States
should descnbe their monitoring programs and briefly discuss any changes in
program emphasis that are planned or have taken place since the last report
Of particular mterest th.s cycle are any changes resulting from a shift to
bas.nw.de planning, watershed planning, or rotating basin surveys.
The description of State monitoring programs should include the basic
program components as follows, with references to other documents
including approved quality assurance program plans:
Development and continued planning of monitoring strategies
J9n (indudin9 number of statjons' Parameters, frequency,
- Fixed-station networks
- Intensive surveys including rotating basin surveys
- Targeted areas under watershed programs, other programs, and
multiple programs
- Toxics monitoring programs
- Biological monitoring programs
- Fish tissue, sediment, and shellfish monitoring programs
Development of written protocols (field/lab/assessment)
Laboratory analytical support
Quality assurance/quality control (field/lab/data)
Data storage, management, and sharing
Assessment activities other than 305(b)
15
-------
Reporting other than 305(b) (see Appendix D)
Training in monitoring and data management
Volunteer monitoring programs and how volunteer data are used
The State's use of data from Federal agencies such as EPA, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USGS, and the U.S
Fish and Wildlife Service.
States should include a map of fixed-station monitoring sites and other key
monitoring sites and networks.
Finally, States should discuss any plans to use data generated by EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and should
identify any monitoring and/or data management tools needed to improve
their ability to assess the quality of their waters, such as new monitoring
protocols, data systems, or specific training needs.
Chapter Two: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data
Assessment Methodology
States should provide information on the methods they used to assess data
for determining use support status. This documentation should include
types of information used, data sources, and identification of organizational
units that make use support determinations. The decision process for
assigning waterbodies to different use support categories (fully supporting
partially supporting, etc.) should be clearly explained, including the use of'
monitored vs. evaluative data. EPA encourages the use of flow charts in
explaining assessment methodologies. Regional 305(b) Coordinators can
provide examples of well-documented methodologies from State 305(b)
reports. States not using the WBS should describe the database they use to
track and report assessments.
Use support categories and criteria for determining the status of waters are
presented in Appendix B. States are asked to use this approach in making
use support decisions. EPA no longer recommends alternate approaches
such as chemical indices. Because they aggregate and reduce large amounts
of data to a single value, chemical indices have generally been found to be
more useful in trend analysis and in establishing priority rankings than in
making use support decisions.
States should highlight changes in assessment methodology since the last
305(b) assessment. States should also explain any biases incorporated into
their assessments (e.g., monitoring concentrated around areas of known
16
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
^^^^
wthoH-H KerCe"ta9e °f W8ters asses*>* limited monitoring of
waterbodies affected by nonpoint sources).
h ad°Pted a r°tating basin plannin9 approach in which
they assess basins or watersheds at regular intervals (typically 5 years)
thettff^Tf H tWS aPPr°aCh a"d reqU6StS that States reP°rt the **"* of
their efforts and any special considerations in making assessments using
rotating basm data. Some States have been criticized unfairly for assessing
on* a small percentage of their waters in a 2-year 305(b) reporting cycle A
State using the rotating basin approach should report the number of years
JUSTS!,*0 8S?SS 8" barS fl--- the entire State) and the Percentage of
"J £ w"ersactual|V «sessed during this cycle. States should also
report basmwide plans by name and year completed or expected to be
completed.
Water n.mritv Summary
State submissions should include summary statistics on designated use
support and causes and sources of impairment for each type of waterbody
stSfrn6'' ehStU3rieS' ?aStal W8terS' 8nd Great Lakes)- Thes* summary
statist.cs may be reported m a single summary section here or in Chapters 3
w',, SLt ' WK 8re 6aCh deV°ted t0 3 Partjcular type of waterbody. (Note- '
rt a State chooses to report summary data in Chapters 3, 4 and 5
Chapter 2 should still be used to report assessment methodology and
Section 303(d) waters). For each type of waterbody, four tables are
needed:
Overall use support summary
Individual use support summary
Total size of waters not fully supporting uses, by cause categories
Total s.zes of waters not fully supporting uses, by source categories.
hPN dl°CU,ment 9iveS f°rmats for these tables- Un*s of size for
these tables are miles for streams, acres for lakes, square miles for
estuar.es, and linear shore miles for coastal waters and Great Lakes In
addition, States should report on freshwater and tidal wetlands where
possible.
Maps (Optional)
Maps displaying designated use support information for rivers lakes
estuanes, oceans, Great Lakes, and wetlands are very useful in interpreting
information geographically. Using the analysis conducted when deriving the
summary of designated use support, States should display waterbodies
according to one of the three use support categories. Basin-scale maps are
most appropriate. K
17
-------
Section 303fdl W?t»~
[NOTE: in the 1992 Guidelines, this section appeared in the Public
Health/Aquatic Life Concerns chapter.!
States are requested to list their 303(d) waterbodies in a format similar to
that in Table 2. To simplify their reporting requirements, States can use
WBS to track and report this information. WBS Version 3.1 contains a
special 303(d) list module with cause and source codes and other fields
appropriate to tracking Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). EPA's 303(d)
program considers WBS to be the primary reporting system for waters
needing TMDLs. If a State wishes to transmit 303(d) information via the
305(b) report, however, the submittal must meet the 303(d) requirements
and deadlines as described below.
Using the data from Table 2, the WBS, and other sources, States should also
provide the following summary information. An asterisk denotes information
required by regulation. Other information is requested either in TMDL
guidance or in other sections of the 305{b) Guidelines:
Table 2. State 303(d) List of Waters Needing TMDLs
WBID
WB
Name*
Size of
WB
Affected
Specific
Pollutant
or
Stressor*
Probable
Source(s)
of
Pollutant
Priority
for TMDL
(H/M/L/UJ*
Targeted
for TMDL*
(Yes/No)
No. of
NPDES
Permit
Renewals
* Information required by regulation.
WB
H/M/L/U =
Targeted =
NPDES =
Waterbody
High/medium/low/unknown or unspecified
Waterbody has been identified by State for TMDL development during the
April 1994 - April 1996 cycle.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
18
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
^
Methodology used to develop the TMDL list*
Database used to develop the TMDL list*
Rationale for any decision not to use existing and readily available data*
Total number of waterbodies in the State
Total number of water quality-limited (WQL) waterbodies (total of
partially supporting" and "not supporting" entries in Table 3, Overall Use
Support Summary, page 24) wwaii use
Total ""jnber of WQL waterbodies requiring TMDLs (may be fewer than
the number of WQL waterbodies, see Section 303(d) guidance)
Status of TMDLs targeted during the April 1992 - April 1994 cycle.
Section 303
-------
Chapter Three: Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment
[NOTE: New chapter, but no new reporting requirements.!
Designated Use Support
States should report summaries of designated use support in rivers and
streams in two tables: .one table combining uses into an overall assessment
(Table 3) and another listing individual designated uses (Table 4).
To retain summary information on overall use support and the size of waters
that are monitored and evaluated, States should report the information in
Table 3 for rivers and streams. The WBS can be used to generate Table 3.
To do so, WBS users must fill in size fields for the Overall Use Support
Category for each waterbody. Users must also complete the Assessment
Category field in WBS to distinguish "evaluated" from "monitored"
assessments.
Previously established guidelines for multiple use waterbodies apply in the
determination of overall use support (see Appendix B).
Table 3. Overall Use Support Summary
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (reported in miles)3
Degree of Use
Support
Size Fully Supporting
Size Fully Supporting but Threatenedb
Size Partially Supporting
Size Not Supporting
TOTAL ASSESSED
-====aaaaa=as
Assessment Category
Evaluated3
Monitored3
Total
Assessed8
Report size in each category (rivers and streams reported in miles).
Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size
fully supporting uses (see Appendix C). It should be added into the totals
entered in the bottom line.
20
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
^^^^^^^^^"^"^^^^i
Table 4. Individual Use Support Summary
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (reported in miles)8
Size
Supporting
but Threat^
ned*
Size
Partially
Supporting*
Drinking
Water Supply
Report size in each use support category (rivers and streams reported in miles).
Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is noj a subset of the size fully
supporting uses. See Appendix C.
' b°atlng and °ther actjvities i
incidental
NOTE:
State-defined codes should be established by the State for any important uses
that are not included above. Examples of such uses could include Outstanding
Resource Waters, Aesthetics, and Industry. To the extent possible, States
should attempt to group waters into the seven general categories of use Where
waterbod.es have multiple uses, the appropriate waterbody length/area should
be entered in each applicable category.
21
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III:
SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4 lists specific designated uses and combines Clean Water Act goal
reporting and designated use reporting into one table. The fishable goal of
the Clean Water Act is reported under the Fish Consumption, Shellfishing,
and Aquatic Life Support Uses, and the swimmable goal is reported under
the Swimming and Secondary Contact Uses. The WBS can be used to
generate this table. To do so, WBS users must fill in size fields for the
individual use support categories for each waterbody.
EPA and the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup are interested in cases where
independently applied biological/habitat, chemical, or toxicological monitoring
data suggest different assessment results. The WBS contains new codes in
the Assessment Type field for these cases. These are the "9000" codes in
Appendix Table C-1. EPA will use WBS to tabulate and study those
waterbodies with discrepancies among biological/habitat, chemical, or
toxicological assessments; States are asked to enter this field in their WBS
datasets. States not using WBS should provide a separate list of such
waterbodies and the bases for the final assessment decisions in these cases
This information will help EPA and the States in their efforts to set and/or
refine biological criteria and integrate biological assessment methods into
management decisionmaking.
Qay?eg and Sources of Nonsunnort of DesJonated Us?y
For those waters assessed that are not fully supporting their designated uses
(i.e., partially and not supporting uses), States should provide the following
information to illustrate the causes and sources of use impairment statewide.
States may a/so wish to prepare similar tabular information for waters that
fully support uses but are threatened.
Relative Assessment of Causes
Causes are those pollutants or other stressors that contribute to the actual
or threatened impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. Stressors are
factors or conditions (other than specific pollutants) that cause impairment
(e.g., flow and other habitat alterations, presence of exotic species). In
Table 5, States should provide the total size (in miles) of rivers and streams
affected by each cause category. A waterbody maybe affected by several
different causes and its size should be counted in each relevant cause
category. If the relative contribution of the cause is listed in the waterbody-
specific information as High, include the size of the waterbody with less
than full support under "major contribution" in Table 5; if listed as Moderate
or Slight, include the size under moderate/minor contribution. (WBS uses
the terms High, Moderate, and Slight rather than Major, Moderate, and
Minor). See Appendix C for a discussion of the terms Major/Moderate/Minor
and a list of cause codes for the WBS.
22
-------
Table 5. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses by Various Cause Categories
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (Reported in Miles)8
Size of Water* by
Contribution to Impairment
Cause Category
Cause unknown
Moderate/Minor8
Unknown toxicity
Pesticides
Priority organics
Nonpriority organics
Other inorganics
^MBMWMMMM
Nutrients
PH
Siltation
^IMWMMM
Organic enrichment/low DO
_
Salinity/TDS/chlorides
Thermal modifications
Flow alterations
Other habitat alterations
Pathogen indicators
^^^BM^MI
Radiation
Oil and grease
Taste and odor
Suspended solids
Noxious aquatic plants
Filling and draining
Total toxics
Turbidity
^^^^M^BM^MM
Filling and draining
Exotic species
Other (specify)
Reported in total s.ze (r.vers and stream reported in miles). When preparing this table
for other waterbody types, use the following units: lakes, acres; estuaries square
miles; coastal waters and Great Lakes, shore miles; wetlands acres
23
-------
The relative magnitude of causes does not necessarily correspond to degree
of use support. For example, a waterbody can have 3 causes labeled as
moderate, but have sufficient impairment from these multiple causes to be
assessed as not supporting.
Most of the causes in Table 5 are self-explanatory but some warrant
clarification. Siltation refers to the deposition of sediment on the bottom of
a waterbody causing such impacts as smothering of benthic habitat in
streams or filling in of lakes. Thermal modification generally involves the
heating of receiving waters by point sources (e.g., plant cooling water) or
nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from pavement or elimination of bank
shading). Flow alteration refers to frequent changes in flow or chronic
reductions in flow that impact aquatic life (e.g., as flow-regulated rivers or a
stream with extensive irrigation withdrawals). Other habitat alterations may
include removal of woody debris or cobbles from a stream. Exotic species
are introduced plants and animals (e.g., Eurasian millfoil, zebra mussels,
grass carp) that can interfere with natural fisheries, endangered species, or
other components of the ecosystem.
States can use WBS to generate Table 5 from waterbody-specific
information. To do so, WBS users must complete Cause Size and Cause
Magnitude fields for each waterbody. See Appendix C for more information
about using WBS to generate this table.
Relative Assessment of Sources
Sources are the facilities or activities that contribute pollutants or stressors,
resulting in impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. Provide the total
size (in miles) of rivers and streams affected by each category of source,
including the size with overall point and nonpoint source impacts (Table 6).
A waterbody may be affected by several sources of pollution and the
appropriate size should be counted in each relevant source category. If the
relative contribution of the source is listed in the waterbody-specific
information as High, the size with less than full support should be included
as a major contribution; if it is listed as Moderate or Slight, the size should
be included as a moderate/minor contribution. See Appendix C for a
discussion of the terms major/moderate/minor.
Table 6 shows the minimum level of detail regarding source categories.
WBS stores and reports on a more detailed list of source subcategories
under some of the general categories such as Agriculture. The full list of
source categories is given in Appendix C. States are asked to include the
more detailed list of subcategories, since this will increase the overall
usefulness of the report and of the State's WBS database.
24
-------
Table 6. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses Affected by
Various Source Categories
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (reported in miles)3
Source Category
i
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
11
Combined Sewer Overflows
^^^
Agriculture
^_^____
Silviculture
i^_____^_
Construction
. _
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
1
Resource Extraction
^^_
Land Disposal
Hydromodification/Habitat Modification
^
Marinas
"^»
Atmospheric Deposition
Contaminated Sedimentsb
^^_
Unknown Source
-^_____
Other (specify)0
3 Reported in total size (rivers and streams reported in miles).
Bottom sediments contaminated with toxic or nontoxic pollutants-
includes historical contamination from sources that are no longer '
actively discharging. Examples of contaminants are PCBs metals
nutrients (common in lakes with phosphorus recycling problems) and
sludge deposits. Please indicate the screening levels or criteria used
(e.g., EPA sediment quality criteria; NOAA effects range-medium [ER-
M] values).
c List additional sources known to affect waters of the State.
'^^^^"PWBBBI
Contribution to Impairment
Major3
Moderate/Minor3
25
-------
To use the WBS to generate Table 6 from waterbody-specific information,
users must complete Source Size and Source Magnitude fields for each
waterbody. It is a/so important to enter in WBS the size of waters impacted
by the genera/ source categories listed in Table 6 (such as Agricu/ture-
nonpoint). For example, WBS cannot calculate the size of waters affected
by Agriculture from the agriculture subcategories in Appendix C because the
sizes of waters affected by each subcategory may overlap and are not
additive. For example, in a 15-mile waterbody with 10 miles affected by
feedlots and 5 miles affected by pastureland, the total size affected by the
Agriculture general category could be as little as 10 miles or as large as 15
miles, depending on how these subcategories of sources overlap. Table 6
must show the total size of waters affected by each general source category
to avoid this type of subcategory overlap. To accomplish this using the
WBS, total mileage must be entered for the genera/ source categories
affecting a waterbody (i.e., for the categories in Table 6 and the bold
categories in Appendix Table C-3) whether or not subcategories are also
entered. See Appendix C for further information on this topic.
States that use the WBS are requested to link causes with sources for a
waterbody whenever possible. A special cause/source link field is provided
in WBS for this purpose. Linked cause/source data are very important for
producing the standard 305(b) report tables and for answering State
resource management questions. For example, the question "Which
waterbodies are not fully supporting uses due to nutrients from agricultural
runoff?" may not be answerable if the cause/source link field is not used.
