United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-841-B-97-002A
September 1997
4>EPA Guidelines for Preparation
of the Comprehensive State
Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports) and
Electronic Updates:
Report Contents
@ Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable-Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
1 anil Waterbody System (WBS) Coordinators*
:DiM Stjtenbirg
iSCSQ-141)
1-4-45 Ross Avenue
no. New Mexico,
Robert Stetert BOSBal
i Avenue
tpilf
Jill Minta-[30S(b)]
(303) 312-6267
-Jim t
fjjjjji
HI o {oWiva-wtjj
t rt>»iitCTOto
Eric WJlson [WBS]
(4l5j 744-1964
neSt
iFriBKfeco, CA 94105
Arizona, California,Hawaii,'
'-Nevoda, American Samoa, Guam
QjnyjwM*
GretchenH^HpIWBS]
|5S3^168S
a>A Region 10
BTQ1
-------
Guidelines for Preparation of the
Comprehensive State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports) and
Electronic Updates:
Report Contents
September 1997
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 305(b) Consistency Workgroup,
whose members are listed on the following page. The full Workgroup met in June and
October 1 996 to develop the guidance for the new 305(b) cycle. Members also
participated in numerous conference calls and focus group meetings to discuss key
technical issues and develop materials for 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 and Tetra Tech, Inc.,
provided technical and logistical support under EPA Contract 68-C3-0303.
EPA National Contacts
The primary contact regarding these Guidelines, the National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress, and the Waterbody System (WBS) is:
Barry Burgan, National 305(b) and WBS 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 (E-mail: burgan.barry@epamail.epa.gov)
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
Other National Contacts:
Water environmental indicators and Index of Watershed Indicators (IWl):
Sarah Lehmann (202) 260-7021 (lehmann.sarah@epamail.epa.gov)
Reach File (RF3): Tommy Dewald (202) 260-2488
(dewald.tommy@epamail.epa.gov)
Georeferencing waterbodies to RF3: Tod Dabolt (202) 260-3697
(dabolt.thomas@epamail.epa.gov)
Probability-based monitoring: Steve Paulsen or Phil Larsen (541) 754-4362
(paulsen@mail.cor.epa.gov or larsen@mail.cor.epa.gov)
Biological integrity: Chris Faulkner (202) 260-6228
(faulkner.chris@epamail.epa.gov)
303(d)/TMDLs: Mimi Dannel (202) 260-1897 (dannel.mimi@epamail.epa.gov)
Clean Lakes: Anne Weinberg (202) 260-7107 (weinberg.anne@epamail.epa.gov)
WBS User Support: Research Triangle Institute (919) 990-8637
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1: 305(b) Report Contents
Section
Acknowledgements ii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acronym List ix
1 THE 305(b) PROCESS 1-1
1.1 Blueprint for the Comprehensive 305(b) Guidelines 1-1
1.2 Background on 305(b) Reporting 1-2
1.3 The Updated 305(b) Process 1-3
1.4 Electronic Updates 1-5
1.5 Rotating Basin Surveys/Basin Management 1-7
1.6 Comprehensive Assessments . 1-8
1.7 Performance Partnership Agreements 1-9
1.8 Water Environmental Indicators 1-9
1.9 ' Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI) 1-11
1.10 Vision and Long-term Goals 1-12
1.11 Goals for the 1998 and Future 305(b) Cycles 1-12
1.12 Tribal 305{b) Reporting 1-21
2 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE THE 1 996 305(b) GUIDELINES ... 2-1
2.1 New Format for the Guidelines 2-1
2.2 New Information on the Context of 305(b) 2-2
2.3 Annual/Biennial Electronic Reporting 2-2
2.4 Comprehensive and Targeted Coverage 2-2
2.5 Individual Use Support 2-2
2.6 Ground Water and Drinking Water 2-2
3 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II:
