vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4503F) i
Washington, DC 20460 [
EPA 841 B-95-001
May 1995
Guidelines for Preparation of
the 1996 State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports)
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postcorxsumer)
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 305(b) Coordinators
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
For information on water quality in
the EPA Regions, contact:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617)860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont
Jane Leu
EPA Region 2 (2WMD-SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)637-3741
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Margaret Passmore
EPA Region 3 (3ESII)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
David Melgaard
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtiand Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14))
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
John Houlihan
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7432
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)293-1581
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1933
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Curry Jones
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
State, Tribal, and other 305(b) coordinators are listed inside the back cover.
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
May 19, 1995
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b)
Reports)
FROM: Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (4503F)
TO: Addressees
Attached for your information and use are the Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1996
State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports). These Guidelines reflect continuing efforts by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States and Tribes 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 1996 305(b) Consistency Workgroup made several recommendations to improve the 1996
Guidelines for the States and Tribes. The Workgroup consists of representatives from 25 States, 3
Tribes, 6 Federal Agencies, the 10 EPA Regions and Headquarters. The Workgroup met in October
1993, May and October 1994, and had several sub-group meetings and scores of conference calls,
The goals of the Workgroup were to improve accuracy and consistency of 305 (b) reporting. In
particular, we would like to highlight the following significant changes for the 1996 reporting cycle:
p Transition toward a 5-year 305 (b) cycle coupled with a comprehensive characterization of all
waters using a variety of monitoring techniques;
o A long-term vision for water quality monitoring, assessment and reporting;
o Description of the kinds of data used to make aquatic life use and drinking water use
determinations;
o More specific guidance for ground water and drinking water assessments using environmental
indicators; and
o Minimal guidance for first-time Tribal reporting.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wlih Soy/Canoto Ink on papsr thai
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
The BLUE section of the Guidelines describes the contents of the information to be submitted in
individual State reports.
These changes to the Guidelines should have minimal impact on most of the State and Tribal
305(b) programs while adding significantly to the clarity with which we monitor and report aquatic
conditions.
We are issuing these Guidelines eleven months before the 1996 State 305(b) reports are due to
EPA. By mid-summer of 1995, we will issue the new software for the Waterbody System '96 (WBS96)
to the States and Tribes for use in producing their reports (States and Tribes may request a beta test
version now if they desire). This additional software will facilitate reporting outlined in the attached
Guidelines, but will not delay the development or submittal of the 1996 305(b) reports.
Also attached is a booklet for Tribes. Five Tribes reported on water quality in their 1994
reports. The objective of the booklet is to introduce additional Tribes to 305 (b) water quality
monitoring, assessment and reporting. Through the 305(b) reports, Tribes can report the status of
•water quality as well as identifying improvements needed to achieve healthy ecosystems and other
Tribal needs, including unique cultural uses.
With the distribution of the Guidelines, we are concurrently convening training sessions for
the States and Tribes in each EPA Regional office. The training focuses on State and Tribal
reporting following the changes to the 1996 Guidelines and WBS96.
Please ask your Regional 305 (b) Coordinators to transmit these Guidelines and Tribal
brochure to your States and Tribes, in order to begin preparation of the 1996 305(b) reports. We
would especially like to thank members of the Consistency Workgroup (listed in the Acknowledgements
section of the Guidelines) for their valuable contributions. If you have any questions concerning the
above, please call Barry Burgan, the National 305(b) Coordinator, at (202) 260-7060 [FAX (202)
260-7024]. If you elect to develop supplemental Regional guidance, please be sure to send an
informational copy to Barry. His mailing address is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4503F,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460; email burgan.barry@epamail.epa.gov.
Attacfitnents
Addressees:
All Regional Water Management Division Directors
All Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
Gulf of Mexico Program Office Director
Chesapeake Bay Program Office Director
Great Lakes Program Office Director
-------
cc: with attachments
Regional 305(b) Coordinators
Regional WBS Coordinators
Regional Groundwater Branch Chiefs
Regional Drinking Water Branch Chiefs
Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs
Regional Field Branch Chiefs
Regional Oceans and Coastal Branch Chiefs
Regional Tribal Water Quality Coordinators
Regional Monitoring Coordinators
Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators
Regional TMDL Coordinators
Regional Groundwater Representatives
Regional Drinking Water Coordinators
Regional Wetlands Coordinators
Regional Clean Lakes Coordinators
Regional Biologists
Regional REMAP Coordinators
305(b) Consistency Workgroup Members
ITFM Members
Vanessa Leiby, ASDWA
Robbi Savage, ASWIPCA
Jim Park, ASWIPCA
Jim Clawsen, NCA
Jessica Landman, NRDC
Kerry Kehoe, CSO
Ken Kirk, AMSA
Tim Williams, WEF
Gene Lamb, NACD
Headquarters:
Dave Davis
Don Brady
Dov Weitman
Elizabeth Fellows
Mary L. BelefsM
Caren Rothstein
Chuck Job
Mahesh Podar
Phil Ross
Tim Stuart
without attachments
OW Office Directors
-------
-------
Guidelines for Preparation of the
1996 State Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports)
May 1995
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503F)
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Acknowledgments
EPA prepared these Guidelines with participation by the 1996 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup, whose members are listed on the following page. The full Workgroup
met in October 1993 and in June and October 1994 to develop the guidance for
the 1996 305(b) cycle. Members also participated in numerous conference calls
and subgroup meetings to discuss key technical issues and reviewed drafts of
these Guidelines. EPA gratefully acknowledges their efforts, which have
significantly improved the 305(b) assessment and reporting process.
Barry Burgan, National 305(b) Coordinator, led the development of these Guidelines
and facilitated the efforts of the Workgroup. Research Triangle Institute provided
technical support and Tetra Tech, Inc., provided logistical support under EPA
Contract 68-C3-0303.
The primary contact regarding these Guidelines is
Barry Burgan, National 305(b) Coordinator
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Monitoring Branch (4503F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
-------
1996 305(b) Consistency Workgroup Members
States, Territories,
Interstate Commission:
Susan Kiernan (Rl)
Ernie Pizzuto (CT)
Eric Morales (PR)
Kevin Berry (NJ)
George Hansen (NY)
Mike Arcuri (WV)
Sergio Huerta (DE)
Alison Sinclair (VA)
Tom VanArsdall (KY)
Pete Howard Jr., MS
Larry McCullough (SC)
Mike Branham (IL)
Jason Heath (ORSANCO)
Ed Rankin (OH)
Duane Schuettpelz (Wl)
Elizabeth Brinsmade (MN)
Erik Galloway (NM)
John Dyer (OK)
John Ford (MO)
Michael Ell (ND)
Tom Toole (UT)
Nancy Richard (CA)
Diana Marsh (AZ)
Bob Baumgartner (OR)
Steve Butkus (WA)
Tribal:
Errol Blackwater (Gila River
Indian Community)
Kyle Baker (Three Affiliated Tribes)
Colleen Goff (Hoopa Valley Reservation)
EPA Regions:
Diane Switzer, Region I
Jane Leu , Region II
Chuck Kanetsky, Region 111
Maggie Passmore, Region III
David Melgaard, Region IV
Dave Stoltenberg, Region V
Jeff Gagler, Region V
Russell Nelson, Region VI
Federal Agencies:
Neil Carriker (TVA)
John Sutton (USDA)
Tony Pait (NOAA)
Steve Kokkinakis (NOAA)
Pete Juhle (USACE)
Ken Lanfear (USGS)
Stuart McKenzie (USGS)
Tom Muir (NBS)
EPA Headquarters:
Roger Anzzolin (Ground Water)
Jeff Bigler (OST/Fish Advisories)
Jack Clifford (OWOW/WBS)
Wayne Davis (OPPE)
Michael Plehn (Wetlands)
Catherine Fox (OST/Sediments)
Wendy Blake-Coleman (OW)
Margie Pitts (OST/Standards)
Joe Hall (Coastal)
Jim Home (OWEC)
Susan Jackson (OST/Biocriteria)
John Kosco (NPS)
Steve Paulsen (EMAP/Surface)
Susan Ratcliffe (Lakes)
Carl Reeverts (Drinking Water)
Kevin Summers (EMAP/Estuaries)
Mimi Dannel (Watersheds)
Dan Weese (Permits)
Ginny Kibler (OW)
John Houlihan, Region VII
Phil Johnson, Region VIM
Janet Hashimoto, Region IX
Allan Henning, Region X
Tom Murphy, Region V
Ralph Langemeier, Region VII
Jerome Pitt, Region VII
Wendell Smith, Region IX
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acronym List x
1 THE 305(b) PROCESS 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Vision and Long-term Goals . . . 1-1
1.3 Goals for the 1996 Cycle 1-5
1.4 Tribal 305(b) Reporting 1-10
2 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR 1996 2-1
2.1 Vision and Goals 2-1
2.2 Individual Use Support 2-1
2.3 Ground Water, Drinking Water, and Wetlands Resources ... 2-1
2.4 Comprehensive and Targeted Coverage 2-2
2.5 Better Definitions 2-2
2.6 Format 2-2
3 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b) 3-1
3.1 What Is an Assessment? 3-1
3.2 Degree of Use Support 3-1
3.3 Types of Assessment Information 3-3
3.4 Monitored and Evaluated Waters 3-4
3.5 Presumed Assessments 3-8
3.6 Causes of Impairment {Pollutants and Other Stressors) 3-8
3.7 Sources of Impairment 3-8
3.8 Cause/Source Linkage 3-13
3.9 Major/Moderate/Minor Contribution to Impairment 3-14
4 DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION 4-1
4.1 Extent of Individual Assessments . . . 4-1
4.2 Comprehensive Statewide Assessment „ 4-2
4.3 Watershed and Waterbody Delineation 4-6
4.4 Managing Assessment Information , 4-12
4.5 Moving Toward a Five-year Reporting Cycle . (| 4-16
4.6 Valid and Comparable Assessments , 4-17
4.7 ITFM and 305(b) Assessments ', 4-17
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
5 MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS 5-1
5.1 Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS) 5-1
5.1.1 Independent Application 5-1
5.1.2 Valid and Comparable Indicators . 5-1
5.1.3 Valid and Comparable Field and Laboratory
Methods . 5-3
5.1.4 Assessment Description for ALUS Determinations .. 5-5
5.1.5 ALUS Assessments Using Biological/Habitat Data ... 5-12
5.1.6 Aquatic Life Assessments Using Physical/Chemical
Data 5-17
5.1.7 Valid Monitoring Designs for ALUS Assessment .... 5-20
5.2 Primary Contact Recreation Use 5-22
5.2.1 Bathing Area Closure Data . 5-22
5.2.2 Bacteria 5-22
5.2.3 Other Parameters 5-24
5.2.4 Special Considerations for Lakes 5-24
5.3 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Use 5-25
5.3:1 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Data . 5-25
5.4 Drinking Water Use 5-25
5.4.1 Assessing Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs . . 5-27
5.4.2 Data Source: Ambient (Source) Water Monitoring . . 5-33
5.4.3 Data Source: PWS Compliance (Finished Water)
Monitoring 5-34
5.4.4 Data Source: Contamination-Based Drinking Water
Use Restrictions 5-35
5.4.5 Assessment of Drinking Water Use Support for
Waterbodies • 5-35
6 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II:
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 6-1
305 (b) Contents — Part I: Executive Summary/Overview 6-4
305{b) Contents — Part II: Background 6-5
Total Waters 6-6
Maps 6-7
Water Pollution Control Program 6-7
Cost/Benefit Assessment 6-9
Special State Concerns and Recommendations 6-13
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
7 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER
ASSESSMENT . . 7-1
Chapter One: Surface Water Monitoring Program 7-1
Chapter Two: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data 7-3
Chapter Three: Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment .... 7-6
Chapter Four: Lakes Water Quality Assessment ............... 7-16
Chapter Five: Estuary and Coastal Assessment ... 7-24
Chapter Six: Wetlands Assessment . 7-26
Chapter Seven: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns . 7-31
8 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER
ASSESSMENT . . 8-1
Overview of Ground Water Contamination Sources . . 8-3
Overview of State Ground Water Protection Programs 8-8
Summary of Ground Water Quality 8-11
Summary of Ground Water-Surface Water Interactions 8-17
Conclusion 8-20
9 REFERENCES 9-1
Addendum
A Draft Approach for Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS) Assessments
Using Both Biological/Habitat and Physical/Chemical Data
Appendix
A Provisions of the Clean Water Act
B 305(b) Reporting for Indian Tribes
C Information for Determining Sources
D Data Sources for 305 (b) Assessments ;
E Section 106 Monitoring Guidance and Guidance for Section 303(d) Lists
F Examples of Detailed Descriptions of State Assessment Methods
G Examples of 305(b) Wetlands Information
H Examples of Basin-Level Assessment Information
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1
3-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
7-1
Page
Hierarchy of Nested Watersheds 1-8
Monitoring, Assessment, and 305(b) Reporting as an
Interrelated Process
3-2
Comprehensive State-Wide Water Assessment 4-4
14-Digit SCS Watersheds in Eastern North Carolina 4-10
Comprehensive State-Wide Assessment Timing - Example 4-18
Recommended Parameters for Stream Monitoring Program by
Designated Use 5-2
Assessing Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs
for Drinking Water Use 7-39
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table i . • Page
3-1 Assessment Type Codes from the Waterbody System . . 3-5
3-2 Cause Codes from the Waterbody System . 3-9
3-3 Sources Codes from the Waterbody System 3-10
4-1 Approaches for Delineating Waterbodies 4-13
4-2 Conditions Necessary for Valid and Comparable 305(b)
Assessments . . ; 4-19
5-1 Hierarchy of Bioassessment Approaches from Least
Confidence to Most Confidence Developed by Ohio EPA 5-4
5-2 Data Description Levels for ALUS: Biological/Habitat Data . 5-6
5-3 Data Description Levels for ALUS: Physical/Chemical Data 5-8
5-4 Recommended Factors for Converting Total Recoverable Metal
Criteria to Dissolved Metal Criteria 5-19
5-5 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 5-28
5-6 Assessment Framework for Drinking Water Use Support 5-36
6-1 Reporting Requirements Satisfied by 305(b) Reports . 6-3
6-2 Atlas 6-5
7-1 State 303(d) List of Waters Needing TMDLs 7-7
7-2 Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Waters .... 7-8
i . •
7-3 Individual Use Support Summary 7-9
.
7-4 Categories of Data Used in ALUS Assessments for Wadable Streams
and Rivers 7-11
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
7-5 Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Cause Categories 7-12
7-6 Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Source Categories 7-14
7-7 Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes 7-18
7-7a Trophic Status of Other Lakes 7-18
7-8 Lake Rehabilitation Techniques 7-20
7-9 List of Clean Lakes Program Projects Active During 1994-1995
Reporting Period 7-22
7-10 Acid Effects on Lakes 7-23
7-11 Sources of High Acidity in Lakes 7-23
7-12 Trends in Significant Public Lakes 7-24
7-13 Extent of Wetlands, by Type 7-28
7-14 Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards 7-30
7-15 Total Size Affected by Toxicants 7-32
7-16 Waterbodies Affected by Fish and Shellfish Consumption
Restrictions 7-35
7-17 Waterbodies Affected by Fish Kills and Fish Abnormalities ........ 7-35
7-18 Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination 7-36
7-19 Waterbodies Affected by Shellfish Advisories due to Pathogens .... 7-36
7-20 Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area Closures 7-36
7-21 Summary of Waterbodies Fully Supporting Drinking Water Use 7-40
7-22 Summary of Waterbodies Not Fully Supporting Drinking Water Use . . 7-41
VIII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
7-23 State-Level Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments for
Rivers and Streams 7-42
7-24 State-Level Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments for
Lakes and Reservoirs 7-43
8-1 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination 8-4
8-2 Ground Water Contamination Survey . . . 8-6
8-3 Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs 8-9
8-4 Aquifer Monitoring Data 8-13
8-5 Ground Water-Surface Water Interactions 8-18
IX
-------
ACRONYM LIST
ACRONYM LIST
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources
ALUS Aquatic life use support
AWQMN Ambient Water Quality .Monitoring Network
BMP Best management practice
CCC Criteria continuous concentration
CLPMS Clean Lakes Program Management System
CMC Criteria maximum concentration
CSO Combined sewer overflows
CWA Clean Water Act
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DLG Digital line graph (database)
DO Dissolved oxygen
DQO Data quality objective
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
F1PS Federal Information Processing Standard
FWS U.S.*Fish and Wildlife Service
/
GIS Geographic information system,
ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
LAN Local Area Network
LWQA Lake Water Quality Assessment
NAS National Academy of Science
NAWQA National Ambient Water Quality Assessment Program
NBS National Biological Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
-------
ACRONYM LIST
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OST Office of Science and Technology
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCS EPA Permit Compliance System
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PWS Public water supply
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RBP Rapid bioassessment protocol
RF3 EPA Reach File Version 3
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOP Standard operating procedure
TDS Total dissolved solids
TMDL Total maximum daily load
UAA Use attainability analysis
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC Volatile organic compound
WBS EPA Waterbody System
WQC Water quality criteria
WET Whole effluent toxicity
WLA Wasteload allocation
WQL Water quality limited
WQS Water quality standard
WRC Water Resource Council
XI
-------
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
SECTION 1
THE 305(b) PROCESS
1.1 Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL92-500, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act), as last reauthorized by the Water Quality Act of 1987
(PL100-4), establishes a process for States to use to develop information on
the quality of the Nation's water resources and to report this information to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Congress, and the
citizens of this country. The requirements for this process are found in
Sections 106(e), 204(a), 303(d), 305(b), and 314(a) of the Clean Water Act
(see Appendix A). Each State must develop a program to monitor the quality
of its surface and ground waters and prepare a report every 2 years
describing the status of its water quality. The EPA issues guidelines for
States to use during each reporting cycle. States use these guidelines to
prepare reports for EPA. EPA compiles the data from the State reports,
summarizes them, and transmits the summaries to Congress along with an
analysis of the status of water quality nationwide.
This process, referred to as the 305(b) process, is an essential aspect of the
Nation's water pollution control effort. It is the principal means by which the
EPA, Congress, and the public evaluate water quality, the progress made in
maintaining and restoring water quality, and the extent of remaining
problems. Many States rely on the 305(b) process for information needed to
conduct program planning and to report to their legislatures on progress and
remaining problems in their water pollution control programs. The 305(b)
process is an integral part of the State water quality management program,
requirements for which are set forth in 40 CFR 130. In 1994, 58 States,
Territories, Interstate Commissions, and Indian Tribes prepared 305(b)
reports.
1.2 Vision and Long-term Goals
The following are the vision and long-term goal statements for State 305(b)
reports and the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
1-1
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Vision for State 305(b) Reports and the National Water Quality Inventory
Reports to Congress
The 305(b) reports will characterize water quality and the attainment of water quality
standards at various geographic scales. In doing so, the State/Territory/Interstate and
Tribal reports, as well as the National Water Quality Inventory, will
• Comprehensively characterize the waters of the States, Tribes, Territories, and the
Nation, including surface water, ground water, coastal water, and wetlands
• Use data of known quality from multiple sources to make assessments
• Indicate progress toward meeting water quality standards and goals
• Describe causes of polluted waters and where and when waters need special
protection
• Support watershed and environmental policy decisionmaking and resource allocation
to address these'needs
• Describe the effects of prevention and restoration programs as well as the
associated costs and benefits
• In the long term, describe assessment trends and predict changes
• Initiate development of a comprehensive inventory of water quality that identifies
the location and causes of polluted waters and that helps States, Tribes, and
Territories direct control programs and implement management decisions.
1-2
-------
1. THE 305{b) PROCESS
Long-term Goals for the 305(b) Process
Purpose and Uses
• The Report to Congress continues to meet Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements and be a
primary source of national information on water quality.
• The State and national 305(b) reports meet CWA reporting requirements, which include
reporting on the achievement of water quality standards and designated uses,
recommendations for actions to achieve these uses, and estimates of the environmental
impact, costs, and benefits of achieving these uses.
• The assessment data that form the basis of the reports become mores useful and accessible to
decisionmakers by increased use of tools such as a modernized STORET, the EPA Waterbody
System (WBS), the EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3), and geographic information systems
(GISs).
• The reports move toward reporting assessment data by watershed and/or hydrologic unit and
State; data management tools allow consolidation at both levels.
• The reports also satisfy other needs identified by State 305(b) staff: educating citizens and
elected officials, helping to focus resources on priority areas, consolidating assessments in
one place, consolidating CWA-related lists of impaired waters, identifying data gaps, and
reporting the results of comprehensive assessments. I
i
Reporting Format and Content
• Report format and content remain relatively stable with some improvements each cycle, such
as:
- increased use of GIS maps
- more emphasis on watershed protection, ecological indicators, and biological integrity
- increased emphasis on Regional and Tribal water quality issues
- increased input from sources outside 305(b) such as EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP), the Department of Interior's National Biological Service
(NBS) and National Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA]i Program, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Status and Trends Program, and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM).
• The full Report to Congress and/or the Summary Report become available in electronic format
on the information superhighway; platforms may include the Interne!: or CD ROM.
(continued)
1-3
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Long-term Goals (continued)
Time and Extent of Assessments
• The reports comprehensively characterize the condition of the waters of the States,
Territories, Tribes, and the Nation in transitioning to a 5-year 305(b) cycle.
• States make greater use of data from Federal agencies, all appropriate State agencies, local
governments, and nongovernmental organizations to increase the extent of State
assessments each 305(b) cycle.
• Between 305(b) cycles. States keep their monitoring and assessment databases current to
simplify report preparation and increase the usefulness of assessment data.
Assessment Quality
• States adopt improved monitoring and assessment methods as recommended by the ITFM
and reported in the 305(b) reports.
• The reports include assessments of ground water aquifers.
• States increase efforts to achieve reproducible assessments; i.e., once an assessment
methodology has been set, the use support determination for any waterbody becomes
independent of the individual assessor.
• States identify the quality of individual assessments beginning with aquatic life use support
for wadable streams and rivers in 1996. Also, States describe their assessment methods in
detail and include flow charts of these methods.
• Assessments begin early in each cycle to allow time for adequate quality assurance of State
reports and WBS or State-specific databases.
• States and EPA georeference State waterbodies to Reach File, Version 3 (RF3), to allow
mapping of impaired waters.
• At the 305(b) Workgroup's recommendation, at least one staff position per State is devoted
to managing and analyzing assessment data, with a dedicated personal computer and GIS
support. The ITFM and EPA's 106 Guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary State
assessment team.
1-4
-------
1. THE 305{b) PROCESS
1.3 Goals for the T996 Cycle
EPA establishes goals or themes for each 305(b) reporting cycle to promote
achievement of the vision and long-term goals for the 305{b) process and to
coordinate reporting efforts among the States, Territories, Interstate
Commissions, and Tribes. The goals for 1996 are to
Expand use of biological indicators and reporting
Improve technical basis and extent of assessments
Document and improve assessment quality
Increase the use of visuals in presenting information (e.g., GIS maps)
Develop a process for reporting by hydrologic unit
Improve data management.
The following discussion expands upon these goals for the 1996 cycle.
Expand Use of Biological Indicators and Reporting
EPA and the States have long recognized the importance of developing,
implementing, and supporting ambient biological assessment programs to
report on the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem. Biological indicators
reveal whether an ecosystem is functioning properly and is self-sustaining
This information will assist States, Territories, Tribes, and Interstate
Commissions in measuring progress toward achieving the CWA objective of
biological integrity and determining attainment of designated aquatic life
uses. EPA strongly recommends using an integrated assessment involving
biological, physical/chemical, and toxicological monitoring.
The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM),
composed of representatives from 10 States, Tribes, or Interstate
Commissions and 10 Federal agencies, is recommending methods for
assessing water quality, including biological indicators. For additional
information on indicators recommended by ITFM, see Sections 4.7 and 5.1.2
and Water Quality Monitoring in the United States (ITFM, 1994a).
EPA and the ITFM believe that increased capability and use of biological
assessment tools 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 Technical Basis and Extent of Assessments
In recent years, work groups have made substantial progress in improving
the technical basis and consistency of water quality assessments. However,
further progress is needed to increase the consistency and usefulness of
water quality measures reported by the States and summarized in the
National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
1-5
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
EPA convened a 305(b) Consistency Workgroup in 1990, and expanded it in
1992 and 1994, to address issues of consistency in water quality reporting
and to improve accuracy and coverage of State assessments. The
Workgroup now consists of representatives from .25 States and Territories, 3
Indian Tribes or Tribal Groups, 1 Interstate Commission, 6 Federal agencies,
the 10 EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters. This standing Workgroup,
which will also develop future 305(b) guidance, engaged in numerous
conference calls and issue papers, met in October 1993 and in June and
October 1994 to review various drafts of the Guidelines and specific issues,
and made the following recommendations to improve 1996 305(b) guidance
to the States:
• Refine the definitions and guidance concerning data quality, sources of
impairment, frequency and duration of exposure to toxics, and aquatic
life assessments and indicators.
• Revise the guidance for ground water and drinking water reporting.
In addition to these recommendations, EPA has established the following
goals for the 1996 cycle and beyond:
• States progress toward characterizing all surface and ground waters
every 5 years (after a transition period) using a variety of techniques
targeted to the condition of, and goals for, the waters. These techniques
may include probability-based sampling designs to enable inferences
about entire categories of waters (e.g., all wadable streams) from a
subset of waterbodies.
• States include information from Federal agencies and other relevant
organizations in their 305(b) reports to increase the breadth or extent of
assessments.
Guidance developed as a result of these recommendations is incorporated in
Sections 5 and 7 and Appendix B. The Workgroup reviewed all changes,
which are summarized in Section 2, "Summary of Changes for 1996." Of
the bulleted items above, the third item may have the most significant impact
on State 305{b) programs. Achieving a comprehensive level of assessments
each 5 years could require new monitoring approaches and additional
emphasis on assessments in some State water quality programs.
Document and Improve Assessment Quality
In the past, few States have tracked measures of assessment or data quality
in their 305{b) assessments. For 1996, the Guidelines ask States to assign
an Assessment Description Level to the aquatic life use support assessment
for each wadable river or stream waterbody (see Section 5.1.4).
1-6
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Such measures will be useful at the State level in planning and evaluating
State monitoring programs. For example, a State might find that
assessments in a particular basin need to have a higher level of information
before spending large sums of money to implement controls there.
EPA will not aggregate assessment description information to the national
level. Rather, EPA will use the information to determine the strengths and
limitations of State monitoring and assessment programs and improvements
needed (including appropriate funding), eventually helping to increase
comparability of assessments among States. This is especially important, for
example, in ecoregion studies that cross State boundaries or in Regional
comparisons.
Increase the Use of Visuals in Presenting Information
A great deal of information about use support, causes, and sources can be
presented in a single map or other illustration. Several States have made
effective use of color maps and photographs in recent reports. GIS
technology and the data to support it, such as WBS datasets, are becoming
available in more State water quality agencies each 305(b) cycle. In FY94
and FY95, EPA is providing technical support to States to georeference their
WBS waterbodies to the Reach File Version 3 (RF3) to facilitate GIS
applications.
The goal for 1996 is for each State to include maps showing, at a minimum,
use support, causes, and sources. Color maps are preferred because of the
wide range of information they can present. EPA is making sample maps
available to Regional 305(b) Coordinators.
Develop a Process for Reporting by Hydrologic Unit (Georeferencing)
Historically, States have tracked use support at two levels: the individual
waterbody level and statewide. Modern information technology makes it
possible to track assessments at other levels with relatively little additional
effort. The most useful levels to water quality managers are the watershed,
the river basin, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Cataloging Unit,
and the ecoregion. Figure 1-1 shows three of these different levels; also,
Appendix H contains examples of assessment information at the basin level.
The goal for 1996 is to move closer to full integration of assessment
information at all scales. Fully integrated assessment information would
mean
i
• All waterbodies are georeferenced (i.e., assigned locational coordinates).
• Watersheds, basins, and other hydrologic units are selected to "nest"
within one another and to share common boundaries wherever possible.
1-7
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
S
'8
(0
«3
O
CO
tn
0)
en
2
0)
o
O
O O)
li
"O •»
w
CO
II
0) O
S.2
(0 Q>
« Q.
.2 CL
I 3
£
O)
LL
1-8
-------
THE 305(b) PROCESS
mmmmmm^mi^mm
• Assessment reports and maps can be generated at any hydrologic level
and by ecoregion.
i
• Assessment results are consistent among 305(b) reports, watershed
plans, basin plans, and other State reports.
Careful data integration is key to the goal of aggregating assessments at
different hydrologic units. For this reason, EPA is providing technical support
to the States for georeferencing waterbodies. Some States are revising their
watershed boundaries to be consistent with other agencies' boundaries. As
States upgrade their information systems and make greater use of GIS, WBS,
and other tools, EPA is confident that this goal will eventually be achieved
nationwide.
States with information systems that can generate assessments at the river
basin or hydrologic unit level are asked to report their assessments for 1996
on this basis as well as to present statewide summary data. Please contact
EPA's National 305(b) Coordinator, Barry Burgan, at (202) 260-7060, or
your Regional 305(b) Coordinator for more information.
Improve Data Management
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, the
Waterbody System (WBS), to manage the waterbodyrspecific portion of the
305(b) information.
In 1993-94, WBS users and EPA recommended the following for the 1996
cycle:
• Maintain stability in basic WBS operations ,'
• Develop a local area network (LAN) version of WBS
• Continue progress on reach-indexing waterbodies to RF3
• Enhance the WBS Detailed Option for those States that want to use it to
manage assessment data at the subwaterbody level
• Develop a distributed file approach for program-specific information (e.g.,
for Clean Lakes or total maximum daily load [TMDL] data) that plugs into
the core WBS
1-9
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
• Provide additional hands-on WBS and RF3 training
• Introduce Assessment Description Codes as measures of quality in ALUS
assessments
• Promote the establishment of a full-time position for water quality
assessments and WBS use in each State and Region to maintain ongoing
familiarity with WBS and provide adequate labor for ensuring data quality
• Continue to provide technical support to States that choose to use WBS.
Work with other States to provide EPA with WBS-compatible data files
sufficiently complete for EPA to aggregate.
EPA is implementing these recommendations for the 1 996 cycle. The
updated version of WBS, WBS96, will retain the same core programs and
user-friendly concepts (pop-up windows, pick lists) as the previous version.
EPA will provide WBS96 and installation instructions to States within a few
weeks of transmittal of final 1996 305(b) Guidelines. EPA contacts for the
WBS are the Regional WBS Coordinators and Jack Clifford, National WBS
Coordinator, (202) 260-3667.
EPA expects States to fully implement the WBS or a WBS-compatible system
for 1996. EPA has provided WBS users with technical assistance since
1987 and will continue to do so in 1995-96.
1.4 Tribal 305(b) Reporting
EPA encourages Native American Tribes to develop the capability to assess
and report on the quality of Tribal water resources. The development of a
Water Quality Assessment Report under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act provides a management tool that can be used by Tribal decisionmakers
to protect the land and water for future generations. These reports provide a
method for Tribal decisionmakers to assess monitoring data in a meaningful
way and use this information to guide efforts to care for Tribal water
resources. The process offers an opportunity for a Tribe to call national
attention to issues such as fish tissue and groundwater contamination from
toxic chemicals and provides a vehicle for recommending actions to EPA to
achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act and protect Tribal waters for
cultural or ceremonial needs.
Native Americans are exempted from the Clean Water Act reporting
requirement under Section 305(b) (Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 68,
April 11, 1989, p. 14357). However, several Tribal entities, including the
Hoopa Valley Reservation in California and the Gila River Community in
Arizona, have prepared 305(b) reports. This reporting process has allowed
these Tribes to go beyond reporting summaries of raw data and to identify
1-10
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
the pollutants and stressors causing impairment of Tribal waters and the
sources of these stressors where possible.
These Guidelines contain a summary of key items for first-time Tribal reports
(Appendix B). The process goes beyond the requirements to perform
monitoring and/or analysis in accordance with EPA quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) guidelines and provide summary monitoring data to
EPA. Also, EPA has prepared a booklet describing the basics for Tribal
305(b) reporting and potential advantages to Tribes that choose to report
through the 305(b) process (U.S. EPA, 1995a). This booklet is available
through EPA Regional 305(b) Coordinators (see list iniiide front cover of
these Guidelines).
EPA encourages Tribes to work with appropriate Federal or State agencies to
facilitate technical transfer of methods and data to enhance the Tribes'
capabilities and ensure coverage of Tribal waters. Tribes are encouraged to
prepare their own 305(b) reports, prepare a joint report about Tribal waters
with the appropriate State water quality agency, or contribute assessment
data to the State 305(b) report.
1-11
-------
-------
2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR 1996
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR 1996
This section summarizes changes in the 1996 305(b) Guidelines since the
1994 Guidelines. The changes are grouped below by topic.
2.1 Vision and Goals
• New vision statement and goals for State 305(b) reports and the National
Water Quality Inventory Reports to Congress (pp. 1 -2 through 1 -4)
2.2 Individual Use Support
• Expanded guidance for making aquatic life use support decisions
including revised guidance on use of toxicant data (p. 5-1)
• New Assessment Description Codes as measures of assessment quality
for aquatic life use support (ALUS) assessments of certain waterbodies
(p. 5-5)
• Summary table on impaired waters replaces overall use support table
(p. 7-8)
• Guidance on breadth or extent of assessment for surface waters (p. 4-1)
• Examples of level of detail requested in describing assessment methods
(Appendix F) :
2.3 Ground Water, Drinking Water, and Wetlands Resources
• New guidance for reporting drinking water use assessments to take
advantage of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reporting requirements
and to emphasize the range of SDWA contaminants (pp. 5-1 and 7-38)
• New guidance for reporting ground water assessments to emphasize
reporting by aquifer or hydrologic setting for three types of monitoring
data, based on work by the 305(b) Ground Water Subgroup (p. 8-1)
• Reduced wetlands assessment reporting requirements (p. 7-26)
2-1
-------
2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR 1996
2.4 Comprehensive and Targeted Coverage
« Transition to goal of characterizing all waters of the State according to
condition of, and goals for, the waters, targeted to a 5-year cycle (p. 4-2)
« Goal of delineating and spatially referencing all waterbodies, with focus
on impaired and threatened waterbodies (pp. 1 -7 and 4-6)
• Reporting by river basin beginning in 1996 for States with the necessary
data and data management capabilities (pp. 1-9, 4-12, and Appendix H)
• Special guidance for first-time Tribal 305(b) reports (Appendix B)
2.5 Better Definitions
• Clarified definitions of major, moderate, and minor causes and sources
and natural sources (pp. 3-12 and 3-14)
• Types of information to better address sources of impairment
(Appendix C)
• Clearer guidance on cost/benefit information (p. 6-9)
2.6 Format
* Guidelines reformatted to present a more logical flow of information
about the 305(b) assessment process.
« Certain tables on public health/aquatic life concerns now optional in
cases where EPA has national level data or where State-level data are not
useful at the national level (p. 7-31)
• WBS being modified to reflect changes to the WBS (EPA will distribute
WBS96 several weeks after these Guidelines)
• Emphasis on use of visuals such as maps for illustrating use attainment,
causes, and sources (pp. 1-7 and 7-4)
• New format for reporting on surface water monitoring programs to be
consistent with recent EPA Section 106 grant guidance and ITFM
monitoring framework (p. 7-1, Appendix E)
• Sections dealing with water pollution control programs to appear near
beginning of 305(b) report (p. 6-7)
2-2
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
SECTIONS
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
This section describes the basic components of a water quality assessment
including degree of use support, causes (pollutants and other stressors), and
sources of impairment. It also gives clearer explanations of several concepts
that may have caused inconsistencies in the past such as the fully
supporting but threatened category, presumed assessments, and natural
sources.
3.1 What Is an Assessment?
In setting their water quality standards, States assign one or more
designated uses to each individual waterbody. Designated uses are beneficial
uses that States want their waters to support. Examples are aquatic life
support, fish consumption, swimming, and drinking water supply. Under
Section 305(b), assessment of an individual waterbody (e.g., a stream
segment or lake) means analyzing biological/habitat and physical/chemical
data and other information to determine
I
• the degree of designated use support of the waterbody (fully supporting,
fully supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting)
• If designated uses are impaired, the causes (pollutants or stressors) and
sources of the problem
• Biological integrity using State biological criteria or other measures.
• Descriptive information such as the type and level of data used in the
assessment.
Figure 3-1 shows how monitoring, assessment, and reporting are related for
an individual waterbody.
i
3.2 Degree of Use Support
''' :' - - • • i
Each designated use has its own requirements for a finding of fully
supporting, fully supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not
supporting. Section 5 of these Guidelines, "Making Use Support
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
i
CO
a
§
•o
§
*J
i
CO
©
CO
03
UL
3-2
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Determinations," gives EPA's detailed recommendations for determining the
degree of use support for various designated uses.
Throughout these Guidelines, the term "impairment" means either partially
supporting or not supporting a designated use.
The category "fully supporting but threatened" requires further explanation.
A waterbody is fully supporting but threatened for a particular designated
use when it fully supports that use now but may not in the future unless
pollution prevention or control action is taken because of anticipated sources
or adverse pollution trends. Such waters are treated as 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 quality trend (i.e., water 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.
Fully supporting but threatened is not appropriate during temporary
impairment of designated uses (e.g., due to a construction project in a
watershed). The threatened category may be appropriate prior to anticipated
impairment, but while actual impairment is occurring, partial support or
nonsupport should be reported.
Summarizing Assessment Results in the Report to Congress
Beginning with the 1994 Report to Congress, EPA is using the following descriptive
terms in graphical presentations of degree of designated use support:
Good Water Quality = Fully Supporting or Fully Supporting but Threatened
Fair Water Quality = Partially Supporting
Poor Water Quality = Not Supporting
Impaired = Partially Supporting or Not Supporting
3.3 Types of Assessment Information
The State reports assessments of only those waterbodies for which use
support decisions can be based on reliable water quality information. Such
assessments are not limited to waters that have been directly monitored ~ it
is appropriate in many cases to make judgments based on other information.
Waterbodies assessed prior to the current reporting period can be included in
305{b) reports if the State believes that the assessment conclusions are still
valid. It is not appropriate, however, to claim that waterbodies are fully
supporting uses by default in the absence of sufficient information to make
an assessment (see also Section 3.5).
3-3
-------
____^__ 3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b|
Table 3-1 lists categories of information for assessments. These
Assessment Type Codes are from the EPA WBS. They provide a wealth of
information about the basis for individual assessments. For the 1996 cycle
.and beyond, EPA is strongly encouraging the use of Assessment Type Codes
in WBS and other State assessment data systems.
3.4 Monitored and Evaluated Waters
EPA asks the States to distinguish between assessments based on
monitoring and assessments based on other information.
• "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 some surveys of fish and game
biologists. As a general 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
biosurveys should be included in this category along with waters
monitored by fixed-station chemical/physical monitoring. To be
considered "monitored" based on fixed-station chemical/physical
monitoring, waters should be sampled quarterly or more frequently
States may use some flexibility in applying these guidelines. For example:
• For the 800 series of codes in Table 3-1, if State-approved quality
assurance/quality control procedures have been applied to volunteer
monitoring programs, waters sampled under these programs could be
considered monitored. However, a State may use its discretion in making
an Assessment Category determination of evaluated vs. monitored.
• If older ambient data exist for high-quality waters located in remote areas
with no known pollutant sources, and if those data are believed to
accurately portray water quality conditions, those waters could be
considered monitored.
EPA and States have been working together to better define the kinds of .
data upon which assessment decisions are made. See Tables 5-2 and 5-3,
which describe how various kinds of data correspond to "monitored" and
"evaluated."
3r4, ,
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 3-1. Assessment Type Codes from the Waterbody System
100 Qualitative (evaluated) assessment—unspecified3
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, fish kills, or abnormalities
150 Monitoring data that are more than 5 years old
(See 800 category)
175 Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment (e.g., channelization,
dredging, severe bank erosion)
180 Screening models (desktop models; models are not calibrated or verified)
190 Biological/habitat data extrapolated from upstream or downstream waterbody
191 Physical/chemical data extrapolated from upstream or downstream waterbody
200 Physical/chemical monitoring13
210 Fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
211 Highest quality fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional pollutants;
frequency and coverage sufficient to capture acute and chronic events, key periods,
high and low flows
220 Non-fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
222 Non-fixed-station monitoring, conventional, during key seasons and flows
230 Fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
231 Highest quality fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus
toxicants; frequency and coverage sufficient to capture acute and chronic events,
key periods, high and low flows
240 Non-fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
242 Non-fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxicants, during
key seasons and flows
250 Chemical monitoring of sediments
260 Fish tissue analysis
270 PWS chemical monitoring (ambient water)
275 PWS chemical monitoring (finished water)
300 Biological monitoring13
310 Ecological/habitat surveys
315 Regional reference site approach
320 Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys
321 RBP III or equivalent benthos surveys
322 RBP I or II or equivalent benthos surveys '•
330 Fish surveys !
331 RBP V or equivalent fish surveys
340 Primary producer surveys (phytoplankton, periphyton, and/or macrophyton)
350 Fixed-station biological monitoring
3-5
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 3-1 (continued)
400 Pathogen monitoring*3
410 Shellfish surveys
420 Water column surveys (e.g., fecal coliform)
430 Sediment analysis
440 PWS pathogen monitoring (ambient water)
450 PWS pathogen monitoring (finished water)
500 Toxicity testing15
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
600 Modeling0
610 Calibrated models (calibration data are less than 5 years old)
700 Integrated intensive survey13 (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 sources0
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)
870 Drinking water supply closures or advisories (source-water quality based)
3-6
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 3-1 (continued)
Discrepancy in Aquatic Life Assessment Resultsd
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 assessiment is
based on toxicity testing data
940 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is
based on qualitative (evaluated) assessment data
[Note: New codes have been added to include information types in Tables 5-2 and 5-3.]
3 Generally considered to be evaluated assessment types.
i_
b Generally considered to be monitored assessment types.
0 Considered to be monitored or evaluated assessment types depending on data quality and State assessment
protocols.
d States are requested to use these codes to identify cases when biological/habitat and physical/chemical data
show different assessment results.
3-7
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
3.5 Presumed Assessments
EPA cautions States against "presumed assessments" wherein assessment
results are extrapolated without adequate technical basis. Examples of
presumed assessments are
• Assuming that waterbodies are fully supporting by default unless there is
information to the contrary.
• Extrapolating assessments from one waterbody or watershed to others
not having very similar characteristics.
• Extrapolating the "percentage of assessed stream miles that are fully
supporting" to all streams in the State.
EPA does encourage States to report on all waters for which there is a
reasonable technical basis for evaluation. A reasonable basis could'include a
judgment that a stream is not supporting uses based on channelization, a
highly disturbed watershed, and data from nearby streams with similar
characteristics. However, EPA recognizes that States will have
"unassessed" waters in the 1996 cycle as they make progress toward
characterizing all waters every 5 years.
In addition, 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 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. See Section 4.1.
3.6 Causes of Impairment (Pollutants and Other Stressors)
Causes are those pollutants and other Stressors that contribute to the actual
or threatened impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. Table 3-2 lists
cause codes from the 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.
3.7 Sources of Impairment
Sources are the activities, facilities, or conditions that contribute pollutants
or Stressors resulting in impairment of designated uses in a waterbody.
Table 3-3 lists source codes from the WBS. States can also add their own
source codes to the WBS.
3-8
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 3-3. 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 (e.g., horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits) :
1400 Pastureland
1500 Rangeland
1510 Riparian Grazing*
1520 Upland Grazing*
1600 Animal Operations*
1620 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (permitted, point source)*
1640 Confined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS)*
1700 Aquaculture
1800 Off-farm Animal Holding/Management Area*
1900 Manure Lagoons
2000 Silviculture
2100 Harvesting, Restoration, Residue Management
2200 Forest Management (e.g., pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide application)*
2300 Logging Road Construction/Maintenance
2400 Silviculture! Point Sources
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
5000 Resource Extraction •
5100 Surface Mining
5200 Subsurface Mining
3-10
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 3-3 (continued)
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
7100 Channelization
7200 Dredging
7300 Dam Construction
7350 Upstream Impoundment !
7400 Flow Regulations/Modification
7550 Habitat Modification (other than Hlydromod)*
7600 Removal of Riparian Vegetation
7700 Streambank Modification/Destabilization
7800 Drainage/Filling of Wetlands
7900 Marinas
8100 Atmospheric Deposition
8200 Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks
8300 Highway Maintenance and Runoff
8400 Spills
8500 Contaminated Sediments
8600 Natural Sources
8700 Recreational Activities |
8900 Salt Storage Sites
8910 Groundwater Loadings
8920 Groundwater Withdrawal
8950 Other*
9000 Unknown Source '
Notes: In addition to the above, WBS users can enter their own customized source codes. The
overall code 8000 for "Other" has been deleted because it resulted in significant loss
of detail nationwide.
* Codes changed or added since 1994 Guidelines.
3-11
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
WBS Users--WBS can be used to generate the 305(b) summary report,
"Total Sizes of Waters Impaired 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 3-3
such as 1'000-Agriculture and 2000-Silviculture). This is necessary
because there may be overlap among the subcategories of sources. See "WBS Users'
box following Table 7-6 for details.
Determining the sources of designated use impairment can be a difficult
process. Ambient monitoring data can give good evidence of the causes of
impairment. In some cases, field observations can provide information on
obvious, nearby problems; e.g., land use, substrate, and habitat may provide
a basis for identifying sources. This is especially the case for
"hydromodification" sources.
In most cases, additional information is needed-watershed land use
inventories, records of permit compliance, areas with highly erodible soils,
areas with poor best management practice (BMP) implementation,
measurements of in-place contaminants, or loadings from atmospheric
transport or ground water.
A modeling framework can be helpful, especially where a variety of sources
could be involved. Even a simple annual average export-coefficient
screening model can help determine if particular source categories are
significant contributors to impairment. A well-rounded assessment process,
therefore, might involve monitoring, an inventory of land uses and point
source contributions for a watershed, and, where appropriate, a screening-
level model to rank and prioritize the relative impacts of different source
categories. ,
Appendix C lists types of information that can be used to determine sources
of water quality impairment.
Natural Sources
The Natural Sources category should be reserved for waterbodies impaired
due to naturally occurring conditions (i.e., not caused by, or otherwise
related to, past or present human activity) or due to catastrophic conditions.
In the past, some States have used natural sources as a catch-all category
for unknown sources. This tends to give an inaccurate picture of the extent
of natural sources at both State and national levels. States should use the
natural sources category only for clearly defined cases, including:
3-12
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
• Saline water due to natural mineral salt deposits
• Metals due to naturally occurring deposits
• Low dissolved oxygen (DO) or pH caused by poor aeration or natural
organic materials, where no human-related sources are present or where
impairment would occur even in the absence of human activity
• Excessive siltation due to glacial till or turbidity due to glacial flour, where
such siltation is not caused by human activity or where impairment would
occur even in the absence of human activity
• Habitat loss or pollutant loads due to catastrophic floods that are excluded
from water quality standards or other regulations
• High temperature, low DO, or high concentrations of pollutants due to
catastrophic droughts with flows less than design flows in water quality
standards.
The Natural Sources category does not include, for example, low flows due
to diversions resulting in low DO; drainage from abandoned mines resulting
in low pH; stormwater runoff resulting in habitat destruction, high
temperatures, or other impacts except under catastrophic conditions; or
atmospheric deposition of heavy metals where human-induced emissions are
a factor.
For technical or economic reasons, impairment by a natural source may be
beyond a State's capability to correct. A use attainability analysis (UAA)
should be done to determine if designated uses are attainable or if other uses
are more appropriate for a waterbody. Regional Water Quality Standards
Coordinators can provide information on conducting UAAs. In the absence
of a UAA, EPA recognizes that States may need to report impairment due to
natural sources even in cases where standards could be overly restrictive or
in need of revision.
l
3.8 Cause/Source Linkage
States are asked to link causes with sources for waterbodies in their
assessment databases 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 impaired due to nutrients from agricultural runoff?" cannot
be answered if the cause/source link is not used.
3-13
-------
The following chart illustrates what happens when causes and sources are
not linked. Although valuable information is stored, one cannot tell which
sources are associated with which pollutants or stressors:
Causes and Sources Not Linked
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:
Causes and Sources Linked
Waterbody
WBID - XX-012
Mill Creek above Brook Branch
Causes (pollutants/stressors)
Nutrients
Nutrients
Siltation
Thermal modification
Thermal modification
Sources (linked with causes)
Urban runoff
Municipal point sources
Removal of riparian vegetation
Urban runoff
Removal of riparian vegetation
WBS users should link causes with sources for a waterbody whenever
possible. This is especially important for 303(d) and 314 reporting. WBS
contains a special cause/source link field for this purpose. Linked
cause/source data are very important for answering management questions
from State WBS users. For example, the question "Which waterbodies are
not supporting uses due to nutrients from agricultural runoff?" cannot be
answered if the cause/source link field is not used. Currently, causes and
sources cannot be linked to individual designated uses in WBS. Few States
have the extensive data needed to link these to specific uses; however, EPA
will assist individual States that want to use the WBS detailed option for this
purpose.
3.9 Major/Moderate/Minor Contribution to Impairment
Section 7 of these Guidelines (Tables 7-5 and 7-6) requests determination of
the relative contribution to impairment of causes and sources of pollution.
The definitions of major/moderate/minor contributions are changed from the
1994 Guidelines to reflect the severity of impairment rather than the number
of sources contributing.. The 1994 definitions, for example, required that a
3-14
-------
3. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305{b)
source be labeled "major" if it is the only source of impairment on a
waterbody, regardless of the severity of impairment. The new definitions
are:
• Major contribution: A cause/source makes a maijor contribution to
impairment if it is the only one responsible for nonsupport of any
designated use or it predominates over other causes/sources.
• Moderate contribution: A cause/source is the only one responsible for
partial support of any use, predominates over other causes/sources of
partial support, or is one of multiple causes/sources of nonsupport that
have a significant impact on designated use attainment.
• Minor contribution: A cause/source is one of multiple causes/sources
responsible for nonsupport or partial support and is judged to contribute
relatively little to this nonattainment.
The major/moderate/minor designations are difficult to quantify and will
continue to reflect the best professional judgment >bf the data analyst. For
example, multiple minor causes/sources or multiple moderate causes/sources
could be interpreted to add up to nonsupport.
3-15
-------
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
SECTION 4
I
DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
This section discusses several topics related to the overall operation of State
water quality assessment programs:
• Spatial issues such as the extent of individual assessments, the goal of
comprehensively characterizing waters of the State, and delineating
waterbodies and watersheds
• Target of a 5-year cycle for 305(b) reports
• Managing assessment data
• Conditions for valid and comparable assessments
• Recommendations of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality (ITFM) as it relates to the future of 305(b) reporting.
4.1 Extent of Individual Assessments
The extent or size of a waterbody that is represented by a given monitoring
station is important because it affects the quality of assessment results. For
example, low assessment quality can result when a large segment of stream
or a large lake is assessed based on a single monitoring site. The 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup discussed this topic in 1994 and concluded that
only general guidance can be given at this time, as follows.
A monitoring station can be considered representative of a stream waterbody
for a distance upstream and downstream that has no significant influences
that might tend to change water quality or habitat quality. A significant
influence can be
• A point or nonpoint source input to the waterbody or its tributaries
• A change in watershed characteristics such as land use
• A change in riparian vegetation, stream banks, substrate, slope, or
channel morphology
4-1
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
• A large tributary or diversion
• A hydrologic modification such as channelization or a dam.
Because of the importance of site-specific considerations; EPA discourages
the use of uniform default values for the size of waterbody represented by a
single monitoring site. For streams. States should consider the upstream and
downstream characteristics of each monitoring station and its watershed in
arriving at an extent of assessment. A single site should not be used to
assess an entire watershed unless land use, sources, and habitat are
relatively homogeneous (e.g., as is sometimes the case in undeveloped
areas) and the observed stressor is consistent with watershed-wide impacts.
In general, a wadable stream station probably should represent no more than
5 to 10 miles of stream. For large rivers, EPA believes that 25 miles is a
reasonable upper limit for a single station unless stream-spedific data
demonstrate otherwise. However, some large western rivers may have no
significant influences for more than 25 miles, as is the case in New Mexico,
where a few stations on large rivers are believed to represent 50 to 75 miles
each.
For lakes, the factors that affect the number of monitoring sites needed per
lake are complex. They include purpose of the sampling, lake size,
stratification, morphometry, flow regime, and tributaries. No simple guideline
for size assessed per station can be given. Reckhow and Chapra (1983)
discuss monitoring design for lakes and the potential problems associated
with sampling only a single site. Similarly, no specific guidelines are
available for the extent of assessment of estuarine monitoring sites. The
Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is using a GIS to draw circles
around each monitoring site; the site is considered to represent the area
within its circle. Open water stations represent an area within a 4-mile
radius, most bay stations represent an area within a 2-mile radius, and highly
sheltered bay sites represent an area within a 0.5-mile radius. DOE uses
circles in part to emphasize the uncertainty associated with the extent of
assessment for estuarine sites.
For 1996, EPA asks States to provide information on how they determine
extent of waterbody represented by a single assessment or monitoring site
(see Section 7, Chapter 2, Assessment Methodology);
4.2 Comprehensive Statewide Assessment
EPA is moving toward a goal of comprehensively characterizing waters of
the State every 5 years using a variety of monitoring techniques targeted to
the condition of, and goals for, the waters. This would represent a
significant increase in the percentage of waters assessed throughout the
Nation. For example, in their 1992 305(b) reports, the States assessed 18
4-2
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
percent of the Nation's total stream miles (including intermittent streams,
canals, and ditches), or less than half of the Nation's perennial stream miles.
Achieving the goal of comprehensive coverage will require a combination of
monitoring approaches including both targeted and probability-based
monitoring and other techniques as well as aggregation of acceptable data
from a variety of agencies and sources. Figure 4-1 shows several aspects of
monitoring, assessment, and reporting that will be important to realizing the
goal.
EPA is also beginning to develop, with State participation, an approach for a
comprehensive water quality inventory of the condition of all assessed
waterbodies. This inventory will include a subset olf all impaired or
threatened waters under Sections 303(d), 314(a), 319(a), and others. The
comprehensive inventory will serve as data on water quality and will provide
information needed by States to fulfill a number of reporting and assessment
requirements under the CWA such as 305(b) and 303(d) reporting. See the
"Reporting and Action" box in Figure 4-1.
Targeted Monitoring
In the past, much of State water quality monitoring ,has been at sites
selected because the waterbody was of particular interest. This interest may
be for a variety of reasons, e.g., impaired waterbodies, pristine or threatened
waterbodies, or simply waterbodies of significant public interest. The
selection of waterbodies on this basis is known as purposive selection; the
data are intended to represent only the site itself and usually do not apply to
other waterbodies or extrapolate beyond that site. The process for selecting
and prioritizing waterbodies in this manner is critical because these are often
the waterbodies of most interest to the public and/or most in need of
management attention.
Probability-based Monitoring
Probability-based monitoring can provide a useful mechanism to fill
information gaps for waterbodies that are not currently monitored by the
State or,Tribe or other agencies. Such an approach can be particularly useful
when attempting to describe environmental conditions over large areas. A
probability-based approach may be used to make a statement about all
waterbodies of a particular class within an area (e.g., ail lakes above 10
acres in the State) and to describe the level of uncertainty associated with
the statement. Waterbodies are selected with a random or stratified random
process so one can make inferences about all waterbodies in that class
based on the few selected. The most likely use in many States will be to
characterize the condition of all stream miles in the State or in smaller units
such as ecoregions or large watersheds based on rotating basin surveys and
core monitoring of a selected group of parameters. In using this approach,
the result is an estimate about all waterbodies in that class meeting their use
4-3
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
(0
o
W
I
o
•o
I
V)
>
'55
c:
I
Q.