The following chart illustrates what happens when causes and sources are
not linked in WBS. Although valuable information is stored, one cannot tell
which sources are associated with which pollutants or stressors-
Waterbody
WBID = XX-012
Mill Creek above Brook Branch
Causes (pollutants/stressors)
__________
nutrients, siltation, thermal
modification
Sources
(not linked with causes)
_
urban runoff, removal of
riparian vegetation, municipal
point sources
The following chart shows how the same causes and sources can be
associated with each other using the WBS link variable:
26
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Waterbody
WBID = XX-012
Mill Creek above Brook Branch
Causes (pollutants/stressors)
nutrients
nutrients
removal of riparian vegetation
removal of riparian vegetation
Chapter Four: Lakes Water Quality Assessment
Summar
Sources (linked with causes)
urban runoff
municipal point sources
thM presented in ChaPter Two: Methodology and Summary Data,
States should report summary statistics for use support and for causes and
sources of impairment in lakes. The format should be similar to that used
In IT'" 8?K SceamS- That JS' Tab'eS 3 throu9h 6 should b* developed for
all lakes in the State, including significant publicly owned lakes under
nn> i°n . I 3S Wu6" 8S 3ny °ther lakes assessed by the State. The reporting
unit for lakes in these tables is acres. 'epumng
Because of national interest in the relative contribution of point sources
versus nonpo.nt sources, each State is also asked to report
Statewide total acres of lakes not fully supporting uses, with major
contributions from point sources
Statewide total acres of lakes not fully supporting uses, with major
contributions from nonpoint sources.
See "Relative Assessment of Sources" in Chapter 3 for further discussion
EPA will assist WBS users in generating these numbers.
The remainder of this chapter deals with reporting requirements under
section 314. The focus is on significant publicly owned lakes, although
States may choose to report on private lakes as well.
Clean Lakes Program
Section 314(a)(2) of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987, requires the States to submit a biennial assessment of their lake
water quality as part of their 305(b) report. The specific elements of the
27
-------
^^^^^^^^mm^m
assessment, as outlined in Section 314(a)(1)(A-F), constitute the minimal
requirements for approval and for subsequent grant assistance as required by
Section 314(a)(4). The discussion below is a clarification and tabulation of
the information requested in previous Guidelines.
For purposes of Clean Lakes Program reporting, this section of the Lake
Water Quality Assessment chapter should focus on publicly owned public
access lakes that the State considers significant (as defined by the State)
Only significant publicly owned lakes are eligible for funding under Section
314 of the CWA. Therefore, for the purposes of this section, the term
lake will refer to "significant publicly owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds "
Although all lakes should be included in the summary tables described in the
Summary SfrtmTipP section above, the reporting requirements described
below are specific to the Clean Lakes Program. If States wish to report such
information for private lakes, they may do so using similar tables. However
totals for Section 314 significant publicly owned lakes must always be
distinguished from private lakes. For example, see Tables 7 and 7a WBS
can be used to generate these tables if significant publicly owned lakes are
coded as such in WBS Screen 1 .
In order to remain eligible to receive Clean Lakes funding, all States must
meet the reporting requirements of Section 314 (a)(1)(A-F) This
information, required biennially, must be submitted as part of a State's
305(b) report. The Regional Clean Lakes Coordinators will review these
reports for approval/disapproval, determine the State's eligibility for Clean
Lakes funding and notify the EPA Headquarters Clean Lakes Program of the
State s eligibility status. Since 1989, Clean Lakes Program Congressional
appropriations have provided funding to over 45 States and Tribes for
cooperative agreements entitled "lake water quality assessments." Although
these awards are generally intended to build and strengthen State/Tribal lake
programs, a specific objective of these agreements is to assist the States
and Tribes in meeting the reporting requirements of Section 314 As with
any cooperative agreement or grant, there is an associated "approval"
process standard to the administration of these awards (done by the
Reg.onal grants administration staff). This approval is separate from the
above-mentioned approval/disapproval (by the Regional Clean Lakes
°^?at°r) °f the 'ake water quality '"formation submitted in the State's
JUofuJ report.
nrh . 0 SUbmit 8 "lake Water qualitV" reP°rt in addition
to a 305b) report, the State should ensure that the information required
specifically by Section 314(a) is included in the biennial 305(b) report.)
The Clean Lakes section of the report should reflect the status of lake water
quality in the State, restoration/protection efforts, and trends in lake water
quality. The text of this chapter should include narrative discussions and
summary information, which should be supported by specific information on
28
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
Total
i^MBMWMM
Assessed
""^
Oligotrophic
i_
Mesotrophic
^^_
Eutrophic
^^^"^""^^Mi
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
ii
Unknown
Table 7a. Example Table for Reporting Trophic Status of Private Lakes
Total
^^^MMHMI
Assessed
^^i^«.
Oligotrophic
^.__^_
Mesotrophic
~_
Eutrophic
_~__
JHypereutrophic
^^^"^^^^ii^-*^-i^^
Dystrophic
"^^^-^^^^^^
Unknown
NOTE: These tables merely clarify reporting requirements
contained in earlier versions of this guidance. They are
not new reporting requirements.
29
-------
each lake. If summary lake information is presented elsewhere in the State
report, page and table citations should be given in this chapter. Lake-
specific information may be submitted by computer disk or as a hard-copy
appendix to the State report.
Each State should report the following information:
Background
The State's definition of "significant" as it relates to the purposes of this
assessment. The definition must consider public interest and use.
Total number of significant publicly owned lakes and number of acres of
significant publicly owned lakes in the State.
Any other background information the State considers relevant to this
discussion.
Trophic Status f314faim(A)] -
The total number of lakes and lake acres in each trophic class (dystrophic,
oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, hypertrophic). Table 7 shows one
way to present the information.
A discussion of the approach used to determine trophic status and why it
was selected.
ControlMethods r314falM)fR}] -
A description of procedures, processes, and methods to control sources
of pollution to lakes including
- point and nonpoint source controls
- land use ordinances and regulations designed to protect lake water
quality.
A general description of the State pollution control programs as they
relate to the protection of lake water quality. In particular, discuss the
State lake management program, including related activities under the
nonpoint source, point source, wetlands, and emissions control programs,
and any other relevant program activities. Also, describe the State's
water quality standards that are applicable to lakes.
30
-------
A general description of the State's plans to restore and/or protect the
quality of its lakes. This is the State's management plan for its lakes
SSCT ^t^T^ ,f°CU! ,°n the co°Perative working relationships among
Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies concerned with lake protection
restoration, and management.
T ^fsc0ription and tabulation of techniques to restore lake water quality
Table 8 provides a list of lake rehabilitation techniques as well as a format
for reporting the number of lakes and the acreage of lakes where each
technique has been applied. The WBS can be used to generate Table 8 if
users enter data in the following WBS data fields for each individual lake
waterbody: the Control Measure field, the Restoration Measure field and
the Significant Publicly Owned Lake field. Note that the WBS allows
users to create additional control and restoration codes as needed.
Ph«,pK , tab"^Jon of Lake Wate' Quality Assessment grants and
Phase I Phase II, and Phase III Clean Lakes Program projects that have
been undertaken and/or completed. Table 9 shows one way to present
this information. State Clean Lakes records or EPA's Clean Lakes trackina
system, CLPMS, can provide the information needed for Table 9 For
more information or to obtain a copy of CLPMS, contact the EPA
Headquarters Clean Lakes Program staff at (202) 260-5404.
Impaired and Threatened Lake.^ f314(a)Ml(F)| -
If not provided previously in the water quality summary chapter or at the
T9 °H th'S lakes °haPter' Pr°vide summary tables on designated use
thrn? oh T f^T *? SOUrCeS °f nonsuPPort in lakes similar to Tables 3
through 6. Include information on threatened lakes, if available.
A discussion of State water quality standards as they apply to lakes If
water quality standards have not been established for lakes, the measure
used to determine impairment or threatened status should be identified.
Acid Effects on Lakes [314(aH1Hbl; 314fa)m(F)| -
The number of lakes and lake acres that have been assessed for high
acidity. If information is available, discuss the nature and extent of toxic
substances mobilization (release from sediment to water) as a result of
high acidity. Table 10 shows one way to present this information.
The number of lakes and lake acres affected by high acidity. Indicate the
measure (pH acid-neutralizing capacity) used to determine acidic condition
and the level at which the State defines "affected "
31
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III; SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
"""^^^^^"^^^^l^^..
Table 8. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques
Rehabilitation Technique
Phosphorus Precipitation/lnactivation
Sediment Removal/Dredging
Artificial Circulation to Increase Oxygen
Aquatic Macrophyte Harvesting
Application of Aquatic Plant Herbicides
Drawdown to Desiccate and/or Remove Macrophytes
Hypolimnetic Aeration
Sediment Oxidation
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal of Low DO Water
Dilution/Hushing
Shading/Sediment Covers or Barriers
Destratification
Sand or Other Filters Used to Clarify Water
Food Chain Manipulation
Biological Controls
Other In-lake Treatment (Specify)
W»t»r*h*d Trmstment*
Sediment Traps/Detention Basins
Shoreline Erosion Controls/Bank Stabilization
Diversion of Nutrient Rich In-flow
Conservation Tillage Used
Integrated Pest Management Practices Applied
Animal Waste Management Practices Installed
Porous Pavement Used
Redesign of Streets/Parking Lots to Reduce Runoff
Road or Skid Trail Management
32
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B
Table 8. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques (continued)
Rehabilitation Technique
Land Surface Roughening for Erosion Control
^
Riprapping Installed
Unspecified Type of Best Management Practice Installed
Other Watershed Controls (Specify)
Ott*r Lmk» Protection/Rmttontion Control*
Local Lake Management Program In-place
Public Information/Education Program/Activities
Local Ordinances/Zoning/Regulations to Protect Lake
Number of
Lakes Where
Technique Has
Been Used
Acres of Lakes
Where
Technique Has
Been Used
these
c'trifie\r,ePortin9 requirements contained in earlier versions of
Th.s table does not represent a new reporting requirement
Table 9. List of Clean Lakes Program Projects
Name of Project
Type of
Project8
Federal
Funding
($)
Problems
Addressed
Management
Measures
Proposed or
Undertaken6
b pa*6 WaleruQualitV Assessment (LWQA), Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III
Refer to Table 13 for a partial list of management/rehabilitation measures.
t
these
C'trifies'eP°rtJn9 requirements contained in earlier versions of
This table is not a new reporting requirement.
33
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 10. Acid Effects on Lakes
Number of Lakes
Acreage of takes
Assessed for Acidity
Impacted by High Acidity
Vulnerable to Acidity
Table 11. Sources of High Acidity in Lakes
Source
Number of Lakes
Impacted
Acreage of Lakes
Impacted
Acid Deposition
Acid Mine Drainage
Natural Sources
Other (list)
NOTE: These tables merely clarify reporting requirements contained in earlier
versions of this guidance. They are not new reporting requirements.
A discussion of the specific sources of acidity, with estimates of the
number of affected lake acres attributed to each source of acidity
Table 11 shows one way to present this information. WBS will generate
Tables 10 and 11 if the required data are entered (see WBS User's Guide).
A description of the methods and procedures used to mitigate the harmful
effects of high acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and
restoring the buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from
lakes toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high acidity.
Toxic Effects on Lakes [314(a)(1)(E); 314(a)(1)(F)J -
If not provided in Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns chapter (Chapter 7)
the number of lakes and number of lake acres monitored for toxicants and
those with elevated levels of toxic pollutants.
34
-------
^^^^^^^^"^^^^MH
A discussion of the sources of toxic pollutants in lakes, with estimates of
the number of affected lake acres attributed to each source of toxic
pollutants.
Trends in Lake Water Quality f31 A(a)(i)(F|] ..
A general discussion of apparent lake water quality trends. Include the
total number of lakes and lake acres in each trend category (improved,
degraded, stable or unknown). Table 12 shows one way to present this
information. WBS can be used to generate Table 12.
A discussion of how apparent trends were determined (e.g., changes in
use support status, statistical trend analysis of water quality parameters)
Indicate the time frame of analysis. If sufficient data are available, States
should report on trends in trophic status, trends in toxic pollutants or their
effects, and trends in acidity or its effects. For a lake, the trend in trophic
status may be more important than the trophic status itself
Table 12. Trends in Significant Public Lakes
Assessed for Trends
^
jm proving
Stable
^^i^-«,
Degrading
^^^^^^
Trend Unknown
NOTE:
This table merely clarifies reporting requirements contained in earlier
versions of this guidance. This table is not a new reporting requirement.
Chapter Rve: Estuary and Coastal Assessment
Summary
(including Great Lakes shoreline!
If not already presented in Chapter Two: Methodology and Summary Data
States should report summary statistics for use support and causes and
sources of impairment in estuaries, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes
The format should be similar to that used for rivers and streams That is
the State should develop Tables 3 through 6 for all estuaries in the State'
The reporting unit for estuaries in these tables is square miles. Similarly '
separate tables should be prepared for coastal waters and the Great Lakes
35
-------
using shoreline miles as the size unit. WBS includes a Great Lakes
waterbody category with size units of (shoreline) miles. For Great Lakes
embayments, States may use the "estuary" waterbody category if they wish
to report impacts in areal units (square miles).
Special Tonic?
As part of the national initiative to increase understanding of estuarine and
near coastal waters and the Great Lakes and to better direct pollution control
efforts in these waters, EPA asks the States to provide information on five
overall topics: eutrophication, habitat modification, changes in living
resources, toxic contamination, and pathogen contamination.
All States are asked to collect and provide coastal, estuary, and Great Lakes
information as appropriate. Although EPA understands that these data may
not be readily available in every coastal State, efforts to produce this
information will result in a broader understanding of our coastal and
estuarine resources. Those areas for which no data are currently available
should be clearly identified by the States. Also, States are encouraged to
discuss their methods for collecting the information and how these methods
may limit use of the data.
In Chapter Seven: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns, the State should
provide information on toxic contamination in estuaries, coastal waters and
the Great Lakes (incidents of toxicants above Food and Drug
Administration/National Academy of Science [FDA/NAS] levels of concern in
fish and shellfish tissue; sediment contamination; fishing advisories and
bans) and information on pathogen contamination (bathing area closures and
shellfish advisories). Chapter Seven should also include fish kills that have
occurred in estuarine, coastal waters, or Great Lakes.
In this chapter (Chapter 5), States should report further information on
estuaries, coastal waters, and Great Lakes including
A case study from at least one estuary/coastal/Great Lakes area. States
are encouraged to describe problems and challenges, not just "success
stories"
Information on eutrophication including
- occurrence, extent, and severity of hypoxia and anoxia (low or complete
absence of dissolved oxygen);
- occurrence, extent, and severity of algal blooms possibly related to
pollution; and
36
-------
- estimated nutrient loadings broken out by point sources, combined
sewer overflows, and nonpoint sources
Information on habitat modification including the status and trends in
ar,!-!9! °! *"[lmer8ed ac*uatic vegetation; acreage of tidal wetlands; miles
of diked, bulkheaded, or stabilized shoreline; and dredging operations
Information on changes in living resources including discussion of any
increases or decreases in the abundance or distribution of species
dependent on estuarine, near coastal, or Great Lakes waters; changes in
spec.es diversity over time; and changes in the amount of catch
Wherever possible, these changes should be discussed in terms of their
causes (water quality versus changes in fishing regulations, overuse of
EPA and NOAA are paying special attention to coastal issues. Any data
acquired through these agencies' coastal initiatives should be included in the
assessment. Data of particular interest include data collected under the
National Coastal Monitoring Act of 1992, which establishes the basis for a
comprehensive national monitoring program for coastal ecosystems.