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 3-1
305(b) Contents — Part I: Executive Summary/Overview 3-7
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Volume 1: 305(b) Report Contents
Section Page
3 (continued)
305(b) Contents — Part II: Background 3-8
Total Waters 3-9
Maps 3-10
Water Pollution Control Program 3-10
Cost/Benefit Assessment ! . 3-12
Special State Concerns and Recommendations . 3-16
4 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT . 4-1
Chapter One: Current Surface Water Monitoring Program . 4-1
Chapter Two: Plan for Achieving Comprehensive Assessments 4-3
Chapter Three: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data 4-4
Chapter Four: Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment 4-8
Chapter Five: Lakes Water Quality Assessment 4-22
Chapter Six: Estuary and Coastal Assessment 4-30
Chapter Seven: Wetlands Assessment 4-31
Chapter Eight: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns 4-37
5 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER
ASSESSMENT 5-1
Overview of Ground Water Contamination Sources 5-4
Overview of State Ground Water Protection Programs 5-7
Summary of Ground Water Contamination Sources 5-10
Summary of Ground Water Quality 5-13
Summary of Ground Water-Surface Water Interactions 5-21
Conclusion 5-21
6 ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS 6-1
6.1 Background 6-1
6.2 Importance of Electronic Updates 6-1
6.3 Contents of Electronic Updates 6-2
6.4 Reporting Frequency 6-5
6.5 Focus for 1997: Improving Data Quality 6-5
6.6 Reporting Ground Water Quality Data Annually 6-6
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Volume 1: 305(b) Report Contents
Section Page
6 (continued)
6.7 Staff Needs 6-7
6.8 File Format and Transfers • • • • 6~7
6.9 Special Information for Non-WBS States , 6-8
7 REFERENCES 7-1
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Number
1-1 Recent Federal and State initiatives important to the 305(b) process . 1-6
1-2 Hierarchy of nested watersheds 1-20
3-1 Schedule for the 305{b) Cycle 3-4
4-1 Natural resources, Wando River Watershed 4-6
4-2 Activities potentially affecting water quality, Ashley River Watershed 4-6
VI
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Number
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
TABLES
Reporting Requirements Satisfied by 305 (b) Reports
Atlas
Types of Information that States May Include on Their 303{d) Lists .
Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Waters ....
Individual Use Support Summary
Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Cause/Stressor Categories
Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Source Categories
Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
Lake Rehabilitation Techniques
List of Clean Lakes Program Projects Active During 1996-1998
Reporting Period
Acid Effects on Lakes
Sources of High Acidity in Lakes
Trends in Significant Public Lakes
Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards .........
Extent of Wetlands, by Type
Waterbodies Affected by Fish and Shellfish Consumption Restrictions
Due to Toxicants
Page
3-6
3-8
4-9
4-10
4-13
4-15
4-19
4-23
4-25
4-26
4-28
4-28
4-29
4-33
4-36
4-38
4-41
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Number
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
6-1
6-2
6-3
TABLES (continued)
Waterbodies Affected by Fish Kills and Fish Abnormalities
Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination . . .
Waterbodies Affected by Shellfish Advisories due to Pathogens . . .' .
Summary of Contaminants Used in the Assessment
Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments for Rivers and
Streams .
Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments for Lakes and
Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs
Ground Water Contamination Summary
Aquifer Monitoring Data
Key Data Elements for Electronic Updates
Recommended Format for Use Support Data for States that Opt for
Spreadsheets
Recommended Format for Source Data for States that Opt for
Soreadsheets
Page
4-41
4-42
4-42
4-42
4-45
4-46
4-46
5-5
5-8
5-11
5-17
6-3
6-10
6-10
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources
ALUS Aquatic life use support
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
AWQMN Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
BMP Best management practice
BPJ Best professional judgement
CAFO Concentrated animal feeding operation
CCC Criteria continuous concentration
CLPMS Clean Lakes Program Management System
CMC Criteria maximum concentration
CSO Combined sewer overflows
CU USGS watershed cataloging unit
CWA Clean Water Act
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation
DLG Digital line graph (database)
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOE Washington State Department of Ecology
DQO Data quality objective
DWFG 305(b) Drinking Water Focus Group
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS Geographic information system
GPS Global positioning satellite system
GRIS Grants Reporting and Tracking System
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST (continued)
ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
IWI Index of Watershed Indicators
LAN Local Area Network
LWQA Lake Water Quality Assessment
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MDL Method detection limit
NAS National Academy of Science
NAWQA National Ambient Water Quality Assessment Program
NBS National Biological Service
NHD National Hydrographic Dataset
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSTP NOAA's National Status and Trends Program
NWQMC National Water Quality Monitoring Council (formerly ITFM)
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OPPE EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
OST Office of Science and Technology
OW EPA Office of Water
OWM EPA Office of Wastewater Management
OWOW EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
PACE Annual Census Bureau Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs and
Expenditures
PCS Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCS EPA Permit Compliance System
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PPA Performance Partnership Agreements
PS Point source
PSP Paralytic shellfish poisoning
PWS Public water supply
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST (continued)
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RBP Rapid bioassessment protocol
REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
RF3 EPA Reach File Version 3
RTI Research Triangle Institute
SCRF1 Waterbody System Screenfile 1
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOC Semi-volatile organic compound
SOP Standard operating procedure
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval system
TDS Total dissolved solids
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
UAA Use attainability analysis
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC Volatile organic compound
WBS EPA Waterbody System
WQC Water quality criteria
WET Whole effluent toxicity
WLA Waste load allocation
WQL Water quality limited
WQS Water quality standard
WRC Water Resource Council
XI
-------
-------
305(b) PROCESS
SECTION 1
THE 305(b) PROCESS
1.1 Blueprint for the Comprehensive 305(b) Guidelines
The goals for 305(b) include:
• Comprehensive coverage characterizing all waters in each State, Territory,
Interstate Water Commission, the District of Columbia and participating
Tribes. Comprehensive coverage will lead to comprehensive national
coverage.
• Reducing paperwork while increasing the amount of assessed waters in
each State, other jurisdiction and participating Tribe.
• Annual electronic updates of key information for all assessed waters
during the previous year, starting with 1997 for pilot States ready to do
so.
• Georeferencing of 305(b) information to identify and map specific
waterbodies, including whether they meet water quality standards, and to
enable long-term tracking of trends.
• More rapid real-time public availability of water quality information.
For 1998 and beyond, these 305(b) Guidelines ask each State, other
jurisdiction and participating Tribe to:
• Report electronically, preferably on an annual basis, as soon as the State
can. Several States will be ready in 1997, many others by 1 998.
• Georeference 305(b) information to show the actual locations of the
waters and whether they meet water quality standards. Quite a few
States now can achieve this or are in the process of doing so; all should
be able to do such computerized mapping by 2002.
1-1
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
••H^HHH
• Develop a plan including a map showing how it will achieve
comprehensive assessment coverage of its waters. This plan is not
required for the 1998 reports but is highly recommended. Much of the
work to develop such a plan will have already been performed through the
State's Section 106 Monitoring Strategy. EPA will work with individual
States, other jurisdictions and participating Tribes on a design and
reporting strategy for comprehensive coverage of the waters.
Three alternative reporting formats are designed to reduce paperwork, allow
more reporting flexibility and make information available to the public more
quickly. Each State, Territory, Interstate Water Commission, the District of
Columbia and participating Tribe may submit 305(b) information in one of
three ways.
The preferred format is :
An annual electronic report, accompanied in even years by an abbreviated
narrative report. The abbreviated narrative report will contain:
only the information required by law that has changed from the last
report, and a simple reference to that report.