E
o
O
o>
o>
IE
-
-it
I
a
q
S
B
ral
E 1
S « «
I I 21 I
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
with an identified range of uncertainty, e.g., "20% of stream miles ±3%
are fully supporting aquatic life use."
Considerable planning is required to define the particular classes of
waterbodies of interest, but the end result can be a cost-effective, defensible
and rigorous process for making inferences about all waterbodies in an area.
The obvious limitation of probability-based monitoring is the lack of
waterbody-specific information for those waterbodies that are not randomly
selected. Waterbody-specific information is often needed to support water
quality management objectives. Also, the results of probability-based
monitoring may not be detailed enough to take specific actions at a site or
waterbody. Delaware and Maryland have statewide probability-based
networks. EPA will consider their methodologies and results when
developing future technical guidance on probability-based monitoring. EPA
plans to involve a workgroup in developing future 305(b) Guidelines, and the
Workgroup will consider this topic.
In making a transition from the current 305(b) process to a process that
characterizes waters more comprehensively using multiple monitoring
techniques, special consideration will be needed in documenting the selection
process. The 1996 Guidelines request more detailed descriptions of
monitoring programs and how their data are used in assessments and in
preparing the 305(b) summary tables. The types of information requested
about monitoring design are listed at the beginning of Section 7 of these
Guidelines; some of this information can be taken directly from State 106
workplans.
As described above, meeting the full range of State monitoring needs will
require a multiyear State strategy that includes aggregation of data from a
variety of sources and the use of various monitoring techniques such as
probability-based surveys as well as high-priority, targeted sites. A
legitimate question is how both probability-based and targeted information
can be used together effectively. To date, there is no satisfactory solution to
aggregating all of the information into a single statement. However, the two
types of data can be used together to more fully describe our understanding
of water quality conditions. For example, a probability data set might allow
a State to conclude that 25 percent of all stream miles in the State do not
support aquatic life use. The information from the targeted sites might
suggest that 10 percent of the high-priority waterbodies do not support
aquatic life use. One conclusion for this case might be that the State now
should look for solutions to the problems outside of the high-priority
systems. As another example, suppose one conclusion of the probability
surveys was that 25 percent of stream miles do not support aquatic life use,
but 50 percent of the high-priority sites do not support aquatic life use; in
this case, one might conclude that there is a need for continued concern
about these high-priority waterbodies and greater efforts to improve them.
4-5
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
4.3 Watershed and Waterbody Delineation
The waterbody is the basic unit-of-record for water quality assessment
information. That is, most States assess individual waterbodies and store
assessment results at this level-results such as degree of use support,
causes, sources, and type of monitoring. The States have defined
waterbodies in various ways, from short stream segments and individual
lakes to entire watersheds.
The delineation of individual waterbodies is time-consuming but critically
important to a State's 305(b) program. Many States have found it necessary
to redelineate waterbodies after only a few years based on previously
unrecognized data needs. The paragraphs below describe features of
watersheds and waterbodies and common approaches to their delineation.
One goal of this section is to help States make the best decisions about
watershed and waterbody delineation, thereby avoiding their need to repeat
the process later. Another goal is to ensure that whatever process is
selected, it will result in data that can be related to standard watersheds
such as USGS Cataloging Units or Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS; formerly the Soil Conservation Service, SCS) watersheds to allow
data aggregation at various scales.
USGS Hydrologic Units
The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is an eight-digit number that describes the
four levels of hydrologic units into which the United States has been divided
for purposes of water resources planning and data management:
• Region (2-digit codes)
• Subregion (4-digit codes)
• Accounting Unit (6-digit codes)
• Cataloging Unit (8-digit HUCs)
Note: NRCS/SCS has added two additional levels of watersheds (see
page 4-8).
The following illustrations show how the hydrologic unit classification is
applied to a portion of the State of South Carolina.
4-6
-------
ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
South Atlantic - Gulf Region 03
Regions - The Region is the largest unit that USGS uses for comprehensive
planning. For example, the South Atlantic-Gulf Region 03 extends from the
coastline to the Blue Ridge, and from southern Virginia through the
Southeast to New Orleans, Louisiana. There are 18 regions in the
coterminous United States, with a national total of 21 (including Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands).
4-7
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING [INFORMATION
•jl|gllj|g|ljjj^|^MBIMMMlHMIIPBllill|iHIIIIIIIB^
Subregions and Accounting Units - Subregions are defined by major river
basins. For instance, in South Carolina, subregion 0305 includes the Saluda,
Broad, and Santee Rivers and the Edisto system. Accounting Units are
aggregations of Cataloging Units used by USGS to organize water resource
data into manageable units. The South Carolina data in Subregion 0305 are
organized into 030501-the Santee, Saluda, Broad Rivers accounting unit--
and 030502--the Edisto River accounting unit.
Cataloging Units (CUs) - The CU is the lowest level of hydrologic
classifications by USGS for planning and data management. Nationally,
there are approximately 3,500 CUs. The 8-digit HUC designates each
individual CU. In the previous graphic, the lines within Accounting Unit
030501 are CU boundaries and each CU has a unique 8-digit HUC. The
HUC has been adopted as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS);
i.e., the HUC is a mandatory standard for Federal agencies describing
hydrologic data. The HUC classification is well accepted by professional
planners and hydrologists at all levels of government and in the private
sector.
SCS Watersheds
Years ago, the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources
Conservation Service) subdivided the CUs into watersheds, appending three
digits to the eight digit HUC (CU + 3). The designations were made by each
State Conservationist to create smaller units for planning activities. SCS had
a consistency problem with the earlier designations, with inharmonious sizes
from State to State and a lack of common standards for base maps. Now
NRCS Headquarters is aggressively pursuing better coherence in the
nationwide delineation. They are also proposing a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA and USGS to standardize use of the 11-digit
watershed code. NRCS is also beginning to subdivide States into 14-digit
small watersheds (CU + 3+ 3) for planning and analysis at an even finer
scale. For example, SCS in North Carolina worked closely with State
environmental agencies to delineate 1,640 14-digit watersheds averaging
about 19,000 acres each (see Figure 4-2).
Note: The SCS/NRCS watersheds are still commonly known as SCS
watersheds, and this convention is followed in these Guidelines.
4-8
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
SCS 11-Digit Watersheds (South Carolina Waterbodies) in Cataloqinq Unit
03050109
South Carolina has defined its water-bodies as SCS watersheds (the 11-digit
variety). Actually, the State's waterbodies comprise those streams or lakes
that fall within the SCS watershed boundary. As indicated below, this
method of waterbody delineation has both positive and negative implications.
SCS Watersheds as a Common Watershed Base
Many States are seeking to establish common watersheds for use by all
State agencies, an approach EPA endorses. The watershed level that seems
to offer the most advantages, and is the most frequently chosen by the
States, is the SCS watershed. Use of these watershed boundaries allows
easy access to SCS/NRCS data and improves coordiniation-of nonpoint
source assessments with other agencies.
South Carolina was the first State to index its waterbodies to RF3 and it
used the SCS watershed as the basis for waterbody designation. At first,
use support, cause, and source information was tracked only at the
watershed level, but this proved too generalized for practical use. The State
then went back and identified use support, causes, and sources for individual
stream segments, which proved to be a useful level of resolution. One goal
in any delineation scheme is to assemble data at a resolution sufficient to
4-9
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
co
.£
2
8
o
c
1
11
If
£8
0
CO
•«•. ^^
II
(M
4
4-10
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
answer the questions that are important for management, without spending
more resources than necessary to obtain data.
South Carolina, on the basis of information developed in its first GIS effort,
also developed some important locational information at significantly higher '
resolution. They used Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology to
accurately identify the location of discharges. They are proceeding basin by
basin throughout the State. Their GIS now has obvious value as a tool for
management.
This type of functionality will become increasingly important as tools such as
ArcView2 become available.* These, together with the ARC/INFO coverage
produced by EPA's Reach Indexing project, will allow States to analyze their
waterbody data spatially. The WBS route system data model (RTI, 1994)
allows the State to geographically identify specific use support classifications
down to the reach segment level.
Waterbody Delineation
Waterbodies have been defined on a wide range of criteria-from individual
RF2 reaches, frequently used from 1986 to 1988, to SCS watersheds or
other groupings conforming to administrative boundaries. Tracking of
individual reaches probably gives too much resolution to waterbody data and
complicates workload management. On the other hand, watershed-based
approaches will give sufficiently specific information only if they identify the
actual locations of use support classifications and causes and sources of
impairment.
EPA recommends that States delineate waterbodies. to be compatible with
SCS 11- or'14-digit watersheds. This approach is especially appropriate
where States are considering redelineating their waterbodies and where 14-
digit watersheds have been delineated or the existing 11-digit SCS
watersheds are truly hydrologically based (some 11-digit SCS watershed
boundaries were determined by administrative criteria rather than strictly by
hydrology). Where, 14-digit watersheds will be delineated in the hear future,
a State .might consider waiting.for these boundaries before redelineating
waterbodies. Figure 4-2 shows some of the 14-digit watersheds agreed
upon by.'SCS and the State of North Carolina.
Mention of trade n'ames in this document does not constitute endorsement. ArcView2 is a new
product that enables nonprogrammers to utilize ARC/INFO coverages to do mapping and spatial
analysis. EPA has designated ARC/INFO (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., ESRI)
as a GIS standard for the Agency.
4-11
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
Table 4-1 describes two approaches to delineating waterbodies that are
consistent with aggregating data at the watershed level. Although both
approaches are acceptable, EPA recommends the first approach for States
that are redelineating their waterbodies. A cornerstone of these approaches
is flexible data management. That is, the level of detail of assessment data
can vary from watershed to watershed depending on the unique causes and
sources in each watershed.
Aggregating Assessment Data at Watershed, Basin, and Ecoregion Levels
EPA encourages States to develop the capability to aggregate assessment
data at the watershed, basin, and ecoregion levels. EPA is not asking States
to present aggregated assessment data by SCS or USGS watershed or
ecoregion in the 305(b) report, but rather to develop the capability to do so
by including locational data. However, States are encouraged to begin
reporting aggregated data by river basin if possible (e.g., Tables 7-3, 7-5,
7-6; see also Appendix H).
Using SCS watersheds as basic units for aggregating water quality
assessment data will aid in data integration and in making other agencies'
data available to the States. If a State wishes to use waterbodies that are
based on units other than SCS watersheds (e.g., stream segments and
individual lakes), sufficient locational information should be included to allow
aggregation of detail at the SCS watershed level or, at a minimum, at the
HUC level. These locational data can be stored, for example, in WBS SCRF1
or SCRF2 files. At a minimum, WBS or other 305(b) databases should
contain watershed identification numbers for each waterbody and, to the
extent possible, waterbodies should not cross SCS or HUC watershed
boundaries. Assessments can also be aggregated by ecoregion if ecoregion
codes are stored in WBS for each waterbody, or in combination with a GIS
coverage of ecoregions. Note: If waterbodies are georeferenced to RF3, and
a GIS is available, aggregation of assessments can be done with the GIS.
4.4 Managing Assessment Information
The EPA Waterbody System (WBS) is a PC database of water quality
assessment information. WBS was developed by EPA for States and other
entities specifically for tracking and reporting assessments under 305{b). It
provides a standard format for water quality assessment information and
includes a software program for adding and editing data, generating reports,
and transferring data between the PC and other platforms such as
mainframes and GISs.
WBS has four main functions:
• To reduce the burden of preparing reports required under Sections 305(b),
303(d), 314, and 319 of the Clean Water Act
4-12
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
in
.2
'•5
o
•S
o>
+->
(0
O)
I
0
"3
Q
(0
o
o
a.
t
_£
X]
.2
B
f
D)
o
u
£
(13
i
"8
I
CO
a>
IS
8'
! ~a
• c
ca
>.
CO
lt|.i
m •— m
to " tO +j
CD CO ,» C
W P 5
to f +* C
•"!*£
Si IS
3 S*
o
S 8- o
o^I
(0
£
S
E *•
E o
£ o>
W «
CO
D> .
C CD
S"S
k. ro
^•w .
S ,_ "o
S 8.-8
O C
w ^ 5>
(D
O
§
dJ
.c
(0
c
(0 a)
££l
Si*
CD
S ™
5£
Ni
111
"
>• O a) ^
f 9- .€*
w ® O
10 1°
8-c
to <-•
±:
I
o
• m £
.1 g-2
,lo-e
— O a>
o
8^1
§2(0
- o
(/}
.3
1
o
to
5
c jo
E-o
to
to
0>
to
S o to
w '5 -a
»^2 §
S'SE 8
°'l*
•- te .2 o
CO .2 co a
s s § §•
5 E o to
0) O i CD
^ tO <-• CO
(0
0)
o
c
.03
*c
CD
o.
ol
•S
§
8
* * -s is "
ill i!
8-8il;€ J
s 8 | St
s-s
"fi o
5 o
S °-
2-T- '
tj fa c
S1*
(0 g CO
'c
'ta
c a -5 °
« ."2 •= »
C > ° C
o o. to •£
'fip-0-.a
O C .C ffl
•
O o
to •-
S ** E
|2S
> >•%
8 a "« «
J6 CO m +•• a
— 0) 3 CD O
8 Sl'S E
JS CD > W (0
£-113
S
—
a*-g
•SliS.-
5 '.5
;•*
:1
(0
c
8
01
2
2
w
*
.2 ts
43 Q> Q) w
•JS S Cij S C
IB cjj-co o> S *i to
* 8J| $| I i
i 11 1 ? * I
5 to S CO O -S <0
I
!s
•9 »
511
II i
(0 > fl)
S €"
I i|-
to ... ~
-i JJ -a
|« 8
*l = f 8-
52 1 &1
eo fi S t 1
•g
» IS
o
CO
I
CD
CD
CD
CO
p* «i5 r* *^
~ ' J 9 2
5g
J3 O) CD 'c
« = S- "5
.
s= '» E
< 10 =
"5 Q..2 fi'fe.S
^isili
*V ^ \U lv
S-= E S
=R 2
S-'fi
<3g
•£ co
= o
o co
"§
w CN
£ •<->
CO 3
£J
co
i!
O) CD
to
1?\
5 o - S
S'=
„ 5
n
O rs
(D
S4!
a.
CO CD g- «*-
m « 3 °
f? C 5 —
CO CD
S J
ll
r &
" .= S g
E "g -o * ~
(D £
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
g
w
.£
"8
•s
0>
I
I
*
M
P
CO
jo
"8
x
1
ro
a>
U)
I
03
I
~ CD ^
^ Q>
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
• To improve the quality and consistency of water quality reporting among
the States
• To provide data for national level assessments and for analyzing water
quality issues outside of 305(b)
• To be a useful water quality management tool for State agencies.
These 305(b) Guidelines and user requests determine the features of the
WBS. The Guidelines require States to track dozens of data types for each
waterbody (each State has from several hundred to several thousand
waterbodies) in order to generate the summary tables required in Section 7.
Although most WBS features result from the 305(b) Guidelines, WBS also
contains some data elements that States have requested for internal
management purposes (e.g., georeferencing fields and memo fields).
WBS contains over 100 data elements in such categories as:
• Descriptors — waterbody name, number, description, type (stream, lake,
etc.), size
• Locational data elements — Reach File coordinates, basin and watershed
identifiers
• Assessment data — degree of use support for each use, size impaired,
causes and sources, type of monitoring, type of assessment, assessment
confidence.
For detailed information about the WBS, see the WBS96 Users Guide
(U.S. EPA, 1995b). EPA also provides ongoing technical support to WBS
users. Between January and August 1994, EPA provided over 180
consultations to 48 different entities, including the States, Territories, Tribes,
and Interstate Commissions, on the use of WBS and RF3 for 305(b)
programs.
Data Management Options for Aggregating Data by Watershed
At least three options are available for aggregating assessment data by
watershed. These options are compatible with WBS and the approaches
described in Table 4-1.
1. Entirely within WBS. The WBS Detailed Option provides for parent
waterbodies at the watershed level and detailed segments within the
watershed for tracking use support, causes, and sources. Watersheds
with relatively uniform water quality and sources might need only two
parent waterbodies, one for all streams and another for all lakes. More
4-15
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
complex watersheds might need additional waterbodies (e.g., for main
stem segments impacted by point sources or major recreational lakes).
2. WBS in combination with a GIS program. WBS can be used to store
assessment data in combination with GIS programs such as ARC/INFO
or ArcView2, which enable users to analyze spatial data and prepare
maps. ArcView2 runs on PCs and users do not need to learn the
complex ARC/INFO programming language. It uses standard ARC/INFO
data coverages (e.g., reach-indexed waterbodies or STORET monitoring
stations). (See previous note regarding mention of trade names.)
3. Entirely within the GIS environment. States with full GIS capability (e.g.,
having access to ARC/INFO programmers and workstations) can manage
assessment data within the GIS environment and export results to WBS
for reporting.
4.5 Moving Toward a Five-year Reporting Cycle
With the support of the 305(b) Workgroup, the ITFM, and many States, the
EPA Office of Water is recommending a target of a 5-year 305(b) reporting
cycle including a comprehensive identification of impaired/ threatened waters
(combined 303(d), 314(a), 319, 320, wetlands, and ground water). See
Figure 4-1.
States have suggested the following advantages of a 5-year cycle:
• Few. water quality changes occur in a 2-year period, yet the burden of
preparing biennial reports is roughly the same each cycle.
• A 5-year cycle would be consistent with statewide basin management
under the Watershed Protection Approach; in this approach, a State
typically completes monitoring, permitting, and management plan
development for each basin every 5 years (although other cycle lengths
are possible under the Watershed Protection Approach).
• The effort saved by preparing a 305(b) report every 5 years instead of
every 2 years could be spent keeping assessments and assessment
databases up to date.
• The new 106 Monitoring Guidelines and the final ITFM report recommend
that States assess waters comprehensively in 4 to 10 years using a
rotating basin approach.
If a targeted 5-year 305(b) cycle were implemented, the most likely scenario
is that EPA would require first comprehensive State 305 (b) reports in April
2001. States would, however, transmit annual updates of assessment data
to WBS as part of the modernized STORET. This requirement would promote
4-16
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
an ongoing program of assessment updates in each State and could avoid
the large number of errors and other problems associated with last-minute
updates. States would update individual assessments every year but not
their 305(b) summary tables because these tables represent a large part of
the labor associated with a 305(b) report.
If necessary, EPA would submit a brief biennial report or letter to Congress
based on a core set of information from the State databases and any
information of special interest or concern transmitted by the States.
Figure 4-3 shows an example schedule and sequence of events in a 5-year
305(b) cycle for a State. This chart is presented for discussion purposes
only and is not considered guidance at this time.
4.6 Valid and Comparable Assessments
Valid and comparable assessments within and among States is a long-term' j
goal of the 305(b) program. Comparability here means that a given
waterbody would be assessed as having the same degree of use support
(full, partial, or nonsupport) by different individuals within the agency or in
other States. EPA, the 305(b) Workgroup, and the ITFM and its successor,
the National Monitoring Council, will provide the technical approaches and
institutional coordination needed to reach this goal of full comparability
among the States, which will take longer than 1996 to realize. EPA believes
that improvements are needed in each of the six elements in Table 4-2 in
order to move closer to the goal of valid and comparable assessments among
States.
4.7 ITFM and 305(b) Assessments
Formed in 1992, the ITFM is a 3-year program to improve the effectiveness
and coordination of water quality monitoring efforts nationwide. ITFM
includes representatives from 20 Federal, State, Tribal,, and interstate
organizations; its chair and vice chair are from EPA and USGS, respectively.
An additional 150 individuals from Federal and State agencies participate on
nine working groups. In addition, there is an associated advisory group with
members from municipalities, academia, business and industry, and volunteer
groups. In its draft final report (ITFM, 1994b), ITFM recommends a
nationwide monitoring strategy and technical improvements to better answer
the following questions:
1. What is the condition of, the Nation's surface and ground waters?
2. Where, how, and why are water quality conditions changing over time?
3. Where are water quality problems, and what is causing the problems?
4. Are programs to prevent or remediate the problems working effectively?
5. Are we meeting water quality goals and standards?
4-17
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
a
i
-
is fa.
i*
ts
4-18
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
S
'5
CO c «*
.g % o
lil
c co to
•o o to1
CD CL «
111
§83
515
.» ci> to
•2-g co
ka '•' ^
HI
o X co
18**
0)
0)
-2
CO
O)
I
o
*
w .s. -w
w g JS
2 * "5
CO c O
.« O M
T3 Q. >
C JO £
~ 2 Q.
CO CO
it
O o*
o "w
W Q)
•o o> £
e c .2
co '^ .t;
2C T3
~ 2 c
ills
.a "5. TO
1-^4
r!i
s
E
8
o
°
§*§ i^§
o <- w •£:
TD g (0 CO
Si — **
£ §=5
£ g
ID
C
CD
C
CO C CO
CD O 5
Q. *- O
iSi
_co
^ c - §
> .E Q. 0)
T3 o 5
«
5 I
u £
E *
Ii
«-• o
to iSg
3 2
~ «
CO CO
II
CD
I
3
•O
S
1
O
8
CD
I Ml s
E § * * .2
HI if|
llil*s
CD —
co « o § io '5
5 -S E 8 £ §
CM
4-19
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
£
i
(O
0)
I
(A
^M .2
09 CD
O 03
!?? "~
g C |?
co o £
E'f! (0
O 3
-g &. i §>
i s g
o .£ .Q o 2 c
O> v- ir ra ffl .—
§
3
•o
I
1
3
o
.
i mill
5
Q
2
81
«
s
o
c
.£ .? •§;?«
t- ~ .S: C _ .
o a. S: § 1o
.t; o « £ o
-
.2 '
cr a.ci
c
T3
§
O
2 S
(D
E -a
22
O* n c
S 5 O
S
'fe *" o>
5 E S
-
P OJ c
_ w «
Hi
-
» C BJ
w S-s
. 0 c
2^-S
o o
^ o
»3i
£.2 >8
at
ll
a
t
e
is
an assessment (full, parti
nonsupport) should ideal
same regardless of th
A criticism of 305(b)
methods among
o dissimilar for
essmen
tes are
as
St
comparison or aggrega
results
w o>
o •§ §
® £ 2'^
^ o "?s 5
2 E o-i
8 1 ° = ^
Hill
(0
•o
(D
i
I
JO
•a
(0
sai
ne
Recommended
data manageme
sment
know the
ed
Other users of
information ne
quality of assessments to
determine compatibility with
data
o
c= 3
E o-
3 <-.
O c
II
0 (0
-o ^
< 0
in
4-20
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
g w
c —
o-o
o>
g
co
c
»
E
it
e§
8 |
CO O
•
li
-«
& §
H s
III III I
3 C
8li§lii
~ 5 c
3 S8
g°^«|-Eia«fl
8 ® E £ _: E S 2
» ^ 5 c -s o w »
2
o •§
f?
E
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AMD MANAGING INFORMATION
EPA urges all 305(b) Coordinators to read the three ITFM reports, which are
expected to have a profound impact on the future of water quality
monitoring (ITFM, 1992, 1994a, and 1994b).
The following box lists ITFM's major recommendations, not just those
pertaining directly to 305(b).
Major ITFM Recommendations
Work Together
• Incorporate monitoring as a critical element of program planning, implementation, and
evaluation.
• Use collaborative teams made up of monitoring organizations from all levels of government
and the private sector to plan and implement monitoring improvements in geographic areas.
Include volunteer monitoring efforts in these teams.
• Establish a National Water Quality Monitoring Council with representation from all monitoring
sectors to develop guidelines for voluntary use by monitoring teams nationwide, to foster
technology transfer and training, and to coordinate planning and resource sharing.
• Link national ambient water quality assessment programs.
Share Data
• Agree on sets of widely useful key physical, chemical, and biological indicators to support
interjurisdictional aggregations of comparable information for decisionmaking across many
scales.
• Use meta data standards to document and describe information holdings and to help
secondary users judge whether data are useful for their applications.
• Link information systems to provide easier access by a wide variety of users to available
holdings.
Use Comparable Methods
• Jointly develop and adopt for common use indicator and data element names, definitions, and
formats.
• Implement a performance-based monitoring methods system (PBMS) to achieve comparable
data, more flexible use of monitoring methods, and more cost-effective monitoring.
• Jointly establish reference conditions or sites for shared use in biological and ecological
assessments and comparisons. Reference conditions are critically needed to establish
baseline conditions against which other waterbodies or habitats can be evaluated.
(continued)
4-22
-------
4. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
Major ITFM Recommendations (continued)
Monitoring Program Goals and Designs
I
• Design water quality monitoring programs and select indicators to measure progress in
meeting clearly stated goals for aquatic resources including State standards for designated
uses.
• Use flexible monitoring program designs tailored to the conditions, uses, and goals for water
resources in specific areas.
• Use watersheds, ground water basins, ecoregions, or other natural boundaries as planning
and evaluation units for monitoring.
« Periodically evaluate monitoring efforts to ensure that they continue to meet management
goals cost-effectively.
I
Report Findings
» Regularly interpret, assess, and report measurements and raw data for use by the public and
decisionmakers.
Many of the ITFM's activities and recommendations relate to the key
conditions for valid and comparable assessments in Table 4-2. The last
column in Table 4-2 links these key conditions to specific ITFM activities and
recommendations. Improvements in the 305(b) process based on ITFM
recommendations and those of the National Water Quality Monitoring
Council will continue over the next several years, as technical guidance is
issued on such topics as monitoring and laboratory methods, assessment
methods, monitoring design, and data management and sharing.
4-23
-------
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
SECTION 5
MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
This section presents EPA's recommended approaches to making use
support decisions for individual waterbodies. Designated uses addressed
are: aquatic life, fish consumption, recreational uses such as swimming, and
drinking water.
5.1 Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)
[Note: Addendum A includes, for your information, review, and comment, a
concept for making ALUS determinations with both biological/habitat data
and physical/chemical data. The EPA/State 305(b) Consistency Workgroup
drafted the concept for small rivers and streams to outline a logical,
scientifically defensible process for integrating ALUS determinations based
on biological/habitat data and physical/chemical data. The concept is not
guidance. It needs further development and the review of outside experts.
The guidance described in this section (5.1) should be followed.]
5.1.1 Independent Application
In July 1991, EPA transmitted final national policy on the integration of
biological, chemical, and lexicological data in water quality assessments.
According to this policy, referred to as "Independent Application," indication
of impairment of water quality standards by any one of the three types of
monitoring data (biological, chemical, or lexicological) should be taken as
evidence of impairment regardless of the findings of the other types of data.
One intent of this policy was to encourage States' progress in developing
biological monitoring programs. 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 ALUS decisions.
5.1.2 Valid and Comparable Indicators
For streams, EPA recommends ITFM's suite of parameters shown in
Figure 5-1. These are general recommendations to consider when revising
monitoring programs. The aquatic life use indicators would include the base
monitoring program parameters in the box—community level biological data
5-1
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
liilim
a
1
C9
Jd
OT
a
52
I
o
E
c
UJ
I
o
09
5-2
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
from at least two assemblages, habitat, and physical/chemical field
parameters-plus ionic strength, nutrients, and toxicants in water and
sediment. ITFM makes a distinction between indicators that directly
measure biological response, such as fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
metrics, and indicators that measure exposure such as levels of pH,
nutrients, and toxicants.
5.1.3 Valid and Comparable Field and Laboratory Methods
The National Water Quality Monitoring Council, ITFM's likely successor, will
recommend specific methods for measuring the parameters shown in
Figure 5-1. Standard methods for measuring the chemical parameters are
well established among the States, but methods for biological assessments
are not standardized. Recent work by the Ohio EPA suggests that
bioassessment methods differ widely in their accuracy and discriminatory
power for aquatic life use determinations (Yoder et al., 1994). Ohio has
developed a hierarchy of bioassessment approaches from least confidence to
most confidence (Table 5-1). In their State, Ohio. EPA found that
bioassessment approaches below Level 7 in Table 5-1 tend to be accurate if
they detect impairment, but often miss impairment that is detected by
higher-level methods. That is, approaches below Level 7 often give a false
indication of full support.
Based on considerable information already available, EPA strongly endorses
the regional reference approach for State bioassessment programs for
streams (Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small
Rivers, Gibson et al., 1994). This corresponds to Level 9 in Table 5-1. If
States choose not to implement a reference site approach, they are still
encouraged to monitor two organism groups, with detailed taxonomy, a
multimetric approach, and habitat evaluation. In calling for two organism
groups, EPA seeks to include critical groups in the food chain that may react
to different ecosystem stressors. EPA recognizes that the use of two
organism groups or the regional reference approach may not be feasible in
certain cases (e.g., streams in the arid west due to naturally occurring
conditions such as extreme temperatures and lack of flow). EPA also
recognizes that some State bioassessment programs are in their early stages
and may not yet have the capability to use a regional reference site
approach.
Many States are currently assessing a single organism group, benthic
macroinvertebrates, with detailed taxonomy, a multimetric approach, and
habitat evaluation (Level 7 in Table 5-1). These States are monitoring a
critical group that often gives the greatest information about ecosystem
health for the available resources. For fish sampling, some rely on their fish
and game agencies, which are mainly oriented to game fish. As resources
permit, EPA encourages State water quality agencies to develop the
5-3
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 5-1. Hierarchy of bioassessment approaches from least confidence to most
confidence developed by Ohio EPA (ITFM, 1994)
BIOASSESSMENT SKILL ORGANISM TECHNICAL ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL
TYPE REQUIRED' GROUPS* COMPONENTS COMPLEXITY* ACCURACY*
10. Comprehen-
sive Bbassess-
merrt
(ft/a/organism groups
(same) AliOrga- Same except all Highest
nism organism groups
Groups ' are sampled
High
DISCRIMINATORY POLICY
POWER* RESTRICTIONS
1. Stream Walk Non-biologist None Handbook* Simple
(Visual Obser-
vations)
2. Volunteer Non-biologist Inverte- Handbook", Low
Monitoring to Technician brates Simple equipment
3.Professk>nal Biologist w/ None or Historical Low to
Opinion (e.g., experience Fish/Inverts. records Moderate
RBP Protocol V)
4.RBPProto- Biologist w/ Inverte- Tech. Manual, '<» Low
col I&ll training brates Simple equip, to Moderate
5. Narrative Aquatic Blolo- Fish &/or Std. Methods, Moderate
Evaluations gist w/Vaining Inverts. Detailed taxonomy
& experience Specialized equip.
6. Single Dimen- (same) (same) (same) Moderate
s ton Indices
7tBtJolcil^Jcos . fc^0) Inverte- (same) Moderate
(HBI, BCI, etc.) brates to High
8-RBPProto- (same) RshA Tech. Manual." High
cols HI&V Inverts. Detailed taxonomy.
Specialized equip.,
dual organism groups
S.RegJonal (same) Rsh& Same plus baseline High
Reference Inverts, calibration of mulS5-
SH» Approach metric indices &
Lovy
Low to
Moderate
Low to
Moderate
Low to
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
to High
Moderate
to High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low to
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
to High
High
Many
Many
Many
Many
Moderate
Moderawtfl
"H
^P
Moderate
to Few
Few
Few
High
Few
I and experience needed to accurately implement and use the bioassessment type "~
stat ' '* afe ^ used and/or samPIed:'lsh and macroinvertebrates are most commonly employed in the
4 R3Jldlx?oI(S> technical manuals, taxonomic keys, and data requirements for each bioassessment type.
5 R« 2 f £ ihfS-S31 dlm.enslons ',nhfren!in tne b3510 da»a that Is routinely generated by the bioassessment type.
conditfons. V ocoloflfcal end-points or indicators to differentiate conditions along a gradient of environmental
5 Slr«r,?f *£ P°**r,of *• data and information deprived to discriminate between different and increasingly subtle impacts
Sd JSJffl ihl?S~iShf °f btosJ"X»W«? chemical-specific, toxicotegical (I.e. bioassays). physical, and other assessments
g«n° criteria.that serve as surrogate indicators of aquatic life use arlainment/non-attainment.
i rfS?*,*!*lndlcalora Guide: Surface Waters (Terrell and Perfetti 1989)
' fjlllrt K^Of\V» Ulifnv OtvM^k.^ /^t..^.t!A. . ft * «j f ft*.. _ •• i -- *
o oi
10 n*
10 U.S. EPA
l? RiY,e.C Stream Quality MonHorlng (Kopec and Lewis 1 983).
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (Plafkin ®t al. 1989).
5-4
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
capability for fish assemblage monitoring themselves or work with the fish
and game staff to develop the needed capabilities.
5.1.4 Assessment Description for ALUS Determinations
In 1994, the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and EPA concluded that
descriptive information beyond degree of use support, causes, and sources is
needed to fully define an assessment. "Assessment type" is one example of
such data (see WBS Assessment Type Codes in Table 3-1); other examples
include data sources and text descriptions of data fields. Such descriptors
for characterizing assessments are collectively called "meta data."
Another important type of meta data is assessment quality, which is being
incorporated into the Guidelines for the first time in 1996 and is referred to
as "data description levels" and "assessment description levels."
Documenting this information is important because, when assessments are
aggregated or made available to other agencies, users often need to know
the basis of the underlying information. Assessment quality information
should become a part of State assessment databases.
At the Workgroup's recommendation, EPA is applying the description levels
only to ALUS determinations for wadable streams and rivers where EPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols or other comparable methods can be applied.
This is because aquatic life use is the most widely reported use, and
monitoring methods for wadable streams and rivers are better documented
and standardized (Plafkin et al., 1989) than for other surface water resources
such as lakes and estuaries. The approach may be extended to ALUS
determinations in other types of waterbodies as well as other designated
uses in future 305(b) cycles based on the experience with ALUS in streams
and rivers during the 1996 cycle.
Therefore, for wadable streams and rivers, EPA asks States to track two
types of assessment description information as relarted to quality:
• Data description levels |
• Assessment description levels. ;
Data Description Levels
For determining data description levels, data types are grouped into two
categories: biological/habitat (B/H) data and physical/chemical (P/C) data.
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 list many types of data that fall under the B/H and P/C
categories. In Tables 5-2 and 5-3, Level 4 data are of highest quality and are
most likely to indicate the true degree of ALUS, Level 3 data are of good
quality resulting in defensible assessments, etc. Although data in Levels 4
through 1 vary in strengths and limitations, all are considered adequate for .
assessments. Data not adequate for ALUS determinations are excluded from
5-5
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 5-2. Data Description Levels for ALUS: Biological/Habitat Data3
Level of
Information
Monlt. or
M
M
M
M
MorE
M
M
MorE
Types of
Direct biological and habitat measures during key
seasons using a regional reference condition
approach (baseline calibration of multimetric indices)
and two organism groups; e.g., RBPs 111 and V
(invertebrates and fish) or equivalent, or
Other scientifically defensible methods for two
organism groups with similar level of confidence
(methods must be documented)
Direct biological and habitat measures during key
seasons using RBPs III and/or V (invertebrates
and/or fish) or equivalent; may or may not involve
regional reference condition approach; or
Other scientifically defensible methods having similar
level of confidence (methods must be documented)
Biomonitoring data or field evaluations during key
seasons by skilled aquatic biologists. For streams,
RBPs I (evaluative) or II (screening-level monitoring),
or narrative evaluations with screening-level
taxonomy of a single organism group, primary
producer surveys, or
Tissue data from fish or other aquatic-based
organisms indicating potential ecological hazard
(e.g., selenium in the food chain), or
Other scientifically defensible methods having similar
level of confidence (methods must be documented),
or
Strong information about natural reproducing fishery
(e.g.. surveys of fishery biologists such as RBP IV)
WBS Assess.
Type Codes
310, 321,°
331°
321,C331C
322,° 332C
260
120
5-6
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 5-2. (continued)
., Level of
Information
1a
Monit, or
M
M
MorE
E
E
Types of Information**
Volunteer monitoring data with adequate QA and
SOPs, or
Limited biological/habitat monitoring data (less
rigorous methods than levels 2-4 above)
Other scientifically defensible methods having similar
level of confidence (methods must be documented)
Biological/habitat data extrapolated from an
upstream or downstream waterbody where similar
conditions are expected
Biological/habitat monitoring data >5 yrs old without
further validation
WBS Assess,
Type Codes
820
NA
190°
150
NA = Not applicable
RBPs = Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al., 1989)
a Assumes for each data type that sufficient coverage and frequency of data exist to make an
assessment; e.g., Level 1 data are adequate for an assessment if no higher-level data exist.
b Based in part on Determining the Comparability of Bioassessments (Yoder et al., 1994)
c New Assessment Type Codes for Table 3-1 and WBS.
Note: Unless otherwise noted, the data types listed in the table assume that adequate QA/QC
procedures and SOPs were followed for sample collection and analysis. Bacteriological data are not
included because they are used mainly to assess human health uses. Most States have developed
their own QA/QC and SOP documents. EPA references include
« Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish {Plafkin et al., 1989)
» Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers (Gibson et al., 1994)
» Guidance on Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria, draft (U.S. EPA, 1994b)
» Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories, Vol. 1: Fish
Sampling and Analysis, EPA 823-R-93-002 (U.S. EPA, 1992)
« Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4 (U.S. EPA, 1994a)
5-7
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 5-3. Data Description Levels for ALUS: Physical/Chemical Data
Level of
information
fi/tonit or
Eva!
M
M
M
M
Types of Information
Where impacts from nonchemical stressors
(e.g, habitat degradation) are clearly not a
factor long-term (e.g., >3 years), fixed-
station monitoring with sufficient frequency
and parametric coverage to capture acute
events, chronic conditions, and all other
potential P/C impacts. For example, monthly
sampling during key periods (e.g., spring/
summer months; fish spawning seasons)
including multiple samples at high and low
flows. Depending on upstream sources, may
require continuous monitoring or intensive
surveys at near-critical flows. Including
toxicant sampling and water column and/or
sediment toxicity testing as appropriate, or
Multiple, significant exceedances of one or
more WQSs and there is little potential for
false indications of impairment
Long-term (e.g., >3 years), fixed-station
monitoring with sufficient frequency and
parametric coverage to capture acute events
and all potential impacts. Typically, monthly
sampling during key periods (e.g.,
spring/summer months; fish spawning
seasons) including multiple samples at high
and low flows. Depending on upstream
sources, may require continuous monitoring
or intensive surveys at near-critical flows.
Including toxicant sampling and water column
and/or sediment toxicity testing as
appropriate, or
Long-term special studies during key seasons
and at near-critical flows, e.g., involving
multiple visits or automatic sampling over a
period of months, or
Ambient toxicity testing at near-critical flows;
sediment toxicity testing, sediment chemistry
Other scientifically defensible methods having
similar level of confidence (methods must be
documented)
WBS Assess.
type Codes
231,a 250, 530,
540, 550
231,a 250, 530,
540, 550
222,a 242a
530, 540,
550, 250
5-8
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 5-3. (continued)
Level of
information
Monti or
M
M
M
M
Mc
Tyjpes of Information
Monthly or quarterly sampling of key
parameters during key periods (e.g.,
spring/summer months; fish spawning
seasons), including limited data at high and
low flows; including toxicant sampling and
water column and/or sediment toxicity testing
as appropriate. Shorter period of record than
for Level 4.
Special studies during key seasons near
critical flows, e.g., involving multiple visits or
automatic sampling over a period of days or
multiple visits during a year or season of
rotating basin surveys0
Calibrated models (calibration data <5 years
old)
Other scientifically defensible methods [having
similar level of confidence (methods must be
documented)
I
Volunteer monitoring data, long-term
sampling of key parameters, with adequate
QA and SOPsb
WBS Assess.
Type Codes
211,a231,a530,
540
222,a 242a
610
810
5-9
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 5-3. (continued)
of
Information
1<
or
Eval
M
M
M
M
M
MorE
Types of Information
Fixed-station monitoring with limited period of
record or parametric coverage; monthly or
less frequent sampling; limited data during
key periods or at high or low flows0
Short-term surveys (e.g., 1 day)
Effluent toxicity testing, acute or chronic
Discharger self-monitoring data
Other methods yielding limited monitoring
data (less rigorous methods or less frequent
than Levels 2-4 above)
P/C data extrapolated from an upstream or
downstream station where homogeneous
conditions are expected
Monitoring data >5 years old without further
validation
BPJ based on land use data, location of
sources
Screening models (not calibrated or verified)
WBS Assess.
Type Codes
210, 230
510; 520
840( 850
870a
150
130, 170
180
c _
BPJ = Best professional judgment.
WQSs = Water quality standards.
a ~ New Assessment Type Code to be added to Table 3-1 and WBS.
b = Some States consider all volunteer monitoring data to be evaluative information as a matter
of policy.
Even a short period of record can indicate a high confidence of impairment based on P/C
data; 3 years of data are not required to demonstrate impairment. For, example, a single visit
to a stream with severe acid mine drainage impacts (high metals,, low: pH) can result in high
confidence of nonsupport. However, long-term monitoring may be needed to establish full
support.
Notes: Unless otherwise noted, this table assumes that adequate QA/QC procedures and SOPs
were followed for sample collection and analysis for each data type. Also, table assumes that for
each data type sufficient coverage and frequency of data exist to make an assessment; e.g., level
1 data are adequate for an assessment if no higher-level data are available.
5-10
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 (e.g., old land use information or old monitoring data in a
watershed undergoing rapid development).
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 do not include every individual data type or every
possible combination of data types. For example, a State might want to take
into account other information such as fish kills in making ALUS
determinations, or might have good habitat data but only limited biological
community data for a given waterbody.
Assessment Description Levels
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 deal mainly with data quality and data quantity or
temporal representativeness for ALUS determinations. However, to
determine assessment levels the analyst must also consider the spatial
representativeness of the information, in particular the size of the waterbody
and number of monitoring sites. For example, an analyst might assign a
higher description level than suggested in Table 5-3 in the case of a P/C
dataset having broad parametric coverage, no statistically significant trends
in chemical concentrations, and multiple monitoring sites in a 5-mile
waterbody. Conversely, a lower level than suggested in Table 5-2 might be
assigned in the case of a 10-mile waterbody with intensive B/H monitoring of
only a single monitoring site.
Managing Use Support and Assessment Description Data
The Waterbody System for 1996 will contain new fields to track this
descriptive information and related assessment results:
• Degree of use support suggested by B/H data
• B/H Assessment Description Level i
• Degree of use support suggested by P/C data
• P/C Assessment Description Level.
EPA encourages States to store and provide this information for each river
and stream assessment in addition to WBS Assessment Type Codes. This
descriptive information will not be reported nationally.
Addendum A describes an approach under review by EPA for making ALUS
determinations using both B/H and P/C data. The appendix includes
hypothetical case studies of Assessment Description Levels for streams.
5-11
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
5.1.5 ALUS Assessments Using Biological/Habitat Data
Biological Assessment
A. Fully Supporting: Reliable data indicate functioning, sustainable
biological communities (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, or algae) none of
which has been modified significantly 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 nonsupport. Data
clearly indicate severe modification of the biological community.
The interpretation of the terms "modified significantly," "slight to moderate
modification," and "severe modification" is State-specific and depends on
the State's monitoring and water quality standards programs. For example,
Ohio EPA reports nonattainment (nonsupport) if none of its three fish and
macroinvertebrate indices meet ecoregion criteria or if one organism group
indicates severe toxic impact (Ohio's poor or very poor category), even if the
other organism group indicates attainment. Partial support exists if one of
two or two of three indices do not meet ecoregion criteria and are in the poor
or very poor category (see Appendix F for more information on the Ohio
approach).
The boxes on the following pages contain additional information for States
on making ALUS determinations based on B/H data.
5-12
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Additional Information on Biological Assessment of ALUS for Wadable Streams
and Rivers
The information in these boxes may be useful to States in making ALUS! determinations based
on B/H data. Biological assessments are evaluations of the biological condition of waterbodies
using biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters and
comparing results to the established biological criteria. They are done by qualified professional
staff trained in biological methods and data interpretation. The utility off biological measures has
been demonstrated in assessing impairment of receiving waterbodies, particularly that caused by
nonpoint sources and nontraditional water quality problems such as habitat degradation.
Biological assessments are key to determining whether functional, susteiinable communities are
present and whether any of these communities have been modified beyond the natural range of
the reference condition. Functional and sustainable implies that communities at each trophic
level have species composition, population density, tolerance to stressors, and healthy
individuals within the range of the reference condition and that the entire aquatic system is
capable of maintaining its levels of diversity and natural processes in the future (see Angermeier
and Karr, 1994).
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., Plafkin et al., 1989),
State agencies (e.g., Ohio EPA, 1987), and other investigators assessing the condition of the
biota (e.g., Karr et al., 1986). Guidance for development of biocriteria-based programs is
provided in the Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters (U.S. EPA,
1990) and Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers (Gibson et al.,
1994). As biosurvey techniques continue to improve, several technical considerations apply:
• 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. Currently, efforts are under way in several parts of the
country to refine these ecoregions into a more useful framework to classify waterbodies.
Procedures have begun in several ecoregions and subecoregions to identify reference
conditions within those particular units. In essence, these studies are developing reference
databases to define biological potential and physical habitat expectations within ecoregions.
The concept of reference conditions for bioassessment and biocriteria is discussed further
below.
5-13
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
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 waterbodies 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 represent an achievable 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.
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 reference sites exist, then reference conditions can be characterized
based on an extrapolation of the biological attributes representative of the aquatic biota
expected to be found in the region (see Gibson et al., 1994). EPA sees the use of a regional
reference condition as an important component and goal of State biological programs. The
Agency also recognizes that other approaches, such as upstream/downstream sampling,
may be necessary (U.S. EPA, 1990).
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).
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 (U.S. EPA, 1990), Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish (Plafkin et al., 1989), and Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small
Rivers (Gibson et al., 1994).
5-14
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
A MULTIMETR1C APPROACH TO BIOASSESSMENTis 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 strength of such 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). The development of metrics for use in the biocriteria process can be
partitioned into two phases (Barbour et al., 1995). First, an evaluation of metrics is
necessary to eliminate nonresponsive metrics and to address various technical issues (i.e.,
associated with methods, sampling habitat and frequency, etc.). Second, calibration of trie
metrics determines the discriminatory power of each metric and identifies thresholds for
discriminating between "good" and "bad" sites. This process defines a suite of metrics that
are optimal candidates for inclusion in bioassessments. Subsequently, a procedure for
aggregating metrics to provide an integrative index is needed. For a metric to be useful, it
must be (1) relevant to the biological community under study and to the specified program
objectives; (2) sensitive to stressors; (3) able to provide a response that can be
discriminated from natural variation; (4) environmentally benign to measure in the aquatic
environment; and (5) cost-effective to sample. A number of metrics have been developed
and subsequently tested in field surveys of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish assemblage
(Barbour et al., 1995).
The conventional approach is to select some biological parameter that refers to a narrow
range of changes or conditions and evaluate that parameter (e.g., 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.
Assessment of HABITA T STRUCTURE 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 degraded condition, expected biological values
are lowered; conversely, if habitat is in good condition (relative to regional expectations),
high biological condition values are expected. Poor habitat structure will prevent the
attainment of the expected biological condition, even as water quality problems are
ameliorated. 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, or other factors.
5-15
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
A standardized INDEX PERIOD is important for consistent and effective monitoring.
The intent of a statewide 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 (Plafkin et al., 1989).
An index period is a time frame for sampling the condition of the community that is a cost-
effective alternative to sampling on a year-round basis. Ideally, the 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, (2) optimize accessibility of the target assemblages, and (3) maximize
efficiency of sampling gear.
STANDARD OPERATING 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 IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPROPRIATE 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 an increase in size of
the 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, midsection,
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 or lake shoreline. Changes from agricultural land use to urban centers,
forested parkland, etc., would warrant different representative sampling sites. A waterbody
with multiple dischargers may also require numerous sampling sites to characterize the
overall biological condition of the waterbody.
5-16
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
HB
Special Considerations for Lakes
State lake managers should address a broad array of parameters in making
lake ALUS 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. These regional patterns apply to natural lakes only.
EPA is developing guidance on bioassessment protocols and biological
criteria development for lakes and reservoirs (Guidance on Lake and
Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriieria, draft, U.S. EPA, 1994b). Draft
guidance is currently being revised to address informal State and Tribal
review comments. Review by EPA's Science Advisory Board is planned for
1995. Notice of availability for public review and comment in the Federal .
Register is planned for 1996.
5.1.6 Aquatic Life Assessments Using Physical/Chemical Data
This guidance is provided to encourage the best and most nationally
consistent use of physical/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, chemical data indicate full support but
temperature data indicate impairment, the waterbody is considered impaired
based on the available P/C data. .
Toxicants (priority pollutants, chlorine, and ammonia)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, no more than one violation of
acute criteria (EPA's criteria maximum concentration or applicable State
criteria) within a 3-year period, based on'at least 10 grab or 1-day
composite samples.
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded more than
once within a 3-year period, but in j<.10 percent of samples.
5-17
-------
C. Not Supporting:
of samples.
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
MH^MMI^^MB^^^^^^^^^^^*^^^^^^^^^^^™^^^^*1^™™^^^^^^^^^™^^^^^^™
For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in >10 percent
Note: The above assumes at least 10 samples over a 3-year period. If
fewer than 10 samples are available, the State should use discretion and
consider other factors such as the number of pollutants having a single
violation and the magnitude of the exceedance(s).
Special Considerations Regarding Metals
The implementation and application of metals criteria is complex due to the
site-specific nature of metals toxicity. EPA's policy is for States to adopt
and use the dissolved metal fraction to set and measure compliance with
water quality standards, because dissolved metal more closely approximates
the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total
recoverable metal. Table 5-4 provides guidance for calculating EPA
dissolved criteria from the published total recoverable criteria. The data,
expressed as percentage metal dissolved, are presented as recommended
values and ranges. If a State is collecting dissolved metal data but does not
yet have dissolved criteria, Table 5-4 might be useful for estimating
screening values. Also, if total recoverable metal concentrations are less
than the estimated dissolved metal criteria calculated from Table 5-4, the
State could be relatively certain that toxic concentrations are not present.
Some States have already developed and are using dissolved metals criteria
and should continue to do so. In the absence of dissolved metals data and
State criteria, States should continue to apply total recoverable metals
criteria to total recoverable metals data because this is more conservative
and thus protective of aquatic life.
Historical metals data should be used with care. Concern about the reliability
of the data are greatest below about 1 ppb due to the possibility of
contamination problems during sample collection and analysis. EPA believes
that most historical metals concentrations above this level are valid if
collected with appropriate QA and QC.
Other Considerations Regarding Toxicant Data
• States should document their sampling frequency. Sampling frequency
should be based on potential variability in toxicant concentrations. In
general, 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).
5-18
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
WB^HMBIBB^HMBMHB
Table 5-4. Recommended Factors for Converting Total Recoverable Metal
Criteria to Dissolved Metal Criteria
- ./" SB.
Ivletsl •---', •
; Arsenic (III)
Cadmiumb
Hardness =
Hardness =
Hardness =
50 mg/L
100 mg/L
200 mg/L
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Leadb
Hardness =
Hardness, =
Hardness =
50 mg/L
100 mg/L
200 mg/L
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc *
Recommended Conversion Factors
CMC3
1 .000
0.973 i
0.944 i
0.915
0.316
0.982
0.960
0.892 I
0.791 !
0.690
0.998
0.922
0.978
ccca
1.000
0.938
0.909
0.880
0.860C
0.962
0.960
0.892
0.791
0.690
0.997
0.922
0.986
a CMC == Criterion Maximum Concentration
• CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration
b The recommended conversion factors (CFs) for any hardness can be calculated using the
following equations:
Cadmium
CMC: CF = 1.136672 - [(In hardness) (0.041838)]
CCC: CF = 1.101672 - [(In hardness) (0.041838)]
Lead (CMC arid CCC): CF = 1.46203 - [(In hardness) (0.145712)]
where: j
(In hardness) = natural logarithm of the hardness. The recommended CFs are given to
three decimal places because they are intermediate values in the circulation of dissolved
criteria.
This CF applies only if the CCC is based on,the test by Stevens and Chapman (1984). If the
CCC is based on other chronic tests, it is likely that the CF should be 0.590, 0.376, or the
average of these two values. j
Source: Stephen, C. E. 1995. Derivation of Conversion Factors for the Calculation of
Dissolved Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. U.S. EPA, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Duluth. ;
5-19
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
• 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.
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
that 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.
Special Considerations for Lakes
For lakes, States should discuss their interpretation of dissolved oxygen, pH,
and temperature standards for both epilimnetic and hypolimnetic waters. In
addition, States should consider the turbidity and lake bottom siltation.
5.1.7 Valid Monitoring Designs for ALUS Assessment
Any monitoring and assessment program begins with setting goals and a
monitoring design that can meet those goals. The history of water quality
monitoring is replete with programs that could not answer key questions;
examples include
5-20
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
• The watershed study where the monitoring organization assumes that
flow data can be obtained after the fact based on "reference point"
measurements off bridges, only to learn later that many streams lack the
channel morphometry to develop a stage-discharge relationship
• The intensive survey where the laboratory's detection levels for metals
prove inadequate to detect even concentrations above water quality
standards ,...,.
• The basin survey where management or the legislature poses the
question "What is the statistical trend in biological integrity of our
streams?" too late to be incorporated into monitoring design.
As discussed in Sections 1 and 4 of these Guidelines, EPA has a goal of
comprehensively characterizing the Nation's streams., lakes, estuaries, and
shorelines. These assessments will include monitoresd and evaluated
assessments and may involve probability-based as well as targeted
monitoring. To achieve this goal, EPA encourages States to incorporate a
formal process of goal setting and monitoring design while meeting their own
State-specific goals. ITFM provides general guidelines for the topics to
consider in monitoring design in a technical appendix of its final report {ITFM,
1994b), and EPA's Section 106 monitoring guidance tailors the ITFM
guidelines to the 106/305(b) process.
The Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process developed by EPA's Quality
Assurance Management Staff is a specific approach to monitoring design
that has been applied to monitoring programs in all media. The DQO process
involves the stakeholders in the program in the design. Stakeholders itemize
and clarify the questions being asked of a monitoring program, including the
required level of accuracy in the answers. Generally, these questions are
stated in quantitative terms ("What are the IBI and ICI values for wadable
streams in Big River Basin, and what is the trend in IBI across the basin, with
80 percent certainty?"), and statistical methods may be recommended for
selecting sites or sampling frequency. The EPA contact for DQOs for water
quality monitoring is Martin Brossman (202) 260-7023.
To date, States have taken three main approaches to monitoring a large
portion of their waterbodies:
• Fixed-station networks with hundreds or thousands of sites (most large
networks have been reduced in the past 10 years)
• Rotating basin surveys with a large number of monitoring sites covering
thousands of miles of waters (Ohio EPA's bioassessment program)
5-21
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
• Rotating basin surveys with a probabilistic monitoring design; a
statistically valid set of sites are selected for sampling in each basin
(Delaware's benthic macroinvertebrate program).
The National Council for Water Quality Monitoring may make
recommendations about monitoring design; in the meantime, however, EPA
encourages States to consider existing approaches such as Ohio's and
Delaware's. In particular, EPA urges States to take advantage of monitoring
data provided by other agencies such as USGS, NOAA, or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, Service.
5.2 Primary Contact Recreation Use
All States have recreational waterbodies with bathing areas, as well as less
heavily used waterbodies with a designated use of swimming. In some
States, nearly all waters are designated for swimming, although the great
majority of waters are not used heavily for this purpose. States are asked to
first target their assessments of primary contact recreation use to high-use
swimming areas such as bathing beaches, a risk-based approach to targeting
resources to protect human health.
5.2.1 Bathing Area Closure Data
States should acquire data on bathing area closures from State and local
health departments and analyze them as follows.
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.
Some bathing areas are subject to administrative closures such as automatic
closures after storm events of a certain intensity. Such closures should be
reported along with other types of closures in the 305(b) report and used in
making use support determinations if they are associated with violation of
water quality standards.