In addition, the State should discuss its activities, if any, under EPA's Great
Lakes Program, the National Estuary Program, the Near Coastal Water Pilot
M^A?' the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Gulf of Mexico Program, and
Mid-Atlantic Bight and New York Bight programs. Any additional State
programs, research activities, or new initiatives in estuarine or coastal
waters or the Great Lakes should be discussed in this chapter. Information
on coastal (tidal estuarine) or Great Lakes wetlands should be reported in
Chapter 6: Wetlands Assessment.
Chapter Six: Wetlands Assessment
Protecting the Nation's wetland resources (including riparian areas) is a high
priority at EPA, other Federal agencies, and most States. Wetlands are
considered waters of the United States and of the States. In an effort to
gain more comprehensive information on State efforts to protect wetlands
EPA requests information on State wetland resources and protection
activities in the State 305(b) reports. This information is vital to efforts to
integrate wetlands protection into traditional base water programs.
Although EPA recognizes that information on wetland quality and extent
may not be generally available, the Agency encourages States to report
existing information for their wetlands. Previously reported information
should be updated where applicable. States should report on coastal (i e
tidal, estuarine or Great Lakes) wetlands in this section of their report, rather
than in Chapter 5: Estuary and Coastal Assessment.
37
-------
States that wish to do so may report separately on nonwetlands riparian
areas. Riparfan areas are essential components of riverine ecosystems,
especially in the western United States.
Extent of Wetland
States should provide information on their wetland types and their historical,
most recent, and second most recent acreages (specify when available).
Table 13 is provided as a guide for formatting information. Define wetland
types using the Cowardin classification system currently used by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979; FWS/OBS-79/31). If
another classification system is used, please identify the system. Also, list
sources of information and discuss reasons for acreage change, where
known. EPA encourages States to include maps of significant wetlands if
this information is available and to describe current or planned inventory
programs for their wetland resources.
Table 13. Extent of Wetlands, by Type
Wetland Type3
Historical
Extent
{acres}1
1992 Reported
Acreage2
(second most
recent acreage)
Most Recent
Acreage3
(if any
recorded)
% Change
from 1992 to
Most Recent
Sources of Information
1
2
3
Use Cowardin et al. (1979)-Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States, Fish and Wildlife Report FWS/OBS-79/31-or report classification
system used.
NOTE:
This table merely clarifies reporting requirements contained in earlier versions of
this guidance. This table is not a new reporting requirement.
38
-------
N*t n w «Ce* ° mformatlon include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory, the State fish and game department, and the
State parks and recreat.on agency (wetlands are to be included in State
Outdoor Recreation Plans).
Integrity of Wetland
EPA encourages States to report on the attainment of designated uses in
dpi H areaS> T° the 6Xtent P°SSible' COmP'ete Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6
(designated use support, causes and sources of impairment) for wetlands
and present them in this chapter. weuanas
States should discuss their wetland monitoring program in a brief narrative
nclude information on the scope and comprehensiveness of the program
(e.g., parametric and geographic coverage), types of monitoring, and how
use support decisions are made.
Development of Wetlan^ Water Quality j
I!) itL^K90^^ ^Ub!iShed 9uidance on the level of achievement expected
n J t t H H 6ni°f FY 1 "3 Jn the devel°P<nt of wetland water
quality standards. Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to
ensure that, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, wetlands are
afforded the same level of protection as other waters. Development of
wetlands water quality standards provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
rid' T V TT meem 8CtiVitieS induding' but not limited to, monitoring
and assessmen under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402 and
^1" !,' tquallty,cer^fication under Section 401, and control of nonpoint
source pollution under Section 319. ""MUHU
Table 14 is a guide for presenting tabular information on development of
State wetlands water quality standards.
Table 14. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
Implementation Method
NOTE:
uILn36 Thfey K,arifieS rePOrtln° re£luirements contained in earlier versions of this
guidance. This table is not a new reporting requirement.
39
-------
To supplement the information in Table 14, States should list designated
uses for wetfands. In addition States should
Identify any modifications to existing human health and aquatic life criteria
for wetlands.
Briefly describe State efforts to develop narrative and numeric biological
criteria. Provide examples where appropriate.
Briefly describe classification of wetlands in State antidegradation policy
Provide an example of how State antidegradation policies are used to
protect critical wetlands.
Indicate whether the State specifically identifies wetlands as "waters of
the State."
Wetland activities typically cut across various agencies' responsibilities
Briefly describe any mechanism to coordinate wetland issues among
relevant State organizations.
Additional Wetland Protection
This section is designed to update EPA on State wetland protection activities
and provide States with an opportunity to exchange information on
achievements and obstacles in protecting their wetland resources
Discussions need not be extensive or detailed but should
List the Federal permits or licenses to which the State applies Section 401
certification authority, discuss 401 certification of Section 404 nationwide
permits, and specify whether the State uses guidelines or regulations to
implement Section 401 .
If possible, summarize in tabular format 401 certification activity over the
past 2 years: type of federal permit/license; number of acres of wetlands
affected; decision (waive, deny, establish conditions); and party
responsible for monitoring of conditions.
Provide an example of how the State integrates wetlands protection
activities with programs dealing with stormwater runoff (nonpoint source
control and Section 402 stormwater management).
* ?n!f^w^SCrlbe 3ny State activities' Past an<* Present, funded through the
104(b)(3) wetland grant program.
Briefly describe the most effective mechanism or innovative approach
used in protecting wetlands (such as Outstanding Resource Waters State
Wetland Conservation Plan, watershed or local planning, State Program
40
-------
General Permits under Section 404, Section 401 certification and wetland
£aTn?£S *tandards)- Note if these are being partially supported by
the 104(b)(3) State Wetland Grant Program.
Chapter Seven: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Size Of Waters Affected bv Toxicanfy
Using the format in Table 15, States should report on the extent of toxicant-
caused problems in each waterbody type. WBS can generate the totals
needed for this table from waterbody-specific information. Each State
defines "elevated levels of toxicants", which can include exceedances of
numeric State water quality standards, 304(a) criteria, and/or Food and Drua
Administration (FDA) action levels or levels of concern (where numeric
criteria do not exist). Elevated levels of .toxicants may occur in the water
column, in fish tissue, or in sediments. As a means of providing perspective
States should discuss which toxic pollutants have been monitored for and '
include a list of those toxic pollutants for which the State has adopted
numeric criteria. H
Public Health/Aquatic Lifft
To the extent possible, States should provide information on the following
public health and aquatic life impacts of toxic and nontoxic contamination:
Fishing or shellfishing advisories currently in effect
Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities; States may choose to distinguish
recurring fish kills from other pollution-caused fish kills occurring durinq
the reporting period (clearly identify approach used).
Sites of known sediment contamination
Shellfish restrictions/closures currently in effect
Restrictions on surface drinking water supplies during this reporting cycle
Restrictions on bathing areas during this reporting cycle
Incidents of waterborne disease during this reporting cycle
Other aquatic life impacts of pollutants and stressors (e.g., reproductive
interference, threatened or endangered species impacts).
States should use tables to summarize key statistics regarding toxic and
nontoxic impacts, but should supplement the tables with narrative as
appropriate. For example, EPA encourages States to discuss the
41
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III:
Table 15. Total Size Affected by Toxicants
Waterbody
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (miles2)
Coastal waters (miles)
Great Lakes (miles)
Freshwater wetlands
(acres)
Tidal wetlands (acres)
!^=^S^^S:^^=SS:=:BS:SS:^SS^=S
Size Monitored
for Toxicants9
=a^=^=^^^=SBSSSSB=S^^^^B^BB=
Size with Elevated
Levels of Toxicants5
To generate the totals needed for this table from the WBS, the Monitored for Toxics
field in WBS must be entered as "yes" for each appropriate waterbody.
Totals for this column can be generated from waterbody-specific information in the
WBS if total size affected by toxicants is stored for each waterbody using Cause
Code 2400 ("Total Toxicants"). For example, assume a waterbody is 10 miles in
size, with 4 miles impacted by metals and 3 miles impacted by pesticides. However,
the total portion of the waterbody that is impacted by toxicants is only 5 miles
(because some miles have both metals and pesticides). In WBS, 5 miles must be
entered under Code 2400: Total Toxicants for WBS to accurately calculate
Statewide Summaries for Table 15. If code 2400 is left blank, the WBS will provide
an approximation using information entered under special toxics codes (e.g., metals
pesticides). Refer to the WBS Users Guide for more information.
42
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART .11: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
"^^^^""liBBMBMBMM
0- monitorjn9 effort fr° which these data are derived and
to place these .mpacts m perspective as compared to other water quality
1±T !" H6 State" ?tateS 8re reminded to conside' ^tuaries and
wetlands m the waters hsted below, as appropriate. Separate tables are
i '-'
fish kills ; Tables 16 through 21 provide examples. These tables may require
information from outside the State water quality agency. For example Taote
16 requires up-to-date information on consumption restrictions thaws'
n"6 ^ health 3genCy °r EPA'S National Fish
Database. Note that these tables do not represent
tW° °Pti°nS f°r Preparin9 Tables 16 through 21.
a stand"alone module that exists
asMswriOT88 8lSO COnta'nS Aquatic Contam'nation Codes in the main WBS
+K«»« ~ j S!lr,!LlnS users may assign to a waterbody. By enterina in
these codes, WBS users can perform a wide variety of queries and Generate
hsts of waterbodies that can be used to prepare Tables 16-21 The WBS
Aquatic Contamination Codes are:
I - c-'SK(Sue!!liSh tiSSUe contamination above FDA/NAS levels of concern
* - Fish/shellfish advisory in effect (see Appendix C, Item 2)
Restricted consumption advisory for subpopulation
Restricted consumption advisory, general population
No consumption" advisory for a subpopulation
"No consumption" advisory or ban, general population
Commercial fishing ban
Bathing area closure, occurred during reporting period
qhlntflich"reJated fl!h abnormalitV observed during reporting period
Shellfish advisory due to pathogens, currently in effect
Pollution-caused fish kill, occurred during reporting period
Sediment contamination
Surface drinking water supply closure, occurred during reporting
Surface drinking water supply advisory, occurred during reporting
Waterborne disease incident, occurred during reporting period.
See the WBS User's Guide for more information.
2b =
2c =
2d =
2e =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 =
8 =
9 =
10 =
43
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^MM^BBHHB^BHHHBH
Table 16. Waterbodies Affected by Fish and Shellfish8 Consumption Restrictions
Nam* of
terbody and
tification No.
Reach No*
==BBBSB=SB55B
Watarbody
Typa
sssssssssss
Siza
Affected
SSSSSSSSSSB
=BB=BB=:!5BB!==:!::!^^
Typa of Fishing Restriction
No Conaumption
Qanaral
Population
BBBBBSaSBBB
Sub-
population
===SSSSSS=
Limited Conaumption
Ganarat
Population
==s=s=
Sub-
Population
= HB __
ssssss
CaiM
(PoButi
Of Coi
__^^_
Does not include shellfish harvesting restrictions due to pathogens. See Table 19.
teNF t K, EPA'8 fJ8h Consum"tion "*"* database, which is accessible through
the NPS electronic bulletin board. EPA expects to complete an updated version in the Fall of 1993 and
hl°^h V V^t 3°!Ib) Ci0°rdinator8- Coordinators may verify the printout with their colleagues in State
health departments and include the corrected printout by reference in the 305(b) report in lieu of Table 16 or
transfer mfon-nat.on to Table 16. EPA will also provide instructions to access the database on the NPS
electronic bulletin board.
Table 17. Waterbodies Affected by Fish Kills and Fish Abnormalities
=^=^^^5!
amaof
irbody and
Roation No.
laachNo.
-^ . .
===:
SSSS^^SBS
Watarbody
Typa
^^^MI^^M^M^^..^
=====:=
Siza
Affaetad
B-B
======
Cauaaia)
|Pollutant[«])
of Concam
^^^^-^^^-^MMBMM^
"^ ^ ^ _
SB
Souroa(a) of
Pollutant{«)
Number of
Fiah Kitted
Number of
Fiah with
Abnormalities
Table 18. Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination
Name of
Walarbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Watarbody
Typa
Siza
Affected
NOTE:
These tables merely clarify reporting requirements contained in earlier versions of
this guidance. These tables are not new reporting requirements.
44
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
^^^^^^^"^"^^"^^"^M^
Table 19. Waterbodies Affected by Shellfish Advisories due to Pathoflens
Nam* of
Watarbody «nd
Identification No.
or Reach Wo.
Waterbody
Typa
Size
Affected
Source* of Pathogana and/or Indicator**
Indicators include, but are not limited to fecal coliforms and £. coli.
Table 20. Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area Closures
Mama of
Watarfaody and
Wentificatton No.
or Reach No.
Watarbody
Typa
Siza
Affaetad
Cauaa(a)
(Pollutant!.]) of
Concern*
Souroata) of
Pollutant («}
Comments (Chronic or
Om-tima Event)
:s include, but are not limited to medical waste, fecal coliforms, £ coli
pathogenic contamination.
enterococci, and other indicators of
Table 21. Waterbodies Affected by Surface Drinking Water Restrictions
Name of
Watarbody
and
Identification
No. or Reach
No.
Cause(s)
(PollutanKa)] of
Concern
a Closures restrict all consumption from a drinking water supply.
b Advisories require that consumers disinfect water (through boiling or chemica. treatment, before
ingestion.
urp K, re«urements ^ntained in earlier versions of
this guidance. These tables are not new reporting requirements.
45
-------
EPA has developed a National Fish Consumption Advisory Database to
encourage information exchange among (and within) States. States
reviewed and corrected a draft of the database in 1992. EPA will provide
hard copy of the corrected database to State 305(b) Coordinators for use in
the 1994 reporting cycle. The database will also be accessible through
EPA's Nonpoint Source Bulletin Board System. The EPA contact for the
database is Jeff Bigler at (202) 260-1305.
46
-------
PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
Section 106(e)(1) of the Clean Water Act states that ground water quality
information should be reported by the States in their Section 305(b) reports
The State agency responsible for the development or implementation of the'
State's ground water protection strategy should prepare the ground water
part of the Section 305(b) report.
EPA has worked with the States to develop a comprehensive approach to
protecting the Nation's ground water resources. The overall goal of this
policy is to prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment
and to protect the environmental integrity of the Nation's ground water
resources. As part of this approach. States are developing Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) consisting of a series
of strategic activities, including monitoring and documenting progress that
will enable the States and EPA to reach this goal. Guidance on the
comprehensive approach encourages States to collect and report ground
water data to help provide a national picture of ground water protection
progress and needs (EPA Office of The Administrator, Final Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance, EPA 100-R-93-001
December 1992). This reporting will be linked in some measure to future
305(b) reports.
The first two sections of these guidelines, Overview and Ground Water
Quality, describe the reporting elements included in the Section 305(b)
report in prior years and should be regarded as the baseline of ground water
reporting to be provided. The last section, Ground Water Indicators
describes a set of indicators that can be used to track progress and trends in
ground water protection efforts and should be reported when data are
readily available.
Overview
The States should provide a brief summary overview, in narrative form that
describes the general quality of the State's ground water, including findings
of major studies, issues of concern now and for the future, and progress in
developing ground water protection programs. This summary overview will
serve as an introduction to the State's ground water conditions and special
issues.
If States have more detailed information than requested in these guidelines
for some or all ground water quality indicators, EPA encourages the States
to use the most detailed information they have readily available. In the
47
-------
^^^^^^^^"^iMMi^^B^Mi
future, EPA plans to request additional information from States on their
ambient ground water monitoring programs and the designated uses of their
ground water resources (e.g., drinking, agricultural, industrial, etc.).
EPA will continue to work with the States as part of the CSGWPP process
as well as with others in the ground water protection community to develop
additional indicators for the 1996 Guidelines that address more directly the
States' concerns about representing the quality of all of their ground water
resources.