The second and less preferred format is :
In even years, an electronic report accompanied by an abbreviated
narrative report. The abbreviated narrative report will contain:
- only the information required by law that has changed from the last
report, and a simple reference to that report.
The third and least preferred format is :
In even years, a full hard-copy report as in the past, including all summary
tables and programmatic chapters.
Included in each of these three alternative formats is the plan for
comprehensive assessment coverage described above.
These Guidelines are reformatted to show the content of the report itself in
one volume, with a supplemental volume describing the best monitoring and
assessment processes to produce the information for the report.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) national 305(b) Reports
to Congress, published biennially in 1998 and future years, will include:
• AH information included in biennial Reports to Congress as in the past.
1-2
-------
1. THE 305{b) PROCESS
• An added section describing progress in achieving comprehensive
assessment coverage of the waters both nationally and State-by-State.
This section will be cumulative in nature and will, over time, depict trends
and all water quality information submitted to date.
EPA Assistance to States, other jurisdictions, and participating Tribes to
achieve the 305(b) goals will include:
• Financial resources to help support georeferencing of 305(b) information
to Reach File 3 (RF3).
• Technical assistance from experts in EPA Headquarters, Regions and the
EPA Office of Research and Development's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP).
1.2 Background on 305(b) Reporting
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. 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 of the Guidelines Supplement). Each
State must develop a program to monitor the quality of its surface and
ground waters and prepare a report describing the status of its water quality.
EPA is to compile the data from the State reports, summarize them, and
transmit the summaries to Congress along with an analysis of the status of
water quality nationwide. This 305{b) process is the principal means by
which EPA, Congress, and the public evaluate whether U.S. waters meet
water quality standards, the progress made in maintaining and restoring
water quality, and the extent of remaining problems. In 1996, 56 States,
Territories, Interstate Commissions, and Indian Tribes prepared 305(b)
reports.
1.3 The Updated 305(b) Process
The updated 305(b) process will include comprehensive assessments of the
State's waters using a combination of monitoring designs and evaluative
techniques. Beginning in 1998, the States are encouraged to include in their
305(b) reports a map and plan for achieving the goal of comprehensive
assessment coverage. EPA believes that much of the work to develop such
a plan will have occurred through the Section 106 Monitoring Strategy
process. States are being asked to achieve comprehensive assessment
coverage as soon as possible and report in 1998 and subsequent 305{b)
reports their status in achieving this goal.
1-3
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Contents of Abbreviated Hard-copy 305(b) Reports
. PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ OVERVIEW—Provide a new and revised
version for each hard-copy report.
. PART II: BACKGROUND (Atlas, Total Waters, Water Pollution Control
Program, Cost/Benefit Assessment, Special State Concerns and
Recommendations)— Report on changes since last hard copy report*.
. PART 111: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT (Monitoring Program,
Assessment Methodology and Summary Data, etc.)
• Include plan and status of achieving comprehensive assessments; in
addition, report on changes since last hard-copy report*.
• Summary tables for rivers/streams, lakes, and estuaries are optional if
electronic reports of all key data are submitted electronically, which will
allow EPA to calculate summaries. However, if the State is using a
probability-based monitoring network, report overall network results in
the hard-copy 305(b) reports (include waterbody-level data for that
network in the assessment database).
• Update Clean Lakes tables and wetlands section and tables if significant
changes occurred since last hard-copy report*.
. PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT (Overview of Ground Water
Contamination Sources and Protection Programs; Summaries of
Contamination Sources, Ground Water Quality, and Ground Water-Surface
Water Interactions)—Report on changes since last hard-copy report*.
Summary tables are optional if State provides them via electronic reporting.
Where no significant changes have occurred since the last 305(b) report
within any subsection of this Part, report that no changes have occurred.