5.2.2 Bacteria
States should base use support determinations on their own State criteria for
bacteriological indicators.
5-22
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
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.
co//bacteria (for both fresh and marine waters) consisting of:
• Criterion 1 = A geometric mean of the samples taken should not be
exceeded, and
• Criterion 2 = Single sample maximum allowable density.
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). The previous criteria were:
• Criterion 1 = The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria level
should not exceed 200 per 100 ml! for any 30-day period,
and
• Criterion 2 = Not more than 10 percent of the total samples taken
during any 30-day period should have a density that
exceeds 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: Criterion 1 and/or Criterion 2 met.
B. Partially Supporting:
* For £. co//or enterococci: Geometric mean met; single-sample
criterion exceeded during the recreational season, or
• For fecal coliform: Geometric mean met; not more than 10 percent
of samples exceed 2,000 per 100 ml_. !
C. Not Supporting: Neither geometric mean nor maximum criteria limits
achieved.
This guidance establishes a minimum 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. , „
5-23
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
5.2.3 Other Parameters
In addition to pathogens, some States have criteria for other pollutants or
stressors for Primary Contact Recreation. As noted by the ITFM, potentially
hazardous chemicals in water and bottom sediment, ionic strength, turbidity,
algae, aesthetics, and taste and odor can be important indicators for
recreational use support determinations. The following guidelines apply
where appropriate {i.e., where States have water quality standards for other
parameters).
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant or stressor, criteria exceeded in
< 10 percent of measurements.
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 11 to
25 percent of measurements.
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in > 25 percent
of measurements.
5.2.4 Special Considerations for Lakes
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 natural, 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
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.
Pathoqens--
States should consider pathogen data in determining support of recreational
uses. Guidelines above also apply to lakes.
Additional Parameters-
In addition to trophic status and pathogens, States should consider the
following parameters in determining support of recreational uses:
-------
5. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
• Frequency/extent of algal blooms, surface scums and mats, or periphyton
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.
5.3 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Use
5.3.1 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Data
A. Fully.Supporting: No fish/shellfish restrictions or bans are in effect.
B. Partially Supporting: "Restricted consumption" of fish in effect
(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" of fish or shellfish ban in effect for
general population, or a subpopulation that could be at potentially
greater risk, for one or more fish/shellfish species; or commercial
fishing/shellfishing ban in effect.
In addition, the ITFM recommended specific indicators for assessing fish and
shellfish consumption risks: levels of bioaccumulative chemicals in fish and
shellfish tissue for fish and shellfish consumption, and, for shellfish only,
paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)-type phytoplankton and microbial
pathogens.
In areas where shellfish are collected for commercial or private purposes and
removed to cleaner waters for depuration, the originating waterbodies should
be considered Partially Supporting for Shellfish Consumption use.
5.4 Drinking Water Use • . • "
These Guidelines provide a framework for future assessments of drinking
water use support. EPA recognizes that States will not have access to all
the information needed to assess drinking water use for source waters in
1996. Nor is EPA asking States to do additional ambient monitoring of
drinking water sources unless that fits in with other State priorities. Rather,
States are asked to take advantage of available information in 1996, with an
eye toward accessing additional information as it becomes available in the
5-25
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
future (e.g., when the new Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
becomes available in each State).
As explained later in this section, EPA recommends that States use the
following types of information in assessing drinking water use support:
• Ambient monitoring data or raw intake water quality data, if available, for
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) contaminants that could be present in
the watershed, along with information on drinking water use restrictions
• Lacking the above, finished water data from public water supplies
(PWSs) that draw from surface waterbodies, along with use restriction
information.
State 305{b) Coordinators should work closely with their drinking water
counterparts in obtaining and analyzing ambient and finished water data.
The following scenario describes how the process might work in 1996 or
future years in a typical State:
1. The 305{b) Coordinator does STORET retrievals and compares ambient
water quality data to water quality standards and SDWA Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for waterbodies that are classified for
drinking water use.
2. Staff in the State drinking water program identify all PWSs having only
surface water sources, and work with the 305(b) Coordinator to link
those PWSs with specific 305(b) waterbodies.
3. For the PWSs identified in (2) above, drinking water staff provide
retrievals from the SDWIS database. These retrievals help identify
waterbodies that are fully supporting (no MCL exceedances in finished
water, no closures or advisories) or impaired (finished water data show
MCL exceedances; closures or advisories have occurred; beyond-
conventional treatment required).
4. With the above information, the 305{b) Coordinator and drinking water
staff work together to assign levels of drinking water use support to each
assessed waterbody according to the guidance in the remainder of this
section and in the "Public Health: Drinking Water" part of Section 7
(p. 7-37).
Finished water quality data may also be used to indicate that treated drinking
water supplies meet all applicable standards, even if there are indications of
impairment in the ambient source water.
5-26
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
^^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^••^••^••l^HI^^^^^MBHBi^BB^HBI^H
5.4.1 Assessing Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs
Table 5-5 (National Primary Drinking Water Regulations) lists the 84
contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and includes
information on the MCL set for each contaminant in finished water.
Contaminants that are generally not source- water-related (e.g., corrosion
byproducts) are identified. States are asked to consider the State Water
Quality Standards for source-water-related contaminants (provided that they
are at least as stringent as the MCL) in assessing drinking water use support
for both surface water and ground water sources.
Most PWSs are required to monitor their finished water for these chemical
and microbiological contaminants. Monitoring for.chemical contaminants
follows a standardized monitoring framework, with the first round of
monitoring for most contaminants to be completed by December 31, 1995.
States should assess drinking water use support based on those
contaminants that are known to be used or present in each watershed or
basin.
Whenever possible, States should utilize ambient monitoring data in
assessing drinking water use support of raw (or source) waters. For future
reporting, EPA is considering ways to assist States in collecting raw water
intake data, particularly for PWSs where monitoring data show MCL
exceedances. States are encouraged to make obtaining raw water intake
data for contaminants regulated under the SDWA a priority. As a secondary
priority. States should seek raw water intake data for PWSs near ambient
monitoring stations, in cases where data indicate that a waterbody may be
impaired with respect to drinking water use.
EPA recognizes, however, that the best source of monitoring data for
assessing drinking water use support may be from PWS compliance
monitoring required under the SDWA (i.e., monitoring of finished waters) and
from drinking water use restrictions imposed on source waters. Therefore,
States are asked to consider available PWS compliance monitoring (i.e.,
finished water) data for contaminants that may be source-water-related,
when ambient monitoring data are lacking or where ambient monitoring data
indicate that the source waters may be impaired. Information concerning
contamination-based drinking water use restrictions imposed on a source
water should also be considered in assessing the drinking water use support
of a waterbody.
Further, the availability of PWS compliance monitoring data for use in this
assessment may vary by State (because of limited access through existing
data systems) and the costs of collecting such data may be significant for
the 1996 305(b) report. EPA recognizes that there will be variability in the
data that States will be able to provide to support drinking water
assessments for 1996. However, EPA hopes that the direction of future
5-27
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
liilBBpi»^^|a^IMIIP||BB|>||||^*|*lll*llll**ill*ll*im
Table 5-5. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(February 1994)
Contaminants
vocst
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-DichIoropropane
Ethylbenzene
Monochlorobenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-TrichIoroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
MCLG
(mg/L)
zero
zero
0.6
0.075
zero
0.007
0,07
0.1
zero
zero
0.7
0.1
0.1
zero
1
0.07
0.2
0.003
zero
zero
10
(mg/L)
'
0.005
0.005
0.6
0.075
0.005
0.007
0.07
0.1
0.005
0.005
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.005
1
0.07
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.002
10
from Ingestion of Water
-
Cancer
Cancer
Liver, kidney, blood cell
damage
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer, liver and kidney
effects
Liver, kidney, nervous,
circulatory
Liver, kidney, nervous,
circulatory
Cancer
Liver, kidney effects, cancer
Liver, kidney, nervous system
Liver, nervous system damage
Cancer
Liver, kidney, nervous,
circulatory
Liver, kidney damage
Liver nervous system effects
Cancer
Cancer
Nervous system effects
Drinking Water
' - ,
Some foods; gas, drugs, pesticide,
paint, plastic industries
Solvents and their degradation
>roducts
Paints, engine cleaning compounds,
dyes, chemical wastes
Room and water deodorants,
'mothballs"
Leaded gas, fumigants, paints
Plastics, dyes, perfumes, paints
Waste industrial extraction solvents
Waste industrial extraction solvents
Paint stripper; metal degreaser,
propellant, extraction
Soil fumigant, waste industrial
solvents
Gasoline; insecticides; chemical
manufacturing wastes
Plastics, rubber, resin, drug
industries; leachate from city
landfills
Improper disposal of dry cleaning
and other solvents
Gasoline additive; manufacturing
and solvent operations
Herbicide production; dye carrier
Adhesives, aerosols, textiles, paints,
inks, metal degreasers
Textiles, adhesives and metal
degreasers
May leach from PVC pipe; formed
by solvent breakdown
Gasoline, metal degreasers, and
pesticides
5-28
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Contaminants
SOCs; \
Acrylamide '
Alachlor
Aldicarb*
Aldicarb Sulfone*
Aldicarb Sulfoxide*
Atrazine
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Dalapon
Dibromochloropropane
(DBCP)
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Dinoseb
Diquat
Ethylene Dibromide
(EDB)
Endothall
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin '
Glyphosate
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
MCLG
(mg/L)
:
zero
zero
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.003
zero
0.04
zero
0.2
zero
0.4
zero
0.007
0.02
zero
0.1
0.002
zero
0.7
zero
zero
zero
MCL
(mg/L)
IT"
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.0002
0.04
0.002
0.2
0.0002
0.4
0.006
0.007
0.02
0.00005
0.1
0.002
TT'
0.7
0.0004
0.0002
0.001
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
Cancer, nervous system
effects
Cancer
Nervous system effects
Nervous system effects
Nervous system effects
Mammary gland tumors
Cancer
Nervous, reproductive system
Cancer
Liver, kidney
Cancer
Decreased body weight; liver
and testes damage
Cancer
Thyroid, reproductive organ
damage
Liver, kidney, eye effects
Cancer
Liver, kidney, gastrointestinal
Liver, kidney, heart damage
Cancer
Liver, kidney damage
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
Polymers used in
sewage/wastewater treatment
Runoff from herbicide used on corn,
soybeans, peanuts, and other crops
Insecticide used on cotton,
potatoes, and other crops; widely
restricted
Biodegradation of aldicarb
Biodeciradation of aldicarb
Runoff from use as herbicide on
corn and non-cropland
Coal tor coatings; burning organic
matter; volcanoes, fossil fuels
Soil fumigant on corn and cotton;
restricted in some areas
Leaching from soil treatment for
termites
Herbicide used on orchards, beans,
coffee, lawns, road/railways
Soil fumigant used on soybeans,
cotton, pineapple, orchards
Synthetic rubber, food packaging,
cosmetics
PVC and other plastics
Runoff of herbicide from crop and
non-crop applications
Runoff of herbicide on land and
aquatic weeds
Leaded gas additives; leaching of
soil fumigant
Herbicide on crops, land/aquatic
weeds; rapidly degraded
Pesticide on insects, rodents, birds;
restricted since 1980
Water treatment chemicals; waste
epoxy resins, coatings
Herbicide used on grasses, weeds,
brush
Leaching of insecticide for termites,
very few crops
Biodecjradation of heptachlor
Pesticide production waste by-
produrf
"Regulation of these contaminants has been deferred. MCLGs and MCLs are proposed.
5-29
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Contaminants
Hexachlorocyclopenta-
diene
Lindane
Meihoxychlor
Oxamyl (Vydate)
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Picloram
Simazine
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (SiJvex)
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
Inorganics:
Antimony
Arsenic (Interim)
Asbestos (>10/im)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper'
Cyanide
Fluoride
MCLG
(rng/L)
0.05
0.0002
0.04
0.2
zero
zero
0.5
0.004
zero
0.07
0.05
zero
.,
0.006
0.05
7MFL4
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.2
4.0
MCL
(mg/L)
0.05
0.0002
0.04
0.2
0.0005
0.001
0.5
0.004
0.003
0.07
0.05
0.00000003
•» •:••.
> •'
0.006
0.05
7MFL"1
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
I I2
0.2
4.0
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
Kidney, stomach damage
Liver, kidney, nerve, immune,
circulatory system
Growth, liver, kidney, nerve
Kidney damage
Cancer
Cancer; liver and kidney
effects
Kidney, liver damage
Cancer
Cancer
Liver and kidney damage
Liver and kidney damage
- Cancer
^
Cancer
Skin, nervous system toxicity
Cancer
Circulatory system effects
Bone lung damage
Kidney effects
Liver, kidney, circulatory
disorders
Gastrointestinal irritation
Thyroid, nervous system
damage
Skeletal and dental fluorosis
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
Pesticide production intermediate
Insecticide used on cattle, lumber,
gardens; restricted since 1983
Insecticide used on fruits,
vegetables, alfalfa, livestock, pets
Insecticide on apples, potatoes,
tomatoes
Coolant oils from electrical
transformers; plasticizers
Wood preservatives, herbicide,
cooling tower wastes
Herbicide used on broadleaf and
woody plants
Herbicide used on grass sod, some
crops, aquatic algae
Insecticide used on cattle, cotton,
soybeans; cancelled in 1982
Runoff from herbicide on wheat,
corn, rangelands, lawns
Herbicide used on crops, right-of-
ways, golf courses; cancelled in
1983
Chemical production by-product;
impurity in herbicides
Fire retardants, ceramics,
electronics, fireworks, solder
Natural deposits; smelters, glass,
electronics wastes; orchards
Natural deposits; asbestos cement
in water systems
Natural deposits; pigments, epoxy
sealants, spent coal
Electrical, aerospace, defense
industries
Galvanized pipe corrosion; natural
deposits; batteries, paints
Natural deposits; mining,
electroplating, pigments
Natural/industrial deposits; wood
preservatives, plumbing
Electroplating, steel, plastics,
mining, fertilizer
Natural deposits; fertilizer, aluminum
industries; water additive
5-30
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Contaminants
Lead
Mercury (inorganic)
Nickel
Total Nitrate/Nitrate
(as Nitrogen)
Nitrite
Selenium
Sulfate (Proposed)
Thallium
MiGr&biofagicat&Oft *
Surface Water
Treatmem , \
Cryptospondium
Giardia lamblia
Legionella
Standard Plate Count
Total Coliform
Turbidity
Viruses
Radioactive:
Beta/photon emitters
(Interim and Proposed)
Alpha emitters (Interim
and Proposed)
Combined Radium
226/228 (Interim)
Radium 226
(Proposed)
Radium 228
(Proposed)
Radon (Proposed)
Uranium (Proposed)
MCLG
(mg/L)
zero
0.002
0.1
10
1
0.05
500
0.0005
•-•- ,
N/A
zero
zero
N/A
zero
N/A
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
MCL
(mg/L)
1 1~
0.002
0.1
10
1
0.05
500
0.002
-
N/A
TT2
TT2.
TT2
<5%+
TT2
TT2
4 mrem/yr
15 pCi/L
5 pCi/L
20 pCi/L
20 pCi/L
300 pCi/L
0.02
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
Kidney, nervous system
damage
Kidney, nervous system
disorders
Heart, liver damage
Methemoglobulinemia
Methemogtobulinemia
Liver damage
Diarrhea
Kidney, liver, brain, intestinal
/*•/•/ f f •*
Gastroenteric disease
Legionnaire's disease
Indicates water quality,
effectiveness of treatment
Indicates gastroenteric
pathogens
Interferes with
disinfection/filtration
Gastroenteric disease
-
Cancer
Cancer
Bone cancer
Bone cancer
Bone cancer
Cancer
Cancer
(Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
Natural/industrial deposits;
plumbing; solder, brass alloy
faucets
Crop runoff; natural deposits;
batteries, electrical switches
Metal alloys, electroplating,
batteries, chemical production
Animal waste, fertilizer, natural
deposits, septic tanks, sewage
Same as nitrate; rapidly converted
to nitrate
Natural deposits; mining, smelting,
coal/oil combustion
Natural deposits
Electronics, drugs, alloys, glass
:
Human and animal fecal waste
Natural waters; can grow in water
heating systems
N/A
Human and animal fecal waste
Soil runoff
Human and animal fecal waste
Decay of radionuclides in natural
and rnan-made deposits
Decay of radionuclides in natural
deposits
Natural deposits
Natural deposits
Natural deposits
Decay of radionuclides in natural
deposits
Natural deposits
5-31
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Contaminants
Disinfeetibii
Byproducts:
Total Trihalomethanes1
(Interim)
MCLG
(mg/L)
;
zero
MCL
(mg/L)
/
0.10
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
-
Cancer
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
'
Drinking water chlorination
byproducts ,,,.,,
1 Contaminants generally created during treatment by the public water system (e.g., during disinfection) or caused by
actions in the distribution system (e.g., corrosion byproducts). - • -.--- _,„.:,.. „, ,„ .. , ;s ;,
2 Treatment Technique (TT) required. EPA develops a TT for a contaminant when it is not feasible to set a numerical
limit (an MCL) for that contaminant. A TT is a procedure or series of procedures that a PWS automatically follows
to comply with a drinking water regulation.
3 Million Fibers per Liter. „ > „ , .
5-32
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
reporting will be established through these guidelines, and that States will
use the best information available to them for the 1996 report.
5.4.2 Data Source: Ambient (Source) Water Monitoring
Ambient (source) water monitoring data (for drinking water contaminants
addressed in State WQS and Table 5-5) should be representative of the
portion of the waterbody used as a source for public water systems. EPA
has considered a number of ways of determining spatial and temporal
boundaries on the appropriate use of ambient monitoring data in assessing
designated use support. At present, however, no method has been identified
that could best serve the diverse conditions across the Nation's waterbodies.
Therefore, States are requested to rely on best professional judgment in
determining whether ambient monitoring data are representative of the
portion of source water used as a source for drinking water. The following
scenarios may provide some guidance to States in determining the
appropriate use of source water data in drinking water use assessments.
Spatial Considerations - The proximity of an ambient monitoring station to a
public water system intake should be considered. Ideally, raw source water
quality information derived at or near the intake should be used to assess the
source water support of drinking water use. Because these data may not be
readily available, States are asked to consider the nearest (to the intake) raw
water monitoring data, provided that these data are near enough to be
considered as representative of the water quality at the intake. The best
professional judgment of State water quality experts should be considered in
evaluating the applicability of ambient monitoring data to drinking water use
assessments. For example, data from a sampling station located some
distance downstream of a drinking water intake may not support inferences
concerning water quality conditions at the intake.
Temporal Considerations - Historically. States have used the past 5 years of
monitoring data in assessing ambient surface water quality for designated
use support. Given the frequency of monitoring at ambient stations
(typically on a 3-year or 5-year cycle), States are askeid to continue to use
the past 5 years of monitoring data in drinking water use assessments,
provided that no significant changes in water quality have occurred over the
5-year period. If significant changes in water quality have occurred during
the 5-year time frame, best professional judgment of State water quality
experts should be considered in evaluating the drinking water use of the
source water, focusing on the 2-year period specifically covered by the
305(b> report.
tf State ambient monitoring data have been incorporated into STORET/WBS,
then States should use that format as the basis for drinking water use
support assessments. In the past. States have evaluated drinking water use
support for toxicants based on whether the. mean or median value for any
5-33
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
one contaminant (over a 5-year period) exceeds an established ambient
drinking water criterion. For 1996, EPA encourages States to use the
median value obtained for most contaminants in assessing ambient (source)
water monitoring data for drinking water use support. State WQSs for some
contaminants (e.g., pesticides and other seasonal contaminants) are based
on annual averages. For these contaminants, the mean should be used
rather than the median value.
5.4.3 Data Source: PWS Compliance (Finished Water) Monitoring
Information on finished water quality (concerning contaminants addressed
under State WQS) should be considered when
• Ambient monitoring data show exceedance(s) for one or more
contaminants, or
• Ambient monitoring data are not available for more than a few drinking
water contaminants or are inadequate in characterizing the water quality
of the waterbody.
Finished water monitoring data should only be used as a surrogate measure
of source water quality if the distinct source water can be identified (i.e.,
excluding mixed systems). EPA anticipates that States may obtain the data
on finished water quality from the monitoring required of PWSs under SDWA
regulations. Results from the first round of this monitoring for 65 of the 84
regulated contaminants should be completed by December 31, 1995. States
that are unable to access finished water quality monitoring data for their
1996 305(b) reports should use the best information available on finished
water quality and plan to access the needed information for their next 305(b)
reports.
States should consider those 84 contaminants regulated under the SDWA
that are source-water-related in assessing drinking water support of
waterbodies. Those contaminants that are known to be used or potentially
present in the basin or watershed should be considered in the drinking water
use assessment. Only those contaminants that are attributable to source
water quality need be considered in the assessment. For example,
contamination from lead and copper should only be considered in the
waterbody assessment if the presence of these contaminants can be
attributed to the source water. Contaminants attributable to treatment or
distribution systems should be excluded.1
1 Note that TTHMs and other disinfection byproducts are affected by ambient levels of total organic
carbon. Also, microbiological contaminant levels in ambient water should be assessed for unfiltered
systems that meet the SWTR avoidance criteria.
5-34
-------
5. MAKING 8ND1VIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
5.4.4 Data Source: Contamination-Based Drinking V/ater Use Restrictions
Use restrictions included in Table 5-6 are
• Closures of source waters that are used for drinking water supply
• Contamination-based drinking water supply advisories lasting more than
30 days per year
• PWSs requiring more than conventional treatment'2 due to suspected raw
water quality problems
• PWSs requiring increased monitoring3 due to confirmed detections of one
or more contaminants (excluding cases with minimum detection limit
issues).
States are asked to consider any known instances of source water closures
or use advisories. Data on PWSs requiring more than conventional
treatment, and PWSs requiring increased monitoring are collected under
SDWA regulations and may be available through the State PWS supervision
program.
5.4.5 Assessment of Drinking Water Use Support for Waterbodies
EPA requests that States use information on ambient water quality, finished
water quality, and use restrictions for each drinking water contaminant
assessed to determine the use support for each assessed waterbody. For
waterbodies that are threatened, partially supporting, or do not support
drinking water use, States should identify the contaminants that have caused
the limited support or nonsupport status. States should consider the
assessment framework in Table 5-6 in assessing drinking water use support.
2
Conventional treatment is defined here to be coagulation, sedimentation, disinfection, and
conventional filtration. Treatment beyond conventional levels, in response to suspected contamination,
may be an indication that source water may not be fully supporting drinking water use. Note that some
contaminants sorb to sediment or co-precipitate with coagulants and are removed by conventional
treatment. Detection of those contaminants in source water may not reflect oip drinking water support of
the waterbody (since they are removed by conventional treatment).
3
Although, strictly speaking, increased monitoring in response to contaminant cletection(s) is not a use
restriction, it may be an indication that source water may not fully support drinking water use.
5-35
-------
5. MAKING INDIVIDUAL USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
S
1
s
t:
o
a.
a
3
(0
O
V)
I
i
D)
C
2
C
w
1
B>
cc
I
S
u.
*-«
o
i
0)
(0
(0
CD
0)
15
§
g
i
i
v>
o
a
tn
t
o
a.
S
II
: J. g
: 2 5
;s
o
t
•3
1
c
I I
I sl
S *
i "g
«i £
l| I
00. O
z z z
t
I
t
SI
£i
O •€
1
1^-S
5-36
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMASRY AND BACKGROUND
SECTION 6
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
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, 1996, along witri WBS files or
equivalent State data files. States should provide draft reports to their EPA
Regional Offices for review and comment no later thein February 1, 1996.
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 (4503F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA Regional Office may require additional copies.
These Guidelines describe the baseline of water quali1:y 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 mosit recent water quality
data available. However, coverage should not be restricted to only those
waters assessed in the 1994-95 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 accurate current 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^purveys and basinwide
planning over the last planning cycle, which is typically 5 years for States
using that approach.
States should involve designated management agendas for nonpoint source
control programs in assessments for their respective source categories and
6-1
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
affected waterbodies. EPA further encourages States to increase the
involvement of Federal agencies in conducting assessments of waters on
Federal lands.
The Section 305(b) report may be used to satisfy a State's reporting
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)
information, the report must be received by EPA on time (by April 1, 1996).
Section 303(d) information may be transmitted under separate cover. EPA
will compile this information into the national 305(b) Report to Congress.
See Section 7, Part Ill/Chapter 1 of these Guidelines for further information
on Section 303{d) reporting.
Reporting requirements that can be met through the 305(b) report are listed
in Table 6-1.
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. WBS
can track 303(d)/total maximum daily loads (TMDL) lists as well as 305(b)
assessments. 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
WBS96 Users Guide is also available to assist users in the operation of the
WBS. For more information, contact Regional WBS Coordinators or Jack
Clifford, National WBS Coordinator, at (202) 260-3667.
6-2
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Table 6-1. Reporting Requirements Satisfied by Z
05(b) Reports
ewA
Sectfort
106
303(d)
305(b)
314
319
Requirement .:
Requires States to report on the quality of navigable
extent practicable, ground water in 305 (b) reports as
106(e) grants for water quality monitoring programs.
1 06 monitoring guidelines include reporting elements
wetlands, and estuaries (see Appendix E). Therefore
convenient mechanism for reporting on programs su<
• The National Estuary Program (CWA Section
• Ground water protection programs
• Wetlands programs
States must report biennially lists of waterbodies nee
daily loads (TMDLs)-i.e., waters not expected to ach
standards after the implementation of technology-bas
may submit 303(d) lists in its 305(b) report or under
Biennial reporting on the status of surface and grouni
statewide; subject of these Guidelines.
State assessment of status and trends of significant
including extent of point source and nonpoint source
conventional pollutants, and acidification; must repor
waters and, to the
a condition of receiving
for ground water,
, the 305(b) report is a
:h as:
320)
ding total maximum
ieve water quality
ed controls. A State
separate cover.
i water quality
Dublicly owned lakes
impacts due to toxics,
t through 305(b).
One-time assessment of the types and extent of nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution statewide; for those States that have committed to update their 319
assessments (e.g., due to grant conditions), the 305|b) report is a convenient
place for such an update.
6-3
-------
6. 1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
305(b) CONTENTS - PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Each State should provide a comprehensive, concise executive
summary/overview. 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 changes or 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
management program, issues of special concern to the State, and any
State initiatives or innovations in monitoring and assessment such as
expanded use of biological indicators or biocriteria or a shift to statewide
basin management.
For surface water, include a summary map or maps of designated use
support and/or impairment for aquatic life, drinking water, and other uses; if
this information is too detailed for a State-level map, include basin-level maps
in Part III, Chapter 2.
6-4
-------
6. 1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART II: BACKGROUND
To put the report into perspective for the reader, States should provide a
brief resource overview, as shown in Table 6-2. 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 6-2. Atlas
Topic
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 lakes/reservoirs/ponds (subi
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds3
set)
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
Value
3Available 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
impoundments with very short retention times.
run-of-river
6-5
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTEMTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Total Waters
The State/EPA 305(b) Consistency Workgroup has agreed that the best
estimates of total State waters available nationwide are obtained using the
EPA River Reach File Version 3.0 (RF3). RF3 is derived from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graph (DLG) data,
which contain all hydrologic features found on the same scale USGS paper
maps.
EPA has used RF3 to develop estimates of total waters, by State, as follows:
total river miles, with breakdowns for perennial streams, intermittent
streams, ditches and canals, and border rivers; total lake acres; number of
lakes; total ocean coastal miles; and total Great Lakes shore miles. These
breakdowns were produced using the USGS DLG codes to differentiate
between types of hydrologic features. These estimates, which have not
changed since the 1994 305(b) cycle, are available on diskette from Barry
Burgan, the National 305(b) Coordinator, at (202) 260-7060.
EPA will be citing the RF3/DLG estimates of total waters (i.e., total river
miles, lake acres, ocean coastal miles, and Great Lakes shore miles) in its
1996 305{b) Report to Congress, and urges States to Use them in their State
water quality assessments. EPA, in consultation with individual States and
USGS, will continue to refine these estimates where appropriate. States
using maps and measurement techniques of higher resolution than those on
which the RF3/DLG estimates are based may choose to report their own
estimates, with appropriate explanation in the text of their reports. For
example, due to limitations of the DLG data underlying EPA's Total Waters
estimates, States may have more accurate estimates of ocean coastal miles
and Great Lake shore miles.
EPA recognizes that variation in cartographic density exists among the maps
used to create the DLG, and, therefore, the RF3-based total water numbers
also reflect these variations. Also, RF3 is a new database and users may
identify needed corrections. States and other users are urged to participate
in updating and correcting RF3 in the future. RF3 data and documentation
can be obtained from EPA by contacting STORET User Assistance at
(800) 424-9067. Other RF3-related questions should be directed to Tommy
Dewald, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, at (202) 260-
2488.
Until improved approaches are available to determine total estuarine and
wetlands waters, States should continue to use the best available methods
and should identify those methods. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory is recommended for State wetland acreage
estimates.
6-6
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND li: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Maps
States should include maps and other graphical depictions of background
information relevant to water quality assessments. For the 1996 cycle, the
305(b) report should include maps of basins or watersheds used in rotating
basin surveys or statewide basin management, ecorejgions, physiogeographic
provinces. Tribal lands, and other significant characteristics of the State.
[Note: In Section 7, Surface Water Assessment, the Guidelines request
maps showing degree of use support of waterbodies.]
Water Pollution Control Program
Each State should provide an overview of its approa<
management.
Watershed Approach
h to water quality
Include an overview of any watershed- or basin-orierted programs, such as
the statewide basin management approach involving rotating basins used by
many States and strongly supported by EPA. Describe the manner in which
monitoring and point and nonpoint source control programs are implemented
within this watershed approach. Also, describe how! 305(b) reporting fits in
with these programs, including the extent to which assessment information
developed for basin management plans is compatible! with or can be
transferred directly to the 305{b) reporting process, j
Water Quality Standards Program
Provide an overview of the Standards program, including the extent to which
the State establishes designated uses for their 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 discussjion of changes in water
quality standards that have occurred since the previous report, including
progress toward implementing biocriteria.
EPA asks States to provide a list of the State ambiert WQSs that are used to
assess drinking water use attainment and to compare these WQSs to the list
of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations contaminants. This
information should be included as an appendix to the State 305(b) report.
Point Source Program
Within the context of both technology-based and water-quality-based
controls, States should provide a general overview ojf the point source
control program. They should focus on program actions, their relationship to
6-7
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
water quality, and their effectiveness in improving water quality. In
particular, State programs to assess and control the discharge of toxic
pollutants should be discussed.
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 choose.
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.
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
requires each State with a federally approved coastal zone management
program to develop a coastal nonpoint program to restore and protect
coastal waters. States must implement management measures in conformity
with guidance issued by EPA and NOAA to protect coastal waters. This
guidance. Technical Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources
of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, describes management measures
that States are to achieve or implement throughout their coastal zones.
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
6-8
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
i
waters. These additional management measures are to be implemented in
combination with the basic management measures specified in the technical
guidance. In order to meet these requirements, States should emphasize
water quality assessments and reporting under Section 305(b) for coastal
waters, identifying threatened and impaired waterboijiies for which additional
management measures will be applied. EPA and NO^A have prepared a
separate guidance document. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.
Development and Approval Guidance (U.S. EPA and NOAA, 1993), which
describes how and when States are to develop programs to implement these
management measures. Contact the Nonpoint Sourcje Branch, EPA
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, (202.) 260-7085, for a copy.
In their 305(b) reports, coastal States should report on progress under
Section 6217, including agencies and their responsibilities, management
measures planned or implemented, and strategy for the next 2 years.
Coordination with Other Agencies
Provide a description and/or table of program coordination with other State,
Tribal, and local agencies. Mention any formal agreements such as
memoranda of agreement or understanding, interagerjicy or interstate
agreements, or other agreements regarding watersheds or waterbodies. Also
discuss any informal arrangements (e.g., related to monitoring or
enforcement). '
Cost/Benefit Assessment
Section 305 requires the States to report on the ecoromic and social costs
and benefits of actions necessary to achieve the objective of the Clean
Water Act. It is recognized that this information may not be readily available
due to the complexities of the economic analysis involved. However, until
such time that procedures for evaluating costs and benefits are in wider use
and have become available, States should provide as
information as possible.
Cost Information
much of the following
EPA asks States to provide as much of the following information as possible.
Some possible sources of information are included in the box on page 6-11.
• Capital investments in municipal facilities in the past 2 years, 10 years,
and since 1972
Capital investments in industrial facilities in the past 2 years, 10 years,
and since 1972
• Investments in nonpoint source measures in the psast 2 years, 10 years,
and since 1972
6-9
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
• Annual operation and maintenance costs of municipal facilities
• Annual operation and maintenance costs of industrial facilities
• Total annual costs of municipal and industrial facilities
• Annual costs to States and local governments to administer water
pollution control activities.
Benefits Information
The economic benefits that result from improvements in water quality are
those effects that improve the economic well-being of individuals or firms.
Individuals can benefit from enhanced recreation opportunities and aesthetics
and from the knowledge that the aquatic ecosystem is being protected
perhaps for future generations. As a result of water quality improvements,
people may visit different water sites than they used to, or they may
recreate near water often. Firms may gain from cleaner water by having
lower water treatment costs or perhaps by having lower wage bills due to
the higher quality of life that their location has to offer.
Methods of quantifying economic benefits are described briefly in U.S. EPA
(1991) and theory and methods are detailed in Freeman (1993). To facilitate
comparisons between the costs and benefits of efforts to improve or protect
water quality, it is desirable to measure both in dollar units. However, this is
not always feasible or cost-effective. Nonetheless, it may be prudent to
quantify benefits in nonmonetary terms or to provide qualitative descriptions
of the water quality improvements and the associated effects of those
improvements. To aid in this regard, the State may attempt to document
how people and firms are using the waters in the State. Information on
recreation participation rates (see list on page 6-1 2) is useful in and of itself.
EPA is in the process of collecting data on water-based recreation activities
(i.e., fishing, swimming, boating, and near-shore) using a random sample of
the national population. These data will be used to estimate participation
rates at the State level in reports that EPA will publish in 1996. States may
have easy access to information on participation for those activities that
require licenses or entrance fees. States may also be in a position to
tabulate the number of industrial units, thermoelectric facilities, and farms
that divert water for productive purposes. Some localities may also have
data demonstrating the importance of shoreline properties to the local tax
base. Some regions may have lower average salaries for highly trained
professionals that can be attributed to a higher quality of life due to
abundant environmental amenities.
Such participation, water use, and quality of life information aids in
documenting the importance of water resources. However, to estimate the
economic benefits of water quality improvements, it must first and foremost
6-10
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AMD BACKGROUND
Sources of Cost Information
After issuance of these Guidelines, the EPA Regions will provide information to State 305(b)
Coordinators from the Federal government sources cited below. Two annual [Census Bureau surveys
provide information on State spending on water quality which could be used |to supplement
information available from the States themselves. The Census Bureau conducts an Annual Survey of
Government Finances and an annual Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs anjd Expenditures (PACE),
and publishes the results of each {Government Finances: 1990-91, Series GF/91-5; Current Industrial
Reports, MA 200, "PACE," through the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC). To obtain
a copy of each report, telephone (301) 457-4100. Possible sources on State! water quality
expenditures from these documents include:
Capital investments and annual O&M expenditures at municipal facilities —
Government Finances report, Table 27: "Finances of Utilities Operate^ by State and Local
Governments by State, Type of Utility, and Government" — This table! indicates (by State) the
expenditures by government utilities for water supply, and breaks down operating costs and
capital costs.
Government Finances report, Table 29: "State and Local Government
Expenditure by Level and Type of Government, by State — This table
expenditures by State and local governments on sewerage (with capital
solid waste management.
Revenue and
indicates total
outlay separated) and
Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public Water Systems; to Implement Drinking
Water Regulations — Report to Congress (EPA 810-R-93-001, September 1993).
'
State sources: State water quality agencies, revolving fund program j
Capital investments and O&M expenditures at industrial facilities —
PACE report, Table 6b: "Capital Expenditures by States for Media Water" — This table
indicates (by State) total capital expenditures for water pollution abateiment by manufacturing
establishments, and breaks expenditures down by type of pollutant abated (hazardous vs.
nonhazardous) as well as abatement technique (end of line vs. production process
enhancements) j
PACE report. Table 10b: "Operating Costs by States for Media Water" — This table indicates
(by State) total operating costs for water pollution abatement by manufacturing
establishments, and breaks down costs by type of pollutant abated (hiazardous vs.
nonhazardous). Nonhazardous costs are further broken down (payments to industry vs.
sewage services payments to government). !
i
i
For nonmanufacturing sectors (mining, petroleum and electric utilities); information is not
broken down by State in the PACE report.
Nonpoint source investments — State NPS program, other State water quality agencies
Administrative Costs — State budget office.
6-11
-------
6. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
be documented that water quality has in fact been improved or that
degradation in water quality has been prevented as a result of investments in
protection and enhancement. States may vary quite a bit in the type of data
that they collect to verify the quality of their waters. The common
requirement for an economic benefit assessment is the ability to demonstrate
how the changes in water quality result in changes in how humans and
business enterprises use and enjoy the water resources.
Access to information on existing studies of the benefits of water quality
improvements may soon be facilitated by an EPA Bulletin Board. States may
also find well-qualified academics who are willing to answer questions
related to the information needs for, and feasibility of, conducting an
economic benefit assessment. The Association of Environmental and
Resource Economists maintains a directory of its members, including their
main fields of study. A large percentage of the membership has experience
in valuation. This list can be obtained from Resources for the Future, 1616 P
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
States should provide the following information about benefits to the extent
possible:
• Improvements in recreational fishing
• Improvements in commercial fishing (catch rate, etc.)
• Number of stream miles, lake acres, etc., improved from impaired to fully
supporting in the past 10 years
• Reduced cost of drinking water treatment due to cleaner intake water
• Increase in use of beaches attributed to improved water quality
• Increase in recreational boating attributed to improved water quality.
States should also report case studies of water quality improvement due to
point and nonpoint source controls or habitat restoration, and cases of
impairment prevented by controls or habitat protection. In the absence of
extensive cost/benefit studies, case studies of specific waterbodies can
make a compelling argument for the value of water quality management
actions.
Case studies might include instances where expenditures resulted in
increased water-based recreational activities, improvements in commercial
fisheries, recovery of damaged aquatic environments, or reduced costs of
water treatment undertaken at municipal and industrial facilities. States
should also discuss the costs and benefits of water quality achievements for
programs or specific sites documented elsewhere in the report. Examples of
6-12
-------
6. 1996305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
such projects include Clean Lakes restorations and nonpoint source control
projects.
Special State Concerns and Recommendations
This section should consist of two parts. First, States should discuss special
concerns that are significant issues within the State arid 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 Statb 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. [
I
I
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 af municipal treatment
facility operators, correcting combined sewer overflows, placing more
emphasis on the identification and control of nonpoint sources, point
source/nonpoint source trading, statewide basin management, and other
watershed-based water quality management programs.
6-13
-------
_
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
SECTION 7
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter One: Surface Water Monitoring Program
To provide a perspective on their activities to evaluiate water quality. States
should describe their monitoring programs and briefly discuss any changes in
program emphasis that are planned or have taken place since the last report.
Of particular interest this cycle are any changes resulting from a shift to
basinwide or watershed planning, rotating basin surveys, or probability-based
monitoring. j
The description of State monitoring programs should include the basic
program components that follow, with references to other documents
including approved quality assurance program plans. The following are
consistent with Monitoring Program Workplan elements in Section 106 Grant
Guidance to the States (Appendix E) as well as witrs the ITFM framework for
water quality monitoring. States could extract infoimation from their 106
workplans to prepare this section of the 305{b) report.
• Purpose of monitoring program
- goals
- use of data quality objectives
- geographic areas targeting for monitoring
- environmental indicators
- use of reference conditions
Coordination/collaboration
- other agencies or groups with similar monitoring goals or information
- how such information is used
Design
i
- timelines to accomplish monitoring program objectives
- sampling approaches (biological, habitat, physical, chemical,
toxicological) i
7-1
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
- data collection methods
- water quality problems and data gaps
• Networks and Programs (include objectives, number of sites, sampling
frequency, parameters)
- 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.
• Laboratory analytical support
- Laboratories used
- Issues (e.g., capacity, methods)
• Quality assurance/quality control program (brief description)
• Approach for data storage, management and sharing
• Training and support for volunteer monitoring
• Data interpretation and communication
- status of the State's WBS or equivalent system
- status of georeferencing waterbodies to WBS
- efforts to make reports accessible
• Program evaluation
- updates of monitoring strategy and QA plans
- brief assessment of effectiveness of the monitoring program in
providing data to meet program objectives
- changes needed to evaluate new problems
7-2
-------
7. 1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART 111: SURFAC1E WATER ASSESSMENT
States should include maps of fixed-station monitoring sites and other key
monitoring sites and networks. These may be river basin maps from basin
management plans or reports.
Finally, States should discuss any plans to use data generated by EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), USGS's
NAWQA program, or NOAA's Status and Trends Program and should identify
any monitoring and/or data management tools needed to improve their ability
to assess the quality of their waters and to increase the percentage of
waters assessed. Examples of such needs are new monitoring protocols,
data systems, or specific training.
Chapter Two: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data
Assessment Methodology
States should provide information on the methods thby used to assess data
for determining use support status. This documentation should include types
of information used, data sources, assessment confidence levels, 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.i) should be explained in
detail. The use of flow charts of the decision process is recommended.
Appendix F includes examples of assessment methodologies with the
appropriate level of detail. States not using the WBSj should describe the
databases they use to track and report assessments and work with EPA to
provide the data in WBS-compatible format.
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
contamination; small percentage of waters assessed;
waterbodies affected by nonpoint sources). Also for
limited monitoring of
1996, EPA asks States
to discuss how they determine the extent of a waterbody represented by a
single assessment or monitoring site (see also Section 4.1).
Several States have adopted a statewide basin management approach in
which they assess all basins or watersheds at regular intervals (typically 5
years). EPA encourages this approach and requests that States report the
status of their efforts and any special considerations in making assessments
using rotating basin data. A State using rotating basin surveys as part of a
statewide basin management approach should report
required to assess all basins (i.e., the entire State) and the percentage of
total State waters actually assessed during this cycle. States should also
report basinwide plans by name and year completed or expected to be
completed.
the number of years
7-3
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
EPA views a 4- to 6- year cycle as a reasonable timeframe, i.e., some
professional review of available information for each waterbody should occur
at least every 4 to 6 years as negotiated with the EPA Region. Waterbodies
that have not actually been assessed for more than 6 years should generally
not be reported as assessed. EPA recognizes that monitoring intermittent
streams is not possible in many parts of the country due to resource
constraints and lack of monitoring methods. To achieve the 4- to 6-year
coverage, a State could assess a statistically valid subset of all perennial
streams and intermittent streams and infer the condition of the whole. See
Section 4.2 of these Guidelines for more information about probability-based
and targeted monitoring.
Finally, if water quality trends are reported, the State should include a
description of its methods and software.
EPA and the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup are committed to improving the
usefulness of water quality data through spatial analysis. For example,
maps displaying designated use support information for rivers, lakes,
estuaries, oceans, Great Lakes, and wetlands are very useful in showing the
extent of impairment of designated uses. Maps can also illustrate the
distribution of waters impaired by specific sources or causes, as well as the
locations of monitoring sites, dischargers, land-disturbing activities, and
threatened wetlands.
States with GISs can generate such maps by georeferencing their
waterbody-specific assessment data (e.g., WBS data) to the River Reach File
Version 3 (RF3). To do this, the State assigns locational coordinates to each
waterbody. RF3 is EPA's national hydrologic database; RF3 allows
georeferenced data to be displayed spatially and overlaid with other data in a
GIS. EPA is providing technical support for this process to States that use
WBS. Example outputs are being provided to State 305(b) Coordinators.
To move toward greater use of spatial analysis, the 305(b) Workgroup made
the following recommendations:
• EPA should continue to encourage States to georeference their
waterbodies to RF3 and provide technical support for this effort.
• Each State should have a base-level computer system to implement
software such as Arc/Info, ArcView, and the PC Reach File.
• Each State should seek technical input from EPA before reach indexing to
ensure Regional and national compatibility.
7-4
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACIE WATER ASSESSMENT
For technical details about each of the above items, pontact John Clifford of
the EPA Office of Water at (202) 260-3667. j
EPA recognizes that some State 305(b) programs will not have access to a
GIS for the 1996 cycle; these States are asked to provide maps in whatever
form they commonly use for other documents. For example, each State has
base maps of hydrography that can be used to prepeire use support maps.
Using waterbody-specific assessment data from WBS or other systems,
States should prepare maps showing degree of use support for each use
(aquatic life, drinking water, etc.). Similar maps should display the major
causes and sources of impairment. These maps can
basin scale. Basin-scale maps may be available from
statewide basin management approach.
be at the State level or
basin plans under a
Section 303(d) Waters
States are expected to use existing and readily available information to
determine which waterbodies should be on the Section 303(d) list. A
number of sources can be used to assist in making this determination,
including the 305(b) report. A deliberative analysis of existing information,
involving best professional judgment, should be conducted to evaluate if the
information is adequate to support inclusion of a waterbocly on the
Section 303(d) list. '
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to identify and establish a priority
ranking for waters that do not or are not expected to achieve or maintain
water quality standards with existing or anticipated required controls. States
are required to establish TMDLs for such waters in accordance with such
priority ranking. If States fails to do so, EPA is required to identify waters
and assign a priority ranking for TMDL development. EPA encourages States
to include the prioritized list of waters requiring TMDLs in their 305(b)
reports and to utilize the WBS for this purpose. |
i
By regulation, EPA requires that States submit their information pursuant to
Section 303(d) by April 1, 1996. This requirement includes completion of
the 303(d) list and public review. The actual list submission can be part of
the 305(b) report or a separate document. Amendments to the relevant
regulations were promulgated July 24, 1992 (57 Federal Register 33040).
Detailed technical and program guidance describing State and EPA
responsibilities pursuant to Section 303(d) can be fc und in Guidance for
Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA 440/4-91-001,
published in April 1991; in the memorandum from Gieoffrey H. Grubbs
"Supplemental Guidance on Section 303(d) Implementation" dated
August 13, 1992; and in Mr. Grubbs' memorandum "Guidance for 1994
Section 303(d) Lists" dated November 26, 1993. The November 26, 1993,
memorandum is included in Appendix E of these 305(b) Guidelines and
contains specific guidance about which waterbodies; to include in a Section
7-5
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
303(d) list. For more information contact Mimi Dannel of the EPA Watershed
Branch at (202) 260-1897.
States must transmit their Section 303(d) lists to EPA by April 1, 1996, even
if the 305(b) report is not yet ready for transmittal on that date. If
necessary, the list can be revised following finalization of the 305(b) report.
States are requested to list their 303(d) waterbodies in Table 7-1 or a similar
format. To simplify their reporting requirements. States can use WBS to
track and report this information. WBS contains a special 303(d) list module
with cause and source codes and other fields appropriate to tracking 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. EPA is currently exploring
ways in which to consolidate a number of CWA reporting and assessment
requirements and is beginning to develop this consolidated approach now.
Using the data from Table 7-1, the WBS, and other sources, States should
also provide the following summary information. An asterisk denotes
information required by regulation.
• 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 water quality-limited (WQL) waterbodies requiring TMDLs
(may be fewer than the number of WQL waterbodies, see Section 303(d)
guidance)
• Status of TMDLs targeted during the last cycle (April 1994 - April 1996).
Chapter Three: Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment
Designated Use Support
States should report summaries of designated use support in rivers and
streams in two tables: one table summarizing the extent of impairment
(Table 7-2) and another listing individual designated uses (Table 7-3).
The 1996 305(b) Consistency Workgroup recommended that overall use
support no longer be a reporting requirement, as it masks the specific
number of uses impaired. To retain summary information on the total
condition and size of waters assessed. States should report the information
in Table 7-2 for rivers and streams.
7-6
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
J3
a
D)
a>
a>
S2
CD
+*
(0
o
CO
.2
A
(D
**~
* IT* -j; f-
E c B
D
Q
5
O)
3
TJ
03
E
Q.
I I
is co
O
O
"
o
'•*-»
JO
O)
0)
•o
£
'3
£
o
'•*-»
CD
E
M—
_c
*
1 I
° I
1 «•"
^ O 03
III
?8|
CO r- Q
... a> — «
3 -Q -c c
||<§
t •*— I ^3
•&s£
> =
*O "U
o co
-° P
i_ C
to "^
CD O) CO
5 ± 5
II II I!
£2:1
CO — O
Q. CD
< Z
II
T3
S CO
CO HI
OJ Q
CD £
7-7
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
WBS Users--The WBS can be used to generate Table 7-2. To do so, WBS
users must fill in size fields for the generalized use support categories for each
waterbody (aquatic life, fish consumption, etc.). Users must also complete
the Assessment Category field in WBS to distinguish evaluated (E) from
monitored (M) assessments.
Table 7-2. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Waters
Degree of Use
Support
Size Fully Supporting All Assessed Uses
Size Fully Supporting All Assessed Uses but
Threatened for at Least One Use
Size Impaired for One or More Uses
TOTAL ASSESSED
Assessment Category
Evaluated3
Monitored8
Total
Assessed
Size
(miles)
8 Report size in each category (rivers and streams reported in miles).
b Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size fully supporting
use (see Section 3.2 of these Guidelines). It should be added into the totals entered in the
bottom line.
c Impaired = Partially or not supporting a designated use.
WBS Users--WBS can be used to generate Table 7-3. To do so, users must
fill in size fields for the generalized use support categories for each waterbody
(aquatic life, fish consumption, etc.)
7-8
-------
7. 1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE: WATER ASSESSMENT
.
£
E
3
CO
t:
o
Q.
a
3
tn
0)
CO
a
tn
E
CO
CD
0)
£
O
J3
CD
CD
a.
•»-> -
Z "o
_N j]
II
0) O
N C
(0 §•
w
"to c
I '£
<£ a
CD E>
•— tr
II ?
i PI
>. °>
0) Q.
_N a.
CD
m W
.£! S
CO cn
*
a>
OJ
cn
co
o
O
CD
h-
0
ID
3"
•a
CO
Q
D
0 r^ cvi
in
t & &
u ° m
s s sr
= -g 8
Q- LU LU
Fish Consumption
?
a
5
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
.£3
10
D)
Q
State Defined
1.
2.
JZ
tn
1 8 -
"co
cr
w
I
"ra
c.
o
'1
cu
"o
CO
Q.
a>
a;
CO
CO
0
CD
CO
CO
CD
1—
(0
s and Indicators effort
CO
o
O
li
C1
CD
E
C'
2
>
c
LU
•*
CN
IV.
C
CO
CO
CN
1
CO
CD
.0
CO
c
CD
_N
support is also summc
CD
CO
Zi
CD
4— '
CO
CD
1
Q
j3
CO
.a
0
CD
CO
_CD
CD
CO
CO
CD
a.
CO
t:
0
Q.
CD
in
o
CO
CD
LO
L_
C
o
0
D5
.52
£
:egory not applicable
•f*
CO
0
II
*
±1
to
La
CD
4-J
CO
CD
CD
.Q
JD
"co
CO
3ry applicable no data
cn
CD
to
0
M
T
co
CO
•a
waters in the category is zero.
'o
iry applicable, but size
o
CD
CO •
O
||
0
o
CD
N
7-9
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-3 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.
In order for EPA to summarize use support at a national level, States must
report waterbody sizes for the generalized use categories shown in Table 7-3
(fish consumption, shellfishing, etc.). More specific State uses may be
itemized in the spaces provided at the bottom of the table, but must be
consolidated into the eight general use categories to the extent possible.
This consolidation should be based on the most sensitive State use within a
generalized use (e.g., cold water fishery would be included in aquatic life use
support for a trout stream).
Special Summary for ALUS
As discussed in Section 5.1 of these Guidelines, EPA is asking States to
track measures of assessment confidence for the first time in 1996. This
effort is limited to ALUS for rivers and streams. EPA is not asking States to
report summaries of their assessment confidence levels, but only to indicate
the miles assessed using biological/habitat (B/H) data and physical/chemical
(P/C) data. States should complete Table 7-4 with this information, which
will be aggregated nationally. EPA is currently developing biological
indicators as part of its national water quality indicators effort. The Agency
needs specific mileage information for B/H data to compile on a national
basis. Table 7-4 contains important information for this effort.
WBS is being modified to generate Table 7-4. See "Managing Use Support
and Assessment Description Data" in Section 5.1.4 and also the WBS96
Users Guide. The information in Table 7-4 can also be generated from
Assessment Type Codes if the State stores these codes in WBS or another
data management system. The 1996 Guidelines strongly encourage the use
of Assessment Type Codes, which are described in Table 3-1 of these
Guidelines and have been expanded for 1996.
Causes and Sources of impairment of Designated Uses
For those waters assessed that are not fully supporting their designated uses
(i.e., impaired waters), States should provide the following information to
illustrate the causes and sources of use impairment statewide. States may
also wish to prepare similar tabular information for waters that fully support
uses but are threatened.
7-10
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-4. Categories of Data Used in ALUS Assessments for
Wadable Streams and Rivers
Degree of ALUS
Fully Supporting
Fully Supporting
but Threatened
Partially
Supporting
Not Supporting
Miles Assessed
Based on B/H
Data Only3
Mites Assessed
Based on P/C
Data Orilyb
Miles Assessed
Based on 8/H
and P/C :Datac
Total Mites
Assessed for
ALUSd
aUsing data types from Table 5-2 as expanded by State.
bl)sing data types from Table 5-3 as expanded by State.
cUsing data types from both Tables 5-2 and 5-3.
dTotal of previous 3 columns.
Relative Assessment of Causes —
Causes are those pollutants or other stressors that cjontribute 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 7-5, States should provide the total size (in miles) of rivers and
streams affected by each cause category. A waterbody may be affected by
several different causes and its size should be counted in each relevant
cause category. See Section 3 for new discussion of the terms
Major/Moderate/Minor and a list of cause codes for the WBS.
The relative magnitude of causes does not necessarily correspond to degree
of use support. For example, a waterbody can have three causes labeled as
moderate, but have sufficient impairment from theses multiple causes to be
assessed as not supporting. !
Most of the causes in Table 7-5 are self-explanatory
clarification:
but some warrant
Siltation refers to the deposition of sediment on l:he bottom of a
waterbody causing such impacts as smothering benthic habitat in streams
or filling in of lakes.
7-11
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-5. Total Sizes of Waters Impaired
by Various Cause Categories
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (Reported in Miles)3
Cause Category
Cause unknown
Unknown toxicity
Pesticides
Priority organics
Nonpriority organics
Metals
Ammonia
Chlorine
Other inorganics
Nutrients
PH
Siltation
Organic enrichment/low DO
Salinity/TDS/chlorides
Thermal modifications
Flow alterations
Other habitat alterations
Pathogen indicators
Radiation
Oil and grease
Taste and odor
Suspended solids
Noxious aquatic plants
Total toxics
Turbidity
Exotic species
Other (specify)
Size of Waters by
Contribution to Impairment6'
Major0
Moderate/Minor0
a Reported in total size (rivers 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.
b In order for EPA to summarize data from over 56 305(b) reports, please leave no blanks
in this table. Instead use the following conventions:
asterisk (*) = category not applicable
dash (-) = category applicable no data available
zero (0) = category applicable, but size of waters in the category is zero.
0 Note that multiple moderate/minor causes can additively result in nonsupport.
discussion in Section 3.9 of these Guidelines.