Ground Water Quality
Many States have engaged in studies to identify the specific contaminants
that are degrading the quality of their ground water resources and to
distinguish the sources of those contaminants. In reporting to Congress for
1994, EPA will characterize the trends identified by the States both for the
major sources of ground water quality degradation and for major
contaminants. Therefore, EPA requests that the States continue to
qualitatively address these two areas of ground water quality. EPA is asking
each State to complete Tables 22 and 23 of these guidelines and provide
supporting text to describe any additional or special factors that they would
like to highlight.
Major Sources of Contamination - Table 22
States should note that this table is modified slightly from previous
Guidelines and the sources are organized alphabetically. It is not necessary
to quantitatively prioritize the sources of contamination; simply group the
major sources into the three qualitative categories described below.
Using Table 22, States should
First, check those sources of ground water contamination that are
considered major sources of contamination in your State. Because
definitions of these terms vary from State to State based on the specific
categories of data that the States maintain, States should clarify terms as
necessary. This would include a State's definition of any source
categories that may be unique to the State or distinct from EPA's
conventional use of terminology. Simply indicate "NA" for any source
that is "not applicable' in your State.
Second, indicate the relative priority of each source (H = high, M =
medium, and L = low).
Third, identify the basis used for establishing the priority ranking using
the list of factors provided at the end of Table 22. Describe any
additional or special factors that you would like to highlight.
48
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 22. Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Source
Animal Feedlots
Containers
Deep Injection Wells
De-icing Salt Storage Piles
Fertilizer Applications
Irrigation practices (return flow)
Land Application
Landfills (permitted)
Landfills (unpermitted)
Material Transfer Operations
Material Stockpiles
Mining and Mine Drainage
Pesticide Applications
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Radioactive Disposal Sites
Salt-water Intrusion
Septic Tanks
Shallow Injection Wells
Storage Tanks (above ground)
Storage Tanks (below ground)
Storm Water Drainage Wells
Surface Impoundments
Transportation of Materials
Urban Runoff
Waste Tailings
Waste Piles
Other (specify)"
Chack
Relative
Priority
Factor$b
Include other sources of concern in your State.
Factors for Establishing Relative Priority
(1) number of sources
(2) location of sources relative to ground water
used as drinking water
(3) size of the population at risk from contaminated
drinking water
(4) risk posed to human health and/or the
environment from released substances
(5) high to very high priority in localized areas of
State, but not over majority of State
(6) hydrogeologic sensitivity
(7) findings of the State's ground water protection
strategy or other reports
(8) other criteria (please specify)
49
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
""^""^^^""^"""^^i^
Ground Water Contaminants - Table 23
As with the previous table, States should note that this table also is modified
slightly from previous Section 305(b) Guidelines and the contaminants are
reorganized. The format of the table is now very similar to Table 22 except
that it focuses on contaminants instead of sources. At a minimum, for 1994
States should report the qualitative information in the table as shown. For
the future, States should also start thinking about quantitatively identifying
contaminant occurrence based on data collected by Statewide ground water
monitoring programs. This may include reporting the actual number of
documented occurrences of contaminants, the number of sites with ongoing
investigations or cleanup activities that have documented specific
contaminants, the number of public water supply wells or systems with each
type of contaminant, and the total number of sites assessed or wells
monitored.
EPA recognizes that not all States test for all contaminants. It is possible
that some States may not report a specific contaminant from their list simply
because its presence is not monitored. In actuality, it could be that no data
exist to either support or refute the contaminant's presence. Therefore, for
1994, in addition to identifying contaminants currently affecting ground
water supplies, EPA is asking each State to provide a list of those
contaminants for which it tests ground water as well as the detection level
for each contaminant. This will help avoid reporting misleading information.
In Table 23, States should
Check which of the contaminants listed are found in the State's ground
water as a result of the sources listed in Table 22.
Provide the relative priority of each contaminant (H = high, M = medium,
and L =low).
Identify the basis used for establishing the priority ranking using the list of
factors provided at the end of Table 23. Describe any additional or
special factors that you would like to highlight, including whether or not
your State monitors for it.
50
-------
Table 23. Ground Water Contaminants
Relative
Priority
Contaminant Category
Organic Contaminants
Pesticides
Other agricultural chemicals"
^____
Petroleum compounds
Other Organic Chemicals:
Volatile
Semi-volatile
Miscellaneous'
Microbial Contaminants
^~*»^-^^
Bacteria
^^^^«
Protozoa
«^»«
Viruses
Inorganic Contaminants
,
Pesticides
Other agricultural chemicals'
Nitrate
^"^^^l^.*
Fluorides
^-
Brine/Salinity
^^«^^^^
Metals
Other metals'
-^^^«.
Radionuclides
Other'
Specify any other contaminants of concern in your State. If necessary, add an additional sheet.
Factors for Establishing Relative Priority
(1) areal extent of contamination
(2) location of contamination relative to ground
water used as drinking water
(3) size of the population at risk from drinking
water threatened by this contaminant
(4) risk posed to human health and/or the
environment from this contaminant
(5) high priority in localized areas of State, but not
over majority of State
(6) hydrogeologic sensitivity to this contaminant
(7) findings of the State's ground water protection
strategy or other reports
(8) other criteria (please specify)
51
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
Ground Water Indicators
The ground water indicators described below are a limited set of selected
data that, when taken together, give a relative indication of the condition of
the ground water resource. As these indicators are collected over time, the
data will be used to help determine trends in the progress that States and
the Nation are making in improving and protecting this resource.
As part of the State's 305(b) report for 1994, the State should report data
for the following four indicators, where data are available:
(1) Number of maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances for ground
water-based or partial ground water-supplied community public water
systems (PWSs). (Note: Partial ground water-supplied PWSs are those
that rely on sources of ground water to supply part of their water
supply. They do not necessarily rely solely on ground water as a source
of water).
(2) Number of ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs with reported MCL exceedances;
(3) Number of ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs with detections between 50 and 100 percent of
MCLs; and
(4) Number of ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs that have local Wellhead Protection Programs in
place.
EPA recognizes that these ground water indicators may not present a
complete picture of the condition of the Nation's ground water resources.
Good examples of this are the two indicators that are based on MCLs.
States routinely monitor for MCL violations in treated not raw water.
Therefore, MCL data alone do not perfectly represent the true quality of the
ground water. If there are MCL exceedances, however, the number of
violations does provide a good indication of the general quality of the State's
ground water. Given these limitations, EPA would like to emphasize the
following: States should use the best data that they have available for each
indicator. If States have access to "better" information than these
Guidelines specifically request, EPA urges these States to use the more
detailed data in addition to the data that EPA has requested. EPA asks the
States to identify that they are departing from the Guidelines and to clearly
describe the data they are providing.
The following provides some examples of "better" data States may choose
to use to supplement what EPA has requested in these guidelines:
52
-------
MCL exceedances in raw water rather than treated water. Unless
otherwise stated, EPA will assume that the data represent treated water
MCL exceedances by a specific wellhead or wellfield rather than by PWS
Unless otherwise stated, EPA will assume that the data are presented by'
r Wo
Data on PWSs relying solely, rather than partially, on ground water
Other types of PWSs (e.g., noncommunity water systems, nontransient
noncommunity water systems) in addition to community PWSs.
These examples are just some of many possible enhancements that EPA
encourages States to make to their reporting of ground water quality
indicators if States have access to more detailed data. At a minimum EPA
is requesting MCL-related indicator data for ground water-based or partial
ground water-supplied community PWSs because these are the most readily
available data. If States do not have data for one or more indicators at the
level of detail that EPA is requesting in these Guidelines, however, EPA
urges those States to plan now to begin collecting the requested data for
future reporting.
Reporting these minimum ground water indicators once every two years will
provide Congress with a snapshot view of the condition of the Nation's
ground water resources. It will also enable EPA and the States to track
trends in ground water quality over time and will help support better decision
making and priority setting for State ground water protection efforts. EPA is
strongly promoting wider use of indicator data across all Federal as well as
State environmental programs to report on the quality of environmental
resources and progress in protection programs.
The importance of being able to measure trends in ground water was one of
the key recommendations of EPA's Ground Water Monitoring Strategy.
Furthermore, one of the criteria for determining the adequacy of States'
comprehensive ground water protection programs is the extent of ground
water monitoring, data collection and analysis activities conducted to
determine the extent of ground water contamination. This criterion suggests
that States will have a monitoring and data management program that would
result in a ground water indicator collection and reporting process EPA's
Ground Water Protection Strategy for the 1990s also identifies the use of a
percent of MCLs as an indicator, which, if reached, suggests that additional
management action is needed to protect the resource and avoid the failure of
reaching an MCL.
53
-------
1994305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
-^^m^HMB
EPA initiated development of these ground water indicators by sponsoring a
two-day workshop in 1986 that was attended by representatives of various
EPA offices, other Federal agencies, State agencies, public interest groups,
and technical organizations. Workshop participants developed a number of
principles that they felt EPA should consider when choosing ground water
indicators. Following the workshop, EPA developed a preliminary list of
indicators and conducted interviews with State, Regional and Federal
officials to refine this list. Finally, EPA used the results of three State pilot
studies and continued assistance from States and EPA program offices to
develop the indicators presented in these guidelines.
Several States have expressed interest in using indicators as part of Section
305(b) reporting in place of, or in addition to, the previous ground water
guidelines. However, EPA recognizes that each State has different ground
water data management needs and programs. EPA also recognizes that
further work is needed to identify additional indicators that more effectively
measure the condition of the total ground water resource. EPA will continue
to work with the States as part of the CSGWPP process, as well as with
others in the ground water protection community, to develop additional
indicators for the 1996 Guidelines that address more directly the States'
concerns about representing the quality of all of their ground water
resources.
Some States are already collecting and maintaining the indicator data
described here as well as additional monitoring data, while others are not.
For those that are, these Guidelines provide instruction on reporting the data
for their 1994 305(b) reports. For those States that are not collecting all of
these data, these Guidelines provide a baseline for data to gather as they
develop ground water quality monitoring and data collection systems. For
more assistance on ground water data needed to characterize a State's
ground water resources, States may wish to consult EPA's Ground Water
Resource Assessment Technical Assistance Document, due to be released in
late 1993 or early 1994. As further indicator guidelines are developed, they
will help set the stage for those States that are moving toward developing
comprehensive ground water monitoring and information systems,
particularly in relationship to ground water indicator reporting, and will assist
those States that are already in the process. The guidelines and tables for
each of these indicators are provided below.
Ground Water Indicator 1: MCL Exceedances
For Table 24, States should
For three contaminant groups-metals, VOCs, and pesticides-identify the
five contaminants for which MCLs are most often exceeded.
54
-------
- report the number of samples that exceeded MCLs during the latest
12-month penod for which data are available. Report such violations
only for ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs.
- report the number of samples monitored for MCLs during the 12-
month reporting period.
Table 24 Number of MCL Exceedances for Ground Water-based or Partial Ground Water-
supphed Community PWSs for Selected Contaminants in Four
No, of MCL
Exceedances
Contaminant Group
Metals
55
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV:
MH^HMMHMM^H
EPA is requesting States to provide this information because
Using MCL exceedances as an indicator is consistent with the CSGWPP
approach, which recognizes the use of MCLs as a principal means of
establishing a reference point for ground water protection activities
where ground water is a current or reasonably expected source of
drinking water.
From a public health standpoint, this indicator will provide ground water
quality information on a very important use of ground water (i.e., drinking
water).
By reporting the number of samples monitored for MCLs, States will be
placing their number of MCL exceedances in perspective.
EPA will aggregate the data provided by States to obtain a national
percentage of MCL exceedances for the State-listed contaminants. In
order for EPA to derive this national figure for all ground water-based or
partial ground water-supplied community PWSs, States must report their
data numerically.
Reporting the number of MCL exceedances for selected contaminants for
the most recent 12-month period every other year provides a "snapshot"
of the most important ground water contaminants while limiting the
States' reporting burden.
Although MCL data are available to EPA via the Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS) data base, having States supply these data gives them
the opportunity to review the data for suitability for 305(b) reporting.
Ground Water Indicator 2: Number of PWSs with MCL Exceedances
For Table 25, States should
Report the total number of ground water-based or partial ground water-
supplied community PWSs in the State.
List the population served by the total number of ground water-based or
partial ground water-supplied community PWSs in the State.
Report the number of PWSs (i.e., ground water-based or partial ground
water-supplied community PWSs) that had MCL exceedances during the
12-month reporting period for the contaminants listed in Table 24. Do
not report the number of MCL exceedances in Table 25.
56
-------
IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
Estimate the population served by the number of ground water-based or
partial ground water-supplied community PWSs that had MCL
exceedances.
Table 25. Number of Ground Water-based or Partial Ground Water-supplied
Community PWSs with MCL Exceedances
Ground Water-based or Partial
Ground Water-supplied
Community PWSs
******j-*-i-n--"-^ ........ ..
Population
Served
Ground Water-based or Partial Ground
water-supplied Community PWSs with
MCL Exceedances
EPA is requesting that States provide this information because
Reporting the population served for all ground water-based or partial
ground water-supplied community PWSs in the State and for those
gr°"nc* ater-based or partial ground water-supplied community PWSs
with MCL exceedances directly links this indicator to human health
By reporting the total number of ground water-based or partial ground
water-supplied community PWSs and the number of PWSs with MCL
exceedances, States will place their number of systems with
exceedances in perspective
EPA will aggregate the data provided by States to obtain a national
percentage of all ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs with MCL exceedances for the contaminants each
State listed. In order for EPA to derive this national figure States
report their data numerically.
iround Water Indicator 3: Detections of 50
Using Table 26, States should
For the same priority constituents identified in Table 24, report the
number of sample detections between 50 and 100 percent of the
established MCL that occurred during the 12-month reporting period
Report such violations only for ground water-based or partial ground'
water-supplied community PWSs.
57
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV:
GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
EPA is requesting States to provide this information in an effort to provide
an early warning of potentially more serious incidents of ground water
contamination. Changes over time in the number of detections in this range
of 50 to 100 percent of MCLs may suggest that future MCL exceedances
will occur. Such changes also suggest changes in quality that are likely
affecting the wider ground water resource. Knowledge of such changes
over time could help wellhead managers identify potential problem areas to
investigate and possibly implement additional protection measures or
remediate sources of contamination before violations occur.
Table 26. Number of Sampling Detections Between 50 and 100 Percent of MCLs
for Four Contaminant Groups
Contaminant Group
Metals
VOCs
Pesticides
Nitrate
**^~Z ^=SS:^S^SS8SSS5S55SSSS5SSSES5SSSS
Contaminant
^ _..
S^^^^^BBBSBBBBBSBBBBSSBBSBSHS:
No. of MCL Samples
Between 50 and 100%
of the MCL
58
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND-WATER ASSESSMENT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Ml
EPA understands that some States may not have data available to fully
characterize this indicator. States are encouraged to use related data that
they may have available and, if necessary, to report such related data in
another format if they cannot complete this table as it is presented in these
felines EPA also realizes that lead contamination may be a result of Tad
n the water distribution system rather than contamination associated wi h
ar^Z wa*er:esource- Regardless of this likelihood. States should still
report data on lead contamination.
iround Water Indicator 4: Local Wellhead Pi
For Table 27, States should report
The number of ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs and the number of people served by those systems
This information is available from Table 25.
The number of ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied
community PWSs that have local wellhead protection programs (WHPPs)
in place and the number of people these PWSs serve. " (VVMKKS'
IfhWHPPT]±n ""I"6, US6d I'?8'* Pr°9reSS and assess the effectiveness
of WHPPs in those States with EPA-approved programs States can use
r± eSf rPP,Biennial RePOrtS 8S a s<*-Pfor9the quantftltte data
required by this indicator. States that have WHPPs but do not have an EPA-
approved program can use other sources of information.