EPA is updating the 305(b) process to allow States to take advantage of
modern information technology to provide more current and comprehensive
information on the status of the Nation's waters. Three alternative reporting
formats are designed to reduce paperwork, allow more reporting flexibility
and make information available to the public more quickly. Each State,
Territory, Interstate Water Commission, the District of Columbia and
participating Tribe may submit 305(b) information in one of three ways. The
three formats are described in Section 1.1, Blueprint for the Comprehensive
305(b) Guidelines.
1-4
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
EPA will use all reports and electronic updates described above to report
biennially to Congress on the status of the Nation's waters. The Report to
Congress will include a new section which shows the progress made by the
States, other jurisdictions, and participating Tribes toward the goal of
comprehensive coverage of waters.
States that are implementing rotating basin management plans might choose
to transmit electronic updates annually covering the basins, and any other
waters assessed, over the previous year. The goal is to have all States
participating in annual electronic reporting by the year 2000. Such States
also might find it more convenient to prepare their hard-copy reports on an
annual basis as well, to synchronize with their basin management plans.
Beyond the national uses of the State 305(b) reports, there are many State-
specific and local uses. To meet these needs and provide comprehensive
programmatic information and data, EPA encourages States selecting the
first or second option to prepare a full hard-copy report periodically, including
complete programmatic chapters, maps, and summary tables as described in
Sections 3 through 6 of these Guidelines.
This new, comprehensive 305(b) cycle supports several recent Federal and
State initiatives:
• Comprehensive monitoring and assessments
Rotating basin surveys and basin management
• Reduction of paperwork burden through the use of electronic reporting of
State assessment data
• Water environmental indicators including the Index of Watershed
Indicators (IWI)
• Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)
Figure 1-1 shows how some of these initiatives are related to each other, and
Sections 1.4 through 1.9 describe these initiatives in more detail.
1.4 Electronic Updates
The State/EPA 305(b) Consistency Workgroup agreed on the need for
periodic, electronic updates from the States on their waterbody-level
assessments. Resources saved by switching to abbreviated hard-copy
305(b) reports should be put toward improved data management and
1-5
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Incentives
States
Reduced paper
reporting burden
Resources saved are
applied to assessments
and data management
Increased annual
Information available
Implementation
Targeted and Probabilistic
Monitoring/Assessment
Indicators
•Aquatic Life Use
•Drinking Water
•Biointegrity
•Ground Water
•etc.
305(b)
Data Management
WB002
WB001
EPA Support for Georeferencing
Waterbodies to RF3
Outputs
Annual
Electronic Updates
IWI
Figure 1-1. Recent Federal and State initiatives important to the 305(b) process
1-6
-------
1. THE 3Q5(b) PROCESS
electronic reporting. EPA
and the Workgroup find
such updates important for
two reasons:
• EPA needs the data for
biennial reports to
Congress, Clean Water
Act ^authorization, and
other national planning
activities
• Assessments and data
management should be
ongoing activities, not
performed in haste prior
to preparation of a
305(b) report.
The bulk of a State's ;
electronic update will
consist of waterbody-level
assessment data for
assessments completed in
previous calendar year(s). ;
These data files can be EPA
Waterbody System files or
State-developed databases
files. It is extremely important that the State files be submitted in a format
that EPA can convert to standard national 305(b) codes as described in
Section 6. We will work with States to help ensure database compatibility
and national consistency. Annual electronic reporting should not be a large
burden for most States. Nearly 40 States transmitted the same types of
assessment data in electronic form during 1995-96.
EPA is offering technical support to States that need to create or upgrade
assessment databases. Other components of a State's electronic update are
listed in the box entitled "Contents of Annual/Biennial Electronic Updates."
In even-numbered years beginning in 1998, annual electronic updates are due
April 1 with the abbreviated narrative reports. In'odd-numbered years,
annual electronic updates should be transmitted to EPA in April if possible,
although they can be transmitted over the summer. States/Tribes with
existing electronic reporting capability are encouraged to submit their 1997
updates by the end of December 1997. This update consists of
(1) assessment data for State-defined watersheds or those basins or 8-digit
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) cataloging unit (CU) watersheds assessed in
Contents of Annual/Biennial Electronic
Updates
• The State's waterbody-level assessment
data files for assessments completed in
previous calendar year(s). If more
'convenient, the State may send its
updated 305{b) assessment database for
the entire State, provided the assessment
dates are included for each waterbody.