See
7-12
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE: WATER ASSESSMENT
WBS Users-WBS can generate Table 7-5 from waterbody-specific |
information. To do sq, WBS users must complete Cause Size and Cause
Magnitude fields for each waterbody. Table 3-2 lists the causes from 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 Table 7-5. To use the WBS to generate this table,
enter a total size for each major category of causes (the categories in Table 3-2 such as 0500-
Metals or O200—Pesticides) for each waterbody. 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.
Thermal modification generally involves the heatirig 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
flow that impact aquatic life (e.g., as flow-regulated
with excessive irrigation withdrawals).
or chronic reductions in
rivers or a stream
Other habitat alterations may include removal of vyoody debris or cobbles
from a stream.
Exotic species are introduced plants and animals te.g., Eurasian millfoil,
zebra mussels, grass carp) that interfere with natural fisheries,
endangered species, or other components of the ecosystem.
Relative Assessment of Sources —
i
Sources are the facilities or activities that contribute pollutants or stressors,
resulting in impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. Data on sources
are tracked for each impaired waterbody in the State
(e.g., using WBS).
Appendix C lists types of information useful in determining sources of water
quality impairment.
States should 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 7-6). A waterbody may be affected by
several sources of pollution and the appropriate size should be counted in
each relevant source category.
7-13
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART Ml: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-6. Total Sizes of Waters Impaired
by Various Source Categories
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (reported in miles)*
Source Category
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Combined Sewer Overflows
Agriculture
Silviculture
Construction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydromodification
Habitat Modification
Marinas
Atmospheric Deposition
Contaminated Sediments0
Unknown Source
Natural Sources
Other (specify)d
Contribution to Impairment1'
Major*
Mocterate/tVflnoF
a Reported in total size (rivers and streams reported in miles).
In order for EPA to summarize data from over 56 305(b) reports, please
leave no blanks in this table. Instead use the following conventions:
asterisk (*) = category not applicable
dash (-) = category applicable no data available
zero (0) = category applicable, but size of waters in the category is zero
b Note that multiple moderate/minor sources can additively result in
nonsupport. See Section 3.9.
0 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).
d List additional sources known to affect waters of the State.
7-14
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
WBS Users—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 Section 3.7.
To use the WBS to generate Table 7-6 from waterbody-specific information,
users must complete Source Size and Source Magnitude fields for each w'aterbody. If source
subcategories or used, users must always enter a size for each appropriate general source
category (such as 1000—Agriculture). WBS cannot calculate the size of vvaters affected by
Agriculture from the agriculture subcategories in Table 3-1 because the sizes of waters affected
by each subcategory may overlap and not be additive. For example, consjider a 15-mile
waterbody with 10 miles affected by nonirrigated croplands, 5 miles affected by pastureland, but
a total of 12 miles affected by the Agriculture general category because the two subcategories
of sources overlap:
Code 1000 Agriculture (general category) 12 miles
Code 1100 Nonirrigated crop production 10 miles
Code 1400 Pastureland 5 miles
To be able to generate Table 7-6 using the WBS, total mileage must be entered for the general
source category affecting a waterbody (i.e., for the categories in Table 7-
source subcategories are also entered.
3) whether or not
Table 7-6 shows the minimum level of detail regarding source categories.
States are urged to include the more detailed list of subcategories, since this
will increase the overall usefulness of the report and of the State's 305{b)
assessment database. However, States must always j provide aggregate
source category totals for the source categories shown in Table 7-6. The
cell entitled "Other" in Table 7-6 should actually be a
additional sources not included in the preceding catec
list of specific
ones.
The Natural Sources category should be reserved for waterbodies impaired
due to naturally occurring (nonanthropogenic) conditions. See Section 3.7
for a discussion of appropriate uses of this source category.
For technical or economic reasons, impairment by a njatural source may be
beyond a State's capability to correct. A use attainability analysis may
demonstrate that a use is not attainable or that another use is appropriate for
a waterbody.
Cause/Source Linkage —
States are asked to link causes with sources for a waterbody
assessment databases whenever possible (see Section
cause/source link field is provided in WBS for this purpose
in their
3.8). A special
Linked
7-15
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
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 impaired due to nutrients
from agricultural runoff?" cannot be answered if the cause/source link is not
used.
Chapter Four: Lakes Water Quality Assessment
Summary Statistics
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 for
rivers and streams. That is, Tables 7-3, 7-5, and 7-6 should be developed
for all lakes in the State, including significant publicly owned lakes under
Section 314 as well as any other lakes assessed by the State. The reporting
unit for lakes in these tables is acres.
Because of national interest in the relative contribution of point sources vs.
nonpoint 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 EPA
urges States to report on all lakes.
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
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).
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
7-16
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART 111: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
"lake" will refer to "significant publicly owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds."
Although all lakes should be included in the summary tables described in the
"Summary Statistics" 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 lakjes must always be
distinguished from private lakes. For example, see Tables 7-7 and 7-7a.
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 Cleian 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
Regional grants administration staff). This approval is separate from the
above-mentioned approval/disapproval (by the Regional Clean Lakes
Coordinator) of the lake water quality information submitted in the State's
305(b) report.
(NOTE: If a State chooses to submit a "lake water quality" report in addition
to a 305(b) 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 that should be supported by spjecific information on
each lake. Lake-specific information may be submitted by computer disk or 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 jto the purposes of this
assessment. The definition must consider public interest and use.
7-17
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-7. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
Total
Assessed
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
Unknown
Number of Lakes
Acreage of takes
Table 7-7a. Trophic Status of Other Lakes
Total
Assessed
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
Unknown
Number of Lakes
Acreage of Lakes
7-18
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
• Total number of significant publicly owned lakes and number of acres of
significant publicly owned lakes in the State. I
• Any other background information the State considers relevant to this
discussion.
Trophic Status r314(a)(1HAH --
-i. .
• The total number of lakes and lake acres in each trophic class (dystrophic,
oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, hypertrophiq). Table 7-7 shows one
way to present the information.
• A discussion of the approach used to determine trophic status and why it
was selected.
Control Methods [314(a)(1)(B)1 -
• 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 States's water quality
standards that are applicable to lakes.
Restoration/Protection Efforts [314(a)(1)(Q] -- j
T
• 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
program and should focus on the cooperative working relationships among
Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies concerned with lake protection,
restoration, and management.
• A description and tabulation of techniques to resllore lake water quality.
Table 7-8 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 Ibe used to generate Table
7-8 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.
7-19
-------
7. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-8. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques
* Rehabilitation Technique
In-lake Treatments
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/Flushing
Shading/Sediment Covers or Barriers
Destratification
Sand or Other Filters Used to Clarify Water
Food Chain Manipulation
Biological Controls
Other In-lake Treatment (Specify)
Watershed Treatments
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
Land Surface Roughening for Erosion Control
Number of
Lakes Where
Technique Has
Been Used
Acres of lakes
Where
Technique Has
Been Used
7-20
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART ill: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-8. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques (continued)
^Rehabilitation Technique
Riprapping Installed
Unspecified Type of Best Management Practice Installed
Other Watershed Controls (Specify)
Other Lake Protection/Restoration Controls
Local Lake Management Program In-place
Public Information/Education Program/Activities
Local Ordinances/Zoning/Regulations to Protect Lake
Point Source Controls
Other (Specify)
Numbor of
Lakes Where
Technique Has
Been Used
Acres of Lakes
Where
Technique Has
Been Used
A description and tabulation of Lake Water Quality Assessment grants and
Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III Clean Lakes Progrjim projects that have
been undertaken and/or completed. Table 7-9 shows one way to present
this information. State Clean Lakes records or EPA's Clean Lakes
Program Management System (CLPMS) can provide the information
needed for Table 7-9. 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 Lakes [314(a)(1)(E)] -- j
I
• Provide summary tables on designated use suppoijt and causes and
sources of nonsupport in lakes similar to Tables 7-3 through 7-6. 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.
7-21
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-9. List of Clean Lakes Program Projects Active During
1994-1995 Reporting Period
Name of Project
Type of
Project8
Federal
Funding
(*)
Problems
Addressed
A/Ieasures
Proposed or
Undertaken13
Completed?
{Yes/No}
8 Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA), Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III.
b Refer to Table 7-8 for a partial list of management/rehabilitation measures.
Acid Effects on Lakes r314(a)(1HD): 314(aU1UEH -
• 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 7-10 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."
• A discussion of the specific sources of acidity, with estimates of the
number of affected lake acres attributed to each source of acidity.
Table 7-11 shows one way to present the information. WBS will generate
Tables 7-10 and 7-11 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.
7-22
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-10. Acid Effects on Lakes
Assessed for Acidity
Impacted by High Acidity
Vulnerable to Acidity
Number of Lakes
Acreage of Lakes
Table 7-11. Sources of High Acidity in Lakes
Source
Acid Deposition
Acid Mine Drainage
Natural Sources
Other (list)
Number of Lakes
impacted
Acreage of Lakes
; Impacted
NOTE: See Section 3.7 for description of natural sources.
Toxic Effects on Lakes f314(a)(1)(E): 314(a)(1)(F)] -
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.
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 f314(a)(1)(F)1 --
• 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 7-1 2 shows one way to present this
information. WBS can be used to generate Table 7-1 2.
7-23
-------
1996305(0) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
• 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.
Note: New technical guidance for analyzing trends is available — Statistical
Methods for the Analysis of Lake Water Quality Trends, EPA 841-R-93-003
U.S. EPA 1994). Contact the Watershed Branch at (202) 260-7074 for a
copy.
Table 7-12. Trends in Significant Public Lakes
Assessed for Trends
Improving
Stable
Degrading
Trend Unknown
Number of Lakes
Acreage of Lakes
Chapter Five: Estuary and Coastal Assessment
Summary Statistics (including Great Lakes shoreline)
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 Tables 7-3, 7-5, and 7-6 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 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 Topics
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
7-24
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART HI: SURFACIE WATER ASSESSMENT
overall topics: eutrophication, habitat modification including riparian and
shoreline conditions such as erosion, 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 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 anc
complete absence of dissolved oxygen);
anoxia (low or
- occurrence, extent, and severity of algal blooms possibly related to
pollution; and
- estimated nutrient loadings broken out by point sources, combined
sewer overflows, and nonpoint sources.
Information on projected land use changes and their potential impact on
water quality, habitat, and living resources. j
Information on habitat modification including the status and trends in
acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation; acreage of tidal wetlands; miles
of diked, bulkheaded, or stabilized shoreline; extent of riparian and
shoreline conditions (e.g., erosion); and dredging Dperations.
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
species diversity over time; presence and extent of exotic or nuisance
species; 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 resources, etc.).
7-25
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
EPA encourages States to include GIS and other maps illustrating the above
information.
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
Projects, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Gulf of Mexico Program, the Mid-
Atlantic Bight and New York Bight programs and the CZARA Section 6217
nonpoint source control program. 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 quantity and quality of the Nation's wetland resources is a
high priority at EPA, other Federal agencies, and many State and local
governments. The 1993 Administration Wetlands Plan calls for a no overall
net loss in the short term and a net increase in the quantity and quality of
our Nation's wetlands in the long run. Achieving this requires regulatory and
nonregulatory programs and a partnership of Federal, State, and local
governments and private citizens.
Wetlands, as waters of the United States, receive full protection under the
Clean Water Act including water quality standards under Section 303 and
monitoring under Section 305(b). At present, wetlands monitoring programs
are in their infancy (see 1992 National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress) and no State is operating a statewide wetlands monitoring
program. For this reason, it is important that States in their 1996 305(b)
reports describe their efforts to build wetland monitoring programs or to
integrate wetlands into existing surface water monitoring programs. EPA
encourages States to report on specific monitoring methods and criteria
either already in effect or under development.
In addition, States should report on their efforts to achieve the no overall net
loss goal for wetlands functions and values. Ideally, this report should serve
as a planning/management tool to prioritize program work and areas needing
information and technical assistance. States are encouraged to make
recommendations to EPA on tools that are needed to make the
Administration goals a reality. EPA requests that Tribes report on wetlands
to the extent practicable.
7-26
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
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).
States that wish to do so may report separately on ri Darian areas that are not
jurisdictional wetlands. Riparian areas are essential components of riverine
ecosystems. In the western United States, wetlands are sparse and riparian
habitat is often the only suitable habitat for many animals and plant species.
Riparian areas are also important for their ability to remove pollutants.
Section 305(b) staff are encouraged to coordinate closely with other relevant
State agencies such as fish and wildlife departments
to respond to the
reporting guidelines below. To the extent possible, Spates are encouraged to
geographically or spatially represent the information i[e.g., report information
by watershed unit and include maps). j
acreage changes over
This description
Extent of Wetlands Resources
States should describe any assessments of wetlands
time (by wetland type if that information is available).
should include efforts to track no overall net loss or target priority restoration
sites (e.g., through tracking Section 401 certification of Section 404 permits;
current or planned inventory programs such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory or State inventory programs; use of geographic
information systems (GISs); or comparison of predevelopment inventories
with more current wetlands information). States are encouraged to provide
information on wetlands types and their historical, rr^ost recent, and second
most recent acreages (specify when available). Tablp 7-13 is provided as a
guide for formatting information; see also the example tables from
Wisconsin's 1994 305(b) report in Appendix H. Defjne wetlands 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 wejtlands if this information
is available and to describe current or planned invenlory programs for their
wetlands resources.
Potential sources of information include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory, the State fish and game department, and the
State parks and recreation agency (wetlands are to be included in State
Outdoor Recreation Plans).
7-27
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-13. Extent of Wetlands, by Type
Wetland Type3
Historical
Extent
(acres)1
1 994 Reported
Acreage2
(second most
recent acreage)
Most Recent
Acreage3
(if any
recorded)
% Change
Prom 1994 to
Most Recent
Sources of Information
1 {include date of inventory)
2
3 (include date of inventory)
8 Use Cowardin et al. l1Q79)~C/ass/f/cation of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States, Fish and Wildlife Report FWS/OBS-79/31-or report classification system used.
Integrity of Wetlands Resources
EPA encourages States to report on the attainment of designated uses in
their wetlands areas. To the extent possible, complete Tables 7-3, 7-5, and
7-6 (designated use support, causes and sources of impairment, including
nonpoint sources) for wetlands and present in this chapter. Please note your
State's methodology for evaluation (as they currently vary by State)
including source of data (e.g.. Section 404 permit information, onsite
monitoring, or satellite or aerial photography interpretation). In their 1992
305(b) reports, 25 States reported on sources of wetlands loss, 14 reported
on causes and sources degrading wetlands, and 8 States reported on
designated use support in some portion of their wetlands.
States should discuss their efforts (including current research) to develop
wetlands monitoring programs or to integrate wetlands into existing surface
water monitoring programs. States should include 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.
States should report on wetlands monitoring programs by volunteers and
whether they are working to be able to use this information in the 305(b)
7-28
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART ill: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
report. Rhode Island Sea Grant and EPA jointly issued in January 1994 a
national directory of volunteer monitoring programs,
wetlands components (Rhode Island Sea Grant, 1994). States can obtain a
copy from Alice Mayio, EPA Assessment and Water;
(202) 260-7018.
many of which have
hed Protection Division,
Development of Wetland Water Quality Standards
In July 1990, EPA published guidance on the level ojf achievement expected
of States by the end of FY1993 in the development pf wetlands 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 regulatqry basis for a variety of
water quality management activities including, but not limited to, monitoring
and assessment under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402 and
404, water quality certification under Section 401, and control of nonpoint
source pollution under Section 319. In the 1992 305(b) reports, almost all
States reported on their efforts to develop wetlands water quality standards;
see Appendix H for the 1992 summary.
Table 7-14 is a guide for presenting tabular information on development of
State wetlands water quality standards.
To supplement the information in Table 7-14, States should list designated
uses for wetlands. In addition States should
• Briefly describe State efforts to develop narrative and numeric biological
criteria. Provide examples where appropriate.
• Briefly describe classification of wetlands in your State antidegradation
policy. Provide an example of how State antidegradation policies are
used to protect critical wetlands.
Indicate whether your State specifically identifies
the State."
wetlands as "waters of
• Briefly describe efforts to integrate wetlands protection through 401
certification and wetlands water quality standards with the NPDES
stormwater program. Specifically, relate any criteria used in evaluating
stormwater impacts to wetlands.
Additional Wetlands Protection Activities
- '
This section is designed to update readers on State wetlands protection
activities and provide States with an opportunity to exchange information on
7-29
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III; SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
achievements and obstacles in protecting their wetlands resources.
Discussions need not be extensive or detailed but should
• Describe efforts to integrate wetlands into the watershed protection or
basinwide approach. Describe county-level programs to integrate
wetlands into local planning
• Briefly describe particularly noteworthy State activities, past and present,
funded through the Section 104(b)3 wetlands 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
General Permits under Section 404, Section 401 certification and
wetlands water quality standards). Note if these are being partially
supported by the 104{b)(3) State Wetland Grant Program.
• Briefly describe agency responsibilities for wetlands protection and
coordination between the water quality agency and other natural resource
agencies.
Please discuss any challenges your State is facing in developing wetlands
monitoring programs and any recommendations you have for EPA.
Appendix G includes the wetlands chapter from Minnesota's 1992 305(b)
report as an example for States to generate ideas for reporting on and
developing wetlands monitoring programs.
Table 7-14. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
Antidegradation
Implementation Method
in Place
Under Development
Proposed
NOTE: This table merely clarifies reporting requirements contained in earlier versions of this
guidance. This table is not a new reporting requirement.
7-30
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE: WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter Seven: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
In this chapter, States report on selected public health/aquatic life concerns.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup recommended thjat Tables 7-15 through
7-17 in this chapter be optional for 1996. Tables 7-.1J5 and 7-17 are not
useful for national compilations because this could lead to erroneous
conclusions. For example, some States only store delta for the last column
of Table 7-15, which can lead to the appearance thai: a high percentage of
monitored waters show elevated toxics. Fish kills (Tables 7-17} are difficult
for some State 305(b) programs to track, causes and
sources of fishkills are
often unknown, and summary statistics are not usefi I above the State level.
Both of these tables may contain useful information lor an individual State,
however. For these reasons, these tables are optione I for State 305(b)
reporting.
Table 7-16 contains information that is available through EPA national
listings and therefore is optional. EPA will use the national listings in
preparing the 1 996 305(b) Report to Congress. Nonetheless, a State may
choose to include its own information for the public's! benefit and to
supplement nationaldata.
EPA will provide national listings to States to support
Table 7-18; however, States are asked to prepare the
the preparation of
table. Similarly,
• • i •
Table 7-19 is not optional because it contains import
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-15. Total Size Affected by Toxicants (optional)
Waterbody
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (miles2)
Coastal waters (miles)
Great Lakes (miles)
Freshwater wetlands
(acres)
Tidal wetlands (acres)
Size Monitored
for Toxicants
Size with Elevated
Levels of Toxicants
WBS Users-To generate the totals needed for Table 7-15 from the WBS, the
Monitored for Toxics field in WBS must be entered as "yes" for each
appropriate waterbody.
Totals for the last column in Table 7-15 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 may be 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 7-15:
Code 2400:
Code 0200:
Code 0500:
Total Toxicants
Pesticides
Metals
5 miles (must enter in WBS even if 0200, 0500 entered also)
3 miles
4 miles
Refer also to the WBS Users Guide.
Any of the following codes can be considered toxicants: 0200 (pesticides), 0300 (priority
organics), 0500 (metals), 0600 (ammonia, un-ionized), and 0700 (chlorine).
7-32
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Public Health/Aquatic Life Impacts
i
EPA has developed a National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories to
encourage information exchange among (and within) States. States
reviewed and corrected a draft of the Listing in 1994. For 1995, EPA has
updated the Listing to include electronic mapping capabilities and all known
advisories as of September 1994. EPA will provide the Listing to State
305(b) Coordinators in mid-1995 for use in the 1996 reporting cycle. The
EPA contact for the database is Jeffrey Bigler at (202) 260-1305.
EPA has also developed a national database of sediment contamination by
toxics, the National Sediment Inventory. EPA will also provide this listing to
305(b) Coordinators for use in preparing Table 7-18. The EPA contact is
Tom Armitage (202) 260-5388. EPA will report information on fish
consumption advisories and sediment contamination from EPA's national
databases. States may choose to provide their own listings of fish
consumption advisories and sediment-contaminated waters if they are
concerned that the national-level data may not be sufficiently current or
accurate. j
i
If the State 305(b) agency collects the following type^ of information for
management purposes, reporting it in the 305(b) repojrt will enhance the
value of the report to the public and EPA.
Fishing or shellfishing advisories currently in effect
Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities; States mayj choose to distinguish
recurring fish kills from other pollution-caused fish kills occurring during
the reporting period (clearly identify approach usedi)
• Sites of known sediment contamination
• Shellfish restrictions/closures currently in effect
• Restrictions on surface drinking water supplies (seel next section)
.
• Restrictions on bathing areas during this reporting cycle
• Incidents of waterborne disease during this reportirg cycle
Other aquatic life impacts of pollutants and stressors (e.g., reproductive
interference, threatened or endangered species impacts),
7-33
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
WBS Users-WBS offers two options for preparing Tables 7-16
through 7-19. First, WBS now contains a stand-alone module that
exists mainly to prepare these particular tables.
Second, WBS also contains Aquatic Contamination Codes in the main
WBS assessment screens that users may assign to a waterbody. By
entering in these codes, WBS users can perform a wide variety of
queries and generate lists of waterbodies that can be used to prepare Tables 7-16
through 7-20. The WBS Aquatic Contamination Codes are:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
• Fish/shellfish tissue contamination above FDA/NAS/levels of concern
; Fish/shellfish advisory in effect
2a = Restricted consumption advisory for subpopulation
2b = Restricted consumption advisory, general population
2c = "No consumption" advisory for a subpopulation
2d = "No consumption" advisory or ban, general population
2e = Commercial fishing ban
Bathing area closure, occurred during reporting period
Pollution-related fish abnormality 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 period
Surface drinking water supply advisory, occurred during reporting period
Waterborne disease incident, occurred during reporting period.
See the WBS User's Guide for more information.
7-34
-------
Table 7-16. Waterbodies Affected by Fish and Shellfish3 Consumption
Restrictions (optional)
Name of
' Waterbody and
Identification No.
or Reach NO,
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
Type of Fishing Restriction
No Consumption
General
Population
Sub-
population
Limited .Consumption:
General j
Population
Qub-
Popmlation
Cause(s)
(Pollutantls])
of Oo«cernh
a Does not include shellfish harvesting restrictions due to pathogens. See Table 7-19.
b Optional because much of this information is available in EPA's National Inventory of Fii h Consumption Advisories
which is available to 305(b) Coordinators. EPA will use the Inventory in the 1996 Report to Congress. The EPA '
contact for the Inventory is Jeffrey Bigler, (202) 260-1305.
Table 7-17. Waterbodies Affected by Rsh Kills and Fish Abnormalities (optional3)
Name of
Waterbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
Cause(s)
{Pollirtarrtfe])
of Concern
$ourcers) of
Pollutant(s)
'.
Nu
Fis
mber of
h Kitted
Number of
Fish with
Abnormalities
Optional because some States do not compile this information and summary statistics i
not useful above the State level.
7-35
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-18. Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination
Natrm of
Wntcrbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
Cameste) (Pollutant!*]) of
Concern
Source(s) of Pollutant(s)
Note: EPA's National Sediment Inventory contains supporting information for this table. Inventory results are
available to 305(fa) Coordinators; the EPA contact is Tom Armitage (202) 260-5388.
Table 7-19. Waterbodies Affected by Shellfish Advisories due to Pathogens
Name Of
Waterbody and
Identification No.
or Roach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
-
Sources of Pathogens and/or Indicators9
* Indicators include, but are not limited to, fecal conforms and E. coli.
Table 7-20. Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area Closures
Nome of
Waterbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
Cause(S)
(Pollutanttsl) of
Concern*
SourcB(s) of
pollutantlsl
Comments (Chronte or
One-time eve»ti
• Pollutants Include, but are not limited to, medical waste, fecal conforms, £ coli, enterococci, and other indicators of
pathogenic contamination.
7-36
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Public Health: Drinking Water
A waterbody that supports drinking water use meets the goal of supplying
safe drinking water with conventional treatment. In
only a small percentage of river/stream miles or lake
assessed for this designated use. EPA has worked with States to define a
new approach that will improve the assessment and
past reporting cycles,
acres have been
reporting of drinking
water use support for source waters (see Section 5.4).
For 1996 and beyond, EPA requests that States assbss whether waterbodies
meet the drinking water designated use by considering three types of data:
ambient (source) water monitoring data, public watesr supply (PWS) finished
water monitoring data, and data on contamination-based use restrictions
imposed on source waters. The following assessment methodology should
provide a more uniform framework for assessing drinking water use support
as more data become available and in subsequent reporting cycles.
There are several changes for assessing drinking water use support between
the 1994 and the 1996 305(b) Guidelines. States are requested to:
Target for consideration the State water quality standards for source
water-related contaminants for which National Pr mary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR) have been established,
Continue to use monitoring data from ambient (source) water monitoring
of waterbodies under the Clean Water Act, but focus on monitoring
locations that are sufficiently close to drinking water intakes to pertain to
drinking water quality,
i
I
Make use of the expanded data that are becoming available from PWS
compliance monitoring under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Expand the use of information on public water system source water
closures, use restrictions, increased monitoring, eind systems requiring
beyond conventional treatment.
A list of the contaminants regulated under the SDWA and the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for each contaminant is included in Section 5.4 as
Table 5-6. States are asked to consider the State WQS for these
contaminants (provided that the WQSs are at least as stringent as the MCL)
in assessing drinking water use support for both ground water and surface
water sources. In the absence of ambient criteria fo[r drinking water use,
States may opt to use the MCL.
PWSs are required to monitor their finished water for these chemicals and
microbiological contaminants. The chemical contaminants follow a
standardized monitoring framework, with the first refund of monitoring for
most contaminants to be completed by December 31, 1995. States may
7-37
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART l|l: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
also consider additional contaminants that are of local or regional interest in
assessing drinking water use support of source waters.
Assessment of Drinking Water Use Support for Individual Waterbodies
EPA requests that States use information on ambient water quality, finished
water quality, and use restrictions for each drinking water contaminant
assessed to determine the use support for each assessed waterbody.
Figure 7-1 depicts the contaminants, data sources, and assessment
framework that should be used to assess the support of each waterbody for
drinking water use. States should refer to Section 5-4 for information on
assessing drinking water use for waterbodies.
The use support status of assessed waterbodies is requested in Tables 7-21
and 7-22. EPA requests that States use information on ambient water
quality, finished water quality, and use restrictions for each drinking water
contaminant assessed to determine the use support for each assessed
waterbody. For waterbodies that fully support drinking water use, States
should complete Table 7-21 and specify the contaminants that were included
in the assessment. For waterbodies that are fully supporting but threatened,
partially supporting, or not supporting drinking water use, States should
complete Table 7-22 and identify the contaminants that have caused the
limited support or nonsupport status.
State Level Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments for Rovers,
Streams, Lakes, and Reservoirs
EPA requests that States use the information assembled in,Tables 7-21 and
7-22 to estimate the total waterbody area that has been assessed for
drinking water use support. In addition, States are requested to complete
Tables 7-23 and 7-24 to provide an estimate of the total waterbody areas
that support drinking water use, are fully supporting but threatened for
drinking water use, partially support drinking water use, and do not support
drinking water use.
7-38
-------
1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-21. Summary of Water-bodies Fully Supporting Drinking Water Use
Rivers and Streams
(List Waterbodies)
Contaminants
Included in the
Assessment1
Lakes and Reservoirs
(List Waterbodies)
Contaminants
Included in the
Assessment1
1 Contaminants may be either listed individually, or reported as contaminant groups (e.g., pesticides,
metals, semivolatile organic compounds, etc.)
7-40
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART 111: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
0>
0)
s
(0
^
O)
tc
c
D)
"f
O
a
a.
3
w
1 1
UM
Z
(0
.2
TS
o
.a
a>
+••
1
*o
^^
E'
E
3
C/}
CM
CM
i
r^
. £
O c
•S? °>
J V)
o
S-
s
.2
**3
CO
_N
S
2
co
O
§
s |i
(0 to
Q 5
H- *a
0 J2
1 1
I I
03 -|
<
CO
Q)
'•5 «.
o *i*
.Q w
a> 5.
>
CO
I
CO
tJ
CO
S
_>
!2
0
cu
$
cc
•o
(0
CO
a>
xs
a
c
0
a.
a.
CO
S
z
O)
E
O
a.
a.
CO
I
CO
D_
CD
1
JE
+j
^
O5
_C
O
Q.
Q.
CO
^*
^
U-
. B
c
o
'to
~
cu
0
CO
CO
o
7-41
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-23. State-Level Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments
for Rivers and Streams1'2
Total Miles Designated 'iaiigidJHini^^
Total Miles Asses^Q|i|iipS^i
Miles Fully Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Miles Fully Supporting
but Threatened For
Drinking Water Use
Miles Partially
Supporting Drinking
Water Use
Miles Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Total Miles Assessed for
Drinking Water Use
^ifeliMsii>i t. lillllllllll?
1
% Fully Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Fully Supporting but
Threatened for Drinking
Water Use
% Partially Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
100%
T.T.V.V.V.V.'.V.r.
: SxSxMai
: xpstxN
mmmm
Xvlv/X'X'XvJXv.v.'' -X •':'.• •',•';':
•X'XvXvXvXiXvXv X-
or Causes
^tSiMiMni:
iitiaminants):x>: :
mmmx&m.
EPA requests that States include a separate list of contaminants that are generally evaluated in
source water (i.e., contaminants that are of State or regional concern).
Refer to Table 7-3 (streams and rivers) for drinking water use support summary data.
7-42
-------
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 7-24. State-Level Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments
for Lakes and Reservoirs1'2
iiPi^^^^B^^S^^^S
ii^s^^^^i^^^^^^^
Acres Fully
Supporting Drinking
Water Use
Acres Fully
Supporting but
Threatened For
Drinking Water Use
Acres Partially
Supporting Drinking
Water Use
Acres Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Total Acres Assessed
for Drinking Water
Use
W^^^^^^m^^^SM^^iHii^^^^^^^
iirxBHnfkliigxW^ :~x^s>x-xv^--::v:-v:--vXv: x-- -x-x-x-x-X;
•XYX-xsx^vXsx-^vX'X-x-XvX^^ jc-^x-x-v/x-^ix^vXvXvX^vXv: X;X vXv; xv,:
::DlrffikitipwliM;^^ llHlt^l^Sl: Six- 1
•XvXvXvX*:^
% Fully Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Fully Supporting
but Threatened for
Drinking Water Use
% Partially Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
iooi
i
: vXvX:::^^ ^
: ;::x::(tM::W^:::Siighiflcant::: ::>x::
: x^x^^ttSflfii^^
EPA requests that States include a separate list of contaminants that are
source water (i.e., contaminants that are of State or regional concern).
generally evaluated in
Refer to Table 7-3 (lakes) for drinking water and use support summary data.
7-43
-------
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
SECTION 8
1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Section 106(e) of the Clean Water Act requests that each State monitor the
quality of its ground water resources and report the status to Congress every
2 years in its State 305(b) report. To provide guidance in preparing the
305 (b) reports, EPA worked with States to develop ci comprehensive
approach to assess ground water quality that takes into account the complex
spatial variations in aquifer systems, the differing levels of sophistication
among State programs, and the expense of collecting ambient ground water
data. This approach incorporates all of the components requested during
previous 305(b) reporting periods.
Previous State 305 (b) reports presented an overview
of the State resource
manager's perspective on ground water quality based on monitoring of
known or suspected contamination sites and on finished water quality data
from public water supply systems. These data did not always provide a
complete and accurate representation of ambient grcund water quality
(i.e., background or baseline water quality conditions of an aquifer or
hydrogeologic setting). Neither do these data provide an indication of the
extent and severity of ground water contaminant problems. Finally, the
broad-brushed approach used in past 305{b) reports to define ground water
quality for the entire State did not allow States to develop and report more
detailed results for locations of greatest ground water use and vulnerability.
For 1996, EPA is encouraging States to assess ground water quality for
selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings within the State or portions of
aquifers or hydrogeologic settings that reflect State priority considerations.
The assessment of ground water quality within specific aquifers or
hydrogeologic units will provide for a more meaningful interpretation of
ground water quality within the State. It will also enable States to report
results for locations of special interest. i
EPA recognizes that data collection and organization
varies among the
States, and that a single data source for assessing gipund water quality does
not exist for purposes of the 1996 305(b) reports. E:PA encourages States
to use available data that they believe best reflect the quality of the
resource. States may choose to use one or multiple
assessment of ground water quality.
been identified, including:
sources of data in the
Several potential data sources have
8-1
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
• Ambient water quality data from dedicated monitoring well networks
(optional)
• Raw or finished water quality data from ground-water-based public water
supply wells
• Raw or finished water quality data from private or unregulated wells
(optional).
In the absence of a dedicated ground water monitoring network, States may
choose to use data collected from PWS in the assessment of ground water
quality. These data are routinely collected by the States under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and would not necessitate a separate and unique
monitoring effort for purposes of the 1996 305(b) reporting process.
Furthermore, drinking water criteria have been applied to the characterization
of ground water in other areas of study, and national drinking water
standards have been established and can be readily incorporated into the
305(b) framework providing a basis for national comparison. States that
have access to other data sources that can be used to assess ground water
quality are encouraged to use them if, in the judgment of the ground water
professionals, the data have undergone sufficient quality assurance/quality
control checks.
EPA recognizes that assessment of the entire State's ground water resources •|H)
is a monumental task. Therefore, it is suggested that ground water quality ™^
be assessed within selected aquifers and/or hydrogeologic settings
incrementally over the next 10 years. For 1996, States are encouraged to
set a priority for reporting results for areas of greatest ground water demand
and vulnerability. In future reporting periods, States will be encouraged to
continue the process by expanding to include additional aquifers and/or
hydrogeologic settings. In this way, an increasingly greater area of the State
will be assessed. EPA encourages States to set a goal of fully assessing
ground water quality within most of the State (approximately 75 percent of
the State) in approximately 10 years.
In addition to introducing the assessment of ground water quality within
selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings within States, EPA is encouraging
States to provide information on ground water-surface water interactions.
This reflects the growing awareness of water resource managers of the
importance of ground water-surface water interactions and their contribution
to water quality problems. EPA does recognize that many of the problems
related to ground water-surface water interactions are difficult to study, and
as a result, limited data exist. As a consequence, reporting information on
this subject is optional for 1996.
EPA and States represented on the 305(b) Consistency Ground Water
Subgroup discussed the issues involved in development of the 1996
8-2
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Guidelines. EPA and these States recognize and fully accept that there will
be significant variability in the information that States will be able to provide
in the 1996 305(b) reporting cycle. However, EPA eikpects that the direction
of future reporting cycles will be evident, and that States will begin to
and evaluate the
develop plans and mechanisms to compile, organize,
requested information for future reporting cycles.
Overview of Ground Water Contamination Sources
In previous 305{b) reports, States were asked to identify the contaminant
sources and contaminants impacting their ground wajter resources. EPA will
continue to request this information. However, for 1 996, this information
will be requested in two tables designed to provide an indication of the most
critical contaminant sources and contaminants impacting ground water
resources in the United States.
Table 8-1 requests information on which contaminanl sources within the
State are the greatest threat to ground water quality. Table 8-2 requests
information on the stress that an aquifer or hydrogeoipgic setting within the
State may be subjected to by assessing the type and
number of sites present
within the reporting area and whether there is confirmed ground water
contamination associated with these sites. If desired, Table 8-2 also
provides States the opportunity to indicate the status! of actions being taken
to address ground water contaminant problems. Tables 8-1 and 8-2 should
be included in State 305(b) reports. Instructions for completion of these
tables are on pages 8-5 and 8-7, respectively.
EPA developed Table 8-1 as a guide to States in reporting the major sources
of contamination that threaten their ground water resources. The
contaminant sources presented in Table 8-1 are based on information
provided by States during previous 305(b) reporting periods. Using this list,
States are encouraged to check the 10 highest-priority sources of ground
water contamination. It is not necessary to individua ly rank the contaminant
sources; however, the factors considered in selection should be included in
the column provided. In addition, the major contaminants originating from
each of the sources should be specified in the column provided. The list is
not meant to be comprehensive and States are encouraged to identify
additional sources that are unique to them or distinct
from EPA's
conventional use of terminology. States are encouraged to use the most
detailed and reliable information available to them.
EPA worked with States to develop Table 8-2 as a means of assessing the
stress on individual aquifers or hydrogeologic settings within the State. This
information is being requested for the first time in 1996. States are
encouraged to report information on the type and number of contaminant
sources within the reporting area. In this way. States are able to report more
detailed results for locations of special interest within the Sttate.
8-3
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 8-1. Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Contaminant Source
Ten Highest-
Priority
Sources (/) (1)
Factors Considered in
Selecting a
Contaminant Source
Contaminants (3)
Agricultural Activities '',--"
Agricultural chemical facilities
Animal feedlots
Drainage wells
Fertilizer applications
Irrigation practices
Pesticide applications
Storage and Treatment Activities ' ' '
Land application
Material stockpiles
Storage tanks (above ground)
Storage tanks (underground)
Surface impoundments
Waste piles
Waste tailings
Disposal Activities
Deep injection wells
Landfills
Septic systems
Shallow injection wells
Other
Hazardous waste generators
Hazardous waste sites
Industrial facilities
Material transfer operations
Mining and mine drainage
Pipelines and sewer lines
Salt storage and road salting
Salt water intrusion
Spills
Transportation of materials
Urban runoff
Other sources (please specify)
Other sources (please specify)
t
8-4
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 8-1
1. Check (/) up to 10 contaminant sources identified as highest priority in your State.
Ranking is not necessary.
2. Specify the factor(s) used to select each of the contaminant sources. Denote the
following factors by their corresponding letter (A through G) and list in order of
important within your
importance. Describe any additional or special factors that are
State in the accompanying narrative.
A. Human health and/or environmental risk (toxicity)
B. Size of the population at risk
C. Location of the sources relative to drinking water sources
D. Number and/or size of contaminant sources
E. Hydrogeologic sensitivity
F. State findings, other findings
G. Other criteria (please add or describe in the narrative)
List the contaminants/classes of contaminants considered to be associated with each
of the sources that was checked. Contaminants/contaminant classes should be
selected based on data indicating that certain chemicals or classes of chemicals may
be originating from an identified source. Denote contaminants/classes of
contaminants by their corresponding letter (A through M).
A. Inorganic pesticides
B. Organic pesticides
C. Halogenated solvents
D. Petroleum compounds
E. Nitrate
F. Fluoride
G. Salinity/brine
H. Metals
I. Radionuclides
J. Bacteria
K. Protozoa
L. Viruses
M. Other (please add or describe in the narrative)
8-5
-------
CO
o
1
1
o
o
S
(0
•a
c
1
O
CN1
CO
_ffl
JO
£
00
(0
c
—
= §••
CO tl
CD CD
Q W
l_ L_
0} CU
J*~ 1*~
'5 '5
cr D-
8-6
If ill
z w ° 8 "2-
*fe _ C
»- *|| Q) t£3 "CO
z " 1-2-
*0 .C "S-
05 c
•(f --, •" *n «ri Q? 5 ra 2 > 5
te | S -= § | f
•§ ^ js > " 2 s:
.•i »
~
^Q '» Q.
z-e^
S
JS
CO
1
i
o
o
^-D -2 0
E o = -2
3 0 g C
liiull
£ m ro o '-
E "en ro
ZO.E
.E o> S
2 S" •§
Q. "~ -^
CD
CD
1
O
1
O.
o
Z
"co
II
o
1
DOD/DOE
0
fe
o
1
RCRA
Corrective
Action
0
1
•o
»Undergroun
Injection
o
1
CO
£
CO
3
S
o
1
i. 1
C Z3
o o
Z CO
o
«
if
£ Q.
o a
CO
I
I
OT
I
CO CO
o
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
6.
7.
8.
Instructions/Notes for Table 8-2
1. Identify the aquifer and hydrogeologic setting by describing the] unit in as much detail
as necessary to distinguish it from other aquifers in the State. The description needs
to be sufficient to enable tracking from one reporting period to another. Some
potential descriptors to consider may be the name, location, composition, and depth to
the top and bottom of the aquifer. If desired. States may append a map illustrating
the general location of the selected aquifer or hydrogeologic setting.
2. Indicate, if desired, the county(ies) in which the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting is
located. This information will ultimately be input into a GIS database to allow
(a) manipulation of the data, and (b) presentation of the generalj locations of aquifers
that are being studied or monitored.
3. Indicate, if desired, the approximate location of the aquifer or h/drogeologic setting.
This information is being requested to enable EPA to fix the general location of the
aquifer on maps. States may opt to supply a map illustrating the general location of
the aquifer or the longitude and latitude of the approximate center of the aquifer.
4. Record the reporting period. For purposes of this table, it is assumed that the data
were collected over a single time frame. If this is not the case.
please indicate in a
note at the bottom of the table the appropriate time frames for each data source.
Indicate if the types of sites shown in Table 8-2 are present in the reporting area by
circling yes or no.
Indicate the contaminants of concern that have impacted ground water quality. It is
not necessary to list every contaminant that has been detected Instead, States are
encouraged to list the contaminants of primary concern.
Potential source types may include nonpoint sources as well as
Potential nonpoint source types that States may consider incluc e
septic systems, and industrial contamination of unknown origin
point sources.
agricultural sites,
Indicate the total number of sites in each of the categories listed in Table 8-2. If the
exact number of sites is not known. States are encouraged to ejstimate the numbers of
sites. Note that in some cases, the information requested is optional and need not be
entered. Complete Table 8-2 by totaling the number of sites in each of the categories.
8-7
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
EPA encourages States to report the type and number of sites present within
the reporting area, the number of sites that are listed or have confirmed
releases, and the number of sites with confirmed ground water
contamination. If the exact number of sites is not known, States are
encouraged to indicate whether any sites are present in the reporting area by
responding "yes" or "no" and/or by estimating the numbers of sites. If
desired. Table 8-2 also provides the opportunity for States to report the
status of actions being taken to address ground water contamination.
Overview of State Ground Water Protection Programs
In previous 305(b) reports, States were asked to provide a narrative
description of ground water protection programs. This information provides
an overview of legislation, statutes, rules, and/or regulations that are in
place. It also provides an indication of how comprehensive ground water
protection activities are in the State. For 1996, EPA requests this
information in a table format to more uniformly summarize and characterize
the information provided. EPA requests each State to complete and submit
Table 8-3 as part of their 305(b) reports. Instructions are included on
page 8-10.
States are especially encouraged to provide a narrative describing significant
new developments in State ground water protection efforts and the
implementation status of their ground water protection programs and
activities. The narrative may include changes that have occurred since the
last 305(b) reporting cycle that States wish to highlight, such as
development of an aquifer classification system, development of ground
water standards to protect against land use practices, or improved
coordination between State agencies. The narrative may also include a
discussion of programs that warrant further development and
implementation. Specifically, what are the problems associated with a given
program, what solutions have been identified, and what, if any, impediments
exist to implementing the solutions.
If desired, States may also consider using nondirect indicators to illustrate
new developments in ground water protection programs. For example,
States may detail changes in pesticide usage, landfill design and remediation,
or underground storage tank practices that led to the elimination of potential
ground water pollution threats, improvement of site conditions, or decreases
in potential contaminant migration.
Each State is encouraged to provide examples of the successful application
of the State's programs, regulations, or requirements; a description of a
specific survey or major study; or some other activity that demonstrates the
State's progress toward protecting the ground water resources.
8-8
-------
8. 1996 305{b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 8-3. Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs
Programs or Activities
Active SARA Title III Program
Ambient ground water monitoring system
Aquifer vulnerability assessment
Aquifer mapping
Aquifer characterization
Comprehensive data management system
EPA-endorsed Core Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP)
Ground water discharge permits
Ground water Best Management Practices
Ground water legislation
Ground water classification
Ground water quality standards
Interagency coordination for ground water
protection initiatives
Nonpoint source controls
Pesticide State Management Plan
Pollution Prevention Program
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Primacy
State Superfund
State RCRA Program incorporating more
stringent requirements than RCRA Primacy
State septic system regulations
Underground storage tank installation
requirements
Underground Storage Tank Remediation Fund
Underground Storage Tank Permit Program
Underground Injection Control Program
Vulnerability assessment for drinking
water/wellhead protection
Well abandonment regulations
Wellhead Protection Program (EPA-approved)
Well installation regulations
Check
to(1)
Implementatioi
Status (2)
i
Responsible
State Agency (3)
8-9
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 8-3
1. Place a check {/) in the appropriate column of Table 8-3 for all applicable State
programs and activities.
2. Briefly indicate the implementation status for each of the programs. Terms that may
be used to describe implementation status are "not applicable," "under development,"
"under revision," "fully established," "pending," or "continuing efforts." States may
wish to describe and further explain the implementation status of special programs or
activities and the terms used in completing Table 8-3 in the accompanying narrative.
3. Indicate the State agency, bureau, or department responsible for implementation and
enforcement of the program or activity. If multiple agencies are involved in the
implementation and enforcement of a program or activity, provide the lead agency
followed by an asterisk (*) to indicate involvement of multiple agencies.
8-10
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Summary of Ground Water Quality
EPA encouraged States to provide a description of ovbrall ground water
quality in previous 305(b) reports. Due to the expens^ involved in collecting
ambient ground water monitoring data, a comprehensive evaluation of the
resources was not possible and States generally described ground water
quality as ranging from "poor" to "excellent." Although these descriptors
were based on best available information, they did nojt provide an accurate
representation of ground water quality and it became
evident that a series of
indicator parameters was necessary to characterize spatial and temporal
trends in ground water quality.
Ground water indicators have been under development for some time, with
each succeeding 305(b) reporting period advancing development one step
further. The 1994 305(b) reporting period focused on the use of maximum
contaminant level (MCL) exceedances in ground-water-based or
partial-ground-water-supplied PWSs. The 1996 305(b) reporting period
continues to use MCL exceedances in ground-water-based PWSs but also
allows the option to use other data that may be available to States. The
data used in the assessment will be combined with a spatial component (i.e.,
aquifer or hydrogeologic setting) to allow States to report information for
locations of special interest (e.g., critical ground water usage, high
vulnerability, or special case studies).
For 1 996, States are encouraged to select aquifers oil hydrogeologic settings
based on data availability and State-specific priorities] States are encouraged
to review the types of monitoring data that are available (e.g., PWS, ambient
or other compliance monitoring data), how much data are available, the
quality of the data (e.g., confirmed MCL exceedancesj), and whether the data
can be correlated to a specific aquifer or hydrogeologijc setting. If data can
be correlated to specific aquifers or hydrogeologic settings, States may then
consider giving priority to aquifers or hydrogeologic settings that support
significant drinking water supplies and/or are sensitive to land use practices.
If data cannot be correlated to specific aquifers or hydrogeologic settings for
1996, States should consider developing plans and mechanisms to report the
information in future 305(b) reporting cycles. EPA recognizes that reporting
data for specific aquifers or hydrogeologic settings within States is new and
that there will be significant variability in the information that States will be
able to provide in 1 996. EPA suggests that States assess ground water
quality within specific aquifers or hydrogeologic settings with a goal of
assessing approximately 75 percent of the State during a 10-year period.
As noted earlier, EPA recognizes that a single data scjurce for assessing
ground water quality does not exist and States are encouraged to use
available data that they believe best reflects the quality of the resource.
States may choose to use one or multiple sources of data in the assessment
8-11
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
of ground water quality. Several potential data sources have been identified,
including:
• Ambient water quality data from dedicated monitoring wells or networks
(optional)
« Raw or finished water quality data from ground-water-based public water
supply wells
• Raw or finished water quality data from private or unregulated wells
(optional).
The exact source(s) of data used by the States to assess ground water
quality will depend upon data availability and the judgment of ground water
professionals. In the absence of dedicated ground water monitoring wells or
networks, States may consider using data collected from PWSs as these
data are routinely collected under SDWA and would not necessitate a
separate and unique monitoring effort. If States have access to other data
sources, they are encouraged to use whatever is appropriate. For example,
monitoring data from ambient wells at regulated sites may also be used.
States are encouraged to report any occurrences, including MCL
exceedances, of the parameters in the classes or categories to obtain a more
comprehensive understanding of ground water quality and contamination.
Table 8-4 has been developed as a guide to States to report ground water
quality for individual wells. The primary basis for assessing ground water
quality is the comparison of chemical concentrations in water collected from
these wells to water quality standards. For purposes of this comparison,
EPA encourages States to use the maximum contaminant levels defined
under SDWA. However, if State-specific water quality standards exist, and
constituent concentrations are at least as stringent as the maximum
contaminant levels defined under SDWA, State-specific water quality criteria
may be used for assessment purposes. States are encouraged to append the
State ambient water quality criteria used to assess ground water quality in
their 305(b) reports.
Depending upon the results of the comparison, the data are summarized into
four parameter groups and entered in one of the columns on Table 8-4 (more
explicit instructions follow the table). These groups include volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SOCs), nitrates (NO3),
and other constituents. Nitrate is emphasized because of its widespread
use, persistence, and relatively high mobility in the environment. Other
constituents that States may wish to consider are the indicator parameters
developed by the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
(ITFM) for monitoring in areas with different types of land uses and sources
of contaminants.
8-12
-------
5 S
S « -B:
Q ~ D.
D> "J5 •—
c c «
^ D3 O3
3 C +••
O o ro
O ^ Q
CO
JQ
a
c
~ 5
.9- en
co +J
0) CD
Q W
0} CD
cr CT
1
•5
m
E
E
Z
| s „
O -Jjf ^,
f i la
S 2.1s
t:
CD
co E
'lilco
CO Hli
"8
> Q?
0 .0
life
ro U> CD
CD "o "co &Z^
E 42 CD CD 2 c .t *_ .^ ^^c.
CD /
o ^ E o
to c .S c
co *- co
1« ^^
^ CD C CO
CD > CO (/)
£ CD •- CD
ra "° " -S
•s i 1 f .
« % "§ - ^
1 S 8 | o
lliti
Z S C J3 CD
•o
CD ^
*- 5 o
0 0 n>
•° S:
"S 3 u.
§ E » »
o Jg Q >
Z Q.S S
O fl) 2J*
>— c 9J -^ "S
1 i 1 1 g 1
Z 5 « > ca -2-
^
1"
VI
Q.1
Z Z
j_
"S ° ^^
*- .E j^ co
S | I f
O
o
o
CO
« i
i
io'
O
>.
•2 r? ^ -3"
§ 3 CO
S -S ^ !5 •§
u. O J= S S
8-13
-------
TJ
0)
"*3
O
O
00
i
•8
1
2
IB ^
CO £ 0>
S .0
TO in Qj
el! 1Lp
fill5
1-S §1 J3
TO s § S y
Q. ro o ffi S
W 0)
il |g!l*ii|lN
i|j §:§-EI£iriooC)
li^iiiili-iliis
0}
l-o | °
j||i
|l i|
§ "° " -2
Q. § .g t/>
*o 2 2 i>
•a-i'l-l'
0 S 2 TJ fc
33 -o 5 e to
o i- R n _
_j> o ° Q 2
^o Q S "g §-
2 S 'c x> a)
1
P
I1!
^ Q> i_
^ "S O
llil
J_
"S °
| I 1 f 1 §•
Z S to > TO ^
g
Q
Z
•! £
co S
to CD
Q.
H- .£ ~
°.-o 5
2 ™
t- g <
Q
D) g^
1
s
O
o
i
K-
s
°
o "5
S ^ -c — O"
ilill
0:04=3?
o
5
o
2
s-
1
°
O)
8
o e>
CO ro
o3 -2
t5 Q.
o s.
3
II
o >
o n
•|
.2
I I
D) 0>
Q. s
R- =
S »
Q. D.
.9
§"
S
•a
I
•g^
°l
CO CL
5 O
tt
9- =
3 <"
^•g
Q. Q.
8-14
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV:, GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 8-4 |
I
1. Identify the aquifer and hydrogeologic setting by describing the unit in as much detail
as necessary to distinguish it from other aquifers in the State. The description needs
to be sufficient to enable tracking from one reporting period tc another. Some
potential descriptors to consider may be the name, location, composition, and depth to
the top and bottom of the aquifer. If desired, States may append a map illustrating the
general location of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting selecteld for this assessment.
2.
3.
6.
7.
8.
Indicate, if desired, the county(ies) in which the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting is
located. This information will ultimately be input into a GIS database to allow (a)
manipulation of the data, and (b) presentation of the general locations of aquifers that
are being studied or monitored.
Indicate, if desired, the approximate location of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting.
This information is being requested to enable EPA to fix the gelneral location of the
aquifer on maps. States may opt to supply a map illustrating the general location of
the aquifer or the longitude and latitude of the approximate center of the aquifer.
4. Record the reporting period. For purposes of this table, it is assumed that the data
were collected over a single time frame. If this is not the case
note at the bottom of the table, the appropriate time frame for
, please indicate in a
each data source.
For'the type of monitoring data being used (e.g., raw or finished water quality data
from public water supply wells), indicate the total number of wells considered in this
assessment. If PWS data are used in the assessment, it is important to note that
constituents related to the operation and maintenance of PWS: should not be
considered in these assessments. Constituents should only beS considered in Table 8-4
if they are known to be representative of the source water.
Report the total number of wells for which anthropogenic constituents are not
detected at concentrations above the method detection limits (MDLs) and for which
naturally occurring constituents are consistent with background levels.
For wells that are located in either sensitive or vulnerable areas, report the total
number for which anthropogenic constituents are not detected at concentrations
above the method detection limits and for which naturally occurring constituents are
consistent with background levels.
Report the total number of wells for which anthropogenic constituents are not
detected at concentrations above the method detection limits and for which naturally
occurring constituents are consistent with background levels fclut nitrate concentrations
range from background levels to less than or equal to 5 mg/L.
8-15
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 8-4 (continued)
9. For wells that are located in either sensitive or vulnerable areas, report the total
number for which anthropogenic constituents are not detected at concentrations
above the method detection limits and for which naturally occurring constituents are
consistent with background levels but nitrate concentrations range from background
levels to less than or equal to 5 mg/L.
10. Report the total number of wells for which anthropogenic constituents are detected at
concentrations that exceed the method detection limits but are less than or equal to
the MCLs and/or nitrate is detected at concentrations that range from greater than 5 to
less than or equal to 10 mg/L.
11. Report the total number of wells for which concentrations of anthropogenic
constituents are confirmed one or more times at levels exceeding the MCL.
12. Report the total number of wells that have been either temporarily or permanently
abandoned or removed from service or deepened due to ground water contamination.
13. Report the total number of wells requiring additional or special treatment (e.g.. Best
Available Technologies, blending). Special treatments would include chlorination,
fluoridation, aeration, iron removal, ion exchange, and lime softening if these are
necessary to remove contamination from the source water and not caused by the
treatment or distribution system itself.
14. Report the total number of wells that have concentrations of naturally occurring
constituents that exceed MCLs.
15. Other parameters that States may consider include metals, total dissolved solids, odor,
turbidity, or indicators as developed by the ITFM.
16. Check the major use(s) of water of the aquifer or hydrogeologic unit and the use(s)
that have been affected by water quality problems.
8-16
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
The secondary basis for assessment is natural sensitivity of the aquifer
and/or vulnerability to land-use practices.1 This information may be
reported when monitoring data are scarce or nitrate analyses are the only
data available. Information that may be considered by ground water
professionals may include known or suspected land-use practices that
threaten ground water quality (e.g., landfills, industrial facilities, pesticide
applications), documented cases of ground water contamination, trends in
the number of each cases, and actions being taken to address
contamination. The exact information used and its interpretation is left to
the judgment of the State ground water professionals!