Table 27. Number of Ground Water-based or Partial Ground Water-supplied Community
PWSs that Have Local Wellhead Protection Programs In Place
Number of Ground
Water-based or Partial
Ground Water-
supplied Community
PWSs
Population Served
Number of Ground
Water-based or Partial
Ground Water-supplied
Community PWSs with
Local WHPP in Place
59
-------
PART V: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Chapter One: Point Source Control Program
Within the context of both technology-based and water-quality-based
controls, States should provide a general overview of the point source
control program. Focus on program actions, their relationship to water
quality, and their effectiveness in improving water quality. Discuss, in
particular, State programs to assess and control the discharge of toxic
pollutants.
EPA will use information available through the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) to summarize national progress. EPA encourages the States to
provide additional quantitative information if they desire.
Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source Control Program
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act
of 1987, required States to conduct an assessment of their nonpoint source
(NPS) pollution problems and submit that assessment to EPA. In this
chapter, the State is asked to update its Section 319(a) assessment report
and discuss highlights of its nonpoint source management programs,
including NPS priority watersheds. Updated waterbody-specific information
on Section 319 waters should be included in the WBS. In addition, if a
State provides a hard-copy list of its Section 319 waters, it should do so
here or in a clearly identified Appendix.
Program highlights to be reported in this chapter should include both
activities funded under Section 319 and nonpoint source activities funded
from other Federal, State, or local sources. Highlights may include, but are
not limited to, results of special nonpoint source projects, new State
legislation for nonpoint source control, Section 319 ground-water activities,
an analysis of the change in water quality due to implementation of NPS
controls, and innovative activities begun/completed since the last 305(b)
reporting cycle (e.g., intergovernmental initiatives, watershed targeting,
point source/nonpoint source trading).
In addition, States may refer to several other sources that will help them in
reporting on nonpoint sources. The Nonpoint Source Guidance (December
1987) describes annual reporting for the Section 319 Management Program,
which is not included in the 305(b) reporting process.
60
-------
1994 305(b) CONTENTS - PART V: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
eaCrf '? te W'th a federa"V approved coastal z° management
program to develop a coastal nonpoint program to restore and protect
coastal waters. States must implement management measures in
conform.tyw.th guidance issued by EPA and NOAA to protect coastal
waters. Th.s guidance, Technical Guidance Specifying Manage"
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, describes
Section 6217 also requires that States develop additional management
measures to address more localized problems resulting from particular land
uses or to manage critical coastal areas adjacent to impaired or threatened
waters. These additional management measures are to be impementedtn
comb.nat.on with the basic management measures specif iedn the technical
gu,dance. In order to meet these requirements. States should begin to fo^us
Zer7±tV, assefs" and ^"9 ""der Section 305(b) on coastal
%£ « ? 9I" tlfV threatened and ^ired waterbodies for which
add.t,onal management measures will be applied. EPA and NOAA have
pZrll o S6P-arate 9UidanCe document- Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program Development and Approval Guidance (NOAA and EPA 1993)
wh,ch describes how and when States are to develop programs to
^h^prf6 manaaement measures. Contact the Nonpoint Source
7085 to 88688"1 and Watershed Pr°tection Division. (202) 260-
Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment
3°5 re.qUireS the States to report on the economic and social costs
aCt'°nS neCeSS8rV t0 achieve the ob'ective °f the C ean
du 1S,rec09ni"d that this information may not be readily available
due to the complex.t.es of the economic analysis involved. However until
such t,me that procedures for evaluating costs and benefits are
f the C°StS °f pollution contro1 a«ivities. States should
nnnnn t investments in ipal and industrial facilities as well as
nonpo,nt source management measures and the costs of operating these
fac.1, .es/measures. In addition, include the costs of administering water
pollufon control activities through State and local government offices
States should also provide, if possible, information on the beneficial
outcomes resulting from actions taken to maintain or improve water quality
cond.t.ons , the State. Some examples might include increasing use of
water-based recreational activities, improvements in commercial fisheries
61
-------
recovery of damaged aquatic environments, and reduced costs of water
treatment undertaken at municipal and industrial facilities.
States should discuss the costs and benefits of water quality achievements
for programs or specific sites documented elsewhere in the report.
Examples of such projects include Clean Lakes restorations and nonpoint
source control projects.
Chapter Four: Special State Concerns and Recommendations
This chapter should consist of two parts. First, States should discuss
special concerns that are significant issues within the State and that affect
its water quality program. List and discuss any special concerns that are not
specifically addressed elsewhere in this guidance, or, if they are addressed,
are not identified as special State concerns. This section is a key part of the
assessment, describing the forces driving specific State programs and
illustrating the complex and varying nature of water quality problems
throughout the country. Include, if possible, the strategies that are being
planned or implemented to alleviate these problems, and give site-specific
examples.
Second, provide recommendations as to additional general actions that are
necessary to achieve the objective of the Clean Water Act: providing for the
protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allowing
recreation in and on the water. Examples of recommendations include
developing more FDA action levels, improving training of municipal treatment
facility operators, correcting combined sewer overflows, placing more
emphasis on the identification and control of nonpoint sources, point
source/nonpoint source trading, basinwide planning, and watershed-based
water quality management.
This chapter should also discuss any programmatic changes occurring or
anticipated due to a shift to basinwide planning or watershed-oriented water
quality management.
62
-------
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Section 305. Water Quality Inventory
(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1
1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter
a report which shall include-
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal tidal
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by
the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant
to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water
quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of
such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish
fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the
water have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act
together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to '
achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is
necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this
Act in such State, (in) the economic and social benefits of such
achievement, and
-------
APPENDIX^: PROVISIONS OFTHE CLEAN WATER ACT
""""""iMMBBMBMBi^B
be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an
analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1,
1976, and biennially thereafter.
Section 106. Grants For Pollution Control Programs
(e) Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make any grant
under this section to any State which has not provided or is not carrying out
as a part of its program-
(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods,
systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile and
analyze data on (including classification according to eutrophic
condition), the quality of navigable waters and, to the extent
practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and
provision for annually updating such data and including it in the report
required under section 305 of this Act;
Section 204. Limitations and Conditions
(a) Before approving grants for any project for any treatment works under
section 201(g)(1), the Administrator shall determine-
(2) that (A) the State in which the project is to be located (i) is
implementing any required plan under section 303(e) of this Act and
the proposed treatment works are in conformity with such plan, or (ii)
is developing such a plan and the proposed treatment works will be in
conformity with such plan, and (B) such State is in compliance with
section 305(b) of this Act.
Section 303. Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
(d)(D (A) Each State shall identify those waters within its
boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by Section
301(b)(1)(A) and Section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters.
The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking
into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of
" -such-waters.
(B) Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof
within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under
Section 301 are not stringent enough to assure protection and
A-2
-------
APPENDPTA: PROVISIONS OFTHE CLEA1OVATER ACT
^^^^^HHI
propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife.
(C) Each State shall establish for the waters identified in
Paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the
priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants
which the Administrator identified under Section 304(a)(2) as
suitable for calculation. Such load shall be established at a level
necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with
seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account
any lack of knowledge concerning the,relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality.
(D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in
Paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal
load required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife ..."
(d)(2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator, from time to time, with
the first submission not later than one hundred and eighty days after the
date of publication of the first identification of pollutants under
Section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters identified and the loads
established under Paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this
subsection ..."
NOTE:
EPA published final revisions to 40 CFR 130.7 (the regulations implementing
Section 303(d)) in the Federal Register on July 24, 1992. The revisions define "from
time to time" as a biennial reporting requirement for submitting prioritized lists of
o?L qualitv-|imited waters- (Note that the regulatory revisions pertain exclusively to
303(d) lists of waters requiring TMDLs and do not require biennial submittals of
TMDLs). The regulations also specify that the State submittals under Section 303(d)
coincide with State Submittals under Section 305{b) and may be submitted as part of
the 305(b) report. From the 303(d) regulations:
"(d) Submission and EPA approval.
(1)
Each State shall submit biennially to the Regional Administrator, beginning in
1992, the list of waters, pollutants causing impairment, and the priority ranking
including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years as
required under Paragraph (b) of this section. For the 1992 biennial submissions
these lists are due no later than October 22, 1992. Thereafter, each State shall
submit to EPA lists required under Paragraph (b) of this section on April 1 of
every even-numbered year. The list of waters may be submitted as part of the
State's biennial water quality report required by Section 130.8 of this part and
Section 305(b) of the CWA or submitted under separate cover."
A-3
-------
Section 314. Clean Lakes
(a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to the Administrator for
his approval-
(A) an identification and classification according to trophic
condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State;
(B) a description of procedures, processes, and methods
(including land use requirements), to control sources of pollution of
such lakes; - -
(C) a description of methods and procedures, in conjunction
with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the quality of such
lakes;
(D) methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of
high acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and
restoring buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from
lakes toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high
acidity;
(E) a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such
State for which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes
which are known not to meet applicable water quality standards or
which require implementation of control programs to maintain
compliance with applicable standards and those lakes in which water
quality has deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may
reasonably be due to acid deposition; and
(F) an assessment of the status and trends of water quality in
lakes in such State, including but not limited to, the nature and extent
of pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to
which the use of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution,
particularly with respect to toxic pollution.
(2) Submission as part of 305(b)(1) Report.-The information required under
paragraph (1) shall be included in the report required under section 305(b)(1)
of this Act, beginning with the report required under such section by April 1
1988.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX Bf-MAKIN(TUSE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
APPENDIX B
MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix on making use support determinations includes
recommendations by the State/EPA 305(b) Consistency Workgroup, which
met in June and October 1992 to discuss the 1994 Guidelines.
Appendix B covers the following topics:
Making Use Support Decisions Using Biological Data
Making Use Support Decisions Using Chemical Data and Other Indicators
Making Use Support Decisions Using Evaluative Data
Additional Considerations for Lakes
Guidelines for Assessing Overall Use Support.
The appendix incorporates recent developments in water quality standards
(specifically, the duration and frequency components of criteria for toxic
chemicals) as described in the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control (EPA, 1991). Also, the appendix:
recommends separate approaches for individual designated use categories
based on whether toxicants or conventionals are being analyzed; includes
specifics for determining acceptable duration and frequency exceedances for
toxicants; recommends EPA values for E. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform bacteria; and makes limited recommendations for designated use
support assessments in lakes. This guidance also augments previous 305(b)
guidance on the use of biological data.
In July 1991, EPA transmitted final national policy on the integration of
biological, chemical, and toxicological data in water quality assessments
According to this policy, referred to as Independent Application, if any one
of the three types of monitoring data (biological, chemical, or toxicological)
indicates impairment of water quality standards, this should be taken as
evidence of impairment regardless of the findings of the other types of data.
(For more information, see EPA's Policy on the Use of Biological
Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program, May 1991). States
should follow this policy of Independent Application when making use
support decisions.
B-1
-------
APPEMDIX~B: MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
"""^I^MIMBMMI
In its 1994 305(b) report, each State should clearly explain its assessment
methods (see Pan III Chapter 2 of these Guidelines). This explanation
should include details of how the State makes use support determinations
(full support, partial support, nonsupport) when independently applied
biological, chemical, or toxicological data suggest different assessment
results. New Assessment Type Codes have been added to the WBS to track
waterbodies in this situation. States and EPA will use this information to
better understand and quantify problems caused by discrepancies in aquatic
life use determinations.
2. MAKING USE SUPPORT DECISIONS \JSING BIOLOGICAL DATA
The following guidance on the use of biological data in making use support
decisions is greatly enhanced from previous reporting cycles. EPA
encourages States to follow the approaches described here (and in the
reference documents cited below) to the extent possible. However, EPA
realizes that there are different tiers of bioassessment and that many States
are not in a position to fully implement these programs quickly. The goal for
a minimally acceptable bioassessment is one comparable to Level II of EPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (USEPA,
1989). States should take the approaches described below and in the
references as goals for State monitoring and assessment programs.
Guidance for lakes and estuaries is under development.
2.1 Aquatic Life Use
2.1.1 Biological Assessment
A. Fully Supporting: Reliable data indicate that the biological
community (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, or algae) has not
been modified beyond the natural range of the reference
condition.
B. Partially Supporting: At least one assemblage (e.g., fish,
macroinvertebrates, or algae) indicates less than full support
with slight to moderate modification of the biological
community noted. Other assemblages indicate full support.
C. Not Supporting: At least one assemblage indicates non-
support. Data clearly indicate severe modification of the
biological community.
2.2 Additional Information on Biological Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Support
Biological assessments are evaluations of the biological condition of
waterbodies using biological surveys and other direct measurements of
resident biota in surface waters. They are done by qualified professional
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B: ^MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
^^^""^^^I^MBM
staff trained in biological methods and data interpretation. The utility of
biological measures has been demonstrated in assessing impairment of
receiving waterbodies, particularly that caused by nonpoint sources and
npntraditional water quality problems such as habitat degradation.
Bioassessment is used to measure the attainment of biological integrity,
which is the ideal condition of a community within a specified habitat and
region. The attainment of biological integrity is the underpinning of the
biocntena process and an integral component of overall ecological integrity
Guidance for development of biocriteria-based programs is provided in the
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters (USEPA
1990) and Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams^and Small
Rivers (USEPA, in review). The techniques for biosurveys are still evolving,
but there have been significant improvements in the last decade.
Appropriate methods have been established by EPA (e.g., USEPA 1989)
State agencies (e.g., Ohio EPA 1987), and other investigators assessing '
biological integrity (e.g., Karr et al. 1986; see references at the end of this
Appendix). As biosurvey techniques continue to improve, several technical
considerations apply:
A MUL TIMETRIC APPROACH TO BIOASSESSMENT is recommended to
strengthen data interpretation and reduce error in judgment based on
isolated indices and measures.
The accurate assessment of biological integrity requires a method that
integrates biotic responses through an examination of patterns and
processes from individual to ecosystem levels (Karr et al., 1986) The
preferred approach is to define an array of metrics that individually provide
information on each biological parameter and, when integrated, function as
an overall indicator of biological condition. The conventional approach is to
select some biological parameter that refers to a narrow range of changes or
conditions and evaluate that parameter. Many ecological studies focus on a
limited number of parameters that might include one or more of the
following: species distributions, abundance trends, standing crop or
production estimates. Parameters are interpreted separately with'a summary
statement about the overall health. This conventional approach is limited in
that the key parameters emphasized may not be reflective of overall
ecological health. The strength of a multimetric approach is its ability to
integrate information from individual, population, community, zoogeographic
and ecosystem levels into a single, ecologically based index of water
resource quality (Karr et al., 1986).
^ Assessment of HABtTA T-STRUC-TURE as an element of the biosurvey is
critical to assessment of biological response.
Interpretation of biological data in the context of habitat quality provides a
mechanism for discerning the effects of physical habitat structure on biota
from those of chemical toxicants. If habitat is of poor or somewhat
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B: TWAKINITUSE SUPPORT DETERMITOTTONS
^HMMI^MMMi^HMM^^
degraded condition, expected biological values are lowered; conversely, if
habitat is in good condition (relative to regional expectations), high biological
condition values are expected. If lowered biological values are indicated
simultaneously with good habitat assessment rating scores, toxic or
conventional contaminants in the system may have caused a suppression of
community development. Additional chemical data may be needed to further
define the probable causes (stressors). On the other hand, high biological
metric scores in poor habitat could indicate a temporary response to organic
enrichment, natural variation in colonization/mortality, change in predation
pressures, change in food source/abundance, siltation, or other factors.
: * *
The identification of the REFERENCE CONDITION is basic to any
assessment of impairment or attainment of aquatic life use and to the
establishment of biological criteria.
Reference conditions are described from an aggregate of data acquired from
multiple sites with similar physical dimensions, represent minimally impaired
conditions, and provide an estimate of natural variability in biological
condition and habitat quality.