• If the State is using a probability-based
monitoring network, include waterbody-
level data for that network in the • • • '
assessment database but report overall
network results in hard-copy reports.
• A GIS coverage showing assessment
results since last update or hard-copy
maps showing assessment results
•/ •: Metadata for the above files including a
' " brief data dictionary
• Updated ground water assessment tables
in database, spreadsheet, or word
processing format
1-7
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
MHMBMHmMMB ~
the previous calendar year as well as any additional waters assessed in the
previous calendar year, or (2) the entire statewide database as updated.
If a State is unable to transmit an electronic update of their assessment data
in a given year, the State should send a biennial electronic update by April 1
of the following year covering waters assessed in the previous two calendar
years. See Section 6 for more information on electronic reporting, a detailed
list of data elements, and "data rules" for ensuring compatibility with
standard national codes and formats.
1.5 Rotating Basin Surveys/Basin Management
Approximately half of the States have implemented statewide basin
management approaches that include rotating basin monitoring. Typically,
such States assess one-third to one-fifth of their watersheds or basins in a
single year, so that all watersheds or basins are assessed over a three to five
year period. Annual electronic updates include assessment data primarily for
those basins or watersheds assessed in the previous calendar year as well as
assessments routinely completed in other parts of the State during the
previous year(s). This should not present a problem if States keep their
assessment databases up-to-date. States that have not yet done so should
consider adopting a rotating-basin approach for water quality assessment and
management.
A comprehensive assessment of all State waters should be accomplished as
quickly as feasible. Through a rotating basin survey approach,
comprehensive assessments can often be achieved over a five year cycle or
less. The advantage of this approach is that it allows greater coverage of
State waters than historical practices, through a combination of probabilistic
monitoring techniques and the efficiencies of integrated watershed
management.
1.6 Comprehensive Assessments
EPA and the States have established a long-term goal of comprehensively
characterizing all surface and ground waters of each State using a variety of
techniques targeted to the condition of, and goals for, the waters. These
techniques may include a combination of traditional targeted monitoring and
probability-based designs. To help ensure national progress toward this goal,
each State is encouraged to include in its 1998 305(b) report a plan for
comprehensive monitoring and assessment of its waters. Section 4
describes the contents of this plan.
1-8
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Probability-based Monitoring (Sample Surveys)
No State has sufficient monitoring resources to sample all its waters. With
probability-based monitoring, a State can report assessment results for the
target resource as a whole (e.g., all headwater streams) not just those waters
that have been monitored. These assessment results are unbiased and include
confidence limits. Several States including Maryland, Delaware and Indiana are
incorporating this approach. EPA can provide technical support for designing
probability-based monitoring networks to supplement existing networks through
its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) staff who have
extensive experience designing and conducting probability-based monitoring.
In order to provide for national and regional consistency, EPA and State
monitoring staff should discuss preparation of this plan, including ways to
adapt their current monitoring program to achieve comprehensive monitoring.
See Section 2 and Appendix I of the Guidelines Supplement for more
information about different monitoring designs for achieving comprehensive
assessments.
1.7 Performance Partnership Agreements
More than 30 States are entering into Performance Partnership Agreements
(PPAs) with EPA. PPAs give the States more flexibility to set their own
programmatic priorities. In return, measuring environmental performance and
reporting on certain environmental indicators are among the activities States
agree to perform when entering a PPA. A Performance Partnership begins
with a comprehensive assessment of a State's problems and conditions to
establish a stronger basis for decision-making. Based on this information, the
State proposes environmental and public health objectives and an action plan
as a basis for negotiating a PPA with EPA. At this point, if not before, the
State also conducts outreach efforts to ensure appropriate public
understanding and support.