The third basis for assessment is the additional information States may have
available that relates to ground water quality. For example, the number of
wells abandoned or deepened in response to ground water contamination is
an indication of the degradation of the resource. In addition, although wells
with elevated concentrations of naturally occurring constituents are not
necessarily a reflection of the degradation of the resource, they are included
in Table 8-4 because they are important to recognize and address as part of
water quality planning. I
It is important to note that Table 8-4 was developed by EPA and States to
(1) provide guidance to States in assessing ground water quality, (2) promote
consistency among States in reporting information on ground water quality,
and (3) provide a means to compare results reported by States on a national
basis. The columns will not be assigned any type of yse-support designation
for purposes of the 1996 305(b) reporting cycle. Furthermore, the
information supplied by States will not be used to assess the quality of the
aquifer or hydrogeologic setting as a whole, but will be used to assess the
quality of ground water collected from a monitoring ppint within the
designated aquifer or hydrogeologic setting.
Summary of Ground Water-Surface Water Interactions
Nationwide, many water quality problems may be cause d by ground
water-surface water interactions. Substantial evidence shows it is not
uncommon for contaminated ground water to discharge' to and contaminate
surface water. In other cases, contaminated surface water is seeping into and
contaminating ground water.
I
i
EPA developed Table 8-5 to be used by States to begiri reporting information
on significant water quality problems resulting from ground water-surface water
interactions. Table 8-5 is intended for use in cases where ground water
contamination of surface water or .surface water contamination of ground water
State definitions of vulnerability and sensitivity should be consistent with Steite Management Plans
(U.S. EPA, Assessment, Prevention, Monitoring, and Response Components of State Management Plans,
Appendix B, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, EPA 735-B-93-005c, February 1994).
8-17
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 8-5. Ground Water-Surface Water Interactions (optional)
Aquifer Description {1)
Aquifer Setting (1>
Name of Surface Water Body (2)
Size of Area Affected (3)
County(ies) (4)_
Longitude/Latitude (5)
Data Reporting Period
Contaminant'7'
Contamination of Surface Water by Ground Water'81
Concentration in
Surface Water
Average
Range
Concentration in
Ground Water
Average
Range
Contamination of Ground Water by Surface Water'81
Concentration in
Surface Water
Average
Range
Concentration in
Ground Water
Average
Range
8-18
-------
9. REFERENCES
SECTION 9
REFERENCES
Angermeier, P. L. and J. R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus
biological diversity as policy directives. Protecting biotic resources.
Bioscience 44(10): 690-697.
Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric Approach
for Establishing Biocriteria and Measuring Biological Condition. In: Davis, W.
S. and T. P. Simon, eds., Biological Assessment and Criteria-Tools for Water
Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers,, Boca Raton, FL.
Bureau of the Census. Government Finances: 1990-91, Series GF/91-5.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports, MA 200, "Pollution
Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE)." U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Cowardin et al.. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Gibson, G.R., M.T. Barbour, J.B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen, and J.R. Karr. 1994.
Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers. EPA
822-B-94-001. U.S. EPA Office of Water. Washington, DC.
Grubbs, G. H. 1992. Memorandum: "Supplemental Guidance on Section
303(d) Implementation." U.S.EPA Office of Wetlands?, Oceans and
Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Grubbs, G.H. 1993. Memorandum: "Guidance for 1994 Section 303(d)
Lists." November 26, 1993. U.S.EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, Washington, DC.
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.
9-1
-------
9. REFERENCES
Heiskary, S. A. and Wilson, C. B. 1989. "The Regional Nature of Lake
Water Quality Across Minnesota: An Analysis for Improving Resource
Management," in Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science, volume 55,
Number 1, pp. 72-77.
Heiskary, S. A., B. C. Wilson, and D. P. Larsen. 1987. Analysis of regional
patterns in lake water quality: Using ecoregions for lake management in
Minnesota. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:337-344.
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Water Quality Monitoring). 1994a.
Water Quality Monitoring in the United States-1993 Report of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. (Including
separate volume of technical appendices). January 1994. Washington, DC.
ITFM. 1994b. The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the
United States-Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality. (Including separate volume of technical
appendices). Washington, DC.
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 Surface Water Monitoring 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 ):118-125.
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/444/4-89-001. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Reckhow, K. H. and S. C. Chapra. 1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake
Management (2 vols). Butterworth Publishers, Boston.
9-2
-------
9. REFERENCES
Rhode Island Sea Grant and U.S. EPA. 1994. National Directory of
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. EPA 841-EJ-94-001.
University of Rhode Island, Narragansett and EPA Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1995. Nutrient Modeling and Management
in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Prepared for the N.C,, Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
Smeltzer, E. and Heiskary, S. A. 1990. "Analysis and Applications of Lake
User Survey Data," in Lake and Reservoir Management, 6(1): 109-118.
Stephen, C.E. 1995. Derivation of Conversion Factors for the Calculation of
Dissolved Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. U.S. EPA,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth.
U.S. EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water-1976. Office of Water,
Washington , DC. i
U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water-1986. EPA 440/5-86-001.
Office of Water, Washington , DC.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. Office of Water, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. EPA 440/5-90-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria
in the Water Quality Program, Office of Water. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Decisions. EPA 505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL
Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories, Vol 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. EPA 823-R-93-
002. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public
Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations — Report to
Congress. EPA 810-R-93-001, September 1993. Washington, DC.
9-3
-------
9. REFERENCES
U.S.EPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources
of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington , DC.
U.S.EPA and NOAA. 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program-
Program Development and Approval Guidance. EPA Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds, Washington , DC.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process.
EPA QA/G-4. Washington, DC.
U.S.EPA. 1994b. Draft. Guidance on Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment
and Biocriteria. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995a (draft). Knowing Your Waters: Tribal Reporting Under
Section 305{b). Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995b (in preparation). WBS96 Users Guide. Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Yoder et al.. 1994. Determining the Comparability of
Bioassessments. Intergovernmental Task Force on Water Quality
Monitoring, Washington, DC.
9-4
-------
Addendum A
Draft Approach for Aquatic Life Use
Support (ALUS) Assessments Using
Both Biological/Habitat and
Physical/Chemical Data
i
-------
-------
ADDENDUM A
ADDENDUM A
DRAFT APPROACH FOR AQUATIC LIFE USE SUPPORT (ALUS) ASSESSMENTS
USING BOTH BIOLOGICAL/HABITAT AND PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL DATA
Addendum A includes for your information, review and comment a concept
for making aquatic life use support determinations with both
biological/habitat (B/H) data and physical/chemical (P/C) data. The
EPA/State 305(b) Workgroup drafted the concept for small rivers and
streams to outline a logical, scientifically defensible process for integrating
ALUS determinations based on B/H and P/C data. The concept is not
guidance. It needs further development and the review of outside experts.
The guidance described in Section 5.1 should be followed.
In reviewing the draft concept, EPA suggests that reviewers evaluate the
process in context of its supporting components-the data description levels
and the assessment description levels discussed on pages 5-5 through 5-11.
A series of questions that reviewers may wish to address include whether
the draft concept
• is a valid one for determining the degree to which the waterbody supports
the aquatic life use.
• provides sufficiently standardized procedures and protocols
(bioassessment and monitoring protocols, quality assurance/quality
control requirements, etc.) to promote consistency in the ALUS
determinations among States.
• includes the appropriate case examples on the use oif the procedure.
EPA appreciates any suggestions that may be offered to support a process
for integrating biological/habitat and physical/chemical data in making ALUS
determinations.
5.1.7 ALUS Assessments Using Both Biological/Habitat and
Physical/Chemical Data
The following guidelines apply to ALUS determinations for wadable streams
and rivers where both B/H and P/C data are available. The guidelines
recommend a decision approach that incorporates Assessment Description
Levels into the ALUS assessment process as illustrated in Figure 1.
ADD-1
-------
ADDENDUM A
Determine degree of ALUS
based on B/H data
Determine degree of ALUS
based on PIC data
Determine an Assessment
Description Level for degree
of ALUS based on B/H data.
Use Table C-5a; also, take into
account size of the waterbody
and number of monitoring sites.
(if only B/H data available,
go to final box)
Determine an Assessment
Description Level for degree
of ALUS based on PIC data.
Use Table C-5b; also, take into
account size of the waterbody
and number of monitoring sites.
(if only PIC data available,
go to final box)
L
Compare findings:
• Degree of ALUS from B/H data
• Degree of ALUS from PIC data
• Assess. Desc. Level for B/H assessment
• Assess. Desc. Level for PIC assessment
Report final degree of ALUS
Figure 1.
Process for determining Assessment Description Levels
and degree of ALUS for a waterbody
ADD-2
-------
ADDENDUM A
A. Fully Supporting: Full support indicated by both B/H and P/C data
B. Fully Supporting
but Threatened:
C. Partially Supporting:
Full support indicated by both data categories,
one or both categories indicate an apparent
decline in water quality over time or potential
water quality problems requiring additional data
or verification, or
Other information suggests a threatened
determination (see Section 3.2)
Partial support indicated by both B/H and P/C
data categories, or
Full support indicated by either B/H or P/C data
and partial support or nonsupport indicated by
the other category*
• A determination of partially supporting or not supporting could be
made based on the nature of the data and the relative Assessment
Description Levels of confidence of the P/C and B/H results. See
examples that follow. '•
D. Not Supporting:Nonsupport indicated by both B/H and P/C data
ADD-3
-------
ADDENDUM A
Examples of ALUS assessments where B/H data and P/C data suggest different assessment
results. Table 1 summarizes the results from these examples.
Waterbodv EX-1. Cathys Run
a. Benthos survey during a key period using Rapid Biomonitoring Protocols (RBPs) III with a
regional reference condition approach, supported by data from fisheries biologists that are
of lower Assessment Description Levels - B/H data indicate Nonsupport
b. Fixed station, monthly P/C monitoring for conventionals and toxicants; limited data at
critical flows - data indicate Full Support.
c. Waterbody size = 5 miles; monitoring site is believed to be representative of the entire
waterbody
ALUS Determination = Nonsupport
Rationale: Using Tables 5-2 and 5-3, the analyst determines that Assessment Description
Levels based on B/H and P/C data are 3 and 2, respectively. The analyst determines that the
waterbody is Not Supporting aquatic life use - although the P/C data indicate attainment of
water quality standards, the B/H results indicate severe impairment by non-chemical stressors
such as habitat loss or by acute events that were missed by the P/C monitoring.
Waterbodv EX-2. Rogue Creek
a. Benthos surveys using Rapid Biomonitoring Protocols (RBPs) III with a regional reference
condition approach, supported by data from fisheries biologists that are of lower
Assessment Description Level - B/H data indicate Partial Support;
b. Fixed station, monthly P/C monitoring for conventionals and toxicants; limited data at
critical flows; large exceedances of WQC for several metals - P/C data indicate Nonsupport
c. Waterbody size = 2 miles; single monitoring site is believed to be representative of entire
waterbody
ALUS Determination = Nonsupport
Rationale: Using Table 5-2, the analyst determines that the Assessment Description Level based
on B/H data is 3. Although "limited data at critical flows," the available P/C data strongly
indicate Nonsupport and the analyst determines that the level based on P/C data is also 3. The
final ALUS determination is Nonsupport. Note: Actual experience indicates that this is a rare
case; generally, B/H data corroborate findings of impairment based on severe violations of P/C
criteria.
ADD-4
-------
ADDENDUM A
Waterbodv EX-3. Jones Creek
a.
b.
c.
Benthos survey during a key period using RBPs III with a regional reference condition
approach, supported by data from fisheries biologists that is of lower Assessment
Description Level - B/H data indicate Full Support. i
Fixed station, monthly P/C monitoring for conventionals and toxicants; limited data at
critical flows - metals data indicate Nonsupport based on four values slightly exceeding
criteria for total recoverable copper out of 36 monthly samples.
Waterbody size = 5 miles; the two monitoring sites are believed to be representative of the
entire waterbody.
ALUS Determination = Partially Supporting
Rationale: The analyst determines that the Assessment Description Level for the B/H data is 3.
Although the P/C dataset includes data at Level 2, the analyst considers the finding of
Nonsupport for the P/C data to be Level 1 because it is based on four values slightly exceeding
the criterion for total recoverable copper, a metal with a criterion that is considered conservative
regarding bioavailability. The final ALUS determination is Partially Supporting.
NOTE: Assessments that are based mainly on metals tend to be of Assessment Description
Levels 2 or 1 because of sampling methods commonly employed. For example, for chemical
parameters collected by grab sampling, confidence in a Full Support determination may be low
because this sampling method tends to miss acute events. This is particularly significant if an
acute event occurs during a key biological period (e.g., fish spawning). However, greater
confidence in assessments is possible for metals if criteria are repeatedly exceeded by a great
margin. Or, pertinent to the above example, a higher Assessment Description Level would be
assigned to the metals data if there were additional evidence regarding the persistence and/or
biological significance (e.g., bioavailability analyses for the waterbody) of low level exceedances
in this waterbody. Under this scenario, an ALUS determination of Nonsupport would be likely.
ADD-5
-------
ADDENDUM A
Waterbodv EX-4. Smith Brook
a. Benthos survey using RBP II during key season -- B/H data indicate Full Support
b. Fixed-station, monthly P/C monitoring for conventionals and toxicants; limited data at critical
flows - DO data indicate Partial Support based on several DO values below State standards.
c. Waterbody size = 12 miles; single monitoring site may not be representative of the entire
waterbody
ALUS Determination = Partial Support
Rationale: From Tables 5-2 and 5-3, the Assessment Description Levels based on the B/H data
and the P/C data would each be 2 if the analyst haoXhigh degree of certainty that the site
were representative of the entire waterbody. However, the analyst reports both Assessment
Description Levels as 1 based on having only a single monitoring site in the entire 12 miles.
The final determination is that the waterbody is Partially Supporting aquatic life use.
Waterbodv EX-5. S. Fork Smith Brook
a. Benthos survey using RBPs II during key period - B/H data indicate Full Support
b. Fixed-station, monthly P/C monitoring for conventionals and toxicants; limited data at critical
flows - DO data indicate Nonsupport based on severe violations of State standards.
c. Waterbody size = 2 miles; monitoring sites believed to be representative of entire
waterbody
ALUS Determination = Nonsupport
Rationale: The Assessment Description Level for the B/H data is 2. The analyst determines that
the P/C finding of Nonsupport rates a confidence level of 3 because the DO data are
comprehensive and show severe violations. The analyst determines that the final ALUS
Assessment Description Level is 2 because of the unexplained difference in B/H and P/C
findings. The ALUS determination is Nonsupport.
ADD-6
-------
ADDENDUM A
Table 1. Summary of ALUS findings for the above examples8
Water-
body ID
EX-1
EX-2
EX-3
EX-4
EX-5
Waterbody
Name
Cathys Cr.
Rogue Cr.
Jones Cr.
Smith Brook
S. Fork
Smith Brook
Degree of
Use Support
Suggested
by B/H Data
Nonsupport
Partial
Support
Full Support
Full Support
Full Support
B/H
Assess.
Descrip.
Level
3
3
3
1
2
Degree of
Use Support
Suggested
by P/C Data
Full Support
Nonsupport
Nonsupport
Partial
Support
Nonsupport
P/C
Assess.
Descrip.
Level
2
3
1
1 |
3
ALUS
Assessment
Nonsupport
Nonsupport
Partial
Support
Partial
Support
Nonsupport
a WBS will contain each of these use support and assessment description data fields. EPA
encourages States to store this information for each appropriate small riverine waterbody.
ADD-7
-------
-------
Appendix A
Provisions of the Clean Water Act
-------
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
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, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such
achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement;
and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources
of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
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.
Sec 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)(1) (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 i
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
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
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 (1MB) 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 water
quality-limited waters. (Note that the regulatory revisions pertain exclusively to 303(d)
lists of waters requiring TMDLs and do not require biennial submiittals 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 1130.8 of this part and
Section 305(b) of the CWA or submitted under separate cover."
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
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 eutrophic
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 B
305(b) Reporting for Indian Tribes
-------
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
APPENDIX B
305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
EPA encourages Tribes and Tribal groups with monitoring and assessment
programs to submit 305(b) reports. Benefits of participating in the 305(b)
process include
• The Tribe assesses its monitoring data in a way that is meaningful to
decisionmakers.
• The 305(b) report is a public information tool documenting Tribal actions
to protect waterbodies.
• The report calls national attention to special issues such as fish tissue
contamination from toxic chemicals and ground water contamination.
• The process offers an opportunity for Tribal and State technical staff
to coordinate assessments.
• The 305(b) report is a^good vehicle for recommending actions to EPA to
achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act and protect Tribal
waterbodies.
This appendix describes a level of reporting that may be appropriate for a
Tribe's first-time 305(b) report. For details about the various topics, see the
main body of this Guidelines document. In addition, EPA has prepared a
booklet about Tribal 305(b) reporting -- Knowing Our Waters: Tribal
Reporting Under Section 305(b) (EPA, 1995). The booklet is available from
the EPA Regional 305(b) Coordinators listed inside the front cover of these
Guidelines.
If all topics cannot be covered in a Tribal 305(b) report, EPA encourages
Tribes to present available information in whatever form is appropriate -
tabular, narrative, or graphical (map) format. EPA also encourages Tribes to
coordinate with State and Federal water (quality agencies including the EPA
Regions on topics such as assessment methods, data sharing, and common
boundary waters. Each State and EPA Region has a 30E>(b) Coordinator.
State, Territory, and Tribal 305(b) Coordinators are listed inside the back
cover of these Guidelines.
B-1
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
It may be mutually beneficial for Tribes and States to collaborate on
assessments and reporting. For example, common assessments would be
appropriate for shared water resources. Opportunities for collaboration
would need to be evaluated by each Tribe on a case-by-case basis.
Following are the major sections and contents of a Tribal 305(b) report. If
the terms are not familiar to you, please refer to Sections 3 through 5 of the
main body of these Guidelines and to Knowing Our Waters: Tribal Reporting
under Section 305(b) (EPA, 1995).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Provide a brief narrative overview of surface and ground water quality on
Tribal lands, including:
• Summary of degree of designated use support
• Causes (pollutants/stressors) and sources of water quality impairments
• Programs to correct impairments
• Monitoring programs, issues of special concern, and Tribal initiatives
• A map showing reservation boundaries, waterbodies, monitoring sites
BACKGROUND
Complete as much of the Atlas table (Table B-1) as possible.
SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Surface Water Monitoring Program
• Brief description of the program including:
- Monitoring design used by the Tribe (e.g., fixed stations; toxics
monitoring; biological monitoring)
- Parameters (e.g., pollutants) and sampling frequency for each type of
monitoring
- References for written protocols (field, lab, assessment)
- Description of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program
- Data management
- Changes in program since last assessment
- Reporting other than 305(b)
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
- Cooperative efforts with State and Federal agencies
- Training received and given
- Volunteer monitoring
Assessment Methodology and Water Quality Standcirds
• Description of methods to assess water quality data for use support (fully,
partially, not supporting); use of a detailed flow chart is encouraged. See
Sections 3 - 5 of these Guidelines for recommended approaches.
• Description of water quality standards used for assessments, including
Tribal standards
Water Quality Assessment Summary |
• For streams and rivers, complete Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4 for all
appropriate designated uses, causes, and sources of impairment. If
mileage cannot be quantified, describe causes and sources in narrative
form. (See Knowing Our Waters for examples; see Section 3 of these
Guidelines for details).
• For lakes, prepare tables similar to Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4 for all
appropriate designated uses, causes, and sources of impairment. Use
units of acres; if acreage cannot be quantified, describe causes and
sources in narrative form.
• Provide map/maps color coded or shaded to show degree of use support
(full, partial, threatened, not supporting) for waterbodies on Tribal lands.
Show designated uses of importance to the Tribe for which data are
available (e.g., aquatic life, fish consumption, swimming)
• For other waterbody types such as estuaries or coastlines for which
assessments are available, report in narrative form or in tables similar to
Tables B-2, B-3, or B-4.
• If information is available on wetlands (extent, degree of use support, or
impairment), report using tables from Section 7 (Part III Chapter 6) of the
Guidelines or in narrative form; report on any wetland protection activities
in narrative form
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns !
To the extent possible, provide information on the public health and aquatic
life impacts of toxicants and non-toxic contamination including:
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
• Significant impairments from point and nonpoint sources
• Areas of special concern due to toxics in fish tissue
• Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities
• Sites of known sediment contamination
• Restrictions on surface drinking water supplies
• 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)
Tribes may present this information in narrative or tabular form (see
Section 7, Part Ill/Chapter 7). Tribes are encouraged to discuss the nature
and limits of the monitoring effort from which these data were derived, and
to place these impacts in perspective as compared to other water quality
problems.
Water Quality Inventory
Either in this section or in an appendix, provide a listing or inventory of Tribal
waterbodies, including waterbody name, identification number, size, degree
of use support, causes, sources, and needed control measures. Table B-5
shows the requested information with examples of waterbody-specific data.
Tribes may use EPA's PC Waterbody System (WBS) to track this information
and other data for management purposes. Contacts for WBS are the EPA
Regional 305(b) Coordinators and John Clifford, EPA National Waterbody
System Coordinator, (202) 260-3667.
GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Provide narrative or tabular description of ground water aquifers under Tribal
lands, including:
« Major uses of ground water from each aquifer (e.g.. Tribal- or State-
designated uses, if any)
« Numeric ground water standards, if any
* Population using the aquifer
* Summary results of ground water monitoring, by parameter
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Tribes should also describe the type and extent of ground water monitoring
on tribal lands, including maps if possible. Section 8 of these Guidelines
describes recommended indicators for different types of ground water
monitoring.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
Provide a narrative overview of point and nonpoint source control programs
in whatever level of detail the Tribe chooses. If this information is supplied
to EPA elsewhere, briefly summarize those documents. Also, discuss special
Tribal concerns and any strategies planned or implemented for addressing
these concerns. Give site-specific examples where possible. Finally, provide
recommendations to EPA regarding additional actions needed to achieve the
objectives of the Clean Water Act and protect tribal waterbodies. Examples
include additional monitoring, training in assessment or data management,
and improved methods for fish consumption advisories.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table B-1. Atlas of Tribal Resources (complete to the extent possible)
Topic , c ,
Surface area of Tribal lands8
Tribal population residing on these lands
Total miles of rivers and streams on Tribal lands
- Miles of perennial rivers/streams (subset)
- Miles of intermittent (non-perennial) streams (subset)
- Miles of ditches and canals (subset)
- Border miles of shared rivers/streams (subset)
Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds on Tribal lands'3
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds on Tribal landsb
Acres of freshwater wetlands on Tribal lands
Acres of tidal wetlands on Tribal lands
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Miles of ocean coast
Miles of Great Lakes shore
Value
a Please define the boundaries of the land and waters under Tribal jurisdiction and
included in this report; use a map and/or text descriptions.
b Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic behavior, either
as stream channel miles under rivers, or as total surface acreage under
lakes/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
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table B-2. Individual Use Support Summary3
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams'3
Use
Fish
Consumption
Shellfishing
Aquatic Life
Support
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Drinking Water
Supply
Cultural/Cere-
monial Uses
Agriculture
Tribe Defined:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Size
Supporting
Size
Supporting
but Threat-
ened"
Size
Partially
Supporting
Size
Not
Supporting
i.
Size
Not
Attainable
Size
Un-
assessed
a Prepare one table for rivers and streams, a separate table for lakes, and others for estuaries,
coastline and wetlands, as appropriate. i- '
b Reported in miles; in the other tables use acres for lakes, square miles for estuaries, miles for
coastal waters, and acres for wetlands.
c Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size fully supporting
uses. See Section 3.2.
Note: Tribe defined codes should be established 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, attempt to group waters into the eight general categories of use.
Where waterbodies have multiple uses, the appropriate waterbody length/area should be
entered in each applicable category.
B-7
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table B-3. Total Sizes of Impaired Waters, by Cause Category3
Type of waterbody: Rivers and Streams3
Cause Category
Cause unknown
Unknown toxicity
Pesticides
Priority organics
Nonpriority organics
Metals
Ammonia
Chlorine
Other inorganics
Nutrients
PH
Siltation
Organic enrichment/low DO
Salinity/TDS/chlorides
Thermal modifications
Flow alterations
Other habitat alterations
Pathogen indicators
Radiation
Oil and grease
Taste and odor
Suspended solids
Noxious aquatic plants
Filling and draining
Total toxics
Turbidity
Filling and draining
Exotic species
Other (specify)
Size of Waters Impaired0
8 Prepare one table for rivers and streams, a separate table for lakes, and others
for estuaries, coastlines, and wetlands as appropriate.
bReported in miles for rivers and streams. When preparing similar tables for other
waterbody types, use the following units: lakes, acres; estuaries, square miles;
coastal waters and Great Lakes, shore miles; wetlands, acres.
B-8
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table B-4. Total Sizes of Impaired Waters Affected by Various Source Categories8
Type of Waterbody: (Rivers and Streams)
Source Category
Point Sources
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Agricultural Point Sources (e.g., feedlots)
Combined Sewer Overflows
Nonpoint Sources
Agriculture
Silviculture
Construction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydromodification/Habitat Modification
Contaminated Sediments c
Atmospheric Deposition
Unknown Source
Natural Sourcesd
Other (specify) e
Size of Waters Impaired b
1
a Prepare one table for rivers and streams, a separate table for lakes, and others for
estuaries, coastlines, and wetlands as appropriate. .
b Reported in miles for rivers and streams. 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.
c Bottom sediments contaminated with toxic of 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), sludge deposits.
d Sources not due to human influence; e.g., naturally-occurring low flow or drought,
natural deposits resulting in high metals or salinity. See Section 3 of Guidelines.
e List additional sources known to cause impairment.
Note: See Sections 3 and 7 of the full 305{b) Guidelines for more information.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX B: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
in
CO
a*
•- '«
S
1
* *J
C
"8 |
(B w
S
3
i?
Causes
Degree of
Use Support
CD
w
3
Designated
•o
CD
'3
f**
11
I- CO
Descriptior
^ Q
S >•
Waterbody
Name
a
a. -o
x>^2
c
Fixed-statio
chemical
monitoring
• o P;
•c c >
£ o
< u c
Sediment,
nutrients
Nonsupport
Full Support
Aquat. Life
Swimming
*p
t
in
1
in
Source to
mouth
S
o
1=
n
Q.2
CO CO
B-10
-------
Appendix C
Information for Determining Sources
-------
-------
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Table C-1. Some Types of Information Useful in Determining Sources of Water
Quality Impairment
Source Category
Example Types of Information
Industrial Point Sources
Permit Compliance Records
• analysis of DMRs
» compliance monitoring or special monitoring in
permits ;
• WET or TIE bioassay tests
Monitoring/Modeling Studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, and
habitat monitoring
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL
modeling
• complaint investigations
• data from volunteer monitoring
Municipal Point Sources
Permit compliance records
• analysis of routine DMRs
• compliance monitoring or special monitoring in
permits
• WET or TIE toxicity bioassay tests
Monitoring/modeling studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or
physical monitoring
« intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL
modeling
• complaint investigations
• data from volunteer monitoring '
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Permit compliance records
• records of nonachievement of targets for frequency of
wet weather overflows
« implementation of other minimum control and
pollution prevention methods (as in EPA CSO Control
Policy)
Monitoring/modeling studies j
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or
physical monitoring comparing wet weather and
normal flow conditions
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL
modeling
• complaint investigations
C-1
-------
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Example Types of Information
Agricultural Point
Sources (e.g., CAFOs)
Permit compliance records
• Observation of overflows from total retention (non-
discharge) facilities
• Compliance with provisions for off-site disposal of animal
wastes (e.g., land application, composting)
Monitoring studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or physical
monitoring (especially for nutrients and pathogens)
• complaint investigations
Agriculture (NPS)
Information from monitoring and field observations (e.g., to
document bad actors)
• edge of field monitoring of runoff from animal holding
areas, cropped areas, or pastures
• monitoring of inputs from irrigation return flows, sub-
surface drains, or drainage ditches
• proper installation of screens or other measures to
avoid fish losses in drainage/irrigation ditches
• serious rill or gully erosion in agricultural fields
• sedimentation problems in agricultural watersheds
• indications of unmanaged livestock in streamside
management zones
• complaint investigations or data from volunteer
monitoring or inventories
Records on watershed BMP implementation status
• documented low implementation level (e.g., less than
a 70% target) of recommended water quality BMPs
• documented problems with specific agricultural
operators
Modeling
• Use of such models as AGNPS, SWAT or ANSWERS
to estimate pollutant loads and improvement from
BMP implementation
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL
modeling
C-2
-------
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Example Types of Information
Silviculture (NFS)
Monitoring and field observations documenting instances of
high sediment delivery to receiving waters
• BMPs not followed on logging road, skid paths, or
stream crossings
• BMPs not followed to protect streamside
management zones
• serious sedimentation problems {cobble
embeddedness or interstitial D.O. problems) in
watersheds that are largely silvicultural
Records on watershed BMP/management measure)
implementation status
• documented low implementation level of
recommended water quality-oriented BMPs
Results of modeling or cumulative effects analyses
• Use of such models as WRENSS to estimate pollutant
loads and likely improvement from BMP
implementation
* Use of water temperature models to help quantify
impacts on cold water fisheries
• use of landscape analysis techniques (e.g., the RAPID
method or Integrated Riparian Area Evaluation
method) to document cumulative effects
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/ TMDL
modeling
Construction
Information from monitoring and field observations
(primarily to document problem areas or bad actors)
• sedimentation problems documented in watersheds
with major construction activity
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring
data
Information from sediment control management agencies
• records of implementation of sediment control
measures
C-3
-------
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Example Types of Information
Urban Runoff & Storm
Sewers
Monitoring/modeling studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or habitat
monitoring comparing wet weather and normal flow
conditions near outfalls
• special monitoring for BMP effectiveness-wet ponds,
artificial wetlands, grass swales
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/ TMDL
modeling and catchment models such as SWMM
• complaint investigations
Information from management agencies
• documented low implementation level of
recommended/required water quality-oriented BMPs
• documented problems with BMP operation and
maintenance
Resource Extraction
(Petroleum)
Information from monitoring and field observations
(primarily to document problem areas or bad actors)
• evidence of oil and brine spills affecting sizable areas
near receiving waters; elevated TDS, toxicity, oil and
grease aesthetic impacts; increased erosion and
sedimentation problems
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring
data
Information from petroleum management agencies
• records of recurrent problems with spills, pipeline
breaks, over-berming of reserve pits, waste-hauler
dumping
Resource Extraction
(mainly surface mining)
Information from monitoring and field observations
(primarily to document problem areas or bad actors)
• evidence of decreases in pH, toxicity from heavy
metals, excessive sedimentation, or stream reaches
with iron bacteria in watersheds with active mining
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring
data
Information from mining management agencies
• records of recurrent permit violations (e.g., over-
berming of settling ponds, failure to contain
leachates, or failure to revegetate or restore mined
areas)
C-4
-------
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Land Disposal
Example Types of Information
Monitoring and field observations (primarily to document
problem areas or bad actors)
• monitoring indicates leachate migration from disposal
area or industrial or domestic leach field failures
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring
Modeling
• solute transport or plume models (e.g., PRIZM) indicate
high potential for pollutants to reach receiving water
Hydromodification
(Dams, flow regulation)
Monitoring and field observations
• recurring problems with inadequate instream flows (e.g.,
dewatering of streams, reduced pollutant assimilation,
unnatural water temperatures)
• documented interference with fish migration and
spawning movements (e.g., for such anadromous fish
as salmon or rockfish but also for inland fish that
seek spawning habitat outside lakes; or large rivers)
Modeling
• Analysis using PHABSIM or other instream flow
models to document adverse impacts
• Analysis related to FERC permit renewal and State
401 Certification, habitat recovery plans under the
ESA, or TMDL studies (e.g., problems with anoxic or
nutrient-laden releases from hydrostructures)
Hydromodification
(Channelization,
dredging, removal of
riparian vegetation,
streambank modification,
draining/filling of
wetlands)
Monitoring (usually over considerable period of time)
documenting adverse changes:
• severe channel downcutting or widening
• elimination of vegetation in streamside management
zones
• excessive streambank erosion and sloughing
• loss of significant wetland area in watershed
• failure of wetland mitigation projects
Modeling studies ;
• decreases in pollutant assimilation from habitat
modification
• adverse impacts on hydrology, water temperatures, or
habitat
C-5
-------
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Example Types of information
Natural Sources
Monitoring and field observations of the presence of
sources that are clearly not anthropogenic.
• Saline water due to natural mineral salt deposits
• Low DO or pH caused by poor aeration and natural
organic materials
• Excessive siltation due to glacial deposits
• High temperatures due to low flow conditions or drought
Note: the Natural Sources category should be reserved for
waterbodies impaired due to naturally occurring conditions.
C-6
-------
Appendix D
Data Sources for 305(b) Assessments
-------
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
APPENDIX D
DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
The main purpose of this appendix is to identify data 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, and others.
D.1 EPA Databases
Table D-1 lists EPA databases that may prove useful for assessing use
support in State waterbodies. Each of these systems can be accessed
through EPA's National Computer Center mainframe computer. The national
data systems in Table D-1 vary in data completeness and data quality; such
characteristics should be evaluated for a given State 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., the Reach File and 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 is distributing WBS96
shortly after distribution of 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 agencies and
organizations other than EPA. Many of these sources are readily available
but may not be used by State water quality programs. Many State water
quality agencies rely on a combination of EPA data systems and their own
D-1
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
systems for acquiring water quality data. 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.
Databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) may be of
special interest to State water quality agencies; several are listed in
Table D-2. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Division
coordinates USGS databases through its National Water Data Exchange
(NAWDEX) Program Office. For more information, States may contact the
local NAWDEX Assistance Center in their USGS Water Resources District
Office, or call the national NAWDEX Program Office at (703) 648-5684.
The DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service has many relevant monitoring and
assessment programs including the National Wetlands Inventory and the
National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program. Table D-2 gives brief
descriptions and contacts for these and other programs.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through its National
Status and Trends Program, assesses the levels of 70 organic chemicals and
trace elements in bottom-dwelling fish, sediments and mollusks at more than
300 sites throughout the United States. Table D-2 presents some major
components of the Program and contacts.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Waterbody
System (WBS)
EPA, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds
(OWOW)
Reach File
EPA, OWOW
STORE! Water
Quality File
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
Description
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
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 waterbddy-
specific information on
pollution causes and
sources, use
impairments, and st«rtus
of TMDL development
Integrates many
databases having
locational information on
water quality conditions
or pollutant causes
Major source of raw
ambient data for water
quality assessments
Simplifies storage arid
analysis of biological data
or metrics, with links to
other EPA data files
Permit tracking system
for NPDES discharges to
oceans and estuaries and
ocean dumping programs
Identifies waterbodios,
species affected by
advisories and bans and
the problem pollutants
I
Provides data integration
using number of EPA
data files with mapping
capabilities using the
Reach File
Contact
John Clifford,
OWOW
(202) 260-3667
Tommy Dewald,
OWOW
(202) 260-2488
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Jeffrey Bigler,
OST
(202) 260-1305
Watershed
Branch, OWOW
(202) 260-7074
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Permit Compliance
System (PCS)
EPA, Office of
Wastewater
Management
(OWM)
Industrial Facilities
Discharge File
(IFD)
EPA, Office of
Water
Facility Index
Systems (FINDS)
EPA, Office of
Information
Resources
Management
Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory
System (TRIS)
EPA, Office of
Prevention,
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
Information for about
1 20,000 NPDES
dischargers; also
Superfund sites
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
Primary Function
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,
(703) 603-8951
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
LeAnne Elders
(703) 235-5579
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
C|ty 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)
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) 235-5587
Robert Pease,
OIRM
(703) 235-5587
D-5
-------
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Water Data
[ Storage and
Retrieval System
(WATSTORE)
DOI, USGS, Water
Resources Division
Description
National Rivers
Inventory,
DOI, National Park
Service
Database of water
'quality data collected
at 5,000 stations and
peak flow and daily
flow data collected at
8,000 stations.
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.
Contacts
Rivers and Trails
Conservation
I Assistance
I Program,
DOI, National Park
I Service
List of over 1,500
river segments
(approximately
63,000 miles).
Program supports
development and
updates to Statewide
river inventories or
evaluation of
particular river
corridors or
green ways.
Identifies waters with
potential for National Wild
and Scenic Rivers status.
Supports Federal and
State scenic river
programs and a variety of
greenway and open
space protection
initiatives.
Dr. James S.
Burton, Chief
USGS, Water
Resources
Division,
NAWDEX
Program Office
(703) 648-5684
Dan Meyer
DOI, National
Park Service
(202) 343-3780
National Wetlands
Inventory,
DOI, Fish and
I Wildlife Service
Emergency
[ Wetlands
Resources Act
Regional Concept
Plans,
DOI, Fish and
I Wildlife Service
'Computerized
mapping scheme for
entire United States.
Samuel Stokes
DOI, National
Park Service
(202) 343-3780
National
Contaminant
Biomonitoring
Program, DOI, Fish
and Wildlife
I Service
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.
Shows locations of
vegetative community
types using a FWS ,
classification scheme.
Fish and bird tissue
samples collected
between 1965 and
1988 for chlorinated
pesticides, PCBs, and
metals
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.
David Dall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(703) 358-2201
David Dall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(703) 358-2201
Fish monitoring done to
evaluate the effects of
toxicants at 110
freshwater sites in
specific watersheds and
the Great Lakes.
Branch Chief,
Fish Research,
National Fisher-
ies Research
Center
(314) 875-5399
D-6
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Description
Primary Function
Contacts
National Irrigation
Water Quality
Program, DOI, Fish
and Wildlife
Service
Physical, chemical
and biological data
collected at about
200 areas consisting
of about 600
projects.
To identify and address
irrigation-induced
contamination on DOI
irrigation and drainage
facilities. National Wildlife
Refuges, and other
wildlife management
areas.
Tim Hall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service,
Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Biomonitoring of
Environmental
Status and Trends
(BEST) Program,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
Data collection to
address effects on
migratory birds,
endangered species,
anadromous fish,
certain marine
mammals, and
habitats. Pilot
projects through
1995; full
implementation in
1996.
Monitor and assess
environmental
contamination effects to
fish and wildlife and their
habitats, on and off
National Wildlife Refuges.
Tim Hall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service,
Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703)358-2148
National Shellfish
Register,
Department of
Commerce,
NOAA,
National Ocean
Service
Tracks status of
shellfish harvesting
areas by State at 5-
year intervals (most
recent data is from
1990).
Detect trends in shellfish
growing waters and the
abundance of shellfish
resources.
Maureen Warren
NOAA, National
Ocean Service
(301) 713-3000
Multi-State Fish
and Wildlife
Information
Systems Project,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
Database of life
history, habitat
needs, and
environmental
tolerances for inland
and marine fish and
wildlife.
Central database to
facilitate review of
permits, regulatory
requirements, and
ecological preservation
restoration programs.
or
Rick Bennett
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(703) 358-1718
OR
Andy Loftus
Sport Fishing
Institute
(202) 898-0770
D-7
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(bj ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
National Gap
Analysis Project,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife 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
(NWQTDS),
USDA, Soil
Conservation
Service
Description
Application of GIS
technology to
prioritize habitat
protection needs for
specific fish or
.wildlife species and
for overall species
protection.
Database on 1 5,000
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 GIS
technology assistance
to promote the
President's Water
Quality Initiative, the
Farm Bill, and other
programs.
Primary Function
Provides way to identify
habitat protection needs
based on identification of
"gaps" when comparing
existing protected areas
with regional habitat
distributions.
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.
Contains data on types of
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.
Contacts
Dr. Ted LaRoe
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(703) 358-2171
Susie Wilkins
Outstanding
Rivers List
(202) 547-6900
USDA, Forest
Service
(202) 205-1706
The Nature
Conservancy
(703) 841-8781
Jackie Diggs
USDA, Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(202) 720-0136
D-8
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA (SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Benthic
Surveillance
Project, National
Status and Trends
Program,
Department of
Commerce, NOAA
Mussel Watch
Project, National
Status and Trends
Program, NOAA
Coastal
Contamination
Assessments,
National Status
and Trends
Program, NOAA
National Estuarine
Inventory and
Strategic
Assessment
Program
Decennial Census
Description
Sampling at 79
stuarine sites for
'CBs, PAHs,
chlorinated pesticides,
butyltins, sewage
racers, and trace
elements.
Determine concentrations
f toxic chemicals in
sediments and bottom-
dwelling fish.
Mussels and oysters
collected annually at
about 240 sites and
analyzed for same
parameters as the
3enthic Surveillance
3roject.
To determine
;oncentrations of toxic
chemicals in mussels and
similar bivalve mollusks
as "sentinel organisms"
n environmental
monitoring.
Quick-reference
reports for Long
Island Sound, Gulf of
Maine, Hudson-
Raritan area,
Narragansett Bay, and
Buzzards Bay done or
underway.
Source of
demographic,
economic, and natura
resource information
for 102 Estuarine
Drainage Areas.
Major source of
information with
county-level
resolution dealing
with population,
agriculture, mining,
etc.
Primary Function
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.
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.
Contacts
sIS&T Program
Mational Ocean
Service, NOAA
301) 713-3028
MS&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
Department of
Commerce,
NOAA
(301) 443-8487
Charles D. Jones
Department of
Commerce,
Bureau of the
Census
(301) 763-5180
D-9
-------
-------
Appendix E
Section 106 Monitoring Guidance
and
Guidance for Section 303(d) Lists
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 17
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 106 Monitoring Guidance
FROM!
TO:
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director r3"
Assessment and Watershed Protection
Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs
Regional Field Branch Chiefs
Regional Monitoring Coordinators
OFFICE OF
WATER
/'V
vision (4503F)
Attached is the final Section 106 Guidance for Water Quality
Monitoring. This has been a long time in the making, as we
wanted to be sure the involved and affected parties had ample
chance to work with us to make this both a good product and a
consensus document likely fco be implemented. We have worked on
this guidance with members of the lAtercrovernBiental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality, whose framework for water quality
monitoring programs this incorporates, and also with members of
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators. We have worked with individual State staff, with
our Regional Monitoring Coordinators, Water Quality Branch Chiefs
and Field Branch Chiefs, and members of various water programs
within the Office of Water. In particular. Chuck Kanetsky of
Region III put long hours into working with various drafts, and
we owe him heartfelt thanks. I thank you all for your comments
and involvement.
This 106 monitoring guidance is a key tool in our extensive
efforts to work with our partners to improve the water quality
monitoring across the country. We are seeking to specifically
identify impaired waters across the country. We are seeking to
monitor more of our waters, but; do so more cost-effectively by
employed monitoring techniques appropriate to the condition of
and goals for the water. We are seeking greater comparability in
monitoring parameters and methods so we can all share data more
easily and aggregate it into various geographic scales, from
site-specific through watershed, regional and State/Tribal to
national. We are seeking to report water quality using common
indicators to measure our progress toward meeting our agreed-upon
water quality goals. We are seeking to work more closely and
share information more easily with our many public and private
monitoring partners, especially in a watershed context. This 106
guidance supports all these efforts, and is a tool we can
effectively use as we work with States to revitalize monitoring
programs and report core information in a comparable fashion.
Rtcyctedltecyclible
PiiiM»d o« pap*' IIM comic
at l*
-------
Section 106 and 604(b) Grant Guidance
Water Monitoring
I. 106/604(b) Monitoring Goals
Overall Goal Develop and implement a surface and ground
water monitoring strategy to help achieve the goals and
objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other
environmental initiatives. In doing so use a mix of
approaches that provide for the design, collection,
measurement, storage, retrieval, assessment, and
presentation of physical, chemical/toxicological,and
biological/ecological data necessary to implement this
monitoring efficiently and effectively, making best use of
multiple agency resources.
An overall monitoring strategy includes monitoring for the
purposes of 1) determining status and trends, 2)
identifying causes and sources of problems and ranking them
in priority order, 3) designing and implementing water
management programs, 4) determining compliance and program
effectiveness, and 5) responding to emergencies.
Among other management goals, monitoring supports the
development and attainment of water quality standards,
303(d) listings and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
development, NPDES permit limitations, nonpoint source
controls, geographic initiatives such as watershed and
ecosystem protection, and the measurement of chosen
environmental indicators.
Monitoring coverage and design goals. Assess all State
waters (surface, ground, and coastal water and wetlands] on
a periodic basis (4 - 10 years as negotiated between the
Region and the State) using a monitoring design targeted to
the condition of and goals for the waters, and
incorporating various approaches (e.g. fixed station and
synoptic survey, intensive and screening-level monitoring,
probability sampling and design). For example, some States
use a five-year basin-by-basin monitoring cycle.
Data collection and methods goals. Collect
chemical/toxicological, physical, biological/ecological,
habitat, and land use/land cover data employing comparable
methods with other agencies so as to be able to share data.
Use multiple water quality assessment techniques (e.g.,
fish tissue, population and community surveys, habitat
assessments, sediment data, soils and geological data
analysis, and toxicity testing) as appropriate to meet the
goals and objectives of the monitoring program. Include
latitude and longitude with all samples following the
guidelines established under EPA's Locational Data Policy.
(See Attachment A.)
-------
Environmental indicator goals. Identify specific
environmental indicators to measure and report on progress
towards achieving the identified program goals.
Data and information sharing goals. Store the data in
automated systems that enable data to be easily shared,
analyzed, and portrayed. Put appropriate data into EPA's
STORET and the Waterbody System.
Analysis and reporting goals. Analyze the data and report
it in the state 305(b) report supported by the Waterbody
System or comparable database and in other reports tailored
to the audiences who need to know the information-.
Reference condition goals. Establish ecoregional reference
stations for biological monitoring programs in order to
provide baseline data for water quality assessments and
development of bibcriteria.
Collaboration goals. Coordinate planned monitoring
activities with existing and planned monitoring programs in
other public and private organizations to gain maximum
benefit from sharing information.
II. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this guidance:
"State" covers States, Indian Tribes, a;nd Territories in
this guidance.
"Water quality" refers to physical, chemical/toxicological,
and biological/ecological properties of water resources.
"Water resources" include surface and ground waters,
coastal waters, associated aquatic communities and
habitats, wetlands, a~d sentient.
"Monitoring activities" include identification of program
objectives; selection of indicators; field data collection;
laboratory analysis; quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC); data storage, management amd sharing; data
analysis; and information reporting.
in. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES:
A. Monitoring Strategy States should provide a*multi-year
(preferably 5-year) monitoring strategy with the 106 grant
application. This will provide thet framework for
Regional/State agreement on an annual monitoring workplan.
For this the State can develop or revise its existing water
monitoring strategy in consultation with EPA Regional
monitoring staff and other affected State program managers.
The strategy should be consistent with related program
-------
B.
goals. To the extent possible, use information already
available, such as 305(b) report information.
Ambient and program-specific. The strategy should include
both ambient and program-specific monitoring. States
should summarize all program-specific monitoring activities
such as for nonpoint source, lakes, estuaries, wetlands,
groundwater (for which soil and geology characterization is
important), and wet weather surveys (CSO/stormwater)
NPDES, TMDL, 305(b) and 403(c) and describe how the ambient
and program-specific monitoring programs are integrated to
provide the total body of information necessary to support
water quality management programs.
Monitoring Program Worfcplan. States should describe their
monitoring program in the context of their multi-year
monitoring strategy, or revise the overall strategy as
needed each year to specify annual activities. The goal is
to integrate information from existing reports (305(b),
QAPPs, methods manuals) to avoid and eventually eliminate,
duplication. Where possible, the monitoring workplan
should include the following elements:
I. Purpose
a. Goals. List the goals of your monitoring
program, the specific objectives or questions you are
trying to answer, and who needs the information.
b. Data quality objectives. Specify data quality
objectives (a statement of the quality of
environmental information necessary to support the
goals you identify). See Attachment B for list of
available EPA guidance on quality assurance plans.
c. Boundary delineation. If other than the entire
State, identify the boundaries of geographic areas you
target for monitoring, such as watersheds or
waterbodies, and the time frames in which you will
monitor them.
d. Environmental Indicators. Identify the
parameters or suites of physical, chemical, biological
and habitat parameters you are measuring to determine
if you are achieving your goals. Where possible,
include the indicators developed by the Office of
Water to measure national water goals.
e. Reference conditions. Establish reference
conditions for environmental indicators that can be
monitored to provide a baseline water quality
assessment.
-------
2. coordination/Collaboration. Identify other agency
programs (e.g., nonpoint source, Clean Lakes, RCRA,
EMAP/REMAP etc.) or other separate agencies or groups
(such as USGS, NOAA, or the Nature Conservancy) with
similar monitoring goals or information you can use to
support your management goals, and discuss how you
will collect and/or share information with them.
3. Design and Implementation.
a. Identify existing water quality problems and
information gaps.
b. Develop timelines to accomplish program
objectives.
c. Identify who is to collect, analyze, interpret,
and receive the water quality information.
d. Identify sampling approach (including fixed
station, synoptic, event sampling, intensive
surveys) for biological/ecological, physical,
chemical/toxicological, and habitat indicators.
Describe the "approaches used, including the
number of surveys planned to be initiated or
completed during the fiscal year and for each:
1. Stream (or basin) name arid study and
station locations.
2. Objective(s) of study;
3. Parameters monitorod (physical,
chemical/toxicological ,
biological/ecological, heibitat)
4. Sampling frequency of parameters
5. Reference to method of delta collection and
analysis?
6. Reference to appropriate quality assurance
project plan;
7. Final report date.
e. Specify data collection methods,,
1. A Standard Operating Procedures manual
should be prepared and submitted to the Regional
Quality Assurance Officer to document collection
methodologies.
This manual should identify field methods,
including sampling procedures for physical,
chemical/toxicological, biological/ecological,
and habitat monitoring activities.
-------
(S
Report any modification to collection methods or
problems associated with the implementation of
the methods to the Regional Quality Assurance
Officer.
2. Ensure that all data is accompanied by the
latitude and longitude at which it was collected
(see Attachment A) to allow better sharing of
data and integration into spatial analysis
systems such as Geographic Information Systems
(CIS).
f. Provide laboratory analytical support.
1. Provide for laboratory analytical support.
Employ laboratory analytical methods comparable
with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 136, as
revised in October 1991.
2. State Laboratory personnel should continue
participation in EPA's Performance Evaluation
studies.
g. Prepare quality assurance and quality control
plans.
1. Review, revise, and implement the existing
Quality Management Plans (QMP) and Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) to reflect the
most effective parameters and methods, including
those for conventional parameters, toxicity
testing, biological surveys, fish tissue
analysis, habitat surveys and sediment
collection and analytical protocols. State QMP
and QAPP must be implemented in a manner
consistent with EPA regulations (see Attachment
B), Regional Grant conditions and EPA's
Guidelines.
For QA management plans, use guidance provided
in EPA's "Interim Guidelines for Preparing
Quality Assurance Program Plans" QAMS-00480 or
its updated version "EPA Requirements for
Quality Management Plans," EPA QA/R-2. (Choice
of documents currently dependent on the specific
EPA Region Policy).
For QA project plans, use guidance provided in
EPA's "Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans,"
QAMS-005/80 or its updated version "EPA
Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
-------
Plans," EPA QA/R-5. (Choice of documents
currently dependent on the specific EPA Region
Policy). (See the new referenced documents
listed in Attachment B).
All QMP and QAPP revisions undertaken during the
fiscal year should be submitted to the Regional
Office for review and approval. Also, any
problems encountered in implementing the
approved QMP and QAPP should be reported.
States should submit an annual QA report as part
of their end-of-year report t^o include any
problems encountered in implementing the
approved QMP and QAPPs.
h. Provide for data storage, management and sharing
1. Store quality-assured data in a computerized
database that will enable data to be easily
accessed and shared. Provide hardcopy of
monitoring data within a reasonable time if
requested.
2. All monitoring data should be accompanied by
appropriate latitude/longitude information
according to EPA's Locatiorial Data Policy. (See
Attachment A.) This will allow G1S portrayal and
analysis.
3. Water quality monitoring data should be
entered into STORET within 3-6 months after
data collection and analysis.
4. Fish tissue data (both freshwater and
saltwater) should be entered in Ocean
Data Evaluation System (ODES).
5. Toxicity test data should be entered into
ODES or comparable database.
i. Provide training and support.
1. Ensure necessary training of staff for field
and laboratory activities, data management, and
data assessment.
2. Provide support for volunteer monitoring
programs. Volunteer monitoring is valuable for
two reasons: 1) education and stewardship and 2)
provision of useful screening or other data if
volunteers are appropriately 'trained.
-------
8
Where volunteer data is to be used for government
decision-making, a quality assurance plan should
be prepared by the volunteer group and reviewed
for approval by the appropriate State agency.
4. Interpretation and Communication
a. Report all assessments of waterbodies for
designated use support including causes and
sources of impairments in the section 305(b)
Waterbody System or upload such information from
a compatible State system on an annual basis.
b. In order to use the section 305(b) assessment
information for CIS and other spatial analyses,
States should £move towards) georeferencing the
waterbodies identified in the Waterbody System.
States should reference the waterbodies with
reach numbers at the Reach File 3 level. EPA
support is available.
c. Identify waters where water quality is known or
suspected of being impaired due to any physical,
chemical, or biological stressor and report such
information as appropriate in the 1996 305(b)
report and its supporting. Waterbody System.
This report should be consistent with and draw
upon the information -from reports in accordance
with the Clean Lakes (314), Nonpoint Source
(319), TMDL (303(d)) and other appropriate
assessment programs.
d. Work with your Region to have accessible
annually information on all final and ongoing
monitoring reports, site-specific evaluations,
biological surveys and special monitoring
projects. The information should include the
study objective, contact name, location of
study, and reference to the associated QA
project plan.
5. Program Evaluation
a. Annually review and update where necessary the
State monitoring strategy, workplan, and quality
assurance management and project plans.
b. Provide a brief (no more than two pages)
assessment of the effectiveness'of the
monitoring program in providing data suitable to
meet program objectives as set forth in the State
monitoring strategy (e.g. what changes are needed
-------
in the monitoring program to evaluate new or
emerging problems or meet objectives that were
not achieved). Include a list of the other
programs and agencies with which you have
coordinated to obtain your monitoring
information.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A
IRM POLICY MANUAL ! 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
CHAPTER 13 - LQC-ATTONAL DATA
1. PURPOSE. This policy establishes the principles for
collecting and documenting latitude/longitude
coordinates for facilities, sites and monitoring and
observation points regulated or tracked under Federal
environmental programs within the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The intent of
this policy is to extend environmental analyses and
allow data to be integrated based upon location, thereby
promoting the enhanced use of EPA's extensive data
resources for cross-media environmental analyses and
management decisions. This policy underscores EPA's
commitment to establishing the data infrastructure
necessary to enable data sharing and secondary data use.
2. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY. tThis policy applies to all
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) organizations and
personnel of agents (including contractors and grantees)
of EPA who design, develop, compile, operate or maintain
( EPA information collections developed for environmental
program support. Certain requirements of this policy
apply to existing as well as new data collections.
3. BACKGROUND. :
a. Fulfillment of EPA's mission to protect and improve
the environment depends upon improvements in cross-
programmatic, multi-media data analyses. A need
for available and reliable location identification
information is a commonality which all regulatory
tracking programs share. I
b. Standard location identification datai will provide
a return yet unrealized on EPA's sizatble investment
in environmental data collection by improving the
utility of these data for a variety of value-added
secondary applications often unanticipated by the
original data collectors.
c. EPA is committed to implementing its ..loeational
policy in accordance wit^ the requirements
specified by the Federal Interagency Coordinating
Committee for Digital Cartography (FICCDC). The
FICCDC has identified the collection of
latitude/longitude as the most preferred coordinate
system for identifying location. Latitude and
longitude are coordinate representations that show
locations on the surface of the earth using the
earth's equator and the prime meridian (Greenwich,
England) as the respective latitude and longitude
origins.