Reference conditions must be stratified in order to account for much of the
natural physical and climatic variability that affects the geographic
distribution of biological communities. The Ecoregion Concept (Omernik,
1987) recognizes geographic patterns of similarity among ecosystems,
grouped on the basis of environmental variables such as climate, soil type,
physiography, and vegetation. Procedures have begun in several ecoregions
around the United States to identify reference conditions within those
particular ecoregions. In essence, these studies are developing reference
databases in order to define biological potential and physical habitat
expectations within ecoregions. The concept of reference conditions for
bioassessment and biocriteria is discussed further below.
In developing community bioassessment protocols, reference conditions
against which to compare test sites and to judge impairment are needed.
Ideally, reference conditions represent the highest biological conditions found
in habitats unimpacted by human pollution and disturbance. That is, the
ecoregion/regionalized reference site concept is meant to accommodate
natural variations in biological communities due to bedrock, soils, and other
natural physicochemical differences. Recognizing that pristine habitats are
rare (even remote lakes and streams are subject to atmospheric deposition),
resource managers must decide on an acceptable level of disturbance to
fepresent-an aehievable-or-existing reference condition. Acceptable
reference conditions will differ among geographic regions and States and will
depend on the aquatic life use designations incorporated into State water
quality standards.
B-4
-------
OTPEWDIJCB: WAKTNCTUSE SUPPORT^ DETERMINATIONS
^""^^"^"^^l^
The best approach to classifying and characterizing regional reference
conditions is-determined by the estimated quality of potential reference sites
that are available in the region. If a sufficient number of relatively
undisturbed waterbodies exist (e.g., primarily forested watersheds), then it is
possible to define watershed conditions acceptable for reference sites If no
undisturbed waterbodies exist, then reference conditions can be
characterized based on the best available for the region. Characterization of
reference conditions depends heavily on classification of natural resources
Waterbodies vary widely in size and ecological characteristics, and a single
reference condition that applies to all systems would be misleading A
classification system that organizes waterbodies into groups with similar
ecological characteristics is required to develop meaningful reference
conditions. The purpose of a classification is to explain the natural biological
condition of a natural resource from the physical characteristics: for
example, a deep, cold lake in the northern forested region of the Upper
Midwest will often support a fish community characterized by trout or
walleye as top predators (Heiskary et al., 1987).
EPA sees the use of reference sites as an important component and goal of
State biological programs, but realizes that many States are not in a position
to implement such programs quickly. The Agency also recognizes other
approaches such as upstream/downstream sampling (USEPA, 1990).
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has been very active in the
development of biocriteria based on reference conditions. Ohio's
experiences and methods may be useful to other States in developing their
biological monitoring and biocriteria programs (see, for example, Ohio EPA,
1987, 1990). For further information on the development and
implementation of biological criteria and assessments, States should consult
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters (USEPA
1990) and Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers- '
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (Plafkin et al., 1989).
A standardized INDEX PERIOD is important for consistent and effective
monitoring.
The intent of a State-wide bioassessment program is to evaluate overall
biological conditions. The capacity of the aquatic community to reflect
integrated environmental effects over time can be used as a foundation for
developing bioassessment strategies (USEPA, 1989). An index period is a
time frame for sampling biological communities to evaluate attainment of
-aquatic- life uses, Icteally^ths optimal-index period will correspond to
recruitment cycles of the organisms (based on reproduction, emergence
and migration patterns). In some instances, an index period would be
oriented to maximize impact of a particular pollutant source (e.g., high-
temperature/low-flow period for point sources). Sampling during'an index
period can (1) minimize between-year variability due to natural events
B-5
-------
gPPENDTX~B:nrainNGlJ5E SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
(2) optimize accessibility of the target assemblages, and (3) maximize
efficiency of'sampling gear.
STANDARD OPERA TING PROCEDURES (SOPs) and an effective
QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PROGRAM are established to support the
integrity of the data.
The validity of the ecological study and resultant conclusions are dependent
upon an effective QA Plan. An effective QA Plan at the onset of a study
provides guidance to staff in several areas: objectives and milestones for
achieving objectives throughout the study; lines of responsibility;'
accountability of staff for data quality objectives; and accountability for
ensuring precision, accuracy, completeness of data collection activities, and
documentation of sample custody procedures.
Documented SOPs for developing study plans, maintenance and application
of field sampling gear, performance of laboratory activities, and data
analyses are integral quality control components of QA that can provide
significant control of potential error sources.
AN IDENTIFICA TION OF THE APPROPR/A TE NUMBER OF SAMPLING
SITES that are representative of a waterbody is an important
consideration in evaluating biological condition.
The spatial array of sampling sites in any given watershed and the
extrapolation of biological condition and water quality to areas beyond the
exact sampling point must be established in any type of assessment. Two
primary guidelines can be identified for extrapolating biological assessment
data to whole watersheds. First, the structure of aquatic communities in
lotic (flowing water) systems changes naturally with increase in size of
stream. Thresholds in this continuum of change can be established through
an analysis of regional databases. The biological condition at any particular
site can only be used to represent upstream and downstream areas of the
same physical dimensions and flow characteristics. Likewise, lake size will
influence the number of sites needed to adequately characterize a lake or
area of a lake. In small lakes, one site will generally be sufficient. In large
lakes with multiple basins or in reservoirs with various zones (inflow, mid-
section, outflow), a site representative of each basin or zone may be needed.
A second consideration for site identification is the change in land use
patterns along a stream gradient orlake shoreline. Changes from agricultural
land-use 4o urba«-ceflteFS7-4orested-parkland,«tc., would warrant different
representative sampling sites. A waterbody with multiple dischargers may
also require numerous sampling sites to characterize the biological condition
of the waterbody.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX'S: MAKINCTUSE~SUPPDRT DETERMINATIONS
"^^^^^^^i^MMMi
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DECISIONS USING CHEMICAL DATA AND OTHER
INDICATORS
This guidance is provided to encourage the best and most nationally
consistent use of chemical data. EPA recognizes that many States may not
always collect a broad spectrum of chemical data (and data on additional
indicators such as fishing restrictions) for every waterbody. Therefore,
States are expected to apply the following guidance to whatever data are
available and to use a "worst case" approach where multiple types of data
are available. (If, for example, pathogen conditions indicate impairment of
recreational use but no bathing area closures are in effect, the waterbody is
still considered impaired).
EPA and the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup are interested in cases where
there is a discrepancy among independently applied assessment results
based on biological/habitat, chemical, or toxicological monitoring data. The
WBS contains new Assessment Type Codes for these cases (see Appendix
Table C-1). EPA will use WBS to study those waterbodies with
discrepancies among biological/habitat, chemical, or toxicological
assessments; States are strongly encouraged to enter these codes in their
WBS datasets. States not using WBS should provide a separate list of such
waterbodies and the bases for the final assessment decisions in these cases
The information will help EPA and the States in their efforts to set and/or
refine biological criteria and integrate biological assessment methods into
management decisionmaking .
3.1 Aquatic Life Use
3.1.1 Toxicants (including chlorine and ammonia)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, no violations of acute
criteria (EPA's criteria maximum concentration or applicable
State criteria) within a 3-year period, based on grab or 1-day
composite samples. If 4-day composite data are available, no
violations of chronic criteria within a 3-year period. Exception to
this rule is possible if the State has collected an abundant data
set (i.e., sampling monthly or more frequently over a 3-year
period). In that case, one violation of acute or chronic criteria is
allowable as a once-in-three-years occurrence.
B. ^Partially Supporting: Not applicable. Violations of acute or
- chronic-criteria at greater-than-allowable frequency are assumed
to cause severe impacts to sensitive species.
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, one or more violations of
acute or chronic criteria within a 3-year period (based on
sampling type mentioned above). Exception to this rule is
B-7
-------
APPENDIX B: MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
"i»«^Bi^«l^
possible if the State has collected an abundant data set; in that
case, two or more violations of acute or chronic criteria are
needed to show nonsupport, as a once-in-3-years violation is
allowable.
The following considerations apply to this approach:
States should document their sampling frequency. Waters should have at
least quarterly data to be considered monitored; monthly or more
frequent data are considered abundant. More than 3 years of data may
be used, although the once-in-3-years consideration still applies (i.e., two
violations are allowed in 6 years of abundant data).
The once-in-3-years goal is not intended to include spurious violations
resulting from lack of precision in analytical tests. Therefore, using
documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) assessments,
States may consider the effect of laboratory imprecision on the observed
frequency of violations.
If the duration and frequency specifications of EPA criteria change in the
future, these recommendations should be changed accordingly.
Samples should be taken outside of designated mixing zones or
zones of initial dilution.
3.1.2 Conventionals (DO, pH, temperature)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant or stressor, criteria
exceeded in < 10 percent of measurements. In the case of
dissolved oxygen, national ambient water quality criteria specify
the recommended acceptable daily average and 7-day average
minimums and the acceptable 7-day and 30-day averages.
States should document the DO criteria being used for the
assessment and should discuss any biases which may be
introduced by the sampling program (e.g., grab sampling in
waterbodies with considerable diurnal variation).
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in
11 to 25 percent of measurements. For dissolved oxygen, the
above considerations apply.
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in >25
percent of measurements. For dissolved oxygen, the above
considerations apply.
B-8
-------
3.2 Drinking Water Use
3.2.1 Toxicants (applies to ambient drinking water criteria established in
State standards)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, mean or median <
criterion (use mean for data of normal distribution, median for
non-normal distribution).
B. Partially Supporting: Not applicable. Drinking water use is
assumed either to be supported or not supported based on
whether or not mean or median criterion is met.
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, mean or median s>
criterion (use mean for data of normal distribution, median for
non-normal distribution).
Note that for many toxicants, concentrations are below detection limits and
are not included in ambient monitoring programs. Pathogens are also not
generally monitored in ambient water to determine drinking water suitability
because of the effectiveness of water treatment. Where ambient water
must be of potable quality, States should use guidelines for pathogens
described in Section 5.1.
3.2.2 Drinking Water Supply DPf?
A. Fully Supporting: No drinking water supply closures or
advisories in effect during reporting period; no treatment
necessary beyond "reasonable levels."
B. Partially Supporting: One drinking water supply advisory lasting
30 days or less per year; or problems not requiring closures or
advisories but adversely affecting treatment costs and the
quality of polished water, such as taste and odor problems,
color, excessive turbidity, high dissolved solids, pollutants
requiring activated charcoal filters, etc.
C. Not Supporting: One or more drinking water supply advisories
lasting more than 30 days per year, or one or more drinking
water supply closures per year.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX BTMAKlNa USTSUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
3.3 Primary Contact Recreation Use
3.3.1 Bacteria
States should base use support determinations on their own State criteria for
bacteriological indicators.
EPA encourages States to adopt bacteriological indicator criteria for the
protection of primary contact recreation uses consistent with those
recommended in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986
(EPA 440/5-84-002). This document recommends criteria for enterococci
and E. coli bacteria (for both fresh and marine waters) consisting of:
Criterion 1 - a geometric mean of a statistically sufficient number of
samples should not be exceeded, and
Criterion 2 - no sample should exceed a one sided confidence limit of the
data calculated using the frequency of use of the waterbody.
Many State criteria for the protection of the primary contact recreation use
are based on fecal coliform bacteria as previously recommended by EPA
(Quality Criteria for Water 1976), consisting of:
Criterion 1 - based on a minimum of five samples taken over a 30 day
period, the fecal coliform bacteria level should not exceed a
log mean of 200 per 100 ml, and
Criterion 2 - not more than 10% of the total samples taken during any 30
day period exceed 400 per 100 ml.
If State criteria are based on either of EPA's criteria recommendations
outlined above. States should use the following approach in determining
primary contact recreational use support.
A. Fully Supporting: Criteria exceeded in <10 percent of measurements.
B. Partially Supporting: Criteria exceeded in 11 to 25 percent of
measurements.
C. Not Supporting: Criteria exceeded in >25 percent of measurements.
- This -guidance establishes -a fTHttimum -baseline approach; should States have
more restrictive criteria, these may be used in place of EPA's criteria. Please
indicate when this is the case.
B-10
-------
APPENDI^BrMAKINGUSE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
3.3.2 Bathing Area Closure Data
A. Fully Supporting: No bathing area closures or restrictions in
effect during reporting period.
B. Partially Supporting: On average, one bathing area closure per
year of less than 1 week's duration.
C. Not Supporting: On average, one bathing area closure per year
of greater than 1 week's duration, or more than one bathing area
closure per year.
3.4 Fish Consumption Use
3-4.1 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Data
A. Fully Supporting: No fish/shellfish advisories or bans are in
effect.
B. Partially Supporting: "Restricted consumption" fish advisory or
ban in effect for general population QT a subpopulation that could
be at potentially greater risk (e.g., pregnant women, children).
Restricted consumption is defined as limits on the number of
meals or size of meals consumed per unit time for one or more
fish/shellfish species.
C. Not Supporting: "No consumption" fish/shellfish advisory or ban
in effect for general population, or a subpopulation that could be
at potentially greater risk, for one or more fish species;
commercial fishing/shellfishing ban in effect.
4. MAKING USE SUPPORT DECISIONS USING EVALUATIVE DATA
Evaluative assessments occur where there are no site-specific ambient data.
Such assessments are based on, for example, land use, location of sources,
substantiated citizen complaints, volunteer-collected data,
noncalibrated/verified predictive models using estimated inputs, etc. See
Appendix C for a list of types of evaluative assessments from the Waterbody
System. Appendix C also lists data types that may or may not be
considered evaluative data by a State (quality-assured chemical, biological,
and bacteriological data collected by volunteers; discharger self-monitorina
data).
B-11
-------
APPENDIX ff: TOAKlNGrUSE~SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
4.1 All Uses-Evaluative Assessment
A. Fully Supporting: No point or nonpoint sources are present that could
interfere with the use, or sources are present but information indicates
that uses are fully attained. Criteria attainment predicted.
B. Partially Supporting: Sources are present and information indicates uses
are partially supported 01 there is uncertainty about use support.
Substantiated complaints on record.
C. Not Supporting: Sources are present and information clearly indicates
use not supported. Criteria exceedances predicted.
5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAKES
Guidance is needed to distinguish between use support assessments in lakes
and in rivers, since certain types of commonly collected chemical data may
be of little value in making use support determinations in lakes and since
States tend not to conduct extensive chemical monitoring in lakes.
State lake managers should address a broad array of parameters in making
lake use support decisions. Many of these parameters may not have specific
criteria (e.g., algal blooms, growth of nuisance weeds) but have important
effects on lake uses. Many are also indicators of the level of lake
eutrophication.
Lake resources vary regionally, even within States, due to variations in
geology, vegetation, hydrology, and land use. Therefore, regional patterns of
lake water quality, morphometry (physical characteristics such as size,
shape, and depth), and watershed characteristics should ideally be defined
based on comparison to natural conditions using an ecoregion approach.
The State can then set reasonable goals and criteria for a variety of
parameters (see references for further information). These regional patterns
apply to natural lakes only.
5.1. Recreation Use - Lakes
5.1.1 Trophic Status
Trophic status is traditionally measured using data on total phosphorus,
chlorophyll a, and secchi transparency. As mentioned above, comparison of
trophic conditions to naturalr^ecoregion-specific standards allows the best
use of this measure.
In this context, user perception surveys can be a useful adjunct to trophic
status measures in defining recreational use support. Heiskary and Walker
(1988) and Smeltzer and Heiskary (1990) offer a basis for linking trophic
B-12
-------
status measures with user perception information. This can provide a basis
for categorizing use support based on trophic status data. If user perception
data are not collected in the State, extrapolations using data from another
State, i.e., best professional judgment, might provide the opportunity to
characterize recreational use support in a similar fashion.
5.1.2 Pathogens
States should consider pathogen data in determining support of recreational
uses. Guidelines in Section 3.3 also apply to lakes.