13-1
-------
IRM POLICY MANUAS 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
d. The State/EPA Data Management Program is a
successful multi-year initiative linking State
environmental regulatory agencies and EPA in
cooperative action. The Program's goals include
improvements in data quality and data integration
based on location identification.
e. Readily available, reliable and consistent location
identification data are critical to support the
Agencywide development of environmental risJc
management strategies, methodologies and
assessments.
f. OIRM is committed to working with EPA Programs,
~_gions and Laboratories to apply spatially related
tools (e.'g., geographic information systems (CIS),
remote sensing, automated mapping) and to ensure
these tools are supported by adequate and accurate
location identification data. Effective use of
spatial tools depends on the appropriate collection
and use of location identifiers, and on the
accompanying data and attributes to be analyzed.
g. OIRM's commitment to effective use of spatial data
is also reflected in the Agency's comprehensive CIS
Program and OIRM's coordination of the Agency's
National Mapping Requirement Program (NMRP) to
identify and provide for EPA's current and future
spatial data requirements.
4. AUTHORITIES.
a. 15 CFR, Part 6 Subtitle A, Standardization of Data
Elements and Representations
b. Geological Survey Cir^lar 878-B, £ "J.S. Geological
Survey Data Standard, Specifications for
Representation of Geographic Point Locations for
Information Interchange
c. Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on
Digital Cartography (FICCDC)/U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Digital Cartographic Data
Standards: An Interim Proposed Standard
d. EPA Regulations 40 CFR 30.503 and 40 CFR 31.45,
Quality Assurance Practices under EPA's General
Grant Regulations
13-2
-------
IRM POLICY MANUAL 2JOO CH, -•
4/8/91
5 .
a. It is EPA policy that latitude/longitude
("lat/long") coordinates be collected ar.d
documented with environmental and related data.
This is in addition to, and not precluding, other
critical location identification data that may be
needed to satisfy individual prograr. or pro-iect
needs, such as depth, street address, elevation or
altitude.
b. This policy serves as a framework for collectina ar.d
documenting location identification data. It
includes a goal that a 25 meter level of accuracv be
achieved; managers of individual^data collection"
efforts determine the exact levels of precision and
accuracy necessary to support their mission within
the context of this goal. The use of global
ppsitioning systems (GPS) is recommended to obtain
lat /longs of the highest possible accuracy.
c. To implement this policy, program data managers
must collect and document the following
information:
(1) Latitude/longitude coordinates in accordance
with Federal Interagency Coordinating
Committee for Digital Cartography (FICCDC)
recommendations . The coordinates may be
present singly or multiple times, to define a
point, line, or area, according to the most
appropriate data type for the entity being
represented.
The format for representing this information
is:
+/-DD MM SS.SSSS (latitude)
+/-DDD MM SS.SSSS (longitude)
where:
Latitude is always presented before
longitude
DD represents degrees of latitude;
a two-digit decimal number ranging
from 00 through 90
ODD represents degrees of
longitude; a three-digit decimal
• • bk•..*.™ » «»ci**7^r^M ^^om v * • ^r.zrc*•*^^ • c *.
-------
IPM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
• MM represents minutes of latitude
or longitude; a two-digit decimal
number ranging from 00 through 60
• SS.SSSS represents seconds of
latitude or longitude, with a format
allowing possible precision to the
ten-thousandths of seconds
• + specifies latitudes north of the
equator and longitudes east of the
prime meridian
• - specifies latitudes south of the
equator and longitudes west of the
prime meridian
(2) Specific method used to determine the lat/long
coordinates (e.g., remote sensing techniques,
map interpolation, cadastral survey)
(3) Textual description of the entity to which the
latitude/longitude coordinates refer (e.g.,
north-east corner of site, entrance to
facility, point of discharge, drainage ditch)
(4) Estimate of accuracy in terms of the most
precise units of measurement used (e.g., if
the coordinates are given to tenths-of-seconds
precision, the accuracy estimate should be
expressed in terms of the range of tenths-of-
seconds within which the true value should
fall, such as "+/- 0.5 seconds")
d. Recommended labelling of the above information is
as follows:
• "Latitude"
• "Longitude"
"Method"
• "Description"
• "Accuracy."
e. .This policy-does not preclude or rescind more
stringent regional or program-specific policy and
guidance. Such guidance may require, for example,
additional elevation measurements to fully
characterize the location of environmental
observations.
f. Formats, standards, coding conventions or other
specifications for the method, description and
accuracy information are forthcoming.
l'3-4
-------
IRM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
6. RESPONSIBILITIES.
a. The Office of Information Resources Management
(OIRM) shall:
(1) Be responsible for implementing and supporting
this policy
(2) Provide guidance and technical assistance
where feasible and appropriate in implementing
and improving the requirements of this policy
b. Assistant Administrators, Associate Administrators,
Regional Administrators, Laboratory Directors and
the General Counsel shall establish procedures
within their respective organizations to ensure
that information collection and reporting systems
under their direction are in compliance with this
policy.
While the value of obtaining locational coordinates
will vary according to individual program
requirements, the method, description and accuracy
of the coordinates must always be documented. Such
documentation will permit other users to evaluate
whether those coordinates can support secondary
uses, thus addressing EPA data sharing and
integration objectives.
7. WAIVERS. Requests for waivers from specified provisions
of the policy may be submitted for review to the
Director of the Office of Information Resources
Management. Waiver requests must be based clearly on
data quality objectives and must be signed by the
relevant Senior IRM Official prior to submission to the
Director, OIRM.
8. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINE'S. The Findings and.
Recommendations of the Locations1 Accuracy Task Force
supplement this policy. More detailed procedures and
guidelines for implementing the policy ate issued under
separate cover as the Locational Data Policy
Implementation Guidelines.
-------
-------
Attachment B
QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDANCE INFORMATION
The Agency Quality Assurance (QA)Program is based in EPA Order
5360.1 "Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the QA
Program" April 17, 1984. This order and guidance documents for
preparing QA Project Plans and QA Programs planss have been the
principal agency guidance documents for some years. An extensive
EPA effort is now underway to update, codify and expand QA
guidance including replacement of the Order with an Order and
manual containing the new reguirements and guideince documents.
The key new EPA QA documents for State use are:
EPA QA/R-2 EPA Reguirements for guality Management Plans
QA/R-2 is the policy document containing the
reguirements for Quality Management. QA/R-2 is
the replacement for QAMS-004/80 and the sub-
seguent internal EPA guidance on QA Programs
Plans issued in 1987.
EPA QA/R-5 EPA Reguirements for Quality Assurance Project
Plans.
QA/R-5 is the replacement for QAMS-005/80. This
policy document establishes the reguirements for
QA Project Plans prepared for activities con-
ducted by or funded by EPA.
EPA QA/G-4 Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process
QA/G-4 provides non-mandatory guidance to help
organizations plan, implement, and evaluate the
Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process, with a
focus on environmental decision-making for
regulatory and enforcement decisions. This
guidance assists in the preparation of the DQO
section of EPA QA/R-2 and QA/R-5.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT C
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Grant Administration
A. 40 CFR Part 130.11 stipulates the program management
aspects of these grant programs and the contents of the
State work programs.
Monitoring
A. 40 CFR Part 130.4 requires that States must establish
appropriate monitoring methods and procedures necessary to
compile and analyze data on the quality of waters of the
United States.
B. 40 CFR Part 35.260 limits funding (if any) under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act if a State which fails to
monitor, compile, and analyze data, and report water
quality as described under Section 106(e) (1) .
Reporting
A. 40 CFR Part 35.360 (b) does not allow funding under
Section 205(j)(l) to a State agency that fails to report
annually on the nature, extent and causes of water quality
problems in various areas of the State and Interstate
region. ;
i
B. 40 CFR Part 130.8 (d) specifies that in the years that the
section 305 (b) is not required, States may satisfy the
annual Section 205 (j) report requirement by certifying that
the most recently submitted section 305 (b) report is
current or by supplying an update of the sections of the
most recently submitted section 305(b) report which require
updating.
Planning
A. 40 CFR Part 130.6 identifies the need for continuing water
quality planning and defines the content of the water
quality management plans. Continuing water quality planning
shall be based upon the water quality management plans and
the problems identified in the latest section 305 (b)
report. State water quality plans should focus annually on
priority issues and geographic areas and on development of
water quality controls leading to implementation measures.
Quality Assurance
A. 40 CFR Part 31.45 states that the grantee shall develop and
implement quality assurance practices consisting of
policies, procedures, specifications, standards, and
documentation sufficient to produce data of quality to
adequately meet project objectives and t:o minimize loss of
data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions.
-------
i
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC5ENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV26I993 OFfKEOF
; WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for 1994 Section 303(d) Lists
FROM: Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director /-.
Assess—snt and Watershed Protection Divisional/(..
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regional TMDL Coordinators
Regions I - X
This memo discusses minimum requirements for the April, 1994, State lists of waterbodi^s
requiring TMDLs under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This memorandum
provides guidance only and builds on previous guidance and reflects the policies and requirements
of section 303(d) and the Water Quality Planning and Management regulation at 40 CFR Part 130.
This guidance does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations. Decisions in any particular
case will be made by applying the CWA and implementing regulations. This guidance is intended
to help States and Region* meet the overriding program goals outlined below. It also addresses
specific issues that arose during development of the 1992 lists.
The 1992 listing process was very successful. States and Regions used existing data in a very
compressed time frame to develop lists of waterbodies requiring TMDLs. States and Regions
worked jointly to assure that all requirements, especially those related to public participation, were
complied with properly. Based on these lists, States started establishing TMDLs targeted for
development during the 1992-1994 biennium.
Development of 1994 section 303(dj lists should build on this; success. The section 303(d) list
provides a comprehensive inventory of waterbodies impaired by all sources, including point
sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of both. This inventor)' is the basis for targeting
waterbodies for watershed-based solutions, and the TMDL process provides the analytical
framework to develop these solutions. Indeed, the use of TMDLs and the TMDL process is
becoming an increasingly vital part of a growing number of State programs. The development of
TMDLs and the process used to arrive at a TMDL is the technical backbone of the Watershed
Protection Approach. Similarly, as larger numbers of permits are written that incorporate water
quality-based effluent limits, the position of TMDLs as a keystone in the point source control
Recycle d/Racyelabl*
Primed with Soy/Conolt Wt on paper th*
contain* at toaK £0% recycled fiber
£3>
-------
program is strengthened. Finally, the applicability of the TMDL process to other than chemical
stressors, such as degraded, habitat and the resulting loss of healthy, balanced ecosystems, is
increasingly being realized.
The 1992 listing process was the beginning of a much wider role for TMDLs and the 1994
listing process will continue to improve our ability to integrate solutions to water quality problems
on a watershed basis. The three overriding national TMDL program goals for 1994 are:
1. Develop futty approvable section 303(d) waterbody lists;
2. Integrate the section 303(d) listing process more completely into other Ztate program
activities, especially as it relates to the Watershed Protection Approach and the targeting
of high priority watersheds; and
3. Assure consistent application of national §303 (d) requirements, especially with regard to
public involvement in the 303 (d) list development process.
These goals are discussed below.
1. DEVELOP FULLY APPROVABLE SECTION 303(d) LISTS
Development of fully approvable section 303(d) lists involves a number of considerations
including: a) section 303(d) list development requirements; b) availability of data used to develop
section 303(d) lists; c) relationship of section 303(d) lists to other CWA assessment and listing
requirements; d) unassessed waterbodies; e) timing and content of section 303(d) submissions; and
f) EPA review and approval of section 303(d) lists.
Question la. What are the requirements for including waterbodies on the section 303(d) list?
Section 303(d) requires that States develop a list of waterbodies that need additional work
beyond existing controls to achieve or maintain water quality standards. The additional work
necessary includes the establishment of TMDLs. The TMDL process provides an analytical
framework to identif the relative contributions of each source to the impairm..... The TMDL
identifies the sources and causes of pollution or stress, e.g., point sources, nonpoint sources, or a
combination of both, and establishes allocations for each source of pollution or stress as needed to
attain water quality standards.
Waterbodies that do not or are not expected to meet water quality standards after implementing
Best Practicable Technology (BPT), Best Available Technology (BAT), secondary treatment, and
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), as described in sections 301 and 306 of the CWA and
defined under EPA regulations are water quality-limited. Not all water quality-limited
waterbodies, however, must be included on the section 303(d) list. The Water Quality Planning
and Management regulation (40 CFR Part 130) provides that waters need not be included on a
section 303(d) list if other Federal, State, or local requirements have or are expected to result in
the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality standards.
-------
Regions may choose to advise States to keep waterbodies on the section 303(d) list, not
withstanding establishment of an approvable TMDL, until water quality standards have been met.
This approach would keep waterbodies on the section 303(d) list for 'which TMDLs have been
approved but not yet implemented, or approved and implemented, but for which water quality
standards have not yet been attained. Some Regions, on the other hand, may choose to advise
their States to remove waterbodies from the section 303(d) list once a TMDL has been approved
and track and manage TMDL activities and the attainment of water quality standards through other
program functions. Under this approach, however, the waterbody should be returned to the section
303(d) list at any time that the approved TMDL and associated controls are found to be inadequate
to lead to attainment of water quality standards, or if the controls fail due to incomplete
implementation. EPA Supports the use of either approach to manage State TMDL activities.
EPA believes that the following general strategy is useful for development of section 303(d) lists.
1, Identify water quality-limited waterbodies, i.e., waterbodies that will not or are not
expected to meet water quality standards after the application of technology-based controls
required by CWA sections 301(b) and 306.
2, Review water quality-limited waterbodies and eliminate waterboclies from consideration
for listing under section 303(d) for which enforceable Federal, State, or local requirements
will result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards.
Remaining waterbodies constitute the list submitted pursuant to section 303 (d).
Several issues arose during the development of 1992 section 303(d) lists that require
clarification. A number of States initially failed to list any waterboclies impaired by nonpoint
sources. Some States incorrectly asserted that since best management practices (BMPs) or Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) management measures had not yet been
established or implemented, a determination of whether or not the waterbody was water quality-
limited could not be made, and waterbodies were omitted from the section 303(d) list.
Lisis established under section 303(d) must include all waters for whicr- misting pollution
controls or requirements ^e inadequate to provide for attainment and miiintenance of water quality
standards. Accordingly, an impaired waterbody cannot be excluded from the section 3u3(d) list
on the basis that required controls have not yet been established. However, if BMPs or CZARA
management measures have been established or implemented and water quality standards have been
attained or are expected to be attained in the near future, then the waterbody need not be included
on the section 303(d) list.
Similarly, a question arose concerning the exclusion of impaired waterbodies from the section
303(d) list where TMDLs have not been completed but enforceable, activities are reasonably
expected to result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards in the near future. If
compliance with water quality standards is to be attained through new effluent limits in permits for
point source discharges, it can be assumed that water quality standards will be attained in the near
future through established permitting mechanisms. Closer scrutiny is justified, however, where
needed load reductions are to be attained through additional nonpoint source controls. In such
-------
cases, for the purposes of the 1994 listing process, "the near future" should normally be viewed
as prior to the required date for submission of the 1996 section 303(d) list. This should provide
adequate time to complete any planning and implementation of nonpoint source control actions.
Thus, if planned nonpoint source controls are not expected to lead to attainment of water quality
standards by 1996, the water quality-limited waterbody should be included on the 1994
section 303(d) list.
Therefore, the implementation of an enforceable control does provide a rationale for not
including a water quality-limited waterbody on the section 303(d) list if the required control is: (1)
enforceable, (2) specific to the pollution/stressor problems, and (3) stringent enough to lead to
attainment of water quality standards. Further, if the required control has not yet been
implemented, a schedule for timely implementation of the control should be provided by the State.
The difference, of course, is that the waterbody is not included on the list of waterbodies requiring
TMDLs because an alternative method of achieving water quality standards exists.
Finally, a related question arose with respect to threatened waters. The TMDL guidance
clearly states that the identification of threatened waters is an imp:.an; pan of the TMDL process
and that threatened waters may be placed on the 303(d) list. Threatened waters are 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.
Threatened waters may also include high quality waters (e.g., Outstanding Natir-ol Resource
Waters) that may be potentially degraded by unregulated sources or stressors. By placing
threatened waters on the section 303(d) list, States will: (1) be consistent with 40 CFR Part
130.7(c)(l)(ii) which requires th TMDLs be established for all pollutants that prevent or are
expected to prevent water quality standards from be'ng achieved; (2) be better able to maintain and
protect existing water quality; and (3) meet EPA objectives to support State collection of data on
impacted and threatened waters.
Question lb(i). What data are needed to include a waterbody on the section 303(d) list?
In developing the 1992 submissions States used existing readily available data and information
and best professional judgement to determine which waterbodies should be indued on the section
303(d) list. This general approach should be followed in 1994. States an, expected to use a
combination of the most reMable databases, best professional judgement, and the best available
information to develop section 303(d) lists. In addition, in 1994 greater use of predictive water
quality modeling results should be made. EPA expects that this mix of databases, ;vidence, and
best professional judgement will vary from State to State.
There are a number of sources that can be used to help determine whether a particular
waterbody belongs on the section 303(d) list. These include section 305(b) reports, Waterbody
System information, toxics chemical release inventory (TRI) data, CWA section 314 and 319
assessments, USGS streamflow information, STORET data, fish consumption advisory information,
anecdotal information and public reports, and other State and Federal databases. States should use
the best available information in making section ,303(d) list determinations.
-------
Question lb(ii). What type of information should be considered in deciding whether to include
a specific waterbody on the section 303(d) list?
Determining how much data and information are adequate to include a waterbodj ^u the section
303(d) list is a deliberative process involving judgement. Appendix C of the 1991 TMDL guidance
provides a list of screening categories that States should use to identify water quality-limited waters.
Examples of the type of data and infcrmation that should be used in making this determination are
provided below.
• Evidence of a numeric criterion violation. Example: Ambient monitoring data
demonstrates exceedance of the State's ammonia criteria.
• Beneficial use impairment. Listing a waterbody due to beneficial use impairment requires
information that shows the use is not being maintained and that this failure is due to
degraded water o'lality. Example: A waterbody designated as a cold wav fishery has
exhibited a documented decline in fish population. The population decline ii tied to the
existence of sediment deposits on the stream bottom which inhibit or preclude spawning.
• Evidence of a narrative criterion violation. Example: Biological assessment demonstrates
that a loss of biological integrity has occurred, in violation of a State's biological criterion.
« Technical analyses. Example: Predictive modeling or Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
results that show that criteria will be violated or beneficial uses will not be maintained.
* Impairment demonstrated through other CWA mechanisms. Example: If a waterbody is
included on a section 314 or 319 assessment, or is determined to be impaired under section
305(b), it should be reviewed for possible inclusion on the section 303(d) list.
• Other information sources. Other sources that support listing based on best professional
judgement include information from the public participation process ?nd information
regarding the efficacy of existing control requirements to be implemented in the near
future.
Question l(b)(iii). Are biological data that indicate impairmer^s sufficient to support listing a
water under section 303(d)?
As noted abcve, biological data can be used to support listing a waterbody on the section
303(d) list. This is consistent with the use of biological assessment in EPA's section 305 (b)
guidelines.
Biological assessments can provide compelling evidence of water quality impairment because
they directly measure the aquatic community's response to pollutants or stressors. 3iological
assessments and biological criteria address the cumulative impacts of all stressors, especially habitat
degradation, loss of biological diversity, and nonpoint source pollution. Biological information can
-------
help provide an ecologically based assessment of the status of a waterbody and as such can be used
to decide which waterbodies need TMDLs.
Question Ic. What is the relationship between section 303(d) listed waterbodies and other CV.VA
assessment activities?
There are other CWA requirements that require assessments and analyses similar to section
303(d). The most prominent of these are the section 305(b) Report and section 319 assessments.
Section 303(d) lists approved in 1994 should be consistent with these oth.T lists and
assessments as compiled and submitted by the States, particularly with regard to the section 3Q5(b)
Report because it will generally be submitted at the same time as the section 303(d) list. States and
Regions should review potential section 303(d) waterbodies in light of the information contained
in these other lists and assessments. To the extent the lists are different, the administrative record
for an EPA approval should provide a justification for the differences.
Question Id. Who1 about unassessed waterbodies?
Waterbodies for which there are no physical, chemical, or biological information available
should not be included on section 303(d) lists. However, EPA encourages States to increase the
number of waterbodies actually assessed. EPA also expects that as waterbodies are identified for
which there are insufficient data or data of questionable validity to determine whether the waterbody
should be included on the 303 (d) list, States will, to the maximum extent possible, make plans to
collect additional information so that better and more informed 303(d) determinations can be made.
Question le(i). When are 303(d) lists due to EPA?
States must submit the next section 303(d) list (including pollutant or stressor identification,
priority ranking and identification of waterbodies targeted for TMDL development during the next
two years) on April 1, 19°4, and every two years after that. Lists may be submitted in conjur stion
with section 305(b) reports.
In order to allow for a thorough review of State 303(d) lists, it is very important mat a dr :V»
list be received by EPA prior to submission of a final list. EPA can then transmit comments on
the draft section 303(d) list to the State, and revisions can be incorporated prior to providing for
public comment. Following completion of public participation requirements, the list should be
submitted to EPA as the final 303(d) list.
Question le(ii). What land of documentation is required to support a State list submission?
•States should submit adequate documentation to support the listing of waterbodies.
Documentation should include a general description of the methodologies used u> develop the list,
a description of the data and information used to identify water quality-limited waters, and a
rationale for any decision not to use any one of the categories of information sources listed in
-------
Appendix C of the 1991 TMDL guidance. EPA expects that the 1994 listing methodologies will
build upon the methods used to develop the 1992 lists.
' EPA may request that the State provide additional information before ari approval/disapproval
decision is made. Two ways that States may prepare for requests for the information used to list
waterbodies may include: (1) keeping an ongoing file or factsheet on each listed waterbody; or (2)
waiting for a request for additional information, then assembling the information necessary to
respond. While the second option may involve less work in the short term, it is likely that a file
of information for a waterbody will be useful and necessary when TMDL development begins.
Question le(iii). What other information would EPA like to receive?
In addition to the 303(d) list, EPA is requesting that with each 303(d) list submission, States
also include a brief description of the status of TMDL activities on waters that were targeted for
development in previous two-year cycles. For example, with the 1994 303(d) list submissions,
EPA should receive status reports on the TMDL activities taking place on the waters that w^re
targeted for TMDL development during the 1992-1994 biennium. Similarly, in 1996 EPA should
receive updates on the TMDL activities taking place on the waters that were targeted for TMDL
development during the 1992-1994 and the 1994-1996 biennium.
Question lf(i). What land of action can EPA take on a 303(d) list?
I
States should work with EPA early in the development of section 303(d) lists to achieve
complete, fully approvable list subm -sions by April 1 of even numbered years. EPA can take four
actions on a State's section 303(d) list: (1) approval; (2) disapproval; (3) conditional approval; or
(4) partial approval/partial disapproval. !
Approval. If EPA determines that a State list (including pollutant or stressor identification,
priority ranking, and identification of waterbodies targeted for TMDL development during the
next two years) meet all section 303 (d) requirements, EPA will notify the State of its appioval
in writing.
i
Disapproval. If EPA determines that a £:~te list (including pollutant or stressor identification,
priority ranking, and identification of waterbodies targeted for TMDL development during the
next two years) substantially fails to meet the requirements of section 303(d) and 40 CFR Part
130, EPA will disapprove the State submission. Following a disapproval, EPA will identify
waters where TMDLs are required, pollutants or sfressors causing the impairment, and
establish priorities and identify waters targeted for State TMDL initiation during the next two
years. EPA will complete a proposed list including these elements, and take public comment
on its proposed list. ;
i
Conditional approval. If EPA determines 'hat a State list is predominantly acceptable, but
disagrees with minor elements (e.g., pollutants or stressors causing an impairment), EPA may
conditionally approve the list. Conditional approval should be used only for minor deficiencies
in State submissions and should not be used to provide general review comments.
-------
When a list has been conditionally approved, EPA will provide me rationale and any available
supporting technical information used to justify the suggesied r,e-..'sJons, deletions, or additions
to the State list and allow the State a specified time penod (typically 30 days unless a longer
time period is necessary to allow public comment regarding the requested changes) to meet the
conditions that EPA outlines. EPA will review the State response and determine whether the
specified conditions are satisfied within 30 days of the State response.
Partial approval/partial disapproval. If'"PA determines that parts of a State list are approvable
and other parts of a State list must be disapproved, EPA may either disapprove the entire list
or partially approve/partially disapprove it. In the event of a partial appro\il/partial
disapproval. EPA m-st then revise the disapproved portion of the list and propose it for public
comment as a supplement to the partially approved State list.
Whatever action EPA takes on a State list, EPA should explain the technical, programmatic,
and administrative reasons for the action.
Question lf(ii). Cc;i waterbodies be taken off the 303(d) list prior to TMDL development?
Because section 303(d) lists are dynamic, they may change from one two-year listing cycle to
the next. A State may choose to remove a waterbody from its section 303(d) list if that waterbody
is meeting all applicable water quality standards (including numeric and narrative criteria and
designated uses) or is expected to meet these standards in a reasonable timeframe as the result of
implementation of required pollutant controls. It may also be appropriate to remove a waterbody
from the section 303(d) list if, upon re-examination, the original basis for listing is determined to
be inaccurate. Removal of waterbodies from section 303(d) lists can be done on
-------
The development of section 303(d) lists and the establishment of TMDLs are facilitated by the
collection of accurate chemical, physical, and biological data. Therefore, the TMDL process is
closely linked to State water quality monitoring programs. Most states currently use the waters
listed in the section 305(b) reports as not fully supporting designated uses as a starting point for the
section 303(d) lists.
TMDLs ^n provide & critical connection between water Duality standards and water quality-
based controls, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in the
standards to permits process, and BMPs to control nonpoint sources. TMDLs are established based
on the goal of attaining water quality standards, including designated uses, numeric and narrative
criteria, and antidegradation provisions. Where TMDLs are established, NPDES permits are based
on the TMDL and associated wasteload allocations, and nonpoint source controls are implemented
consistent with the TMDL and associated load allocations. As a result, permits scheduled for
reissuance and State nonpoint source control programs under CWA section 319 provide important
information for consideration when developing 303(d) lists and the subsequent TMDLs.
Question 2b. What is the relationship between the TMDL process and the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
Section 7 of the ESA provides broad, general guidance to Federal agencies on how to interact
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in consultations to determine whether a proposed federal action will affect endangered or
threatened species or designated critical habitat. An "action" as defined iby the ESA includes all
activities or programs that are authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal
agencies.
Whether or not TMDLs, or steps In the TMDL proce^o, are actions as designated under the
ESA is a question that is as yet unanswered. An interagency task force including EPA, USFWS,
and NMFS is currently developing consultation guidance related to the Clean Water Act. The task
force has suggested that the entire process from developing water quality standards to the issuance
of a NPDES permit may potentially be viewed as one action. If this is the case, TMDLr ~:ay or
may not require ESA consultation.
In general, th i TMDL piocess should work to uphold the purpose and intent of the ESA.
Consequently, in developing 303(d) lists, States should try to ascertain whether or not threatened
or endangered species inhabit waterbodies, whether waterbodies have been designated as critical
habitat, and whether proposed TMDLs are sufficient to meet water quality standards designed to
protect threatened or endangered species. EPA will continue to monitor the interagency task force's
progress in determining what portions of water quality programs may be subject to ESA
consultation requirements.
-------
3. ASSURE EVEN AND CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF NATIONAL SECTION 303(d)
REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN
THE 303(d) LIST DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Question 3a. How can States and EPA assure consistent application of the national TMDL
p ?ram?
To assure consistency throughout the country in the TMDL process, States and EPA must
follow EPA regulations and should follow national TMDL guidance, including the guidance
outlined in this memorandum. Any questions about guidance should be directed to EPA. In
addition, States and EPA should communicate with each other as frequently as possible about issues
related to the TMDL process, including administrative, programmatic, and technical issues.
Finally, States and EPA should strive to be creative in finding solutions to TMDL related issues
and problems (e.g.-, trading).
Question 3b. How can Jtates and Regions assure consistency in 303(d) lists and j//ioritization
and targeting for waters that flow through more than one State?
EPA has encouraged States to develop and use their own methods to set priorities and target
waterbodies for TMDL development. Waterbodies may therefore be proposed for inclusion on the
.> stion 303(d) list that flow through multiple States. Consequently, in some cases, inconsistent
listings may be proposed. Regions should be aware of such potential inconsistencies and discuss
with the States the possibility of coordinating priority setting and TMDL development efforts.
Regions should, if necessary, address any inconsistencies that occur within their jurisdictions among
States' section 303(d) lists. Regions are also expected to be aware of, account for, and if
necessary, address any inconsistent ^s between a State of theirs and the State of an adjacent Region.
EPA believes that existing coordination mechanisms are adequate to deal with most potential
inconsistencies, and that at this time, it is impractical and unnecessary to institute a formal "cross-
checking" procedure to minimize Region-to-Region inconsistencies. However, info -nal Regional
communications, especially between geographically adjacent and geographically similar Regions,
should occur on a 'egular basis to help alleviate, or account for, inconsiste .cles. EPA
Headquarters will ndp expedite such communication is several ways: (1) by sch iuling and
facilitating conferences calls among Regions, and (2) by examining the section 303(d) lists
submissions to identify any gross inconsistencies.
Question 3c. How does public participation fit into the TMDL process?
There was some confusion in 1992 on requirements for States to provide for public
participation in developing §303(d) lists and several Regions nad to make section 303(d) list
approval/disapproval decisions conditional on State fulfillment of public participation requirements.
However, for the 1994 submittal and review process, EPA expects that all public narticipation
requirements will be fulfilled prior to submitting the final section 303(d) list to EPA for formal
review.
10
-------
Public participation for section 303(d) lists must be consistent with section 101(e) of the CWA,
which requires EPA and States to provide public participation "in the development, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established...under
the Act." EPA regulation., Acquire States to provide public participation in the development of lists
of impaired waters under section 303(d). Public participation requirements are outlined in 40 CFR
Part 25. In addition, Section 303(d)(2) (40 CFR 130.7(a)) provides that the process for developing
section 303(d) lists and public participator, he described in the State Continuing Planning Process
under section 303(e).
Public participation is that part of the decision making process through which responsible
officials become aware of public attitudes by providing ample opportunity for interested and
affected parties to communicate their views. Public participation includes providing access to the
decision making process, seeking input from and communicating with the public, assimilating public
viewpoints, and preferences, and demonstrating that those viewpoints and preferences have been
considered by the decision making official.
In the identification of water quality-limited waterbodies for State section 303(d) lists, States
need to involve the public as part of their review of all existing and readily available data and
information. EPA also expects States to include public participation in its determination of high
priority targeted waterbodies that will proceed with TMDL development within two years following
the listing process. At a minimum, public participation in the TMDL process should entail
notifying the availability of proposed lists in a State Register or equivalent or a State-wide
newspaper with a comment period of not less than 30 days. Public meetings should be held at the
discretion of each State. It • .ay be expedient to combine public notice for section 303(d) actions
with public notices for other water program activities.
11
-------
-------
Appendix F
Examples of Detailed Descriptions of
State Assessment Methods
-------
-------
Illinois Assessment Methodology
from Illinois' 1994 305(b) Report
-------
_
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
project. In the future, data collected by these volunteers will be used for the
educational purposes of school age groups as well as adult volunteer organizations
and to assist the IEPA in updating stream use assessments for the Illinois Water
Quality Report. For the current 305(b) reporting cycle, IEPA reviewed water
chemistry data from rivers and streams collected by high schools throughout the
state to assist in use support determinations.
B. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Traditionally, designated use support assessments; for rivers and streams in Illinois
have focused on attainment of aquatic life use. In this report for the 1992 reporting
cycle, multiple uses based on current water quality standards have been assessed
(See Tables 4 and 5). These standards protect various uses including aquatic life,
fish consumption, swimming, drinking water supply and isecondary contact where
applicable. Specific criteria for determining attainment of these individual uses are
described in detail below. Minor revisions to the assessment methodology for
aquatic life use attainment have been incorporated in accordance with the Federal
guidance (U.S. EPA, 1991). These assessments, however, are comparable to those
in previous reporting cycles. An overall use support summary for rivers and streams
is also provided. The degree of use support attainment is described as: Full, Full/
Threatened, Partial/Minor impairment, Partial/Moderate impairment, and Nonsupport
Aquatic Life
Aquatic life use assessments were based on a combination of biotic and abiotic data
generated from IEPA monitoring programs (See Siection A). Biotic data consist of
fishery and macroinvertebrate information which were evaluated using the Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the IEPA Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), respec-
tively. Types of abiotic data utilized in Aquatic Life Use attainment assessments
included water chemistry, fish tissue analysis, sediment chemistry and physical
habitat. Stream habitat included metrics such as depth, velocity, substrate and
instream cover. Habitat dalawer&used to estimate biotic potential in the form of
a Predicted Index of Blows Integrity value (PIBI) generated from a multiple
regression equation. Water chemistry data were evaluated by categories identified
as conventionals (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature) and toxicants (priority
pollutants, chlorine, ammonia). Fish tissue and sediment chemistry were based
largely on the presence of heavy metals and/or organochlorine compounds.
A few waterbodies were assessed for aquatic life use based only on abiotic data
(water or sediment chemistry). In the case of water chemistry only data, a toxicity
based criteria for acute and chronic water quality standards were applied (Table 6).
For waterbodies where only sediment chemistry date were available, aquatic life use
assessments were made utilizing general criteria provided in Table 7. Where
appropriate, documented impairments, such as habitat degradation, were also
factored into these assessments.
A summary of abiotic and Aquatic Life Use Assessment Criteria, as well as general
descriptors of water quality conditions are depicted in Table 8. Also included in Table
26
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
TABLE 6. CRITERIA FOR WATER CHEMISTRY USED FOR ASSESSING AQUATIC LIFE USE IN RIVERS
AND STREAMS.
Degree of Aquatic Life
Use Support
Criteria
Full
Partial/Minor
0 or 1 violation per parameter of acute standard within 5 year period or no more than 10% of
the total individual samples may exceed chronicstandard.
2 violations per parameter of acute standard within 5 year period or > 10% to 18% of the total
individual samples may exceed chronicstandard.
Partial/Moderate
2 violations per parameter of acute standard within 3 consecutive year period or 18% to 25%
of the total individual samples may exceed chronicstandard.
Nonsupport
3 or more violations per parameter of acute standards within 5 year period or > 25% of the
total individual samplesexceed the chronic standard.
TABLE 7. CRITERIA FOR SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY USED FOR ASSESSING AQUATIC LIFE USE
IN ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of Aquatic
Life Use Support
Sediment Chemistry
Fun
PartiaVMinor
Metals and organodilorine compounds generally found at
nonelevated levels, although some metal ororganochlorine
compounds may be present at slightly elevated concentrations.
Organochlorine compounds or metals occur in stream sediments
at elevated levels.
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
Organochlorine compounds or metals present in stream
sediment at highly elevated levels.
Organochlorine compounds or metals consistently found at
extreme concentrations.
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF USE SUPPORT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR ILLINOIS STREAMS.
U.S. EPA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
IEPA/1DOC BIOLOGICAL
Stream Characterization (BSC)
FISH/lndexofBiotic
Integrity (IBI/AIBI)
BENTHOS/Macroinvertebrate
Biotic Index (MB!)
STREAM Potential Index of
HABITAT/Biotic Integrity (PIBI)
PARTIAL SUPPORT NON-
FULL SUPPORT MINOR MODERATE SUPPORT
Good
Unique
Aquatic
Resource
51-60
<5.0
51-60
Good
Highly
Valued
Resource
41-50
5.0-5.9
41-50
Fair
Moderate
Aquatic
Resource
31-40
6.0-7.5
31-40
Fair
Limited
Aquatic
Resource
21-30
7.6-8.9
<31
Poor
Restricted
Aquatic
Resource
<20
>8.9
STREAM IEPA Stream Sediment
SEDIMENT/Classrfication
Nonelevated Nonelevated Slightly Elevated
-Slightly Elevated -Highly
Elevated Elevated
Extreme
27
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
8 are descriptors for Illinois' stream classification process or Biological Stream
Characterization (BSC). The overall assessment process for Aquatic Life Use
attainment is presented in Figure 3. Field observations were selectively factored
into the aquatic life use assessment process through a review of comments and
observations of pollution sources and causes of impairment recorded on stream
survey field forms. When available, volunteer streeim monitoring data was reviewed
and incorporated into the assessment process. Professional judgement and
knowledge of the study area were required for assessments where various index
values appeared to be based upon unrepresentative samples or when conflicts in
data needed to be resolved.
"Threatened waters" refers to those waters that fully support their designated use
but may not fully support uses in the future (unless pollution control action taken)
because of anticipated sources or adverse pollution trends (U.S. EPA 1993). For
the 1992-1993 Illinois Water Quality Report the threatened determination was made
with the use of available chemical, physical, and biological date and/or information
on land use activities. Stream reaches previously assigned full aquatic life use
ratings were considered to be threatened when:
- compared to previous monitoring data, current chemical, biological, or
physical indicators for exceptional waters exhibited a slight decline in stream quality;
- compared to previous monitoring data, current chemical, biological, or
physical indicators exhibited a notable reduction in stream quality, which if contin-
ued, might result in a decline of the rating from full to partial support or lower; or
- current activities in the watershed or adjacent to the stream reach might
result in impairments and a reduction of the full use designation.
Fish Consumption
The assessment offish consumption use was based on fish tissue data and resulting
sport fish advisories generated by the Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (See
Public Health Chapter). The degree of use attainment for fish consumption was
assessed utilizing the criteria depicted in Table 9. All rivers and streams in Illinois,
including secondary contact waters, are considered to be attainable for fish
consumption use.
Swimming
The assessment of swimming use for primary contact recreation was based on fecal
coliform bacteria and water chemistry data from the; AWQMN (See Section A). The
current Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) bacterial water quality standard
specifies that fecal coliform levels below 200/100 ml of water, sampled during the
months of May through October should be adequate to protect the State's water for
general use and primary contact. Seasonal fecal coliform data and water chemistry
data for a period of the last five years from AWQMN stations were analyzed.
Geometric means for fecal coliform results were calculated using only those
samples collected during warm weather months when recreation in or on the water
is likely. Fecal coliform geometric means and individual sample values were
compared to the criteria in Table 10. Individual sample values were considered in
violation of the standard only if the corresponding total suspended solids value was
less than or equal to the fiftieth percentile total suspended solids value for that
28
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
Figure 3. Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment Flow Chart
for Fish, Habitat and Water Quality Data
YES
Does Water
Data Indicate
Full Support?
YES
,YES
YES
NO
Is the IBI
<20?
NO
NO
Is the IBI
>the PIBI?
NO
YES
Does Water
Data Indicate
Full Support?
NO
Does Water
Data Indicate
Partial/Moderate
or Nonsupport?
YES
( Partial/ A
yfdoderate/
f Partial/ \
^Moderate/'
Are
Bloassessment
and Habitat Data
Available?
YES
Only
Macroinvertebrate
Data Available
fromFRSS
Is the PIBI
Minus IBI < 4?
NO
Is the PIBI
Minus IBI >8?
YES
Does Water
Data Indicate
Full or Partial/
Minor Support?
YES
NO
Does Water
Data Indicate
Partial/Moderate
Support?
YES
NO
^Nonsupportj
NO
YES
NO
Are Water
Data Only
Available?
IstheMBI
< 5.9?
NO
IstheMBI
<7.5?
NO
Is the MBI
<8.9?
NO
^NonsupporM
Does Water
Data Indicate
Full Support?
YES
,
Fu"
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
See Table 6
Full
•/Partial/MinoM
(Partial/ A
Moderate J
Does Water
Data Indicate
Partial/Moderate
or Nonsupport?
YES
X f Partial/ A
J \^ Moderate J
NO
29
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
station. These criteria provide only an indication of whether or not swimming use
attainment can be expected. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE CRITERIA
ARE ONLY USED AS INDICATORS. TO ASCERTAIN SPECIFIC PUBLIC
HEALTH IMPLICATIONS, MORE FREQUENT BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA WOULD
BE REQUIRED. Stream miles assessed for swimming included those reaches
represented by AWQMN stations. Rivers and streams not considered to be
attainable included those designated as secondary contact and indigenous aquatic
life use (See Figure 2) as well as those where disinfection exemptions have been
approved.
Drinking Water Supply
Drinking Water Supply use assessments for rivers and streams were determined on
the basis of water supply closures or advisories obtained from the lEPA's Public
Water Supply programs. Rivers and streams utilized as primary source for drinking
water supplies were identified. Assessments were based solely on water quality
conditions and not on physical closures or relocations clue to flooding. The degree
of use attainment utilized the criteria identified in Table 11
Secondary Contact
The assessment of secondary contact use was based on> water chemistry data
generated from lEPA's monitoring programs (See Section A), primarily the AWQMN.
Secondary contact use is the most limited designated use with Illinois State
Standards and applies only to certain streams and canals in the Chicago area
(Figure 2). These few waters are not, therefore, required to attain primary contact
recreational uses such as swimming. All available water chemistry data for the last
five-year time period was compared to Secondary Contact Standards (Table 4).
Determination of the degree of uses support was based on the assessment criteria
in Table 12.
TABLE 9. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING FISH CONSUMPTION USE IN ILLINOIS RIVERS AND
STREAMS.
Degree of ~~
Use Support Criteria :
Full No fish advisories or bans are in effect.
. Partial/Moderate "Restricted Consumption" fish advisory or ban in effect for general
population 01 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 species. In Illinois, this is equivalent to a Group II
advisory.
Nonsupport "No consumption" fish advisory or ban in effect for general population
for one or more fish species; commercial fishing ban in effect. In Illinois,
this is equivalent to a Group III advisory.
30
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
TABLE 10. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SWIMMING USE IN ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of
Use Support
Criteria
Full
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
Geometric mean of samples comply with standard or standard
exceeded in < 10% of samples.
Geometric mean and > 10% but < 18% of samples exceed stan-
dard.
Geometric mean and > 18% but < 25% of samples exceed stan-
dard.
Geometric mean and > 25% of samples exceed standard.
TABLE 11. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING DRINKING WATER SUPPLY USE IN ILLINOIS RIVERS
AND STREAMS.
Degree of
Use Support
Criteria
Full
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
No drinking water supply closures or advisories in effect during
reporting period; no treatment necessary beyond "reasonable
levels*.
One or more drinking water supply advisory lasting 30 days or less;
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.
One or more drinking water supply advisories lasting more than 30
days per year.
One or more drinking water supply closures per year.
TABLE 12. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SECONDARY CONTACT USE IN
ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of
Use Support
Criteria
Full
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
< 10% violations in secondary contact
standards.
> 10% -18% violations in secondary contact
standards.
> 18% - 25% violations in secondary contact
standards.
> 25% violations in secondary contact standards.
31
-------
RIVl'.RS AND STREAMS
Overall Use
The overall use support of rivers and streams was also assessed. In reviewing the
individual use assessments, aquatic life use was considered the best single indicator
of overall stream conditions. The overall use support was reported at two
assessment levels; monitored and evaluated.
i
Evaluated waters were those waterbodies for which the overall use support decision
was based on information other than current site-specific monitoring data. The
assessment basis included a combination of land use information and location of
sources, monitoring data more than five-years old, volunteer data, and/or best
professional judgement.
Monitored waters were those waterbodies for which the overall use support decision
was principally based on current site-specific monitoring data believed to accurately
portray water quality conditions. Waterbodies with chemical, physical or biological
monitoring data were used to make monitored assessments. Monitored assess-
ments were completed for each site sampled in conjunction with IEPA monitoring
(See Section A) conducted in the past five years (1989-1993); however, in certain
instances, intensive survey data prior to 1988 was considered representative and
used in the assessment process. |
G. STATE WIDE \VATER QUALITY SUMMARY
For purposes of this report required by Section 305(l>) of the Federal Clean Water
Act, the estimated number of navigable river and stream miles in and bordering
Illinois include a total of 32,190 miles (31,280 interior river miles; 910 border river
miles). Data results from over 1,500 river and stream monitoring stations were used
in the statewide assessment of overall and individual use supports. These stations
are part of ongoing monitoring programs which include the Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Network (AWQMN), Intensive River Basin Suiveys, Facility-Related
Stream Surveys, and Special Surveys (see Section A).
Overall Use Support
A total of 14,159 of the 32,190 stream miles (44.0%) in Illinois were assessed for the
degree of overall use support (Table 13). Statewide assessments were based on
both evaluated (4,855.2 stream miles or 34.3%) and monitored (9,303.7 stream
miles or 65.7%) levels of assessment. Since overall use support assessments were
based on aquatic life use, the results are discussed collectively. Overall use (aquatic
life use) was rated as full support on 6,650.3 stream miles (47.0%); 251.7 stream
miles (1.8%) were rated as threatened. Partial suppbrt with minor impairments of
overall use were present on 5,847.9 stream miles (41.3%) and 1,232.4 stream miles
(8.7%) were rated as partial support with moderate impairments. Statewide, only
176.6 stream miles (1.2%) were rated as not supporting overall uses.
32
-------
RIVERS AND STRKAMS
TABLE 13. STATEWIDE SUMMARY OF DEGREE OF OVERALL USE SUPPORT
FOR ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of
Overall
Use Support
Full
Full/Threatened
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
TOTAL
Evaluated
Miles
2,551.6
53.8
1,801.3
396.7
51.8
4,855.2
Assessment Category
Monitored
Miles
4,098.7
197.9
4,046.6
835.7
124.8
9,303.7
Total
Assessed
6,650.3
251.7
5,847.9
1,232.4
176,6
14,158.9
Individual Use Supports
The fish consumption use was assessed on 2,832.5 stream miles (Table 14). Full
use support was present on 2,325.6 stream miles (82.1%). The remaining 506.9
stream miles (17.9%) were rated as not supporting fish consumption. These
nonsupport segments were limited to portions of the Des Plaines, Illinois, Sangamon
and Mississippi Rivers (see Public Health Chapter). Of the 2,907.1 stream miles
assessed for swimming, 787.9 (27.1%) were rated as full use support (Table 14).
Partial support with minor impairment of the swimming use occurred on 91.5 stream
miles (3.2%) and 462.2 stream miles (15.9%) were rated as partial support with
moderate impairment. The remaining 1,565.5 stream miles (46.2%) were not
supporting the swimming use. The swimming use was not applicable to 2,354.8
stream miles. This included secondary contact waters and streams where disinfec-
tion exemptions were present. The secondary contact use was applicable to 91.6
stream miles in the Des Plaines River basin. Of these, 24.0 stream miles were rated
as full use support. No data was available to assess the remaining 67.6 stream
miles. The drinking water use (PWS) was assessed on 822.5 stream miles. Of
these, 603.3 stream miles (73.4%) were rated as full use support. Partial support
with minor impairment was present on 150.8 stream miles (18.3%) and 68.4 stream
miles (8.3%) were rated as partial support with moderate impairment. There were
no stream miles rated as not supporting the drinking water use (Table 14).
Causes of Less Than Full Support of
Designated Uses
Stream miles impacted by specific cause categories statewide are summarized in
Table 15. Stream segments were generally impacted by multiple causes. A
comparison of individual cause categories weighted by miles of impairment is
shown in Figure 4. The primary cause categories which resulted in less than full
33
-------
Ohio Assessment Methodology
from Ohio's 1994 305(b) Report
-------
-------
From Ohio Water Resource Inventory - 1994-305(5) report
ic I: ^ninmani. £hitu*. and Trends
Methodology For Assessing Use Attainment
This section describes the procedures used by the Ohio EPA to assess the attain-
ment/non-attainment of aquatic life use criteria. The Ohio EIA monitors and as-
sesses surface water resources in Ohio using an "ecosystem" approach. This in-
cludes the use of an array of "tools" including water chemistry physical and habi-
tat assessment, and the direct sampling of the resident biota. In addition, direct
threats to human health including fish tissue contamination, bacteriological meats,
and drinking water contaminants are also monitored. Aquatic life use attainment
status is categorized into the following classes: (1) FULL attainment of use, (2) FULL
attainment of use, but attainment is threatened, (3) PARTIAL attainment of use,
and (4) NON-attainment of use (Ohio EE\ 1987b).
monitors and as-
sesses surface wa-
J Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS)
ter resources in
Ohio EPA has employed the concept of tiered aquatic life uses in the Ohio Water
Ohio using an
0 Quality Standards (WQS) since 1978. Aquatic lift; uses in Ohio include the
ecosystem" ap-
• r Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH), Cold- water
proach.
Habitat (CWH), Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH), Modified Warmwater Habitat
(three subcategories: channel-modified, MWH-C; mine afected, MWH-A; and im-
pounded, MWH-I), Limited Resource Water (LRW), and the now defunct Limited
Warmwater Habitat (LWH) designations. Each of thisse use designations ae de-
fined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1). Table 2-1 lists the size of waterbodies for
each aquatic life and non-aquatic life use assigned to Ohio surface waters. The
lengths (miles) of designated uses by steam and river size category are illustrated
in Figure 2-1.
i
Water quality standards constitute the numerical and narrative criteria that, when
achieved, will presumably protect a given designated lose. Chemical-specific crite-
ria serve as the "targets" for wasteload allocations conducted under the TMDL
(Total Maximum Daily Load) process. This is used to determine water quality-
based effluent limits for point source discharges and, theoretically, load allocations
16 '
-------
•'994 Ohio Water Rcamurcc !••
for nnnpomt source BNiis (Best Management Practices). Whole effluent tuxicity
lima* consist of acute and chronic endpoints (based on laboratory toxicity tests)
and are based on a dilution method
1,400
similar to that used to calculate
chemical-specific limits. The biologi-
cal criteria are used to directly deter-
mine aquatic life use attainment sta-
tus for the EWH, WWH, and MWH
use designations as is stated under
the definition of each in the Ohio
WQS. The aquatic life uses are
briefly described as follows:
EWH (Exceptional Warmwater
Habitat) - This is the most protective
use assigned to warmwater streams
in Ohio. Chemical-specific criteria for
dissolved oxygen and ammonia ate
more stringent than for WWH, but
are the same for all other parameters.
Ohio's biological criteria for EWH
applies uniformly statewide and is
set at the 75th percentile index val-
ues of all reference sites combined.
This use is defined in the Ohio WQS
(OAC 3745-l-07[B][l][c]).
i.wu r—
1.200 h|
*
vt
g 1.000
800
Aquatic Life
Use:
• EWH
m WWH
0 CWH
no MWH
a LRW/LWH
E3 Undesignated
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Figure 2-1. Distribution of streams in Ohio EPA's database by
aquatic life use and stream size category. Panel A: num-
ber of streams; Panel B: % of streams in a drainage size
category; Panel C: miles by drainage area category.
WWH (Warmwater Habitat) - WWH
is the most widely applied use des-
ignation assigned to warmwater streams in Ohio. The biological criteria vary by
ecoregion and site type for fish and are set at the 25th percentile index values of the
applicable reference sites in each ecoregion. A modified procedure was used in the
17
-------
\,'i>liiinc 1: Siiiiunani. Sttitiis. and Trend*
extensively modified HELPecoregion. This use is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC
3745-l-07[B][l][a]j. I
MWH (Modified Warmwater Habitat) - This use was first adopted in 1990 is as-
signed to streams that have hadextensive and irretrievable physical habitat modifi-
cations. The MWH use does not meet the Clean Water Act goals and therefore
requires a Use Attainability Analysis. There are three subcategories: MWH-A, non-
acidic mine runoff affected habitats; MWH-C, channel modified habitats; and MWH-
I, extensively impounded habitats. The chemical-specific criteria for dissolved oxy-
gen and ammonia are less stringent (and the HELP criteria are less stringent than
other ecoregions) than WWH, but criteria for other parameters are the same. Bio-
logical criteria were derived from a separate set of modified reference sites. The
biocriteria were set separately for each of tluee categories of habitat impact. The
MWH-C and MWH-I subcategory biocriteria wee also derived separately for the
HELP ecoregion. The MWH-Aapplies only within the WAP ecoregion. This use is
defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-l-07[B][l][d]).
LRW (Limited Resource Waters) - This use is restricted to steams that cannot at-
tain even the MWH use due to extremely limited habitat conditions resulting from
natural factors or those of anthropogenic origin. Most steams assigned to this use
have drainage areas <3 sq. mi. and are either ephemeral, have extremely limited
habitat (with no realistic chance for rehabilitation), or have severe and irretrievable
acid mine impacts. Chemical-specific criteria ae intended to protect against acutely
toxic or nuisance conditions. There are no formal biiological criteria. This use is
defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-l-07[B][l][g]) arid was formerly known as the
Nuisance Prevention use designation, which is being; phased out of the WQS.
LWH (Limited Warmwater Habitat) - This use was adopted in 1978 to act as a
temporary "variance" mechanism for individual segjments that had point source
discharges which were not capable of meeting the 1977 Clean Water Act mandates.
The process of phasing this use designation out of the WQS has been underway
18
-------
Oltiti Water Riviuircc Imvntvru
-mire I^S?. Chemical-specific criteria were varied for selected parameters, other-
wise the criteria for the remaining parameters were the same as for the WWH use.
In 1985 all of the LWH segments were placed in a "reserved" status pending a Use
Attainability Analysis for each segment. To date 90 of the LWH segments have
been revised to either WWH or LRW. -
SSH (Seasonal Salmonid Habitat) - This use designation was introduced in 1985
and is assigned to habitats that are capable of supporting the passage of Salmonids
between October and May. Another use designation applies during the remaining
months. Several tributaries to Lake Erie are so designated. This use is defined in
the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-l-07[B][l][e]).
CWH (Coldwater Habitat)- This use includes streams that are capable of support-
ing cold water aquatic organisms and/or put-and-lake Salmonid fishing. This use
is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-l-07[B][l][f]).
In addition to the previously described aquatic life use designations the State Re-
source Water (SRW) classification is also assigned on a stream and/or segment
specific basis. The attributes necessary to assign the SRW classification are de-
scribed in the Ohio WQS (OAC 374—-1-05, Anti-degradation Policy). SRW classifi-
cations have also been revised as a by-product of the biosurvey efforts. Since the
initial adoption of tiered uses in 1978, the assessment of the appropriateness of
existing aquatic life use designations has continued. As of June 1992 there have
been a total of 394 changes to segment and stream specific aquatic life uses in six
different WQS rule making changes since 1985. The majority of these changes have
included the deletion of the State Resource Waters (SRW) classification (116 seg-
ments), redesignation of EWH to WWH (95), the designation of previously un-
listed streams (84), and the redesignation of the now defunct Limited Warmwater
Habitat (LWH) use designation to either WWH or LRW (90). Most of these seg-
ments were originally designated for aquatic life uses in the 1978 Ohio WQS. The
techniques used then did not include standardized instream biological data or nu-
19
-------
\\iliimc I: Snmmani, Status.'iind Trends
"...the basin,
mainstem, and
sub-basin
biosurveys subse-
quently initiated in
1979 represented a
"first use" of stan-
dardized biological
data to evaluate
and establish
aquatic life use des-
ignations..."
merical biological criteria. Therefore, because the basin, mainstem, and sub-basin
biosurveys subsequently initiated in 1979 represented a "first use" of standardized
biological data to evaluate and establish aquatic life use designations, many revi-
sions were made. Certain of the changes may appear to constitute "downgrades"
(/.
-------
/??4 Ohio
Rcmnirce
inj* "i>es bcun confirmed with ambient biosurvey information using the previously
discussed procedures.
Table 2-1. Summary of classified aquatic and non-aquatic life uses for Ohio sur-
face waters in the Ohio WQS(OAC 3745-1).