5.1.3 Additional Parameters
In addition to trophic status and pathogens, States should consider the
following parameters in determining support of recreational uses:
Frequency/extent of algal blooms, surface scums and mats, or periphvton
growth
Turbidity (reduction of water clarity due to suspended solids)
Lake bottom siltation (reduction of water depth)
Extent of nuisance macrophyte growth (noxious aquatic plants)
Aesthetics.
5.2 Aquatic Life Use - Lakes
5.2.1 Toxicants and Conventinnak
If available, States should consider data on toxicants and conventionals in
making aquatic life use support determinations. Guidelines in Section 2 1
and 3.1 also apply to lakes.
States should discuss their interpretation of dissolved oxygen, pH, and
temperature standards for both epilimnetic and hypolimnetic waters.
5.5.2 Additional Parameter?
In addition, States should consider the following parameters in determining
support-ef aquatic Itfe uses:
Turbidity
Lake bottom siltation
Exotic species.
B-13
-------
APPENDIX'S: MAKING USE^UPPORT DETERMINATIONS
For Drinking Water and Fish Consumption uses, States should follow the
guidelines in 'Sections 3.2 and 3.4, respectively.
6. GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING OVERALL USE SUPPORT
In assessing waterbodies with multiple uses, States should follow previously
established EPA guidelines. Specifically:
Fully Supporting Overall Use = All uses are fully supported.
Partially Supporting Overall Use = One or more uses are .partially
supported and remaining uses are fully supported.
Not Supporting Overall Use = One or more uses are not supported.
7. REFERENCES
Heiskary, S. A., and B. C. Wilson. 1989. The Regional Nature of Lake
Quality Across Minnesota: An Analysis for Improving .Resource
Management. Division of Water Quality, MN. Pollution Control
Agency.
Heiskary, S. A., and W.W. Walker, Jr. 1988. Developing phosphorus
criteria for Minnesota lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management
Heiskary, S. A., B. C. Wilson, and D. P. Larsen. Analysis of regional
patterns in lake water quality: Using ecoregions for lake management
in Minnesota. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:337-344.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser.
1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method
and Its Rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural History
Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: Volumes Mil. Ohio EPA, Division of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section,
Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. The Use of Biocriteria in the
Ohio EPA -Surf ace-Water Monitor ing -and Assessment Program. Ohio
EPA, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological
Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States.
Annual Association for American Geographers 77(1 ):1 18-125.
B-14
-------
Plafkin, J. L, M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross and R. M. Hughes.
1989." Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers:
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/440/4-89-001. USEPA
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Smeltzer, E., and S.A. Heiskary. 1990. Analysis and Applications of Lake
User Survey Data. In Lake and Reservoir Management 6(1): pp 109-
118.
USEPA. Quality Criteria for Water, 1976.
USEPA. Quality Criteria for Water, 1986, EPA 440/5-86-001.
USEPA. 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. EPA 440/5-90-004. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1991. Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in
the Water Quality Program, Office of Water.
USEPA. In review. Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and
Small Rivers. U.S. EPA Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control. Office of Water, EPA 505/2-90-001.
B-15
-------
-------
APPENDIX C: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX C
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Assessed Waters
"Assessed waters" are those waterbodies for which the State is able to
make use support decisions based on actual information. Such waters are
not limited to waters that have been directly monitored - it is appropriate in
many cases to make judgments based on other information. "Assessed
waters" should also include waters assessed prior to the current reporting
period if the State believes that the assessment conclusions are still valid.
EPA encourages States to report on all waters for which a reasonable
judgment can be made. In most States there are waters for which ambient
monitoring is done infrequently or not at all. In the past, many States have
not reported on those waters. A State should include such waters in the
305(b) process if the State has a reasonable basis for evaluation. To
encourage reporting on more waters, and to distinguish between assessment
bases, the term "total assessed waters" is subdivided into two categories.
"Evaluated waters" are those waterbodies for which the use support
decision is based on information other than current site-specific ambient
data, such as data on land use, location of sources, predictive modeling
using estimated input variables, and surveys of fish and game biologists.
As a genera/ guide, if an assessment is based on older ambient data
(e.g., older than 5 years), the State should also consider it "evaluated."
"Monitored waters" are those waterbodies for which the use support
decision is principally based on current site-specific ambient data
believed to accurately portray water quality conditions. Waters with
data from integrated intensive surveys and biological monitoring and
biosurveys should be included in this category, along with waters
monitored by fixed station chemical/physical monitoring. Waters with
fixed station chemical/physical monitoring should be monitored on a
quarterly or more frequent basis to be considered "monitored."
In addition, as general guidance, EPA recommends that data from a single
monitoring station not be used to generate a monitored assessment of an
entire watershed. Rather, a monitoring station can be considered
representative of a waterbody for that distance upstream and/or
C-1
-------
APP0MDDTC: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
downstream in which there are no significant influences to the waterbody
that might tend to change water quality within the zone represented by the
monitoring station. A significant influence can be a point or nonpoint source
of pollution or a major change in watershed drainage characteristics such as
land use, tributary influences, or significant hydrological modifications (such
as channelization).
Table C-1 provides specific assessment type categories for use by States
that serve to better define evaluated versus monitored assessments.
States may use some flexibility in .applying these guidelines. .^or: example:
For the 800 series of codes, if rigorous quality assurance/quality control
procedures have been applied to State-managed or State-approved
volunteer monitoring programs, waters sampled under these programs
could be considered monitored. As a general rule, quality-assured
programs are those that have approved Quality Assurance Program Plans,
conduct intensive volunteer training, and use EPA-approved methods of
sampling and analysis. Data from quality-assured citizen monitoring
programs and self-monitoring programs are generally considered as
monitored data. However, a State may use its discretion in making an
Assessment Category determination of evaluated versus monitored.
If older ambient data exist for high-quality waters located in remote areas
with no known sources, and if those data are believed to accurately
portray water quality conditions, those waters could be considered
monitored.
If both monitoring and evaluative data are used in making a use support
decision, the State may cite whichever assessment category it feels is most
defensible. In its methodology section, the State should discuss its use of
these assessment categories.
2. Definitions for Fish Advisories and Bans
a. Restricted consumption fish advisory or ban for a subpopulation:
Advises restricted consumption (e.g., limited number of meals or size of
meals per unit time) of fish or shellfish species by a subpopulation that
could be at potentially greater risk (e.g., pregnant women, nursing
mothers, or children).
b. Restricted consumption fish advisory or ban, general population:
Advises restricted consumption (e.g., a limited number of meals or size
of meals per unit time) of fish or shellfish species by the general
population.
C-2
-------
APPENDDTC: KEY TERMS^ND DEFINITIONS
^MHMi^B^Hi
Table C-1. Assessment Type Codes from the Waterbody System
Evaluated Assessments
100 Qualitative (evaluated) assessment-unspecified
110 Information from local residents
120 Surveys of fish and game biologists/other professionals
130 Land use information and location of sources
140 Incidence of spills and /or fish kills
150 Monitoring data that are more than 5 years old
(See 800 category)
170 Best professional judgment
180 Screening models (desktop models; models are not calibrated or verified)
Monitored Assessments
200 Chemical/physical monitoring
210 Fixed station chemical/physical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
220 Non-fixed station chemical/physical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
230 Fixed station chemical/physical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
240 Non-fixed station chemical physical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
250 Chemical monitoring of sediments
260 Fish tissue analysis
300 Biological monitoring
310 Ecological/habitat surveys
320 Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys
330 Fish surveys
340 Primary producer surveys (phytoplankton, periphyton, and/or macrophyton)
350 Fixed station biological monitoring
400 Bacteriological monitoring
410 Shellfish surveys
420 Water column surveys (e.g., fecal coliform)
430 Sediment analysis
500 Toxicity testing
510 Effluent toxicity testing, acute
520 Effluent toxicity testing, chronic
530 Ambient toxicity testing, acute
540 Ambient toxicity testing, chronic
550 Toxicity testing of sediments
C-3
-------
APPENDING: KEY I bKMS AND DEFINITIONS
w^mm^mm
Table C-1. (continued)
600 Modeling
610 Calibrated models (calibration data are less than 5 years old)
700 Integrated intensive survey (field work exceeds one 24-hour period and multiple
media are sampled)
710 Combined sampling of water column, sediment,and biota for chemical analysis
720 Biosurveys of multiple taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, invertebrates, algae)
Assessments Based on Data from Other Sources
800 Assessments based on data from other sources
810 Chemical/physical monitoring data by quality-assured volunteer program
820 Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys by quality-assured volunteer program
830 Bacteriological water column sampling by quality-assured volunteer program
840 Discharger self-monitoring data (effluent)
850 Discharger self-monitoring data (ambient)
860 Monitoring data collected by other agencies or organizations (use the assessment
comment field to list other agencies)
Discrepancy in Aquatic Life Assessment Results
900 Discrepancy in Aquatic Life Assessment Results
910 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is
based on physical/chemical data
920 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is
based on biological/habitat data
930 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is
based on toxicity testing data
940 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is
based on qualitative (evaluated) assessment data
C-4
-------
c. No consumption fish advisory or ban for a subpopulation:
Advises against consumption of fish or shellfish species by a
subpopulation that could be at potentially greater risk (e.g., pregnant
women, nursing mothers or children).
d. "No consumption" fish advisory or ban, general population:
Advises against consumption of fish or shellfish species by the general
population.
e. Commercial fishing ban:
Prohibits commercial fishing,, commercial harvesting, and/or the sale of
fish and shellfish.
3. Monitored for Toxicants
Significant public concern centers on contamination of water resources by
toxic constituents. Although contamination may not be likely for many
waters, it is important to report on the extent that potential contamination is
being examined.
Waters are "monitored for toxicants" if ambient monitoring information is
collected that is capable of indicating the presence of toxic substances. This
measure includes waters so monitored but for which no toxicants were
found. The actual data required will vary according to potential exposure
routes. For example, where a water is not used as a drinking water but is
fished, a bioassessment or ambient toxicity with tissue residue analysis is
considered sufficient to detect contamination by toxicants. For reporting,
waters monitored for toxicants is a subset of waters monitored (i.e., those
waters are counted in both categories).
4. Threatened Waters
"Threatened waters" refers to those waters that fully support their
designated uses but that may not fully support uses in the future (unless
pollution control action is taken) because of anticipated sources or adverse
pollution trends. These waters should be a separate category from waters
fully supporting uses. States should use this category to describe waters for
which actual monitoring or evaluative data indicate an apparent declining
- -water-qoality trefuHi.e.rwater quality conditions have deteriorated,
compared to earlier assessments, but the waters still support uses). States
may also choose to include waters for which monitoring or evaluative data
indicate potential water quality problems requiring additional data or
verification.
C-5
-------
"APPERDIX C: KEY TERMS "ANDT)EFfNITlONS
mmmmammm
5. Major/Moderate/Minor Contribution to Impairment
Part III of these Guidelines (Tables 5 and 6) requests determination of the
relative contribution to impairment of causes and sources of pollution. As
guidelines in determining relative contribution, States may consider the
following:
Maior contribution! A cause/source makes a major contribution to
impairment if it is the only one responsible for less than full support or if
it predominates over others.
* Moderate contribution! A cause/source makes a moderate contribution
to impairment if it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible for less
than full support and none predominate.
Minor contribution: A cause/source has minor contribution to impairment
if it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible for less than full
support and others predominate.
6. Causes and Sources
Causes are those pollutants or other stressors that contribute to the actual
or threatened impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. Table C-2 is a
list of causes from the EPA Waterbody System (WBS). States can also add
their own codes to WBS to track additional causes. For example, some
States have added codes under Code 500-Metals, to track specific metals
such as mercury and copper. If a State chooses to add cause codes to
WBS, the data system can still be used to generate 305(b) Report Table 5,
"Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses Affected by Various Cause
Categories." To use the WBS to generate this table, enter a total size for
each major category of causes (e.g., 0500-Metals or 0200-Pesticides).
This is necessary because there may be overlap among the subcategories of
causes. For example, 5 miles of a waterbody may be impacted by copper
and 7 miles by zinc, but the total size impacted by "metals" may be 10 miles
due to partial overlap of the specific causes. Simple addition of the sizes
impacted by the specific causes (i.e., 12 miles) would not be accurate in this
case.
Sources are the activities or facilities that contribute pollutants or stressors
resulting in impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. Table C-3 lists
source codes from the WBS. States can also add their own source codes to
WBS.-WBS can-be used -to generate SOStbJfleport Table 6, "Total Sizes of
Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses Affected by Various Source Categories."
However, to use the WBS to generate this table, enter a total size for each
major category of sources (i.e,, the bold categories in Table C-3 such as
WOO-Agriculture and 2000-Silvicu/ture). This is necessary because there
may be overlap among the subcategories of sources. For example, 5 miles
C-6
-------
APPENDIX C: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
"""""^^^^
of a stream may be impaired by nonirrigated crop production and 2 miles by
pastureland, but the total size impacted by "Agriculture" may range from 5
to 7 miles depending on the amount of overlap of impacted areas. Simple
addition of the sizes impacted by more detailed sources may not be accurate
in such cases.
WBS users should link causes with sources for a waterbody whenever
possible. WBS contains a special cause/source link field for this purpose.
Linked cause/source data are very important for producing the standard
305(b) report tables and for answering management questions from State
WBS users. For example, the question "Which waterbodres are not
supporting uses due to nutrients from agricultural runoff?" cannot be
answered if the cause/source link field is not used. See a/so the end of
Part III Chapter 3 of these Guidelines.
C-7
-------
APPENDIX C: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Table C-2. Cause Codes from the Waterbody System
0000 Cause Unknown
0100 Unknown Toxicity
0200 Pesticides
0300 Priority Organics
0400 Nonpriority Organics
0500 Metals
0600 Ammonia (unionized)
0700 Chlorine
0800 Other Inorganics
0900 Nutrients
1000 pH
1100 Siltation
1200 Organic
Enrichment\Low
Dissolved Oxygen
1300 Salinity/Total Dissolved
Solids/Chlorides
1400 Thermal Modifications
1400 Flow Alterations
1600 Other Habitat Alterations
1700 Pathogens
1800 Radiation
1900 Oil and Grease
2000 Taste and Odor
2100 Suspended Solids
2200 Noxious Aquatic Plants
2300 Filling and Draining
2400 Total Toxics
2500 Turbidity
2600 Exotic Species
NOTE:
In addition to the above, WBS users can enter their own customized cause
codes.
C-8
-------
Table C-3. Source Codes from the Waterbody System
0100 Industrial Point Sources
0110 Major Industrial Point Sources
0120 Minor Industrial Point Sources
0200 Municipal Point Sources
0210 Major Municipal Point Sources
0220 Minor Municipal Point Sources
0230 Package Plants (Small Flows)
0400 Combined Sewer Overflow
0900 Domestic Wastewater Lagoon
1000 Agriculture
1100 Nonirrigated Crop Production
1200 Irrigated Crop Production
1300 Specialty Crop Production
1400 Pastureland
1500 Rangeland
1600 Feedlots (Confined Animal Feeding Operations)
1700 Aquaculture
1800 Animal Holding/Management Area
1900 Manure Lagoons
2000 Silviculture
2100 Harvesting, Restoration, Residue Management
2200 Forest Management
2300 Logging Road Construction/Maintenance
3000 Construction
3100 Highway/Road/Bridge Construction
3200 Land Development
4000 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
4100 Nonindustrial Permitted
4200 Industrial Permitted
4300 Other Urban Runoff
C-9
-------
fiPPENDTX~C: "KEY TERMS ANDT>EFINlTrONS
Table C-3. Source Codes from the Waterbody System (continued)
5000 Resource Extraction
5100 Surface Mining
5200 Subsurface Mining
5300 Placer Mining
5400 Dredge Mining
5500 Petroleum Activities
5600 Mill tailings
5700 Mine Tailings
5800 Acid Mine Drainage
6000 Land Disposal
6100 Sludge
6200 Wastewater
6300 Landfills
6400 Industrial Land Treatment
6500 Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks)
6600 Hazardous Waste
6700 Septage Disposal
7000 Hydromodification/Habitat Modification
7100 Channelization
7200 Dredging
7300 Dam Construction
7400 Flow Regulations/Modification
7500 Bridge Construction
7600 Removal of Riparian Vegetation
7700 Streambank Modification/Destabilization
7800 Drainage/Filling of Wetlands
7900 Marinas
8000 Other
8100 Atmospheric Deposition
8200 Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks
8300 Highway Maintenance and Runoff
8400 Spills
8600 Contaminated Sediments
-8600 "Natural Sources
8700 Recreational Activities
8800 Upstream Impoundment
C-10
-------
APPENDIX Cf KEY TERMS AND DEFFNITfONS
Table C-3. Source Codes from the Waterbody System (continued)
8900 Salt Storage Sites
8910 Groundwater Loadings
8920 Groundwater Withdrawal
9000 Unknown Source
Note: In addition to the above, WBS users can enter their own customized
source codes.
C-11
-------
-------
APPENDIX D: DATaTSOURCES FOR 305(b) "ASSESSMENTS
The main purpose of this appendix is to identify FederaltJata sources that
may be useful for assessing use support in State waterbodies, including
sources that may not be commonly used by State water quality agencies.
The sources discussed below are Federal and nongovernmental data sources-
States will find additional data available from such State agencies as fish and
wildlife agencies, State planning offices, departments of health etc
D.1 EPA Databases
Table D-1 lists EPA databases that may prove useful for assessing use
support in State waterbodies. States can access each of these systems
through EPA's National Computer Center mainframe computer. The national
data systems in Table D-1 vary in data completeness and data quality a
State should evaluate such characteristics for their data before a system is
used for assessing use support. The most complete and reliable national
data systems tend to be those in which the State regularly updates
information (e.g., STORET, the WBS, and the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) in many States), and for which rigorous quality assurance features
have been incorporated (e.g., ODES). Most of the information in Table D-1
is taken from the Office of Water Environmental and Program Information
Compendium FY92, EPA 800-B92-001.
EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division will distribute
Version 3.1 of the WBS shortly after issuing these Guidelines EPA
specifically designed the WBS to store use support assessments for
individual waterbodies and generate summary information requested in this
guidance. The WBS differs from other databases in that the WBS does not
contain raw data. Instead, the WBS contains use support assessment
information resulting from analysis of the raw monitoring data from the
States.
D.2 Other Data Sources
Table D-2 lists sources of information available from Federal agencies and
other organizations outside EPA. Many of these sources are readily available
but may not be used by State water quality programs. Many State water
D-1
-------
^^^^^i^H^^^HM
quality agencies rely on a combination of EPA data systems and their own
«nlT,N f°r acqulrin9 water Wtv «ata. Reliable data on rural sources are
especially difficult to obtain in many States. The best information often
comes from State departments of agriculture, which compile county
statistics annually and make them available relatively quickly (e.g., data on
crop and livestock production). Data on crop cover, agricultural BMPs, and
animal units are typically available only as county summaries, although hard
copy files and maps showing exact locations may be available at the Soil
and Water Conservation District level.
Data collected and analyzed by agencies of the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) may be of special interest to State water quality agencies
ff^hl8 . c P' pr°PramS, I8 HSted in Table D'2- The Water Resources Division
itl N^rffl, w°, 9n S=rVe,V Pr°9'am, and the National Irrigation
Water Quality Program. Table 0-2 gives brief descriptions and contacts.
T o AtmosPheric Administration, through its National
tr Oi T:endsKPro9ram- assesses the levels of 70 organic chemicals and
300 JtlTth ln bott°m-dwellin9 fish, sediments and mollusks at more than
enmr, , ^""D* ** ""^ **** ^^ D'2 Presents s°me major
components of the Program and contacts.
D-2
-------
APPENDiXD: DATA SOURCES FOTT305(B) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Description
Waterbody System
(WBS) EPA, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds (OWOW)
Reach File
EPA, OWOW
STORET Water Quality
System
EPA, OWOW
STORET Biological
System (BIOS)
EPA, OWOW
Ocean Data Evaluation
System (ODES)
EPA, OWOW
Current Fish
Consumption Advisories
and Bans
EPA, Office of Science
and Technology (OST)
Clean Lakes System
EPA, OWOW
Database of
assessment
information drawn
from CWA 305(b)
activities
Hydrologic
georeferencing and
routing system based
on USGS digital line
graph traces
^___
Data analysis tool for
chemical monitoring
data from surface and
groundwater sites.
Also capabilities to
store sediment and
fish tissue data
^^«M^B^B
A special component
of STORET for storing
information on
biological
assessments
Database and analysis
system for marine
and near coastal
monitoring
information
^______
National database of
fish/shellfish
consumption
advisories and bans
from State 305(b)
reports and other
sources
-_
Data analysis system
for significant publicly
owned lakes under
CWA Section 314
program
Primary Function
Provides waterbody-
specific information on
pollution causes and
sources, use
impairments, and status
of TMDL development
Contact
Can integrate many
databases having
locational information on
water quality conditions
or pollutant causes
Major source of raw
ambient data for water
quality assessments
John Clifford,
OWOW
(202) 260-3667
John Clifford,
OWOW
(202) 260-3667
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Simplifies storage and
analysis of biological data
or metrics, with links to
other EPA data files
~
Permit tracking system
for NPDES discharges to
oceans and estuaries and
for ocean dumping
programs
^__________
Identifies waterbodies,
species affected by
advisories and bans and
the problem pollutants
J_
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Jeff Bigler,
OST
(202) 260-1305
Provides data integration
using number of EPA
data files with mapping
capabilities using the
Reach File
Susan Ratcliffe,
OWOW
(202) 260-5404
D-3
-------
Table D-1. £PA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Permit Compliance
System (PCS)
EPA, Office of
Wastewater
Enforcement and
Compliance (OWEC)
Industrial Facilities
Discharge File (IFD)
EPA, Office of Water
Facility Index Systems
(FINDS)
EPA, Office of
Information Resources
Management
^^^^^^^"^^^"^^B
Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory System
(TRIS)
EPA, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
^________
Drinking Water Supply
File (DWS)
EPA, OWOW
Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS)
EPA, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW)
Gage File
EPA, OWOW
Description
Locations and
discharge
characteristics for
about 7,100 major
and 56,300 minor
NPDES facilities
Primary Function
Information for about
120,000 NPDES
dischargers; also
Superfund sites
^M"^HM^HHWMIHI^HI"MV**MMM^MMHMM^M^
Basic information on
over 300,000
facilities regulated by
EPA
Database of
estimated and
measured releases by
industries of about
300 toxic chemicals
to all environmental
media
Information on 7,650
public and community
surface water
supplies
Information about
public supplies
Information on some
36,000 stream gage
locations
Compliance status
tracking system for major
dischargers
Locations, flows and
receiving waterbodies,
for industrial discharges
and POTWs
__
Starting point for finding
regulated facilities in a
given area where more
detailed information
available through other
data systems like PCS,
TRIS, AIRS, or RCRA
Inventory of toxic
chemical releases with
references to receiving
waters and methods of
waste treatment
^^.
Data on waterbody, flow,
and locations of mainly
surface water intakes
^^
Detailed data on
compliance with Safe
Drinking Water Act
requirements including
monitoring
__
Summaries of mean
annual and critical low
flows and other data
collected. Sites indexed
to Reach File
Contact
Dela Ng,
OWEC
(202) 260-8313
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
______,
Joe Anderson,
OIRM
(703) 557-3091
Ruby Boyd,
OPTS
(202) 260-8387
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Larry Weiner,
OGWDW
(202) 260-2799
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
D-4
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES~FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
City and County Files
EPA, OWOW
Dam File
EPA, OWOW
USGS Land Use and
Data Analysis (LUDA)
Database
EPA, Office of
Information Resources
Management (OIRM)
Geographic Resources
Information and Data
System (GRIDS)
EPA, OIRM
Description
Location information
and census data for
53,000 municipalities
and all counties
^______
Information on
locations of 68,000
damsites and
associated reservoirs
USGS database of
land use from the
1970s; available
through GRIDS on
NCC
A repository for major
GIS data layers along
with a selection of
GIS applications on
the EPA NCC
mainframe
Primary Function
Background data with
lists of streams for each
city, census population,
county land/water area
(coastal counties)
i_________,
Information on
ownership, uses of
reservoir, size, and
stream reach
Contains locations of
approximately 40 land
use types for entire
United States
Provides access to major
GIS products from the
USGS, Census Bureau
and EPA
Contact
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert Pease,
OIRM
(703) 557-3018
Robert Pease,
OIRM
(703) 551-3018
D-5
-------
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
~~
Water Data Storage
Retrieval System
(WATSTORE)
DOI, USGS, Water
Resources Division
Description
*
Database of water
quality data collected
at 5,000 stations and
peak flow and daily
flow data collected at
8,000 stations.
National Rivers
Inventory,
DOI, National Park
Service
National Wetlands
Inventory,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
^M^«^M^^^«>
Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act Regional
Concept Plans,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
List of over 1,500
river segments
(approximately
63,000 miles).
Computerized
mapping scheme for
entire United States.
Descriptions of
priority wetland sites
according to value
and function prepared
by each of the 7 FWS
regional offices.
Based mainly on
State SCORP reports.
Fish and bird tissue
samples collected
between 1965 and
1988 for chlorinated
pesticides, PCBs, and
metals
Primary Functions
Store data collected by
USGS, as well as
cooperating agencies in
DOI and the Corps of
Engineers; good source of
ground-water data. - »
Identifies waters with
potential for National
Wild and Scenic Rivers
status.
Shows locations of
vegetative community
types using a FWS
classification scheme.
To prioritize Federal and
State efforts related to
the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986
to promote acquisition or
other protection
measures for major
wetland tracts.
Fish monitoring done to
evaluate the effects of
toxicants at 110
freshwater sites in
specific watersheds and
the Great Lakes.
Contacts
"~.^»__
Dr. James S.
Burton, Chief
USGS Water
Resources
Division,
NAWDEX
Program Office
(703) 648-5684
___
Bern Collins
(202) 343-3765
OR
Tracy Miller
National Park
Service
(202) 343-3663
-i____
David Dall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(202) 358-2201
David Dall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(202) 358-2201
Branch Chief,
Field Research,
National Fisher-
ies Research
Center
(314) 875-5399
D-6
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA^OURCESTOR 305(bTASSESSMEIMTS
^^^^^i^^^M^^B^M
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
National Irrigation Water
Quality Program,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Biomonitoring of
Environmental Status
and Trends (BEST)
Program,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Multi-State Fish and
Wildlife Information
Systems Project,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
National Gap Analysis
Project,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Description
Physical, chemical
and biological data
collected at about
200 areas consisting
of about 600
projects.
Data collection to
address effects on
migratory birds,
endangered species,
anadromous fish,
certain marine mam-
mals, and habitats.
Pilot projects through
1995; full implemen-
tation in 1996.
_.
Database of life
history, habitat
needs, and
environmental
tolerances for inland
and marine fish and
wildlife.
Application of CIS
technology to
prioritize habitat
protection needs for
specific fish or
wildlife species and
for overall species
protection.
To identify and address
irrigation-induced
contamination on DOI
irrigation and drainage
facilities, National Wildlife
Refuges, and other
wildlife management
areas .
Monitor and assess
environmental
contamination effects to
fish and wildlife and their
habitats, on and off
National Wildlife Refuges.
Central database to
facilitate review of
permits, regulatory
requirements, and
ecological preservation or
restoration programs.
Provides way to identify
habitat protection needs
based on identification of
"gaps" when comparing
existing protected areas
with regional habitat
distributions.
Chief, Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Chief, Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Rick Bennett
(703) 358-1718
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
OR
Andy Loftus
(202) 898-0770
Sport Fishing
Institute
^^"^W^^H^B^MM
Dr. Ted LaRoe
(703) 358-2171
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
D-7
-------
APPENDIX D: DAT/TSQURCES FO* 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
.
Rivers and Trails
Conservation
Assistance Program,
DOI, National Park
Service
American Rivers
Outstanding Rivers List
Recreation Information
Management System,
USDA, Forest Service
Biological and
Conservation Data
System,
The Nature
Conservancy
^_____
National Water Quality
Technology
Development Staff,
USDA, Soil
Conservation Service
Description
_
Program supports
development and
updates to Statewide
river inventories or
evaluation of
particular river
corridors or
greenways.
Database on 15,000
river segments
possessing
outstanding scenic,
recreational and
ecological attributes.
Database of
recreational facilities
and areas in National
Forest System.
Listing by States of
rare species and key
habitat areas.
Four regional centers
provide database,
modeling, and CIS
technology assistance
to promote former
President Bush's
Water Quality
Initiative, trie-Farm -
Bill, and other
programs.
Primary Functions
Supports Federal and
State scenic river
programs and a variety of
greenway and open
space protection
initiatives.
Contacts
«
Samuel Stokes
(202) 343-3779
DOI, National
Park Service
Susie Wilkins
(202) 547-6900
Outstanding
Rivers List
Assembles information
from National Park
Service river surveys,
Northwest Power
Planning Council's
Protected Areas Program,
Nature Conservancy
Priority Aquatic Sites and
other major sources.
' " 1
Contains data on types of USDA, Forest
recreation, visitor days,
and participation by
activity.
.
For identifying waters
important for rare plant
and animal species
protection.
Will provide convenient
access to soil survey data
and a variety of models
| (e.g., AGNPS) for use
with GIS systems to
support USDA HUA
projects and similar
initiatives.
Service
(202) 205-1706
The Nature
Conservancy
(703) 841-8781
Jackie Diggs
USDA, Soil
Conservation
Service
(202) 720-0136
D-8
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOB 305(bmSSESSWENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Benthic Surveillance
Project,
National Status and
Trends Program,
Department of
Commerce, NOAA
Mussell Watch Project,
National Status and
Trends Program,
NOAA
Coastal Contamination
Assessments,
National Status and
Trends Program,
NOAA
National Estuarine
Inventory and Strategic
Assessment Program,
NOAA
Description
Sampling at 79
estuarine sites for
PCBs, PAHs, chlori-
nated pesticides,
butyltins, sewage
tracers, and trace
elements.
Mussells and oysters
collected annually at
about 240 sites and
analyzed for same
parameters as the
Benthic Surveillance
Project.
Quick-reference
reports for Long
Island Sound, Gulf of
Maine, Hudson-Rari-
tan area, Narragan-
sett Bay, and
Buzzards Bay reports
done or underway.
National Shellfish
Register,
NOAA
Source of
demographic,
economic, and natural
resource information
for 102 Estuarine
Drainage Areas.
^^^^
Tracks status of
shellfish harvesting
areas by State at 5-
year intervals (most
recent data is from
1990).
Primary Functions
Determine concentrations
of toxic chemicals in
sediments and bottom-
dwelling fish.
To determine concentra-
tions of toxic chemicals
in mussels and similar
bivalve mollusks as
"sentinel organisms" in
environmental
monitoring.
To identify potential
toxicant problems and
compare local levels of
contamination with
national-scale results.
Provide data to support
NOAA initiatives related
to the Sea Grant and
Coastal Zone
Management Programs.
Detect trends in shellfish
growing waters and the
abundance of shellfish
resources.
Contacts
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3028
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3028
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3028
John P. Tolson
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3000
Maureen Warren
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3000
D-9
-------
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
^_.___
Decennial Census
Department of
Commerce, Bureau of
the Census
Description
-*____
Major source of
information with
county-level
resolution dealing
with population,
agriculture, mining,
etc.
Available in digitized form
and, in conjunction with
USGS, in a variety of
new map forms. Census
of agriculture often
provides best available
data on crop, livestock,
and land use patterns.
Charles D. Jones
(301)763-5180
D-10
------- |