Use
Designation
Ohio Estimate:
Total
Ohio Estimate:
Classified for Use
Streams /Rivers Lakes Lake Erie
(Miles) (Number) (Acres) (Shore Miles)
Aquatic Life Uses
43,917.01 50,000
200,0002
236
Perennial(Named)24,348.7 — — —
USEPAEst: Totals
USEPA Est: Perennials
Ohio Estimate:
EWH
WWH
CWH
SSH
MWH
LWH
LRW
No Use
PWS
PC
SC
SRW
SHQW6
61,532.0 5,130
29,113.0
2,991.7
18,364.7 —
378.4
103.0
813.1 —
636.8 —
527.1 -~
1271.2 — .
Water Supply
— 447
Recreation
22,412.8 50,0005
1,044.7 —
State Resource Waters
3,812 447
Antidegradation Waters
^•^ «•»*
188,461
—
193,9034
- — '
—
_ —
—
—
_
__
•
118,801
200,0005
__
118,801
™^~
• —
236
—
—
— - • .
—
—
__
_
— '
236
—
— —
-
~™"™
Abbreviations: WWH - Warmwater Habitat; EWH - Exceptional Warmwater Habi-
tat; CWH - Coldwater Habitat; SSH - Seasonal Salmonid Habitat; MWH - Modi-
fied Warmwater Habitat; LWH - Limited Warmwater Habitat; LRW - Limited Re-
source Water; PWS - Public Water Supply; BW - Bathing Waters; PC - Primary
Contact; SC - Secondary Contact; SRW - State Resource Waters; SHQW - Superior
High Quality Waters.
lEstimated from ODNR (1960).
2Estimated from ODNR (unpublished)
3USEPA (1991a) estimate.
4All publicly owned lakes and reservoirs except Piedmont Reservoir.
SLakes and Reservoirs and not specifically given a primary contact recreation use in OAC,
but this use is assumed.
^Superior High Quality Waters are an additional classification recently proposed for
antidegradation purposes.
Approximately 1271 miles of small streams (primarily watersheds less than 5 sq.
mi. in area) in the Ohio database have not been designated. At present, the true
difference between the U.S. EPA estimate of perennial stream miles and Ohio EPA's
21
-------
\'( 500 acres 47 : 124,723
Total 513Q 188.461
Ohio DNR Estimate (Publicly Owned)
<10 acres 108 717
10-500 acres 293 22321
> 500 acres 46 95,763
Total ML ll&Sfil
How Stream Segments Were Assessed: "Multiple Lines of Evidence"
A factor essential to an understanding the results of this report, and for comparing
these results to other states' reports, is the methodology used for the assessment of
"use attainment" and ascribing causes and sources of impairment. Ohio's inten-
sive survey program is not "experimental" in nature although its foundation is
based on an extensive and rigorous body of such work in the ecological literature.
The identification of the impairment status of stretms and rivers is straightfor-
ward - the Ohio biological criteria are the principal arbiter of aquatic life use attain-
ment/non-attainment. The rationale for using biological criteria as the principal
arbiter within a "weight of evidence" approach to aquatic life use assessment has
been extensively discussed elsewhere (Karret«/. 19136; Ohio EPA 1987a,b; Yoder
1989; Miner and Borton 1991; Yoder 1991a). Ascribing the causes and sourcesasso-
ciated with the observed impairment relies on an interpretation of multiple lines of
22
-------
Ohio \\'ntcr
evidence from water chemistry data, sediment data, habitat data, effluent data,
btomonitonng results, land use data, and response signatures within the biological
data itself. Thus cause and source associations are not based on a true "cause and
effect" analysis, but rather are based on associations with stressor and exposure
indicators whose links with the biosurvey data are based on previous research or
experience with analogous impacts. The reliability of the identification of probable
causes and sources increases where many such prior associations have been iden-
tified. The process is akin to making a medical diagnosis in which a doctor relies
on multiple lines of evidence concerning a patient's luvuh. Such diagnoses are
based on previous research which experimentally or statistically linked symptoms Direct measures OJ
and test results to specific diseases or pathologies. Clearly, the doctor does not OvcV"all health that
"experiment" on a patient, but rather relies on previous experience in interpreting integl"atC (til OJ the
the multiple lines of evidence (test results) to generate a diagnosis, potential causes Jac$o*s that COUla
or sources of the malady, a prognosis, and a strategy for alleviating the symptoms effe& ecological fo-
ol the disease or con Jition. The ultimate arbiter of success is the eventual recovery ftgnty are essential
and the well-being of the patient. While there have been criticisms of misapplying Jor afi accurate plC-
the metaphor of ecosystem "health" compared to human patient "health" (Suter ^r^ °J aW
1993; e.g., concept of ecosystem as a super-organism) here we are referring to the ecosystem S COndl-
process for identifying biological integrity and cause/source associations not
whether human health and ecosystem health are analogous concepts.
Water chemistry samples are analogous to various diagnostic tests (e.g., a blood
sample) that may clearly identify a health problem, but that cannot provide a posi-
tive indication of the overall well-being of a patient. A serious water quality stan-
dard violation for a toxic parameter, for example, is likely to be a good indicator of
impairment; however, the lack of a violation in no way confirms the presence of
biological integrity. Direct measures of overall health that integrate all of the fac-
tors that could effect ecological integrity are essential for an accurate picture of an
ecosystem's condition. The inclusion of biosurvey data, based on biocriteria, into a
broad, integrated intensive survey program, is the best way to achieve when the
goal is protecting and restoring aquatic life. Our work has shown that the inclu-
sion of biosurvey data in ambient monitoring efforts can boost the detection of
23 ——
-------
Volume I: Sumntani. Status. iuui Trends
aquatic life use impairment by approximately 35-50% over that obtained with a
, , simplified water column chemistry approach alone Ij.e. measuring exceedences of
a suite of routinely monitored chemical parameters; Ohio EPA 1990a). The use
attainment/non-attairunent criteria for the biological indices are summarized by
organism group, biological index, site type (fish), use designation, and ecoregion
in Table 2-3 and on Map 2-1. The chemical-specific criteria in the Ohio WQS were
used to assess chemically-based use attainment/non-attairunent and generally fol-
lows U.S. EPA guidelines for assessing aquatic life support (U.S. EPA 1991b) with
chemical data alone (Table 2-4).
"...the inclusion of
.. , . '. Table 2-3. Decision criteria for determining use attainment based on biological
mosurvey data in data
ambient monitor- Non-Attaint ~~
ing efforts Can boost A.] Neither ICI, IBI, or Mlwb meet criteria for ecoregion
OR
the detection Of B.J One organism group indicates a severe toxic impact (poor orvery poor
. ,./• . category) even if the other indicates attainment.
aquatic life use im-
\airment bv ait- Partial Attainment
\a irmpni ay up- ^ ^^ ^ two of twQ ^ ^^ -m^ces
-------
1994 Olui) Wiitcr Rc^nircc Imvntiinr
Huron-Eric Lake Plain (HELP)
USE SIZE IB! Mlwh Id
WWH
MWH-C
MWH-I
H
W
B
H
W
B
B
Eastern Corn Belt Plafns (ECBP)
USE SIZE HI Mlwb ICJ
WWH H 40 NA 36
8.3
8.5
NA
6.2
W
B
MWH-C H
W
B
MWH-I B
40
42
24
24
24
30
36
36
22
22
5.8 22
6.6 NA
Interior Plateau (IP)
USE
WWH
MWH-C
MWH-I
SIZE
H
W
B
H
W
B
B
mi
40
40
38
24
24
24
30
Mlwb
NA
8.1
8.7
NA
6.2
5.8
6.6
ICj
30
30
30
22
22
22
NA
34
34
34
22
22
22
NA
Erie Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP)
USE
WWH
MWH-C
MWH-I
Huron-Erie
Lake Plain
(HELP)
Eastern
Com Belt
Plain
(ECBP)
Erie-Ontario
Lake Plain
(EOLP)
Western
\ Allegheny
Plateau
J (WAP)
USE
WWH
MWH-C
MWH-A
MWH-I
Statewide: Exceptional Criteria
USE SIZE mi Miwb ic
EWH H 50 NA 46
W 50 9.4 46
B 48 9.6 46
Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP)
SIZE
H
W
B
H
W
B
H
W
B
B
mi
44
44
40
24
24
24
24
24
24
30
Mlwb
NA
8.4
8.6
NA
6.2
5.8
NA
5.5
5.5
6.6
ICI
36
36
36
22
22
22
30
30
30
NA
Map 2-1. Ohio's Biocriteria. See text for descriptions of aquatic life uses.
25
-------
\\ilunic 1: Siiinitmn/, Statu*. .ind
life use criteria (e.g. manganese, aluminum). Of the characteristic coal mining in-
fluenced parameters only pH was used to assess aquatic life use impairment (in
the absence of biological data) because it is the. only parameter with a WQS criteria
value. The other parameters were used to confirm mining impacts where pH was
low and to screen waterbodies for further study. For streams without pH data or
without a direct pH impairment, exceedences of the "background" concentrations
for two or more of the other parameters was used to indicate moderate or major
impacts.
Table 2-4. Categories of deviation from relatively unimpacted reference sites for
parameters without aquatic life use water quality criteria.
No Effects
(Within Range of Reference Sites)
1. Mean and 90th % tile < Median of r eference sites
2. Mean and 90th % tile < 75th %tile of r eference sites AND Mean > Median of r eference sites
and 90th %tile < Median OR 90th % tile > Median of r eference sites and Mean < Median.
3. Mean and 90th % tile < 75th %tile of r eference sites AND Mean and 90th % tile > Median
of reference sites.
4. Mean and 90th % tile < 2* UQi + Median of reference sites AND Mean > 75th %tile of
reference sites and 90th %Hle < 2* UQ + Median OR 90th % tile > 75th %tile of r eference sites
and Mean < 2* UQ + Median.
Minor effects
(Upper Range to Slightly Above Range of Refer ence Sites)
1. Mean and 90th % tile > 75th %tile of r eference sites AND Mean and 90th % tile < 2* UQ +
Median of reference sites.
2. Mean and 90th % tile < 5* UQ + Median of r eference sites AND Mean > 2* UQ + Median of
reference sites and 90th %tile < 2* UQ + Median OR 90th % tile > 2* UQ + Median of r efer-
ence sites and Mean < 2* UQ + Median.
Moderate effects
(Values Significantly Above Range of Refer ence Sites)
1. Mean and 90th % tile > 2* UQ + Median of refer ence sites AND Mean and 90th % tile < 5*
UQ + Median of reference sites.
2. Mean and 90th % tile < 10* UQ + Median of refer ence siites AND Mean > 5* UQ + Median
of reference sites and 90th %tile < 5* UQ + Median OR 90th % tile > 5* UQ + Median of
reference sites and Mean < 5* UQ + Median.
Severe effects
1. Mean and 90th % tile > 5* UQ + Median of r eference sites AND1 Mean and 90th % tile < 10*
UQ + Median of reference sites.
2. Mean and 90th % tile > 10* UQ + Median of r eference sites.
lUQ-Upper Quartile (75th per cenrile)
26
-------
994 Olnt> \\jti-r /\Y>c>;/nv
Ttthlf Jo. Ciiiu-enmitirins of itinhient chemical parameters used tt> indicate in-
fivaxititi severity of mine affected waters computed to relatively imimpacted
reference sites.
Parameter
Field
Conduct.
Lab
Conduct.
pHi
Chloride
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
TDS
Median
445.0
481.0
24.6
129.0
885.0
135
443.0
75th
%tile
692.0
739.0
43.7
242.7
1495.0
300.5
509.0
75th%tile
+Median
[UQ]
247.0
258.0
19.1
113.7
610.0
165.5
66.0
2*UQ
+ Med.
939.0
997.0
62.8
356.4
2105.0
466.0
575.0
5*UQ
+ Med.
1680.0
1771.0
120.1
697.5
3935.0
962.5
773.0
-
10*UQ
~ ^t
+ Med.
2915.0
3061.0
215.6
1266.0
6985.0
1790.0
1103.0
£*•» •• >.v»kw^i^i*Wfc/ VM^wwt. v** -^fi.m*s w T *|£*-' (4AIW4 V^XIIV/ J_tJ_T^ \J.7tJ\JJ, 1NV
effects: 5.5-6.4; moderate effects: 4.5-5.4; severe effects < 4.5.
Table 2-6". Concentrations offish tissue contaminants consideed: (I) not elevated,
(2) slightly elevated, (3) moderately elevated, (4) highly elevated, or (5)
extremely elevated.
PCBs:
0-50 jag/kg • not elevated
51-300 ng/kg - slightly elevated
301-1000 pg/kg - moderately elevated
1001-1900 Mg/kg - highly elevated
> 1900 jag/kg - extremely elevated
Other Parameters:
> FDA action level - highly - extremely elevated
27
-------
Volume I: Suimnaru. Status, iiiui Trends
Table 2"-7. Classification of the types of monitoring data used to make aquatic life
use assessments for the 1992 305(b) report arranged in decreasing onier
of confidence with regard tn data rigor and accuracy
Description
Assessment Moni-
Leveli Evaluated tored
"The most rigorous
data is from an
"intensive" survey
that includes wa-
ter chemistry (ef-
fluent, water col-
umn, sediment),
bioassay, physical
habitat, and both
fish and macro-in-
vertebrate data."
Most Confidence/Highest Accuracy
Intensive survey with biological
& water chemistry data, both fish and
macroin vertebrates sampled?
Intensive survey with biological & water
chemistry data, only one biotic group (fish or ;
macroinvertebrates) sampled
Intensive survey with biological data only.
fish or macro-invertebrates sampled
Intensive survey with water chemistry data only
Intensive survey with water chemistry data
only (pre-1988)
Biological Fixed Stations and intensive biosurveys
from before 1986.
Chemical Fixed Stations (NAWQMN, i
NASQAN, IJC, etc.) Volunteer Monitoring
(with good QA/QC procedures)
Least Confidences/Lower Accuracy
Volunteer Monitoring (without QA/QC procedures)
Survey/Source Data (Complaints, "opinion"
surveys, etc.)3
700
700
300
200
200
300
200
ICO
100
— MB
— MB
— MB
— MC
EC —
EB —
EC —
ES —
ES —
l More specific codes are provided in Appendix A.
2 For headwater streams (< 20 square miles) streams are assigned a level 700 code where
water chemistry and only the fish community wer e sampled.
3 Aquatic life use attainment decisions are not made with sour ce level data or data types not
listed here. Source level data is used to flag areas for further study or to identify areas that
are likely to be.impacted (see Ohio Nonpoint Sour ce Assessment).
4 This data used to flag sites as possibly impacts but not used to determine aquatic life use
impairment.
The categories assigned to the monitoring data used in this assessment generally
follow U.S. EPA guidelines with some exceptions as outlined in Table 2-7. The
classification of data collection methods reflects the rigor of the data used and the
resultant accuracy of the aquatic life use assessment. The most rigorous data is
from an "intensive" survey that includes water chemistry (effluent, water column,
sediment), bioassay, physical habitat, andbofft fish! and macro-invertebrate data.
For waterbodies where only water chemistry data was available, the identification
28
-------
1994 Ohio Water Resource hnvntont
Biosurvey Locations
1974-1988
-2. Location of Ohio EPA
biosurvey sampling sta-
tions during the period
1974 - 1988 (top panel)
and 1989-1993 (bottom
panel).
Biosurvey Locations
1989-1993
29
-------
{,'i'liniic I: Summary. Stain*, and Trends
of chemical criteria exceedences (PARTIAL or NON-attainment), rather than the
absence of such exceedences (FULL attainment), was the more reliable and envi-
ronmentally accurate approach.
"...the confidence
in the aquatic life ~^e comparatively "narrow" focus of water chemistry data provides less confi-
USC assessments Was dence about aquatic life use attainment status tharrthe broader-based biological
further increased community measures. Similarly, the confidence in tide aquatic life use assessments
When data from was further increased when data from both fish and macroinvertebrates was avail-
both fish and able (particularly in complex situations) than when data from only one organism
macroinvertebrates SrouP was available (see Table 2-7). Toxicity testing (acute and/or chronic bioas-
WaS available... " says) results alone were not used to assess use attainment status nor were volun-
teer monitoring data, the results of "opinion" surveys, or unsubstantiated or anec-
dotal information. Such information, however, is quite useful for indicating areas
of potential impairment or for suggesting when conditions may be changing.
The assessments in this report relied primarily on monitored level data. The loca-
tion of biosurvey sites across Ohio are illustrated in Map 2-2. The top panel illus-
trates sites sampled up to and including 1988 and die bottom panel sites sampled
from 1989 through 1993. Although the intended focus of the Ohio Water Resource
Inventory is broad (i.e. the same data serves multiple purposes), the impetus for
the development of much of the database was driven by point source issues (.e.
"In addition tO the NPDES permits, construction grants, etc.) and towards larger streams and rivers.
Ohio Water Re- For smaller streams there is proportionately less monitored level data to assess
SOUrce Inventory impacts such as nonpoint pollution. However, each subbasin or mainstem level
Ohio EPA produces survey was designed to assess all relevant sources of impact to water quality, habi-
the Ohio Nonpoint tat' an<* me biota. Also, the "extrapolability" of the results in the smaller water-
Source Assessment sheds is greater than for the larger rivers and streams. This has been especially
(NPSA; Ohio EPA enhanced by employing the ecoregion concept (Ome'milc 1987). In addition to the
199Qb)... " Ohi° Water Resource Inventory, Ohio EPA produces the Ohio Nonpoint Source
Assessment (NPSA; Ohio EPA 1990b) which is coordinated by the Nonpoint Source
Management Section within the Division of Water (Duality Planning and Assess-
ment. The Ohio NPSA summarizes the extent and types of nonpoint source pollu-
30 .
-------
1994 Oltic \\\itcr Ki-s()/mv Imvntn.nt
lion in Ohio'- surface water «ind groundwater resources utilizing all levels of avail-
able information, thus some of the estimates of the proportion of impaired waters
by major source are different between the Ohio NPSA and the 305(b) report. The
"The Ohio NPSA
Ohio NPSA relies heavily on an extensive survey of over 200 local, county, state,
and federal agencies in Ohio. Thus the information gained from these question- "^
naires is considered as "source" level data which is insufficient to assess aquatic ' ^ *
life use impairment, but is useful for identifying potential areas of nonpoint source '
impacts. The Ohio NPSA also incorporates all of the monitored level data reported COUn ^' S **
in the 1990 305(b) report. The results are further used to develop and implement **"* Agencies in
the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program (NPSMP; Ohio DNR1989) which
is coordinated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation.
The Ohio NPSA data is included in the Waterbody System (WBS). For areas of the
state covered by intensive biological surveys, the effects of nonpoint sources have
been assessed and are reflected in the WBS segment summaries and the discussion
of causes and sources of impairment found in this volume. In the cases where
survey level information was available in the absence of monitored level informa-
tion a T' (Potential) magnitude code was indicated in the WBS. This level of
nonpoint source assessment is limited to use as screen for a potentialfmpacf to a
waterbody. The presence of sources alone is insufficient evidence for a direct im-
pairment and can be verified with monitored-level data only. The source level
assessments for each WBS segment appear in Appendix B of the 1992 report, and in
more detail in the Ohio NPSA (Ohio EPA 1990b).
Highlights from nonpoint source education/ demonstration projects funded by
Section 319 grants between 1981 and 1987 are summarized in Ohio EPA (1991).
Many of the original state and local contract agencies have applied for Section 319
implementation grants. It is a goal of Ohio EPA to be able to measure the actual
environmental effectiveness of these activities by describing the results of moni-
tored level evaluations in future 305(b) reports.
31
-------
Vvlninc I: Sutnmarv. Status,
-------
Otiii> \\.itcr /\Y*oimv Imvntt'ru
The UM? of other agencies and institutions environmental data has long been viewed
as .in untapped panacea to the problems of a lack of monitoring resources at the
state and federal level. While this inherently seems attractive from a cost and effi-
ciency standpoint, there are some important limitations. Each agency usually has
different objectives for the monitoring efforts in which data is collected. While the
aforementioned agencies have attempted to standardize and emulate the manner
in which each collects fish community data, this does not completely eliminate
differences in effort, variables reported, etc. A "phased" approach towards incor-
porating non-Ohio EPA data in the WBS database as either monitored or evaluated
level information will be used.
Fortunately, much of the available fish community data is of acceptable quality
and the collection methodologies each agency uses are not only documented and
well known, but are essentially similar in most respects. However, a key "miss-
ing" dimension is in having been at the sampling location to observe the condi-
tions first hand. This is a crucial element in the interpretation of the results, par-
ticularly the assignment of causes and sources of impairment.
"...when relying on
_ »..,,...... water chemistry
1 ne error tendencies of held biological information need to be understood to accu-
... t „ ., „ . . data collected by
rately incorporate outside" data into assessments. Water chemistry data (espe-
.„.,,.,. %. ... . . t other agencies (and
aally grab sampling) is likely to be biased towards "missing" a problem that actu-
ii , v u.u. ' - Ohio EPA), it is
ally exists, but which is not reflected in the results (Rankin and Yoder 1990). Thus,
... . . used primarily to
when relying on water chemistry data collected by other agencies (and Ohio EPA),.
, . .. . , ' infer the presence of
it is used primarily to infer the presence of a problem,nof the absence of a problem. J
. . . L. L , . „. , a problem, not the
In contrast, the error tendencies of biological field data is more likely to result in
.. . .. . , . . , absence of a prob-
tne indication of an impairment when it does not exist. This is most frequently due
lem "
to inadequate or differential sampling that results in the failure to secure an ad-
equate or representative sample. In the case with other agencies biological data (as
a first phase for 1992 305[b] report) it was used primarily to indicateattainment of
the applicable aquatic life use.
33
-------
Volume I: Summon/, Status, and Trends
Table. 2-S'. Hierarchy of ambient hioassessment approaches that use information about indigenous aquatic biological
communities i\'OTE: this applies to aquatic life use attainment only - it does not apply to bioaccumulation concerns,
wildlife uses, human health, or recreation uses). \
BIOASSESSMENT
TYPE
1. "Stream Walk"
(Visual Obser-
vations)
2.Volunteer
Monitoring
S.Professional
Opinion (EPA
RBP Protocol V)
4. EPA RBP
Protocola I & II
5. Narrative
Evaluations
6.Single Dimen-
sion Indices
7. EPA RBP
Protocols
m&v
8. Regional
Reference
Site Approach
SKILL
REQUIRED!
Non-biologist
Non-biologist
to Technician
Biologist w/
experience
Biologist w/
training
Aquatic Biolo-
gist w/training
& experience
(same)
(same)
(same)
ORGANISM
GROUPS*
None
Inverte-
brates
None or
Fish/Inverts.
Inverte-
brates
Fish&/or
Inverts.
(same)
(same)
(same)
TECHNICAL ECOLOGICAL
COMPONENTS3 COMPLEXITY*
Handbooks Simple
Handbook', Low
Simple equipment
Historical Low to
records Moderate
Tech. Manual, 10 Low
Simple equip. to Moderate
Std. Methods, Moderate
Detailed taxonomy
Specialized equip.
(same) Moderate
Tech. Manual, w High
Detailed taxonomy.
Specialized equip.
Same plus baseline High
calibra ion of multi-
metric evaluation
mechanisms
ENVIRON DISCRIM POLICY
MENTAL INATORY RESTRIC
ACCURACY5 "POWER"* TIONS?
Low Low Many
Low to Low
Moderate
Low to Low
Moderate
Low to Low to
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
to High to High
7
High High Few
1 Level of training and experience needed to accurately implement and use the bioassessment type.
2 Organism groups that are directly used and/or sampled.
3 Handbooks, technical manuals, taxonomic keys, and data requirements for each bioassessment type.
4 Refers to ecological dimensions inherent in the basic data that is routinely generated by the bioassessment type.
5 Refers to the ability of the ecological end-points or indicators to differentiate condition along a gradient of environmental
conditions.
6 The relative power of the data and information derived to discriminate between different and increasingly subtle impacts.
7 Refers to the relationship of biosurveys to chemical-specific, lexicological (i,e. bioassays), physical, and other assessments and
criteriathat serve as surrogate indicators of aquatic life use attainment/non-attainment.
8 Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Waters (U.S. Dept. Agric. 1990)
9 Ohio Scenic River Stream Quality Monitoring (Kopec and Lewis 1983).
10U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassment Protocol (Plafkinetal. 1989). ,
34
-------
Olno Water Ri'smtrcc Imvntorv
IBI values wore calculated, but were considered asmininnim values for use attain-
ment purposes. Data dimensions such as the presence or absence of intolerant
and/or tolerant taxa, high species richness, and the relative distribution of indi-
viduals among various functional guilds was also examined since these are gener-
ally correlated with higher IBI scores that are commensurate with at least WWH
use attainment. Other than through gross species misidentifications (unlikely to
be a significant problem given the skilled professional staff at the above mentioned
agencies) the data are considered accurate and reliable for this level of assessment.
Indications of NON-attainment that are reflected in the results will be more thor-
oughly investigated in future 305(b) reports via consultations with the other agen-
cies. This will further aid in the identification of causes and sources of thesuspected
NON-attainment. It is also an Ohio EPA goal to access historical fish community IS'" ****
information (i.e. pre-1975-80 data) for the purpose of examining long-term changes . ** ° access
in distribution and abundance, and to include other organism groups such as na- /*•»'* «WI-
iad mollusks, amphibians, and possibly birds to broaden the overall environmen-
-------
/; Siinitmini, S
Trend*
"Accuracy is
defined...as the
ability and preci-
sion of an assess-
ment to portray
and evaluate the
true ecosystem
condition."
comprehensive the resultant evaluation and hence the greater its accuracy. Accu-
racy is defined here as the ability and precision of an assessment to portray and
evaluate the true ecosystem condition. Although, the cost of obtaining informa-
tion increases with its inherent complexity and accuracy the cost per return on
investment declines.
In addition the impact of the information on multi-million dollar decisions also
makes it more cost-effective. We have established a hierarchy of bioassessment
types for the purpose of demonstrating the relative capabilities of each of eight
different approaches (Table 2-8).
"...the power and
ability of a
bioassessment tech-
nique ...are directly
related to the data
dimensions pro-
duced by each."
The purpose of this comparison is to illustrate that theie are important and some-
times unrealized differences between different levels of bioassess-ment, not only in
the cost and relative skill requirements, but also in the quantity, quality, and power
of the information provided by each. The latter factors are often given less weight
than the cost and skill components and we believe they aE equally, if not more
important considerations. In addition, these is an unfortunate tendency to equate
the information derived from all biosurvey approaches and to "over sell" the capa-
bilities of the simpler techniques.
i •
Our analyses reveal that the power and ability of a bioassessment technique to
accurately portray biological community performance and ecological integrityand
discriminate ever finer levels of aquatic life use impairments ae directly related to
the data dimensions produced by each. For example, a technique that includes the
identification of macroinvertebrate taxa to genus and species will produce a greater
number of data dimensions than a technique that is limited to family level tax-
onomy. Similarly, the accuracy of an approach that employs two organism groups
is likely to be more capable of accurately detecting ii broad range of impairments
than will reliance on a single group. Approaches that rely on multi-metric evalua-
tion mechanisms will yield greater information than a reliance on single dimension
indices, and so on. Of the different bioassessment types included in Table 2-8, we
have extensively tested volunteer monitoring (see next subsection), narrative evalu-
36
-------
1994 Ohio Water Ktvourcc liircntcrv
.itions. >inj»k'-dimonsion indices, and the regional reference site approaches (Ohio " Th ^ Ic I'CI of
EPA IWOc; Yoder 1991.1). Tlie nemnining categories were inserted into the hierar- b ioas Ses S m C tl t
chy based on ours and others use and knowledge of each. should play £111 im-
portant'role ill "the
This concept is not only crucial to understanding the power and accuracy otCOllsideratioil and
biosurvey information, but also with placing limits on its use as a tool to assess andestablish men t of
manage surface water resources. The level of bioassessmentsfonW play an impor-policy On the use of
tant role in the consideration and establishment of policy on the use of biosurveyfrWSUrvev tnforma-
information relative to its integrated use with chemical-specific and toxicity infop t ion relative to its
mation (Yoder 1991a; Table 2-8). Many have referred to the relationship between integrated USC with
water chemistry, bioassay, arid biosurveys as each being an equal leg of a thee- chemical-Specific
legged stool. However, this analogy is inadequate (Karr 1989) and naively pc- and toxicity infor-
sumes that the relationships will be equal in all regions and all waters across the mation... "
U.S. Obviously, there will be situations in which one or two of the tools will yield
more information than the others, thus the site-specific application of biosurvey,
information must be done with flexibility and in accodance with the aforemen-
tioned constraints. Simply continuing to rigidly equate each tool independently
not only has some serious technical flaws, but may serve as a serious disincentive
to states in constructing a more rigorous biosurvey approach. In contrast, an im-
portant incentive for states to construct a more rigorous and comprehensive
biosurvey approach can be provided by permitting biocriteria policy flexibility « ,,„ imvortant
The advantage to a state is in increased programmatic flexibility while the return to incentive for States
U.S. EPA is an ecologically more rigorous, more accurate monitoring capability to construct a more
that will produce more comprehensive and reliable monitoring efforts nationwide. rig0r0us an^ com-
Concems about potential abuses of biosurveys au minimized given the inherent prehensive
error tendencies of biosurvey information (i.e, "favorable" results cannot be pro- bioSUrVCV awroach
duced by poor or under-representative sampling). The improved ability to detect can fa provided bv
and characterize environmental problems with the more comprehensive approaches permitting
will lead to improved protection of our declining lotic resources. Given the present biocriteria
difficulties with the inequities between state monitoring and assessment capabili- flexibility "
ties this issue should be given serious consideration.
37
-------
/; Smnmqn/, Status, tuui Trends
Volunteer Monitoring
U.S. EPA has recently been encouraging the use of ambient data collected by "vol-
unteers" (U.S. EPA 1990a). For lotic systems this includes the qualitative sampling
"...environmental of macroinvertebrates and using a picture key to identify organisms and rate the
agencies need tO be sample on a scale from poor to excellent. For lakes; it usually includes taking tur-
aware Of the Hmi- bidity measurements using secchi disks and observational information. The obvi-
tations Of this ap- ous and attractive advantages of this data are that it can generate substantial inter-
proach, both tech- est among the public about surface water resources and the attributes of these wa-
niCfilly and loglSti- ters that are being protected by state agencies. It Ccin also provide information at
Cally, prior tO de- little or no cost to the government. However, environmental agencies need to be
pending On this as aware of the limitations of this approach, both technically and logistically, prior to
a major SOUrce Of depending on this as a major source of monitoring information. Data collected by
monitoring infor- volunteers can be useful to.state agencies in waterbodies of special interest $.g.
motion. " State Scenic Rivers) or in waterbodies where the state is unlikely to conduct moni-
toring. |
In Ohio there are two major Volunteer programs of note. One is the "Stream Qual-
ity Monitoring" program coordinated by the Scenic Rivers section of the Ohio DNR,
Division of Natural Area and Preserves. The other :is the "Citizen Lake Improve-
ment Program" (CLIP). The various groups and government agencies participat-
ing in volunteer monitoring efforts in Ohio are listed in Table 2-8. Although volun-
teer stream monitoring programs can provide useful ancillary information on the
status of certain surface waters and information on emerging problems theyare not
replacements for more comprehensive state monitoring efforts. The Ohio EPA, for
example, has a Five-year Basin Approach for systematically assessing stream and
river basins in Ohio through standardized, integrated, and rigorous ambient moni-
toring including biosurvey data.
The Ohio DNR, Scenic Rivers volunteer monitoring program conducts annual
stream quality assessments that are summarized in an annual report. The data are
transferred by diskette to Ohio ECOS, Ohio EPA's biological information database.
38
-------
1994 Ohio Water RCWHKC Inventory
Although U.S. EPA encourages the consideration of volunteer data in state moni-
toring networks and 305(b) reports, the information gained should be limited to
the screening of potential problems. This is especially true of the stream
mncroinvertebrate collection efforts because the methods include skill dependent
biological sampling, microhabitat selection and/or availability, and the identifica-
tion of biological samples. The use of volunteer data is likely to be less restrictive if
the efforts are limited to the collection of grab water samples or other compara-
tively simple measurements such as secchi depth. The Ohio CLIP lakes effort is an
example of such a program.
There is little information on the reliability and accuracy of volunteer collected
biological data over a broad range of environmental conditions f.e. exceptional to
very poor conditions). One recent effort in Ohio (Dilley 1991), compared the re-
sults from a volunteer biological sampling methodology (Ohio DNR, Scenic Rivers
SQM) with Ohio EPA's biological community data collected at the same sites. This
analysis represents a "best case" scenario because the SQM monitoring was per-
formed by a single, trained and skilled investigator $.e. between sampler variabil-
ity and individual operator errors were eliminated). The results indicated a fairly
good correspondence between the SQM results using CIV (Community Index Value)
scores and the Ohio IBI and ICI at the extremes of the environmental spectrum. "eS6 findings
The correspondence was generally good (better for the ICI) between the CIV fair P°*nt OUt aH *nner~
and poor categories and IBI/ICI values that did not attain the WWH criteria, and *M* *rait Ojquallta-
between the CIV exceptional category and IBI/ICI values that at least attained the tlV6 metnOdOlOgieS
WWH criteria. The correspondence was best between the CIV results and ICI where m ^ produce
the SQM effort was performed in a riffle. CIV scores in the good range, however/' ewer
corresponded to a wide range of IBI and ICI scores that both attained and failed to
attain the WWH criteria. Furthermore, it was not possible to consistently distin-
guish between WWH (good) and EWH (exceptional) attainment using the CIV alone. P
These findings point out an inherent trait of qualitative methodologies in that they
produce fewer data dimensions and hence less discriminatory power. While quali-
tative and narrative approaches have the ability to distinguish conditions at the
-------
I: Stimulant, SttttH*. tUhi Trcmia
extremes of the environmental spectrum (i.e. poor vs. exceptional), each lacks the
dimensional power to further distinguish the "in between" situations (Hilsenhoff
1991). This is not dissimilar to the findings of a comparison of qualitative, narra-
tive biocriteria and regional reference site derived numerical biocriteria. In this
comparison the narrative approach yielded erroneous results in 21-36% of the com-
parisons, with the error tendency being clearly towaidsunderestimating a problem
(Ohio EPA 1990c; Yoder 1991a). This particular analysis only points out the prob-
lems in the evaluation of the data, since the data set was generated by the same
standardized Ohio EPA methods. Volunteer approaches introduce another sig-
nificant source of error, sampling efficiency (includes both physical sampling ef-
fort and field identification of macro-invertebrate taixa). These types of problems
and biases are common to any method and should be accounted for up front The
Dilley (1991) study provided some important insights into the limitations that should
be placed on SQM type information. Further analysis of information from mul-
tiple field collectors (including less skilled volunteeirs) should be performed prior
to acceptance of this type of data as an evaluated level assessment. The primary
...the grea test purposes Of me Ohio DNR Stream Quality Monitoring program are; (1) to educate
interest... in USing ^4 generate interest in specific scenic rivers, and (2) to develop and maintain a
ai^JVl as a mom- base of information to evaluate long-term changes in stream and river quality. This
faring tool has been ^Q of data Should easily serve these purposes and provide Ohio EPA with useful
Shown by Selected indications of potentially emerging problems and whether high quality waters are
county Soil and bringthwtawi
Water Conserva-
tion Districts... To date^ the gj.eatest interest (outside of the Ohio DfJR Scenic Rivers program) in
using SQM as a monitoring tool has been shown by selected county Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD) in implementing and monitoring the progress and
results of Section 319 nonpoint source pollution abatement projects. This informa-
tion is a potential source of useful information when interpreted within the con-
straints of the methodology. Ohio EPA has agreed to accept this data for inclusion
in Ohio ECOS as a screening tool for nonpoint source assessments.
40
-------
O///D Wiitcr /\Ysoimv hnrntunt
Key (o Map 2-4
1 - UPPER .MAHONING RIVER
2 - LOWER MAHONING RIVER
3 - PYMATUNING CREEK
4 - LITTLE BEAVER CREEK
5 • CENTRAL TRIOS (YELLOW CREEK AND CROSS
CREEK)
6 - CENTRAL TRIBS (SHORT CREEK AND WHEELING
CR.)
7 - CENTRALTRIBS (MCMAHON, CAPTINA, SUN FISH
CR.)
8 - LITTLE MUSKINGUM RIVER
9-DUCK CREEK
10 - UPPER TUSCARAWAS RIVER
11 - NIMISHILLEN CREEK;
12-CONOTTON CREEK
13-SUGAR CREEK
14 - STILLWATER CREEK
IS - LOWER TUSCARAWAS RIVER
16 - BLACK FORK, CLEAR FORK, ROCKY FORK
MOHICAN R
17 - LAKE FORK, JEROME FORK, MUDDY FORK
MOHICAN R
18-KOKOSING RIVER
19-KILLBUCK CREEK
20 - UPPER MUSKINGUM RIVER AND WAKATOMIKA
CREEK
21-WILLS CREEK
22-LICKING RIVER
23 - MIDDLE MUSKINGUM RIVER
24 - LOWER MUSKINGUM RIVER
25 - UPPER HOCKING RIVER
26 - MIDDLE HOCKING RIVER
27 - LOWER HOCKING RIVER
28 - SE TRIBS (SHADE RIVER AND LEADING CREEK)
29 - SE TRIBS (LOWER RACCOON CREEK)
30 - SE TRIBS (UPPER RACCOON CREEK)
31 - SE TRIBS (LITTLE INDIAN GUYAN CREEK)
32 - SE TRIBS (SYMMES CREEK)
33 - SE TRIBS (LITTLE SCIOTO RIVER AND PINE
CREEK)
34 - UPPER SCIOTO RIVER (AND LITTLE SCIOTO
RIVER)
35 - SCIOTO RIVER (MILL CR.,BOKES CR., FULTON
CR.)
36 - UPPER OLENTANGY RIVER
37 - LOWER OLENTANGY RIVER
38 - BIG WALNUT CREEK
39-BIG DARBY CREEK
40-WALNUT CREEK;
41 - MIDDLE SCIOTO RIVER (INCLUDING DEER
CREEK)
42 UPPER PAINT CREEK
43 - LOWER PAINT CREEK (N. FK. AND ROCKY FK.)
44-SALT CREEK;
45 - SCIOTO RIVER (SUNFISH CR.,BEAVER CR.)
46 - LOWER SCIOTO RIVER (AND SCIOTO BRUSH
CREEK);
47 - SW TRIBS (EAGLE CREEK AND STRAIGHT CREEK)
48 - OHIO BRUSH CREEK
49 - SW TRIBS (WHITEOAK CR..INDIAN CR., BEAR CR.)
50 - UPPER LITTLE MIAMI RIVER
51-CAESAR CREEK
52-TODDFORK
53 - EAST FORK LITTLE MIAMI RIVER
54 - LOWER LITTLE MIAMI RIVER
55 - UPPER GREAT MIAMI RIVER
56-GREAT MIAMI RIVER AND LORAMIECREEK
57 - STILLWATER RIVER
58-MAD RIVER
59 - TWIN CREEK
60 - MIDDLE GREAT MIAMI RIVER
61-FOURMILE CREEK
62 - LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER AND
WHITEWATER R.
63 - WABASH RIVER
64 - ST. MARYS RIVER
65-ST. JOSEPH RIVER
66 - BLANCHARD RIVER
67 - LOWER AUGLAIZE RIVER
68-OTTAWA RIVER
69 - LITTLE AUGLAIZE RIVER
70 - UPPER AUGLAIZE RIVER;
71 - UPPER MAUMEE R. (INCLUDING GORDON
CREEK);
72-TIFFIN RIVER
73 - UPPER MIDDLE MAUMEE RIVER;
74 - LOWER MIDDLE MAUMEE RIVER
75 - LOWER MAUMEE RIVER (AND OTTAWA
RIVER)
76 - LAKE ERIE TRIBS MAUMEE R. TO PORTAGE
R.
77 - UPPER PORTAGE RIVER
78 - LOWER PORTAGE RIVER
79 - TYMOCHTEE CREEK
80 - UPPER SANDUSKY RIVER
81 - MIDDLE SANDUSKY RIVER
82 - LOWER SANDUSKY RIVER
83 - LAKE ERIE TRIBS SANDUSKY R. TO VERMIL-
ION R
84 - VERMILION RIVER
85 - HURON RIVER;
86-BLACK RIVER
87-ROCKY RIVER
88 - UPPER CUYAHOGA RIVER
89 - LOWER CUYAHOGA RIVER
90 - LAKE ERIE TRIBS (CHAGRIN RIVER)
91 - UPPER GRAND RIVER
92 - LOWER GRAND RIVERX
93 - ASHTABULA RIVER AND CONNEAUT
CREEK.
41
-------
Volume I: Summani, Status, and Trends
Map 2-4 Watersheds used for summarizing use attainment in Ohio.
42
-------
Ohio Water Kc
-------
\'<>lut>tc I: $uiniimn/, >Mfi/s, .niti Trends
22
I
04
i
16 05 12 21 20 13 19 15 03 07
///'/III,
/ / / / / I / ! '
. . I I .
18
I
/a a ..-——-
, \ J \i
? -\. i ^ > i N'
« ;l \MO
,f V^Q,
'- ^ Vh 1
I 10
— 09
Map 2-5. Streams and rivers of Ohio with drainage aieas > 100 sq mi.
44
-------
Oliitt IViifrr /u'soimv
Sources ami Causes of Impairment
Sources and causes of PARTIAL orNON-attainment were assigned by waterbody
segment as major (H), moderate (M), slight (S), or unverified potential impact (P) "Sources and causes
based on an integrated assessment of the available data and the interpretations of of PA R TIA L Of
the biologists and scientists who actually planned and conducted the field investi- NON attammeil t
gallons. Only causes and sources of impairment that arepresently apparent or exist Were assigned
are listed. Potential causes and sources, the effects of which are not currently being ...based Oil ail illte-
exhibited, are listed as a "P" (potential impact). As a surface water recovers with grated assessment Of
time; some of the potential causes may become evident and will be listed at that the available data
time with one of the standard (H, M, or S) codes. Most of Ohio's streams and rivers and the ill terpreta-
are affected by multiple sources and causes, and these tend to be "layered" on one tions Of the biolo-
another. Thus the reduction or elimination of one impact may reveal the presence gists and Scientists
of another underlying impact. wh° actually
planned and con-
The assignment of causes and sources in the Waterbody System (WBS) is necessar- ducted the field in-
ily broad in comparison to the detailed assessments contained in the Technical VestigationS.
Support Documents completed by Ohio EPA for each Five-year Basin study area.
The delineation of WBS segments frequently does not coincide with "boundaries"
of change in the ambient results. As such, the detailed information in these and
other Ohio EPA documents supersede the information reported here. However, it
is the analysis of the site specific information that provides the basis for the assign-
ment of causes and sources in the 305(b) report. Subbasin boundaries are refer-
enced in Map 2-4 and major streams (>100 sq. mi. drainage area) are illustrated in
Map 2-5.
45
-------
Volume 1: Sumtiiim/, Status, and Trends
Section 3
Designated Use Support
20000
— 5000
o
• a • • Total TJniwtV of SUMm
4 Rhttr MlM m OWo
-a—HIM ol SVMmind HIMK
AKMMM
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq mi)
10'
Figure 3-1. Total designated stream and river
miles in Ohio and the total str earn and
river miles assessed by drainage area
(measured at the downstream end of
a waterbody segment).
MI-
~$
•naumn a.
M.W7 » 2l.4»og(0nln>et AIM)
R*.o.«7
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (sq mi)
to4
Streams and Rivers
Aquatic life use support for this report is based on the
assessment of 8,337 miles of streams and rivers (Table 3-
,1). This is 28.6% of the 29,113 miles of perennial streams
miles or 13.5% of the 61,532 total stream miles in Ohio
estimated to exist in Ohio by the U.S. EPA (see Section 2).
Summary pie charts for all beneficial uses for rivers and
streams, inland lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, and Lake Erie
are arrayed at the end of this section in Figure 3-10. Al-
though our sampling stragegy is a focused rather than
probabilistic one, our coverage on larger rivers is exten-
sive (Figure 3-1 and 3-2). We have assessed 91% of rivers
of greater than 1,000 sq mile drainage and 50% of all streams
not considered headwaters (i.e., > 20 sq mi; Fig. 3-2). Thus,
concern with database biases related to extrapolation from
small sample sizes decreases with increasing stream size.
Figure 3-2. Proportion of designated stream
and river miles assessed in Ohio by
drainage area (measured at the
downstream end of a waterbody seg-
ment).
pre-1988
Stream and river surveys
in Ohio during the 1970s
and 1980s revealed wide-
uStream dnd TiveT sPread impairment from inadequately treated mu-
SUTVeys... revealed ^^P^ and industrial wastewater. Only 34.3% of
Widespread impair- streams and rivers fully supported aquatic life use
Went from inad- criteria based on monitoring data collected prior to
treated 1988 (Fig. 3-3). There has been a trend of improv- Figure 3-3. Full (open wedge), par-
*""**"" tial (hashed wedge), and nonsup-
and in- mg stream and river resource quality in Ohio since port (shaded wedge) of aquatic
life criteria in Ohio streams and
dllStrial WaStewa- the 1980s, however, largely as a result of improved rivers based on monitoring infor-
• - ' . . \ motion used in the 1988 305[b]
ter." treatment at WWTPs. Data collected during the late report.
46
-------
-------
Appendix G
Examples of 305(b) Wetlands Information
-------
-------
1994 Wisconsin Water Quality Report To Congress
Kewaunee County—Mapped Wetlands Two
Or More In Size*
WETLAND TYPE
Aquatics
Emergents
Scrub/Shrub, Deciduous
Scrub/Shrub, Coniferous
Forested, Deciduous
Forested, Conifereous
Open Water
Class Unknown***
TOTALS
1978 REPORTED
ACREAGE (Second Most
Recent Acreage)
20
1,261
710
22
5,389
92
22
24,411
31,927
MOST
RECENT
ACREAGE
(1989)
0
1,832
2,599
4
20.031
3,240
49
0
27,755
ACREAGE"
LOSS/GAIN
-20
571
1,889
-18
14,642
3,148
-27
•24,411
•4.172
PERCENT
CHANGE
•100
31
72
-81
73
97
55
•100
•13
Manltowoc County—Mapped Wetlands Two Acres Or More IB Size*
WETLAND TYPE
Aquatics
Emergents
Scrub/Shrub, Deciduous
Scrub/Shrub, Coniferous
Forested, Deciduous
Forested, Conifereous
Open Water
Class Unknown***
TOTALS
1978 REPORTED
ACREAGE (Second Most
Recent Acreage)
49
4,853
2,937
30
21,828
502
186
24,824
55,209
MOST
RECENT
ACREAGE
(1989)
0
7,811
6,635
25
30,072
3,932
393
0
48,868
ACREAGE"
LOSS/GAIN
•49
2,958
3,698
-5
8,244
3,430
207
-24,824
-6,341
PERCENT
CHANGE
•100
38
56
•17
27
87
53
•100
•11
* Wetland acreage estimates are based on the 1978 Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps and the 1989 map revi-
sions.
**Wetland acreage increases are due to improved aerial photography and interpretation techniques and rever-
sion of farmed wetlands back to wetland vegetation. Wetland acreage losses are due to improved aerial photogra-
phy and interpretation techniques and the draining or filling of areas mapped as wetland in 1978.
***The unknown class represents the acreage of large wetland complexes whose internal boundaries were too
detailed to digitize undertime and budget contraints imposed on the project.
202
-------
DRAFT
Tub!* D-5. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Campo Indian Reservation
Colorado
Connocticut
Coyote Tribe
Dataware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Hoops Tribe
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MIchieian
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nabraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Mew Jersey
Maw Mexico
New Yof k
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
*uarto Rico
3hoda Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
In Place
•2 a
| •§' .2 | 1 c
S ! s i s -S
1 * 5 * I |
«> .1 -y .1 .a &
D s 1 s I I
a> C c: c c *-•
vt to 3 a 3 c
•3 Z Z Z Z <
X ' X ' " X
X
i
X X' X
X X X X • X
X XX
XXX
XXX X
. . • •' .• • x
X XX
....
, X*
X
X
X XX
X XX
X
X XX
8 5 4 7 0 15
4/5/95
Under Development
•3 .s
•2 -S '.« .S 8 =
1 1 I 1 1 1
1 « * » * f
S > .s § .9 &
2 1 I- i I S
W OJ D <0 3 C
3 Z Z 2 2 <
• X •'•• . . .
X XX X
X
X
XXX
X X
X , .
X
• -..,...'•
(".'. XX X
X
X X
- "•••'- x
X ! X X X
x , , x
X
X XXX
"•' ••• x-- '•-'•'• ••' •• ' :
941 775
ProDOsed
•S «
' | * .2 i 1 c
1 1 1 | 1 1
! s -S 1 1 1
o tS- | S » -g
o fc E t E S
W tO 3 03 3 C
3 Z 2 Z Z «T
X X
X X
X ,
- X .
X X
x
"'••'•• ' ' ' • •
••' •• 'V x x •
. , X
••'- ;-•'—; •- .•'••.
20043 3
Source: 1994 Stato Section 305(b) Reports.
X - State reported program status.
* In-placa but revisions under development. Revisions include expanding coverage.
-------
DRAFT
Tabto D-B (continued)
State
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Coyote Tribe
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
-loops Tribe
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
-------
0)
E
I
J
(0
E
CO
I
X
05
tn
HI I
Illll
ds in the water quality
use classlcattons fon
re nondegradation star
from harmful or otherv
iditions resulting from
1 £ 1 1 8
I 1 Ml
a> c ^ 2 § .
c o> a > § n
1 1 -8 » 1 s
e>*3 III
P oT eo" a o w
W "O
m K >>%
If III.
ll 1111
radation standards to i
mitigation sequencing
igate).
es ch. 7050 defines w
are inundated or satu
ground water at a freq
t to support and that u
ll'^lsl
§ 5 •§
-------
0)
-------
.
ii
I
n
c
O
c
"(2
03
Q_
•D
IS
+-•
Bhensive We
Q
E
o
O
B
3
J3
0
CO
C
C
§
8"
O)
r-
0
-I"
->
_c
D>
"c
C
9
m
c
f\
mservatic
o
n
re wetland <
e comprehensiv
statewid
W
IE
D)
*ys
S
1
.52
OC
CD
ti
0)
'c
I
TJ
42
T3
«
^
**^
ources.
8
f wetland r<
management o
effective
ID
2
+2
&
CO
1
1
tf
iis planning effo
JL.
£
I
3
rt\
1
•v
O)
•o
iculated an
goals will be art
wetland <
S
_g
£
CO
(0
&
0>
CO
CD
D)
2
£
T3
CD
&
1
•o
CD
A
D>
'c
CD
Q.
«
£
.£
^2
1
_o
CO
0.
e
CD
decision
0
1
1
E
ntatives fro
include represe
process
I?
v* ._ s*
ill
s ? 1
O C (D
JK w E
W « S
c "5 o>
- ® «
o g
c c
o fe
— CD
> 5 o
S fe
-------
1
LL
dant on the rich invertebrate food source in wet-;
lands. One small reference wetland had over j
1 ,000 clam shrimp per sample, 23 taxa of beetles
and five species of young frogs. This productive'
but temporary wetland was dry by July. A signifi-(
cant relationship exists between the size of the \
wetlands and the amount of frog reproduction, wi^h
smaller sites having more tadpoles per sample ',
Jj-»2f> jar/igr w«}i!andS« ;
Present work involves determining 'guilds' or
groups of taxa that indicate the condition of the
habitat. There are some significant relationships
between crustaceans, mayflies and damselflies to
some water quality indicators. The diversity of the
sedge family may be another useful indicator. A
variety of indicators of wetland health including "hot
just invertebrates, but vegetation diversity and the
densities of amphibians is being evaluated. This
will lead toward the multimetric or several param-
eter approaches advocated by USEPA for
biological criteria.
S 3
%
111 |l^ll«
£| c |:?o 2 - o
O
CO U. T- a.
X*
i
1 « E
ass
CO (D CO
*S1
U
m
CO
TJ CD
S -2 f
* o 5
S CD ^
- g> -D
oj co c
55 CD W
CO
CO
^
I?
rs 05
— w
£ c
.5 O
co
g a I s f * i
«^
£ £
«
1
S * C N
D> ff O "E
co S 15 g>
HI |
E E -o £
||f
8 f -5
§ i 1
Cj ffl OT (0
Q) 2. CO 5=
CO
«| C
-------
-------
Appendix H
Examples of Basin-Level Assessment
Information
-------
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 117
Middle Gila River Basin
__ie Middle Gila River Basin (Map 18) encompasses
12,150 square miles, and includes the Phoenix
metropolitan area. Almost two-thirds of the State's
population resides in this basin. The historical land use
in the Middle Gila Basin was agricultural; however, hi the
metropolitan area agriculture has been displaced by 30
years of almost exponential population growth. Surface
water diversions hi the Gila River and the Salt River for
agricultural and urban uses have left the streambeds in the
Phoenix area dry. The basin also includes two Indian
Reservations, portions of two National Forests, and 11
designated Wilderness Areas. The basin receives limited
rainfall; therefore, surface water flow hi this basin is
primarily attributable to releases from upstream
impoundments, effluent fromwastewater treatment plants,
and/or agricultural return flows.
The Arizona Department of Health Services released a
human ; health risk report in 1991 entitled "Risk
Assessment for Recreational Usage of the Painted Rocks
Borrow Pit Lake at Gila Bend, Arizona". This report
indicated that a greater than acceptable lifetime cancer
risk could result from long-term consumption offish from
this impoundment and upstream along Gila River.
Jpecifically, ADHS found that there would be a greater
'than a one-in-a-million lifetime (70-year) risk of cancer
associated with DDT metabolite ingestion by eating (8
ounce portions) 3.5 meals per month, and methylmercury
toxicity would be expected to occur at a consumption
level approaching eight meals per month. As a result, a
fish consumption advisory was issued on October 3,1991,
warning people not to eat fish, turtles, crayfish or other
aquatic organisms from portions of the Salt, Hassayampa,
and Gila rivers (the Gila River between the confluence
with the Salt River to Painted Rocks Lake, the
Hassayampa River near its mouth, and the Salt River
below the 23rd Ave in Phoenix). Camping, boating,
fishing, other recreational uses and public access have
been prohibited since the Painted Rocks Lake State Park
was closed hi January, 1989. Management of the area
has reverted back to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Land Management through actions by
the State Parks Board. These two federal agencies are
considering proposals to reopen the lake facilities to the
public.
Sediment borings from the Gila River were tested for
organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals as part of a
Painted Rocks Lake diagnostic/feasibility study by the
Clean Lakes Program (The Earth Technology
Corporation, 1993). Results indicted that the continued
loading of DDT metabolites, toxaphene, and mercury can
be expected from the watershed. A disparity between
high biota contaminant concentrations and low sediment
concentrations suggests that the food web acts as a
filtering mechanism for the removal and concentration of
toxic lipidophilic contaminants (DDT metabolites,
toxaphene, and mercury). Extensive agricultural area in
the watershed is the assumed source for the DDT
metabolites and toxaphene, while the potential sources of
mercury contamination include the watershed's natural
geology, mining activities (historic use of mercury to
leach precious metals), landfills, and treated sewage
effluent. Several restoration techniques were proposed to
mitigate the eutrophic conditions at the lake; however,
these proposals were costly and would not resolve the on-
going pesticide loading from the watershed.
The USFWS has begun collecting fish and predatory birds
along the lower Salt and Gila Rivers (from 59th Avenue
in Phoenix to the Colorado River) and will be testing their
tissues for organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals.
This is a follow up to the extensive monitoring completed
by the USFWS in this area in 1985-1986. In the present
study sediment samples will not be collected because they
were not a reliable indicator of the level of contamination
in resident wildlife. USFWS is also attempting to collect
soft-shelled turtles for comparison to previous collections,
but has so far been unsuccessful.
Two projects provided information concerning the existing
level of contamination by organochlorine pesticides in
agricultural fields, a source of aquatic contamination hi
this watershed. In one project samples were collected
along the edge of cultivated fields, adjacent to roadway
shoulders (SCS Engineers, 1991). Any residues of
organochlorine pesticides in these locations would
represent the results of overspray, rather than direct
application. Varying degrees of soil disturbance due to
road grading and field plowing were observed, and areas
where disturbed soils appeared to have originated from
road grading activities were avoided. Also areas where
significant runoff or irrigation water accumulated were
avoided. Soil samples collected at approximately 6 niches
below ground surface indicated extensive residual
pesticide contamination in these areas, and that human
consumption of the soil is probably not advisable. A
summary of these soil sample results and the USFWS
sediment sample results are indicated in the following
table:
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 118
PESTICIDE
DDT METABOLITES
TOXAPHENE
TOTAL PESTICIDES
RANGE IN SOIL*
(rag/kg)
0.07-5.13
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 119
away, thousands of tons of debris being swept into the
Ifloodwaters, to be deposited along the Salt and Gila rivers
shorelines for more than 100 miles. EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers have been working with the Tribal
government to mitigate these problems (the State lacks
jurisdiction). Currently, a portion of the landfill is being
moved out of the floodplain. The part that will remain
must be protected from future floods and natural shifts in
the river channel.
During the January 1993 record breaking floods,
ASARCO Hayden Tailings discharged approximately
220,000 cubic yards of tailings into the Gila River.
Tailing deposits along the banks were documented, and
voluntary actions to remediate were initiated, however,
the tailings have now spread out to such an extent that
remediation may not be possible. Also during this flood,
Black Canyon City Auto Parts discovered that keeping
salvage cars in the Squaw Creek floodplain can lead to an
annoying "distribution of assets", as the vehicles were
swept down into the Agua Fria River. The owner has
removed them from the streambed, but deposited them on
State Land without permission. Further enforcement
action is still pending.
Portions of the federal Superfund site located at Phoenix's
19th Avenue Landfill are located within the 100-year
floodplain of the Salt River. Flooding in 1979 raised the
water table, filled several disposal pits, breached several
dikes, and washed refuse into the river. Refuse in the
landfill contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
pesticides; the soil contains VOCs, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides; the groundwater
contains VOCs, heavy metals, and beta radiation; and
excessive methane gas is being produced. Earthen benns
have been constructed to mitigate further surface water
contamination. Cleanup of this site is to begin as soon as
the design phase is completed (EPA, Sept. 1990a).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated a feasibility
study, known as Tres Rios, for seven miles of the Salt
and Gila rivers below the 91st Avenue Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The project would create an artificial
wetland to provide additional treatment of secondary
treated effluent from the plant.
Surface water (McKellips Lake) within the Indian Bend
Wash federal Superfund site is contaminated by VOCs.
In this 12 square mile Superfund site, VOCs, cyanide,
acids, and heavy metals from several industrial facilities
have contaminated the soils. Groundwater is
contaminated with VOCs, boron, methane, chloroform,
lead and zinc. Further studies are taking place and
cleanup activities are planned (EPA, 1990a).
Results from a cooperative monitoring station on the Gila
River within the Gila River Indian Community .is
indicated in the basin, discussion for information purposes.
This section of the Gila River was not assessed. Total
dissolved solids exceed 1000 mg/1 on the Gila River
below San Carlos Reservoir. At a downstream
monitoring station, near the Gila River Indian
Community, TDS tanged between 7160-9090 mg/1 in
1990. Elevated salts; and high boron are attributed to the
agricultural return flows from Broadacres Farm on the
Gila Indian Reservation. Broadacres Farm utilizes City
of Chandler effluent and shallow saline groundwater to
irrigate saline soils. The high levels of TDS did not
affect the assessment of this reach, because it is not
protected for Agricultural Irrigation or Domestic Water
Source uses; nonetheless, this contamination may
contribute to downstream irrigation limitations.
The Gibson Mine, wliich is located on a ridge near Globe,
Arizona, has documented surface water violations in two
watersheds: Salt River Basin and Middle Gila River
Basin. The mine produced high grade copper ore
between 1906-1918,, until the underground workings
apparently collapsed.. Since then the mine has been
operated sporadically to produce copper from the ore
dumps. In response to a complaint in 1990, samples
taken along Mineral Creek and its tributary revealed that
designated uses were impaired by cadmium, copper, zinc,
manganese and low pH. (See also the Gibson Mine
discussion in the Salt River Basin.) In 1993, the Attorney
General entered into a consent decree with the chief
lessee, requiring engineering studies in preparation for
remediation actions. Engineering studies have been
completed, reviewed, and approved. However,
subsequently the operation was discontinued, and there
have been insufficient funds to initiate remediation actions
as approved. Owners were also found to be responsible
for certain discharge:; and the Attorney General's Office
has given the owners a Notice of Violation. Negotiations
are in progress with the owners.
The Ray Mine is also located on Mineral Creek, and has
numerous documented water quality violations below the
mine. The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing an
enforcement order by EPA through its NPDES permit.
Complaints of a green stream in Queen Creek revealed
that a culvert had become plugged, backing water up
behind a railroad embankment that contained copper ore.
Magma Copper quickly resolved this problem upon
notification, investigated further, and corrected similar
situations at other locations along the creek.
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 120
At the McCabe-Gladstone Mine a seeping tailings pond
was discovered to be contaminating groundwater and
surface water with cyanide. A notification of ownership
change stimulated an investigation of the operation
through the Aquifer Protection Permit Program. This
mine is located in the Agua Fria drainage on an unnamed
tributary to Galena Gulch. As a condition of sale to
Magma Gold in 1992, Magma has completed a
hydrogeologic study below the tailings pond, and is to
remediate the existing water quality problems.
Meanwhile, Magma restarted the mining operations
without using additional cyanide. Enforcement action is
pending, based on remediation actions taken by Magma.
The Vulture Mill site near the Hassayampa River in
Wickenburg was investigated by ADEQ in 1992 and
1993, following the death of one colt. Although toxic
poisoning of the colt could not be proven, surface water
ponding at the site was heavily contaminated with heavy
metals. Subsequently, hogs have been removed from
contact with tailings. Water drainage has been captured
and the animal waste lagoon, which had contained
excessive levels of mercury, lead and other heavy metals,
has dried up. Currently, only low level groundwater
contamination is detected on site. The owner has initiated
arrangements to have the tailings processed if they contain
sufficient amounts of gold.
Investigations in 1990 at Zonia Mine, near the headwaters
to the Hassayampa River, revealed contamination of
surface water with cadmium, copper, manganese,
mercury, zinc, and TDS, and a low pH. EPA issued a
Findings in Violation order against the owner in 1991.
The owner has leased the mine to Arimetco Mining Co,
which has completed substantial remediation activities to
eliminate leaks at the leach basins. A hydrogeological
study of the area was completed in 1993, which is
currently under review by EPA and ADEQ. Arimetco
plans to restart the mining operations under an Aquifer
Protection Permit. Enforcement action against the owner
has been halted by EPA as remediation actions continue.
Abandoned mines have contaminated groundwater, surface
water and stream sediments at several other sites in this
watershed. For example:
• The abandoned Maricopa Mine along Cave
Creek has discharged ore and tailings into this
ephemeral wash, as evidenced by elevated
chromium and lead in sediment samples.
• Surface water monitoring along Turkey Creek (a
tributary of the Agua Fria River) at Golden Belt
Mine exhibited contamination by arsenic,
cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead and mercury.
• In the Agua Fria River headwaters: copper and1
mercury violations occur near Arizona Victory
Mine, copper and zinc violations occur at Walker
Mine, mercury violations occur at Knapp Gulch,
copper violations occur at Transcendent Mine.
• Below the Holiday Girl Mine (Hassayampa River
headwaters) mercury exceeds standards and
dissolved oxygen is below required levels.
• Monitoring below the Senator and Cash mines in
the Hassayampa River Basin indicate violations
of cadmium, copper, zinc, and low pH values.
• Turbidity violations occur below Wagoner Mine.
Prior reports of groundwater and soil contamination with
VOCs at Luke Air Force Base (near the Agua Fria River)
have been extensively investigated. In 1993, a "record of
decision" indicated that all eight soil sites had levels of
contamination above the detection level but below "action
levels" for remediation. The Air Force Base has decided
to bio-remediate one site to eliminate any potential that
contamination could spread onto adjacent private land.
The investigation of groundwater contamination continues,
but preliminary data indicate that contamination may be
below "action levels" for remediation. A record of
decision concerning groundwater contamination is to be
completed in 1996.
Luke Air Force Base has also been hi non-compliance
with the NPDES permit for many years. In the summer
of 1994 Luke will complete the construction of a six
million dollar tertiary wastewater treatment plant. Initial
testing indicates that the effluent will be better than
surface water standards and permit requirements.
There have been documented violations of surface water
quality from National Metals in Phoenix due to
precipitation runoff. The runoff flows to a ditch, which
discharges to the Salt River at about 31st Avenue in
Phoenix. Enforcement and mitigation actions are hi
progress.
ADEQ's annual water compliance report has indicated
that several NPDES permits in this basin have chronically
been in non-compliance (see Appendix C for current
compliance). Toxic monitoring in the Salt River by the
City of Phoenix (April 1987-1989) indicated several toxics
that exceeded water quality standards. However, since
completion of this monitoring, a progressive pretreatment
program has been established that should mitigate toxic
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PACE 121
discharges. Therefore, this monitoring data was not used
•:- this assessment.
The USD A is coordinating two projects: one in West
Maricopa Hydrologic Unit Area and the other in the Casa
Grande-Coolidge area. The purpose is to evaluate the
impact of agricultural practices on groundwater quality
and to assist local agricultural clientele with
implementation of Best Management Practices to minimise
potential for groundwater degradation. These projects are
a cooperative effort between the Soil Conservation
Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, Cooperative Extension Service, Arizona
Department of Water Resources, Natural Resource
Conservation Districts, and local producers.
In the Queen Creek and Eloy areas (New Magma and
Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage Districts), the
Soil Conservation Service is providing accelerated
technical and financial assistance to improve on-farm
chemical handling facilities and irrigation systems which
reduce deep percolation and runoff. The Soil
Conservation Service is cooperating on this project with
Natural Resource Conservation Districts, local Irrigation
and Drainage Districts, and ADWR in implementing land
treatment projects to address water quality and quantity
mcems. A similar land treatment project is in the
anning stage for the Hohokam Irrigation District.
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE '122
7 A / " ^
/ / -•*-—-'
s
•a
n
M
I
2
_«
5
00 :
a
C3
t
4):
"§,
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 123
Table 22. Middle Gila River Basin 1994 Assessment Statistics
STREAMS
Total Miles Assessed (72 reaches)
Full Support
Threatened
Partial Support
Non-support
Top Stressors/Causes
Metals
Salinity/TDS
Turbidity
Suspended solids
Pathogens
Dissolved oxygen
Pesticides
Top Sources
Agricultural activities
Natural
IHydromodification
Major/Minor municipal
Landfills
Urban runoff
Resource extraction
Major/Minor industrial
Stream Miles in Basin
Perennial
Non-perennial
On Indian Lands
Not Indian Lands
1,006
171
189
260
386
(miles impacted)
465
214
212
165
135
126
118
(miles impacted)
430
300
272
237
124
112
92
99
Total: 14,164
206
13,958
911
13,253
LAKES
Total Acres Assessed! (7 lakes)
Full Support
Threatened
Partial Support
Non-support
Top Stressors/Causes
Metals
Pesticides
Salinity/TDS
Dissolved oxygen
Other habitai: alterations
Top Sources
Agricultural activities
Natural
Hydromodification
Major/Minor industrial
Major/Minor municipal
Landfills
Lake Acres in Basin
Perennial
Non-perenniid
On Indian Lxtnds
Not Indian Lands
1,841
14
62
1,565
200
(acres impacted)
1,541
200
200
200
200
(acres impacted)
1,740
1,541
255
200
200
200
Total: 63,253
60,203
3,050
725
62,528
Miles and acres have been rounded to nearest whole number.
TDS - total dissolved solids.
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 124
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
£
W p
§ |
K
II
jjjfe
HI
I'l
._ *
.z
^E
^ S
0 X
§
P
£
Evaluation based on upstream and downstream monitoring (AZ15050100-008)
and(AZ15040005-011). NPDES permit at Coolidge dam: full compliance.
,3
S
z
ttl
NO
•5.
•c
o 9
9 S
CS f&
0 0 £
§«<3
N •!= ra
< O Co
Evaluation based on upstream and downstream monitoring (AZ15050100-008)
and (AZ15040005-011 in Upper Gila River Basin). NPDES permit for AZ
Dept of Correction Eyman facility: non-support due to amrnonia, nitrogen,
mercury, copper, silver, cadmium, and lead.
§
Z
.
w-3
S
£
o\ c
O <3
^> CS3
S . S.
S 0 ^.
8 5 '5. '
B.-S-B1
< o o
ADEQ Ray Mine Investigation 1990, 3 sites: non-support A&Ww, FBC due to
copper, and turbidity; partial support Agl, FC due to arsenic and TDS. USGS
station 1989,1 sample: partial support A&Ww, FBC, due to turbidity. 2
NPDES permits: 1) Winkleman POTW: non-support A&Ww due to phosphate,
2) Kearny POTW: full support.
g
Z
-
w
CO
i*
O
oo S
s 1
S .2
5 S 2
§11
ADEQ (Ray Mine Inv.) 1990, 4 samples: non-support A&Ww, FBC, and AgL
due to copper and turbidity, partial support FC, A&Ww, and Agl due to TDS,
arsenic, and copper. Evaluation of persistence based on upstream monitoring
(AZ15050100-008).
B
O
Z
*
w
S
>
.£>
I** C5
5 o
s .3
3 o 0
B.-3-S
< o 2
Evaluation based on upstream monitoring (AZ15050100-007) and
(AZ15050100-008).
§
Z
z
W
cs
1
o
S J
S . ^
O 0 ^
851
< b <§
ADEQ (Ray Mine Inv.) 1990, 1 sample: partial support FC due to arsenic. 2
NPDES permits: AZ Sierra WTP and Florence POTW: non-support due to
ammonia, chlorine, mercury, and sulfide. Reach has 4 sets of designated uses:
Box-O Wash to Ashurst-Hayden Dam (2.3 miles A&Ww, FBC, FC, Agl,
AgL); Ashurst-Hayden Dam to Florence POTW (2.4 miles-drop Agl); Florence
POTW to Feliz Rd (approx 5 miles A&Wedw, PBC, AgL); below EDW to
Queen Creek (44.8 miles A&Ww, PBC, AgL). Evaluation of turbidity and
sedimentation problems based on upstream sampling (AZ15050100-007).
S 0
S.Z
^p vO
S 2
z
a
* "' "
.X
a
e
en «
8 o1
S A
o « S
i « o
N 5 g
< o «
Indian Lands: not assessed. ADEQ (upstream of Salt), 11 samples: would be
non-support due to DO, turbidity. (Boron 1460-1860 mg/I, Se, SO3, and TDS
high.) See AZ15070101-003.
<
Z
2
£
0 g
8 - ?N
o « g
*" °^ a
< 5 o?
ADEQ fixed station 1990-91, 14 samples: partial support FC due to mercury.
Threat of FC due to arsenic and beryllium exceeding standards once (in other
samples lab detection level too high). FWS/ADEQ monitoring 1980-1990
indicated fish and turtle contaminadon by DDT metabolites and toxaphene;
sediment contamination by DDT metabolites. 1992 and 1993 spring flood
erosion of the Tri-Ciry Landfill resulted in debris in water and along stream
banks (narrative violations).
e
Z
y
"* /-
£
U~
'9 §
S . <:
' S 0 o
§2 S
§ii
o«
I
I
s
5
5
I
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 125
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
ii
TROPHIC
STATUS
HI
H
> o
H
1
Z
N
u
1
S
Evaluation based on upstream and downstream monitoring (AZ15070101-007)
and (AZ15070101-015). Erosion of the Tri-City Landfill resulted in debris in
water and deposited on stream bank. (Still cleaning up)
e
o
Z
-
W
2
a
? I
O ,ff
§ N
§2^
< 5 <
Evaluation based on upstream and downstream monitoring (AZ15070101-007)
and (AZ15070101-015). ADEQ Clean Lakes Program 1992, 1 deep sediment
boring indicated sediment contamination with DDT metabolite below detection
limit. Buckeye POTW: non-support due to boron, arsenic, mercury, copper
and silver.
e . .
0
Z
-
W
2
«
1*
1
rr i
2 w-
o S g
S S g
< 5 ^
Evaluation based on upstream and downstream monitoring (AZ15070101-007)
and (AZ15070101-015). ADEQ Clean Lakes Program 1992, deep sediment
borings did not indicate sediment contamination.
e
o
Z
*.
U -
-N
9
o
i 1
° - §,
|3 « s
S 2 §"
III
ADEQ Clean Lakes Program 1 sediment deep boring detected DDT metabolites
contamination. Evaluation based on fish and turtle contamination and
downstream water monitoring (AZ15070101-007). Erosion of Tri-City Landfill
resulted in floating material and debris deposits on stream bank.
e
0
Z
>•
W
o
^
'i
«j
i S
2 ..-9
&'£ o
ill
USGS station at Gillespie Dam 1989-93, 60 samples: Non-support A&Wedw
due to Fecal coliform. Partial support FC, Agl, A&Wedw, Agl due to arsenic,
boron, TDS, and turbidity. FWS/ADEQ monitoring water, fish, and sediment
1980-1990 revealed fish & turtle contamination by DDT metabolites and
toxaphene in the Gila River between the Salt River and Painted Rocks Lake
(Borrow Pit). DDT metabolites were also detected in the sediment. ADEQ
Clean Lakes program sediment borings in 1992 indicated DDT metabolites
contamination. Fish advisory in place since 1991 ADHS risk assessment.
Erosion of Tri-City Landfill (located in Salt River floodplain) debris coated
banks and filled stream with debris during 1993 floods.
'e
o
Z
>•
S
»
?
o
i i
O . '
R S •§
"1
° '& *"
III
o
u
I
I
a
I
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 126
I
u
&
01
8
si
I
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
I
i!
S
0 to
III
\.\
w S
N
I
Q O
1
FWS/ADEQ monitoring water, fish, and sediment 1980-1990 revealed fish &
turtle contamination by DDT metabolites and toxaphene in the Gila River
between the Salt River and Painted Rocks Lake (Borrow Pit). DDT
metabolites were also detected in the sediment. ADEQ Clean Lakes program
sediment borings in 1992 indicated DDT metabolites contamination at or below
detection limit. Upstream water monitoring revealed impairment (see AZ
15070101-007). Fish ban in place since 1991 ADHS risk assessment due to
DDT metabolites, toxaphene, chlordane, dieldrin, and mercury. The 1993
inundation of Tri-City Landfill with flood waters left debris coating banks and
filled stream with debris (much debris still present). Evaluation also based on
upstream monitoring at Gillespie Dam (AZ15070101-007).
g
2
>
S
o\
•3
S
S 1
O . £*
ill
§11
ADEQ complaint investigation (WQMS 212.251) 1992, 9 sites water samples
and 1 sediment: non-support of A&Ww due to copper and sulfide. ADEQ
investigations of 2 mines (Ray Mine and Gibson Mine) 1990-1992:
non-support A&Ww, FBC, AgL due to copper, zinc, and pH (low); threat
support of FC due to arsenic and beryllium. ADEQ fixed station 1993, 11
samples: non-support A&Ww due to copper. EPA sample (Copper Mines
Initiative) on tributary in 1992: partial support FC and FBC due to beryllium.
ADEQ priority pollutant monitoring of fish and sediment: arsenic and beryllium
above Health Based Guidance Levels (ADHS. 1992) for human ingestion of
sediment.
g
2
*
E
f-
^
0 ,.• u
il-i
^3 ^J ^2
111
Insufficient data to assess stream. NPDES permit Cyprus/Miami Mine at
Christmas: full compliance.
.
2 !
2
-
4
«
_ >
AZ15050100-01
Dripping Spring
hdwt-Gila River
BLM monitoring 1990-93, 3 samples: partial support of FBC, A&Ww, Agl,
AgL due to fecal coliform.
"«
I
S, -
z
to
o\
S
IAZ15050100-01
Mescal Creek
3 NPDES permits. Magma Superior and Superior Sanitary Dist: full
compliance. Queen Valley Sanitary Dist.: non-support due to chlorine, fecal
coliform, suspended solids, and settlable solids.
e
o
2
2
W
—
e
o
AZ15050100-01
Queen Creek,
hdwt-Witlow Ca
ADEQ investigation 1993, 2 sites: full support. 3 NPDES permits: Mining
Camp Restaurant and Roadhaven R.V. Park in full compliance; Williams Air
Force Base on tributary non-support due to zinc, mercury and bioassay.
*«
^
2
W
3
- P
u
IAZ15050100-01
Queen Creek,
Willow Canyon
ADEQ priority pollutant monitoring 1992 fish and sediment: no exceedance of
Health Based Guidance Level (ADHS, 1992) or EPA fish criteria.
B,
2
«'
2
9
AZ15050100-OC
Weekes Wash
-------
MIDDLE G£LA RIVER BASIN
PAGE /27
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
si
%
*
ii
Hi
I'l
H
tH
I
1
IWATERBGDYID,
LOCATION
S S -S a 5' .. *
the Phoenix metro area. ADEQ monitoring stati
ii-support A&Wedw due to mercury, partial suppc
e to pH. Tri-City Landfill eroded into Salt River
rt of all uses (narrative standards). NPDES permi
id Ave, Tempe POTW's, and W. Cotton Service
5 water: AMERON Inc (settlable solids), Phoeni;
coliform, suspended solids), Tolleson (chlorine,
and Union Rock and Material (dichloroethene).
sediment monitoring (1980-1990) indicates seriou
etabolites and toxaphene. Fish advisory/ban belo
xaphene, chlordane, dieldrin, and mercury.
.J,§4j |8!f £| =J
§ sf "S 'i, * M " °° > '| J
Illlfllllli
-
-
9
v.
§ I
ll-l
ill
20 samples: TDS threat to DWS. ADEQ priorit
! (fish and sediment): no criteria were exceeded.
s?|
ON 60
2.S
SRP monitoring
pollutant monitor
«
'
z •
W
o
i
s -s
IAZ15060106-0010FF
Arizona Canal,
Granite Reef Dam-Sku
c "
1
S,
a
g
BO
1
o.
B3
5
£
'
z
a ^
*
t*
O
AZ15060106-0010FF
Grand Canal,
Crosscut Cnl-New Riv
20 samples: mean of TDS exceeds secondary
partial support DWS.
||
^h C
SRP monitoring
drinking water si
•a'
tJ
£
z
u
"
I
m
.•s
i
IAZ15060106-001OFF
Southern Canal,
Granite Reef Dam-Cor
c
8 samples (few parameters): DWS partial suppo
exceeding secondary drinking water standards.
S?Q
£P
o\ -o
SRP monitoring
due to chloride a
3
c
£
z
w
s
AZ15060106-0010FF
Consolidated Canal,
Southern-Superstition
^ s
iitant monitoring of fish and sediment: beryllium
t over Health Based Guidance Level (ADHS, 199
16 samples: TDS exceeds secondary drinking w
III
•c " *
ADEQ 1993 prio
contamination of
SRP monitoring
standards.
—
•e
£ -
2 i
U I
o\
AZ15060106-001OFF
Tempe Canal,
CoiiMmiiaicu-Wc.sicni
20 samples: full support.
I
9>
SRP monitoring
=
>2
z
u •,
2
.
AZ15060106-001OFF
Western Canal,
Tempe Canal-43rd Av<
Phx
o
1
i
c/i
«
i
1
SRP monitoring 1
- —
(2
z
«'.
o
g
IAZ15060106-0010FF
Eastern Canal, .
Southern Cnl-Superstit
2
i
1
jj
&
-------
MIDDLE GEA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 128
CQ
u,
I
C3
•s
I
s
8
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
«P
w S
s
0 w
o <
lil
!•!
1 i
.
W gj* m
1°1
A
1
is «
5-g.s
jlluiant monitoring 1993 (fish and sediment): beryllium
dance Level (ADHS, 1992) in sediment. ADEQ compli
): mercury would exceed FC level (not a protected use
taken as it entered Salt River).
o S •§.
'i"s s 1
'III 3
H 1 1 4
Q o > ra
< K .S -a
5^
u.
z
m
m
AZ15060106-001TD
Tempe Drain.
hdwt-Salt River
1
•g «
on 1992-93, 6 samples: full support. USFS/ADEQ
toring 1991, 3 samples: full support. ADEQ/Kleinfeldei
>n @ Maricopa Mine: sediment contamination by lead a
nination threatens A&Ww. Agl, AgL uses. Spur Cross
full compliance.
1 1 1 i £
•o ^ 'f? 8 I
|ll.ll
< o cn N 2
^
£J
p
z
ta
o
AZ1S060106-026
Cave Creek,
hdwt-Arizona Canal
on downstream monitoring (AZ15070102-023).
1
Evaluation
™
u.
Z
w
c*»
AZ15070102-032
Agua Fria River,
hdwt-Lynx Creek
.5
to u
on upstream and downstream monitoring. NPDES perm
Soft Winds Mobile Home Park & Magma Copper McCa
" 8
S s
Evaluation
full compli
Mine.
_
•K
B,
Z
a
VO
^
AZ15070102-031
Agua Fria River,
Lynx Creek- Yarber Wa
on downstream monitoring (AZ15070102-19) and
3) and upstream on Lynx Creek (AZ15070102-033).
•gg
Jo o
Evaluation
(AZ15070
•a
t£
6.
Z
ta
m
AZ15070102-029
Agua Fria River,
Yarber Wash-Ash Cree
E
§
on downstream monitoring (AZ15070102-023) and upst
3).
!?
Evaluation
(AZ15070
•a
C
PU
Z
a
_
IAZ15070102-025
Agua Fria River,
Ash Creek-Sycamore C
««
5 I
1993, 1 sample: partial support FBC. A&Ww, DWS, /
coliform source probably open range grazing. ADEQ
lys/chem monitoring) 1 sample: full support. Evaluatio
2 due to arsenic based on upstream and downstream
election levels at these sites 3 times the standard).
g>-« &tt. 2
I ^ % I. ^
*J OQ O Is O
ffl < 3 c. E
is
e
0.
Z
W
o
U
gf,
AZ15070102-023
Agua Fria River,
Sycamore Creek-Big Bi
8
S
on upstream monitoring (AZ15070101-023) and in tribu
1
5
Evaluation
is
ft,
z
(I]
_
r i
AZ15070102-022
Agua Fria River,
Big Bug Creek-Squaw <
on downstream monitoring (AZ13070102-019).
1
S
Evaluation
3
c
0.
z
2
en
S
o
AZ15070102-020
Agua Fria River,
Squaw Ck.-Black Cany
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 129
S
I
T 7. H a 2J «S
o\ A H eo 2 —
oo 2 ° '= o
2 Q g Jg M o
iiiifi
skills
mm
c2|<.yf-
i §
II]
atH*
** i 5 3
-a-silS
ifJl-S
i bti
Illfl
ii;p"
jisr*
8§"
•s
C3
arsenic
i
IS^
IS s
a o. a
e
0
Z
1 f
5 "3
SI
•a a.
§ |
U oo
n <
3
C
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 130
' BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
ii
I
^ ?s
ill
Si|
> 9
M X
1-1
IWATERBODY ID, NAME,
LOCATION
1 t=i
ADEQ priority pollutant monitoring (fish and sediment): sediment
contamination with arsenic, lead, and beryllium exceeding HBGLs (AD
1992). USFS/ADEQ monitoring 1991, 2 samples: full support. Presc
Forest abandoned mine survey 1990, 5 sites: full support. ADEQ com
investigation (water and soil): full compliance (arsenic would be high 1
consumption). 3 of 4 NPDES permits in full compliance. Only Village
Lynx Creek in non-suppon A&Ww due to excess chlorine.
l
£
Z
w
2
AZ15070102-033
Lynx Creek,
hdwt-Agua Fria River
Prescon National Forest abandoned mines survey 1990: full suppon.
i
z
W
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 131
8
'I-i
!
,u
•rt u J,
ill
'=
*«3
• —
L*
£
e
?•;!
it-
p
-------
MIDDLE GLLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 132
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
g
II
III
w ^i
|sf
5 i
.
tu g^ w
l°l
i
.z
WATERBODY1
LOCATI
ADEQ fixed stations above and below Senator Mine: full support above
(although threatened by metals and turbidity) and non-support of uses below
due to cadmium, copper pH, zinc, and turbidity; partial support due to lead.
ADEQ biocriteria site (phys/chem monitoring) and USFS site, 5 samples: fu
support. ADEQ priority pollutant sediment sample: arsenic, antimony,
beryllium, cadmium, lead, and zinc exceed HBGL for human ingestion of
sediments below Senator Mine. ADEQ monitoring in 1990 on unnamed wa
to McCleur Mine also indicates non-support due to heavy metals, low DO, a
low pH. ADEQ investigation Senator Mine 1993, 2 sites sampled twice:
non-support of most uses due to pH, Zinc, Copper and cadmium; sediment
samples: lead and aluminum exceed Health Based Guidance Levels (ADHS
1992). ADEQ investigation of Cash Mine on unnamed tributary 1990-1993
samples: non-support AgL, A&Ww, FBC due to cadmium, copper, pH, and
zinc.
|
*
w
a
^
. o
1 ll
all
••
Evaluation based on upstream monitoring (AZ15070103-007).
i
z
CD
-
•a
°.
. e
15070103-005
sayampa River
d Indian-Cotto
N a :s
< DC aa
ss
•.3
0 5
ADEQ station 1990-93, 23 samples: partial support FBC and A&Ww due t
turbidity (suspended solids). ADEQ WQARF investigation of Wickenburg 1
1991 set of 2 samples: full support.
.s
i
-
s
8
N
'c
.- a
15070103-004
sayampa River
tonwood Cr-M
N ea o
< S O
2
ADEQ investigation of Vulture Mill (WQMS 212.236) 1992, 6 sites:
non-support A&Ww, FBC, Agl, Agl due to ammonia, boron, cadmium,
copper, lead, manganese, mercury, fit (high), selenium; partial support due
turbidity.
i
-
ia
-
«
*
jfl
5312
•3
>
ADEQ station 1990-91, 10 samples: A&Ww non-support due to low dissol
oxygen; threat to FBC & A&Ww due to turbidity. ADEQ biocriteria site
(phys/chem monitoring) 1992-93, 2 samples: full support. ADEQ priority
pollutants fish and sediment: ok. 2 NPDES permits, bom full compliance.
Z
-
S
§
.•a
L? *S
15070103-002
.sayampa Rive
s Wash-Iackrat
3S3
ji >.
. *" f.
ADEQ Clean Lakes 1992 deep sediment borings: DDT metabolites present
Monitoring of fish and sediments 1980-1930 by FWS (and others) indicated
and soft shelled turtles contaminated by DDT and toxaphene (at levels that
should interfere with reproduction in some species), sediment contaminated
DDT metabolites. Fish ban since 1991 due to chlordane, dieldrin, ddt
metabolites, toxaphene, and mercury.
1
-
W
2
' |M
ft>
25S
93^
3 g/o
Hi
N <8 o
< X £
ADEQ biocriteria site (phys/chem monitoring) 1992-93. 2 samples: full
support.
1
z
ta
Z
•^
15070103-010
telope Creek,
-Martinez Cret
N e TI
« a
a
'a
I
o
jO
•3
•a
.s
1
_o
&
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 133
—
o
u
1
a
v .2 'C
a is &
o E So m.
s a .f a
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 134
S
I
o
I
.
o
ii
e
•-•
o
8
a -s -5 i
tlJfi
-------
-------
RIVERS - ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN
The Illinois River Basin is the most significant waterway in the state. The basin
covers a total of 29,010 square miles, 24,810 of which are in Illinois and the
remainder in Indiana and Wisconsin. It reaches from Lake Michigan to its
confluence with the Mississippi River near Grafton, Illinois (Figure 14). The Illinois
River is formed by the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers and is
divided into eight navigation pools by a series of locks and dams. Major streams
which comprise the Illinois River Basin include the Des Plaines River, Kankakee
River, Illinois River, Aux Sable River, Mazon River, Fox River, Vermilion River,
Bureau Creek, Mackinaw River, Spoon River, Sangamon River, LaMoine River,
McKee Creek, Mauvaise Terre Creek, Apple Creek, Macoupin Creek along with
numerous smaller tributaries. Four of these streams, the Des Plaines, Kankakee,
Fox and Sangamon Rivers are discussed as separate basins within this report.
A total of 2,886.9 stream miles in the Illinois River basin were assessed for overall
use support (Table 26). Assessments were based on both evaluated, 953.8 stream
miles (33.0%), and monitored, 1,933.1 stream miles (67.0%). Since overall use
support assessments were based on aquatic life use, (Table 26) the results are
discussed collectively. Overall use was rated as full support on 1,635.3 stream miles
(56.0%). Another 15.6 stream miles (0.5%) were rated as threatened. Partial
support with minor impairment occurred on 1,156.9 stream miles (40.1%) and 79.1
stream miles (2.7%) were rated as partial support with moderate impairment.
Table27 summarizes the causes and sources of less than full support. .-^
The fish consumption use was assessed on 488.3 stream miles in the Illinois River ™
basin (Table 26). Of these, 368.6 stream miles (75.5%) were rated as full use
support. The remaining 119.7 stream miles (24.5%) were not supporting the fish
consumption use due to advisories (Chapter 4). Of the 413.3 stream miles assessed
for swimming, 117.3 (28.4%) were rated as full use support (Table 26). Partial
support with moderate impairment occurred on 46.2 stream miles (11.2%). The
remaining 249.8 miles were not supporting the swimming use. The swimming use
did not apply to 570.1 stream miles due to disinfection exemptions. Drinking water
use (PWS = public water supply) was present on 95.8 stream miles in the Illinois
River basin (Table 26). Of these, 41.4 stream miles (43.2%) were rated as full use
support. Partial support with minor impairment occurred on 31.8 stream miles and
partial support with moderate impairment was present on 22.6 stream miles
(23.6%). The drinking water use was not applicable to 98.8 percent of the basin.
Illinois River
The Agency conducted an intensive survey of the Illinois River from Lockport (river
mile 292.0) to Pekin (river mile 153.0) in 1989-1990. Data on water quality
conditions were obtained at 19 mainstern stations and at seven major tributary
stations. Water samples were collected once a month from April to October for
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, nutrients, phenols,
cyanide and metals. Water samples for organochlorine pesticide and PCB analysis
were collected in May and October. Sediment samples were collected once at each
station for nutrients, metals and organochlorine compounds. Macroinvertebrate
64
-------
RIVERS - ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN
samples were collected at all stations in May/June and August using Hester Dendy
artificial substrates (four-week exposure period) or by hand-picking (tributaries),;
These data collection efforts were part of an interagency monitoring study of the;
Upper Illinois River. Other monitoring activities were conducted by MWRDGC,
Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois State Water Survey and Illinois Department
of Conservation. Assessment of the Illinois River was based on water quality,!
macroinvertebrate and sediment data (Appendix Table A-5).
Big Bureau CreeJk
Big Bureau Creek, located in north central Illinois, drains approximately 486 square
miles before emptying into the Illinois River near Bureau, Illinois. A total of 124.9
stream miles were assessed during a 1990 intensive survey. Of the total, 97.5 miles
(78.1%) were rated as full support. East Bureau Creek, 27.4 miles, and 9.5 miles',
of Big Bureau Creek were rated as partial support/minor impairment, mainly due to
elevated nutrient concentrations attributed to nonpoint agricultural sources.
Vermilion River
The Vermilion River (one of two in the state) is located in north central Illinois and
drains approximately 1,331 square miles in portions of Ford, LaSalle, Livingston and
Woodford counties. The river, which is approximately 76 miles long finally empties
into the Illinois River nearOglesby. The Vermilion flows in a northeasterly direction
and is formed by the confluence of its primary tributaries, the North and South Fork;
which drain 324 and 187 square miles respectively. There are five small dams on
the mainstem. Three of these dams are less than seven feet in height and serve as
a water supply for the city of Pontiac. The Streator dam is the highest at 30 feet and
also provides drinking water. The last dam is located at Oglesby and has been
partially breached over the years. Two AWQMN stations are located near Pontiac
and Leonore.
A total of 66 river miles were assessed on the Vermilion River. Of these, 45.5 miles
were rated as fully supporting uses. The remaining 25.5 miles were rated partial
support with minor impairment. Impaired reaches were limited to the water below
Pontiac, and above the supply dams at Streator and Pontiac. Causes of impairment
included dissolved oxygen, siltation and suspended solids. Sources of impairment
were primarily flow modifications, channelization and nonpoint runoff.
A total of 277.6 miles were assessed on fifteen tributaries to the Vermilion River. The1
majority of tributaries, 239.2 miles, were rated as fully supporting aquatic life uses.
The remaining 38.4 miles were rated as partially supporting designated aquatic life
uses. This included segments of Baker Creek, North Fork Vermilion River, Kelly
Creek and Murray Ditch. The primary causes of impairment were siltation and total
suspended solids due to channelization and nonpoint runoff.
The Vermilion River basin supports a small population of the greater redhorse
(Moxostoma valenciennesi) which was thought to have been extirpated from Illinois
and the river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) a state endangered species.
65
-------
M»«JWB-
fiS&ssM fiSiaeir is !iii<£atfedl inn lEiHutJ'reasSsffii Illihnsis afiTieil dhcBhrs appfiMJrnafel^i' S24
nnEsarWtanriis. Sssram sWimmswraresarmijsillasflf&in dim ihi
IfinBtSiiniffifflffWsneiiifflnlkRifflttaill*^^
ira tlfre Kiaann «otffi natel] as fiuill
Jiadk
ras.
fefi acKfl
radQffi4®-^
fraEia&iTEctfi ocGtarad: act 2S.5 s&sams cniEsis an: FraTrie aricfi fndsra Cteefea: TFEte
primary f^rtsga gf fess ffitara fill use stipparfi wece e&sfaf€Kfi feirfcsfil^ ami tmfcfeaE
canaen&affans atfrfEmtaEire to rarapaihti acpeu[taraE saufGKi ancti rnunfefpaf paraE
alsairnpacfedlusearrtfteseslreama.
Spoo
Tlie Spaora Rii/er fs lacated! iii west central! HIirrais and d'rai'nsj appraxfrnateiy/ f.SSS;
spare miltes before flfcwaiiig Fnfe ffie HIirrais Kister trortft cff K4awana\, nifnafs. Ifte
Spaarn Kken;, 1i2lJ ss&;^mcn railfes^, visas rafisdl as pantiall suppanfiiirrinfflr irrrpaJiiraenfi.
lite priraa!^ Gauise was elfeaafesdl tefeicli%, andl to a Ifcsser diegjsgi, r
pai13aISsi^para^
and!
snutfe off Beardfettiwrri, Illihrois.. TOe ILaMbi'rve Rlweir is 3SSB miles Ibng; and! ditaibs
GBsqpanerMlfe. l!^BndliaseBirit&
iidlsiaxiieaiiist&ed^
diaim of beef eaiBe aisdl Kras saafiafeintiall aGneagjB fttSiSSi dteaotied! tffi ijasfflaise.
kifi^ai!tdluift^ai^K(^^
siinfaee wafor ira tite ILaKifoine Riteer feasirn.
29® stisarau miles (pS8£)) wate rafedi fell! use support. Tiftis irrcludfedi t&e Ihweirtftree
ftmiitfts of tfre ILaMiaiiire Kisear BasTm. AppaxirraafelSjf 1i2S stteams ttrirES p»)} were
-------
siipps2ti$
Gnngarntc EsmiEiteisirit limn
H, IfIfinma. OTtftreflSSjIB
i raites sira ffte iManimiprni Ctedk Ikesim,, 1111 unites (p.®%)) WHTE nstBd as Ml
&£iJ(!tfMDj^ vBiditts ito^bsEyi ^s jpontiisil smipipinnlKfinnnitiiir iiniviiJj^iii^ii^rS. fl^^s
mas dkiE pii'»ii3aii% to digj^tEdl nrniitiiiantte an«H!
^iRjdlB Oiedfe is ItecsiteS iim snuiifflnsKESit osenttaJI iHlimia'B ancnil diTaain®
fftosKtrnj irnto fe iillmunB
steanxi rnm'llss osff j%gdte Ctedk VBEIT® nattesil as Suilly su^pmitlintg ag£M ic life OISES.
inaara CEilmrsftifnffiH;, a dta^tenei ^pEOEsiira liters.
stte
era ItaJ'raira ©REEfe. ilnufien) (Dnsdk
isittaiH mff(fo(0rs3:fcf£i£jr:t£
ESS a
O™nr§t^[2,,amiirtteins>j^suiJra^mss(ra!i^^ OiterCtedkaiiiaine.
amS feaimSEsi) ssaiiijpirm issftticihi aie !f hnrittedi to dteen;, Itipn pailiffimtt sai^ams \wlto ^rascMH'
-------
Table 26. Use Support for the Illinois River Basin, 1992-1993 (miles)
Degree o(
UM Support
Full
Full/Threatened
Partial/Minor
Partial/Modorato
Nonsupport
TOTAL ASSESSED
Not Applicable
Nol Assessed
TOTAL
OVERALL USE
Evaluated Monitored Total
(01)
493.9
442.7
17.2
953.8
11315
15.6
723.7
61.9
1933.1
1635.3
15.6
1156.9
79.1
2886.9
4846.7
7733.6
INDIVIDUAL USES
Fish Aquatic Life Swimming
Consumption
(02) (04) (05)
368.6
119.7
488.3
7245.3
7733.6
1635.3
15.6
1156.9
79.1
2886.9
4846.7
7733.6
117.3
46.2
249.8
413.3
570.1
6750.2
7733.6
Drinking Water
(07)
41.4
31.8
22.6
95.8
7637.8
7733.6
Table 27. Total Sizes of Waters Not Fully Supporting Uses
Affected by Various Cause and Source
Categories for the Illinois River Basin, 1992-
1993 (miles)
CATEGORY
CAUSES
Priority oroanlcs
Metate
Ammonia
Nutrients
Sittalion
Organic enrichnr.onUDO
Salinitv/TDS/Chtorides
Flow alteration
Suspended solids
Major
Impact
37.6
5.9
62.9
3.1
40.0
43.6
Moderate/
Minor
Impact
39.5
62.7
18.0
1173.1
1145.7
121.6
3.0
269.1
101.4
SOURCES
Industrial
MunteloaJ
CSO'e
Aoricuttura
Nonlrrtoated crop production
Pasture land
Feodtots-all types
Urban runoff
Resource ExtracJExptor.
Hydrologlc/HabHat mod
Channelization
Flow regulation/mod.
Other
Contaminated sediments
Recreation actlvHle*
Source unknown
82.3
1.3
410.6
35.1
1.7
37.6
37.6
23.1
52.0
295.2
54.6
7745
35.1
14.7
36.4
1582
438.5
291.4
181.7
67.5
595
8.3
Legend for Figure 14.
o
DZA
DZD
DZG
DZH
DZI
DZS
OZX
DZZJ
DZZP
DA
OAF
DAG
DAH
DB
DC
DD
DE
DEAA
DF
DFD
DFH
DG
DGZD
DGZO
DGZR
DGA
DGB
DGD
DGDA
DGG
DGH
DGHA
DGI
DGIA
DGJ
DGJA
DGK
DGL
DGLC
DGLD
DGP
DGPB
DGPC
DGO
DH
Dl
DJ
DJA
DJB
DJBZ
DJC
DJD
DJDB
DJDC
DJE
DJF
DJFB
Illinois R.
Otter Cr.
Coon Run
Quiver Cr.
Copperas Cr.
LaMarsh Cr.
Coral Cr.
Waupecan Cr.
Walnut Cr.
Farm Cr.
Macoupin Cr.
Taylor Cr.
Hodges Cr.
Dry Fork
Apple Cr.
Sandy Cr.
Mauvaise Terre R.
McKeeCr.
Mid Fk. McKwsCr.
Indian Cr.
Clearer.
Little Indian Cr. West
LaMoineR.
Homey Branch
Long Cr.
S. Br. La Moine R.
Town Cr.
WestCr.
Missouri 0.
Little Missouri Cr.
Cedar Cr.
Flour Cr.
Williams Cr.
Camp Cr.
Grindstone Cr.
Troublesome Cr.
Killjordan Cr.
BronsonCr.
E.FK, LaMoineR.
Drowning Fork
Farmer Cr.
LaHarpeR.
RockCr.
Baptist Cr.
Grove Cr.
Sugar Cr.
Otter Cr.
Spoon R.
EastCr.
BigCr.
Slue Run
ShawCr.
PutCr.
Turkey Cr.
Lost Grove Cr.
CoiilCr.
Cedar Cr.
SwanCr.
DJG
DJH
DJHD
DJI
DJJ
DJK
DJL
DJN
DJO
DK
DKB
DKO
DKE
DKF
DKG
DKJ
DKK
DKKB
DKKC
DKP
DKV
DKT
DL
DLF
DM
DN
DO
DOA
DOB
DP
DO
DQA
DCO
DQF
OR
DS
DSB
DSC
DST
DSE
DSF
DSFA
DSG
DSH
DSJ
DStC
DSL
DSP
DSPA
DSQ
DSQA
DSQB
DSQC
DV
DVD
DVE
DVF
DW
Littler* Cr.
HawCr.
Brush Cr.
French Cr.
Court Cr.
Walnut Cr.
Indian Cr.
E. Fk. Spoon R.
W. Fk. Spoon R.
Mackinaw R.
Hickory Grove Ditch
Indian Cr.
Little Mackinaw R.
Prairie Cr.
MudCr.
Walnut Cr.
Panther Cr.
W. Panther Cr.
E. Panther Cr.
Money Cr.
Henllne Cr.
Crooked Cr.
KickapooCr.
W. Br. KickapooCr.
SenachwineCr.
CrowCr.W.
CrowCr.E.
S. Br. Crow Cr. E.
N.Br. CrowCr.E.
Sandy Cr.
Big Bureau Cr.
East Bureau Cr.
W. Bureau Cr.
Masters Fork
Little Vermilion R.
Vermilion R.
Otter Cr.
Eagle Cr.
Murray Ditch
Prairie Cr.
Long Point Cr.
Mole Cr.
Mud Cr.
Scattering Point Cr.
Rooks Cr.
Baker Run
WoHCr.
S. Fk. Vermilion R.
Indian Cr.
N. Fk. Vermilion R.
Felky Slough
Five Mile Cr.
Kelly Cr.
MazonR.
Johnny Run
W.Fk MazonR.
E. Fk MazonR.
Aux Sable Cr.
68
-------
Figure 14. Degree of Overall Use Support for the
Illinois River Basin
TNAM
?!2. - -CISCO
•
D09"
AWQMN Site
Basin Survey Site
AWQMN/Basin Survey Site
Full Support
Full Threatened
Partial Minor
Partial Moderate
Non-Support
IDA04
DAH
MACOUPIN
69
MONTGOMERY
-------
-------
i IMtoagairnitt EtawskBHE H3SH3
1MB
01IS. ML S^^nn 9 HOC IE4
4
SS?If2
Ariiansas Departtnenttcrff Folliitfoni
iai Stete Witfen
:,CA\
Ififinri Rarrow/
Cfllciradii) Eepartmenttoff FTUbJfo
ftitealtfti amM Envjranmentt
Watiur G^ial% (Tanttcdl QUinsiann
BJireaui off Wafeir fManagpmentt
HffiHJD
CarmeaztJiMttOfepantmenttoff
ESmiranmentel!
EKI
W/,MLVSBhn).ll!l
Gfeir^ai Biuihonmentali RtaB»ctii3rn
Biiriabni
Broil BlacKwatiaT
Ola) Rlvwn Ihidiam Chmmunitjy
Water 6lliali% Rlaimingj (Hffiee
Conrararoff MMin amdJ fflmm
EugpneAKazawaj,
IMtfuitjorih
WfnvaiiiGteparttTJEnttaffHbaltfii
andl \WfeJfare
OHuiEJom off BhvJhanmentall CJUaJIt^
Illlnnsis ffimiiuuniBDUjAUill
H Sfflvuiwifliiitwliill A^jpmjc
111
Ibssa
GteparttnenttftiiT anrihomnenall
(Tratfeetiiim
UouiaanaiCJtepartknentt
Environmental
EHvJaijm
BhvJiajjinaitall fftedtestfanti
ujoffW/aterGJUallt^
tflfcjusaSlaiiamTC?
DBqjiaillinarttosffttte
BBiraiam oif Wafiar (ftoiHifiEnn
• Buffing B'JS.ScK
Kdississippii Efeparttnenttoff
Ehuihonnraritell Cgialit^
GHRfcecdfPolllititiniCaiTttDll
WAtai- Rbtllitfom dbnttoll Rhogjann
, IWG!)
(DirristiannJJ.llevJhe
rMonteuas EfepanUnenttoff Hifeaitfti
antfl Envjhanmai tail Sae
Stteem W&IKen;, Sartiiinn
fNfebnasKaa Dfepanttnentt off
Ewiranmentell
Uihnscdh), BiE 68300X8922
-------
Glen Gentry
Bureau of water Quality Planning
Division of Environmental
Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
Greg Comstock
State of New Hampshire
Department of Environmental
Services, Water Supply, and
Pollution Control Division
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03302-0095
(603) 271-2457
Kevin Berry
Office of Land and Water Planning
New Jersey DEPE
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 633-1179
Erik Galloway
Surface Water Quality Bureau
New Mexico Environment
Department
P.O. Box26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
George 1C Hansen, P.E.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-8819
Carol Mctz
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083
Mike Ell
North Dakota Department
of Health
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, NO 58502-5520
(701) 328-5210
Ed tonkin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3377
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405)271-5205
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-6962
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Division of Assessment and
Standards
P.O. Box 8465,10th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)783-2959
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board
Water Quality Area
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 751-5548
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401) 277-6519
Zach Corontzes
South Carolina DHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5300
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Division of Water Resources
Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3696
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church St., L&C Annex,
6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)908-1000
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6859
Jerome J. McArdle
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-0408
(802) 244-6951
Carrie Gorsuch
Department of Environmental
Quality - Water Division
Office of Water Resources
Management
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 762-4290
Anne Hanley
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of
Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box 4340
St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 773-0565
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(206) 407-6482
Michael A. Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608)266-0152
Robert Gumtow
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building - 4th Floor
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7098
Robert Edwards
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
1721 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391
Colleen Goff
Hoopa Valley Reservation
P.O. Box 1314
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-4275
Howard Golub, Acting Director
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
The Coyote Valley Reservation
Att.: Jean Hunt or Eddie Knight
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Stephen W. Johnson
Michael L. Connolly
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Campo Environmental Protection
Agency
1779 Campo Truck Trail
Campo, CA 91906
Jamie S. Megee
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
(909) 654-2765
-------
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
8.
Instructions/Notes for Table 8-5
1. Identify the aquifer and hydrogeologic setting by describing the unit in as much detail
as necessary to distinguish it from other aquifers in the State. Some potential
descriptors to consider may be the name, location, composition, and depth to the top
and bottom of the aquifer. If desired, States may append a map illustrating the
general location of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting selected for this assessment.
2. Identify the surface waterbody by name:
3. Indicate the size of the area impacted by the contamination.
4. Indicate the county(ies) in which the impacted area is located.
5. Indicate, if desired, the approximate longitude and latitude of the impacted area.
6. Record the reporting period.
7. Indicate the contaminants that are involved.
For each of the contaminants listed in Table 8-5, record the average and the range in
concentration (when known) for surface water and ground wa1:er. Indicate the units
used in the table. Report the concentration values under the appropriate heading (i.e.,
surface water is contaminating ground water or vice versa).
8-19
-------
Conclusion
8. 1996 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
is known or strongly suspected on the basis of physical documentation or
strong circumstantial evidence. Table 8-5 is optional for 1996 because EPA
recognizes that many of the problems related to ground water-surface water
interactions are difficult to study and limited data exist.
States are encouraged to provide a narrative with Table 8-5 that describes
the source of the contamination (e.g., land application of fertilizers, septic
tanks, saltwater intrusion, or animal waste holding ponds); the primary land
use in the vicinity of the source (e.g., agricultural, residential, industrial,
undeveloped); and a description of how the ground water-surface water
interaction was determined, whether the contamination threatens drinking
water availability or public health or is otherwise a source of concern, and
whether contamination is transitory or long term.
Section 106(e) of the Clean Water Act requests that each State monitor the
quality of its ground water resources and report the status to Congress in
their State 305(b) reports. EPA worked with States represented on the
305(b) Consistency Ground Water Subgroup to develop a comprehensive
approach to assessing ground water quality that can be applied on a national
scale. The approach is consistent with previous 305(b) reporting cycles in
that information on major contaminant sources in the State and progress on
ground water protection are still requested. The major change is that
information related to ground water quality in specific aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings will be requested in 1996. Also, for the first time,
States are being asked to consider ground water-surface water interactions
and their effects on water management practices.
In this approach, ground water quality will be assessed in specific aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings selected by States. The assessment will be based on
a series of indicator parameters, including the type and number of
contamination sites within the reporting area, concentrations of
anthropogenic and naturally occurring constituents in the ground water as
compared to national or State water quality standards, and information on
natural sensitivity and/or aquifer vulnerability to land-use practices.
EPA recognizes that there will be significant variability in the degree to which
States are able to respond to the data requests in these guidelines; however,
it is hoped that as States develop plans and mechanisms to meet these data
requests, reporting will become more uniform. In approximately 10 years, it
is hoped that ground water quality will be characterized in the majority of
States. As databases are developed over time, trends in ground water
quality in States, Regions, and in the Nation will be evaluated as part of the
305(b) process.
8-20
-------
-------
f
•1IIII 111 111 III Illllllllll III II Illllliill 111 Illllll Illllll Illllll 11111II 111 II
nil iiiiiii inn inn in n 111 Hill n nil inn in nil iiiii nil in i
nn ill mill inn innnnnli in nn ininnnn mi iiiiinn mi ininnnnngniinnnnil iilnnnn infliii nil n ill n inn in nil i in nil niiiini iinilii
Illlllllllllll Illlllllllllll Illlllllllllll 111 III 111 111 illllll 111 Illlllllllllll Illllll 111 Illllllllll Illlllllllllll 111 111 III III Illllllllll 111 IIIIIIIII 111 III 111 IIIIIIIH^^ Illllll 111 111 111 Illllllllll Illlllllllllll III Illlllllllllll II Illllll 111
Illllllllll 11111 Illlllllllllll 1111 Illlllllllllll Illllll I III 111 II Illlllllllllll Illllllllll I 111 I 111 Illllllllll Illllll Illllll 111 111 IIII 111 1 Illlllllllllll 11111 Illllllllll Illllllllll Illllll III Illllllllll Illllll 1 111 11(1 Illllll 11 Illlllllllllll l II Illlllllllllll 111
I
•
! !
Ill if
I
iltl ...... I
''til" -
iiiiiii!iviiiiihUiiiiliiaiujaiiiiiiiii:!liKihiiJiiiJiiiiJiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiil iiiiiiPiiFiiiiiiiiiiIN:,:if;'Jfm,Tunm:#1 i,!ailw!:is.w „:!! .ai '^)'!> ii,': i \iii:i;'i||:;'<,' >.<"/'''
mwmftiXiM Ml. :|; , 'I ,;. ATfl-U-.TOiWifcHK:.
1 i g i • w
"H
-------
-------
•€»• "0
-0 C
,~ 2L §• ^ a Q-
-«. CD CQ co 5- co
o c 3" 3 => of
^s- -3S^f
—- m O " m
of»| 51
N>££ i.
0)
CD
CO
CD
|:
O
CO
Tl
O
1
CD
i
------- |