Next, EPA and the State begin negotiating the actual agreement. Ideally, the
PPA includes specific roles for EPA and the State, including how EPA's
oversight of State roles will be reduced in those areas of strong performance.
In addition, it includes indicators of environmental and program management
performance to better measure success.
An added element of PPAs is grants flexibility. States are given a new option
of combining two or more single-media grants into a single Performance
Partnership Grant. For example, a State could propose a single grant
1-9
-------
1. THE305(b) PROCESS
combining CWA Section 106, 104(b)(3), and 319 grants and Safe Drinking
Water Act public water supply and underground injection grants. Thus, PPAs
give the States and Tribes increased flexibility to set programmatic and
funding priorities. PPAs also offer administrative savings and improved
environmental performance monitoring through agreed-upon environmental
indicators.
1.8 Water Environmental Indicators
In return for increased flexibility, States implementing PPAs agree to measure
certain environmental indicators. EPA Office of Water, in conjunction with
States and other public and private agencies, have developed a suite of 18
water environmental indicators to track environmental progress. These were
published in June 1996 in the report Environmental Indicators of Water
Quality in the United States (EPA 841-F-96-001). EPA intends to publish an
indicators report periodically to measure progress toward national goals,
milestones, and objectives. Each State and its EPA Region will work
together to include the 18 indicators in the State/EPA PPA. Appendix C of
the Guidelines Supplement includes fact sheets for these 18 water indicators
and their reporting frequencies as recommended by the 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup.
The 305(b) Workgroup recommended that two of the 18 indicators be
reported in State 305(b) reports and annual electronic updates:
• Individual use support for drinking water, aquatic life, recreation, and
shellfish and fish consumption (in 305(b) reports and electronic updates)
• Biological integrity (see Guidelines Supplement, Section 4).
Through the indicators process, EPA will be collecting and reporting on data
from many national-level databases. States and Tribes already provide this
information to EPA through other reporting mechanisms. Except for species-
at-risk data, which come from the Nature Conservancy's aggregation of
State Natural Heritage databases, the following nine indicators are from EPA-
maintained databases. In preparing the national Report to Congress, EPA will
draw from the information included in these databases.
• Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisory Database
• Contaminated sediments
• Selected point source loadings to surface water and through Class V
wells to ground water
1-10
-------
1, THE 305{b) PROCESS
• Population served by community drinking water systems violating public
health standards
• Population served by community drinking water systems exceeding lead
actions levels
• Number of community systems with source water protection programs
• Species at risk
• Surface water pollutants
• Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from
microbiological pollution (Note: this indicator is no longer being used to
track national water quality)
EPA will provide to the States and Tribes at least six months preceding their
305(b) report submissions the most current output from these national
databases for their review. States are requested to use these data where
appropriate in their assessments.
For the following seven indicators, EPA will collect information from national
data sets that are not necessarily developed in conjunction with States and
Tribes as are the above nine indicators. Most of these data are aggregated
and reported by other Federal agencies. EPA will use these data sets to
supplement State and Tribal assessments in the Report to Congress.
• Shellfish bed conditions
• Wetland acreage
• Ground water pollutants: nitrate
• Coastal water pollutants in shellfish
• Estuarine eutrophication conditions
• Nonpoint source sediment loadings from cropland
• Marine debris
NOTE: The Index of Watershed Indicators project (see below) has added
three indicators to the original 18; EPA will also acquire data for these three
indicators from national datasets. They are:
• Population change
• Hydrologic modification causes by dams
• Urban runoff potential
1-11
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
1.9 Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)
IWI is an EPA initiative to. make available to the public water quality
information at the watershed level. The Office of Water and its many public
and private partners are using their joint information on the key water
indicators to characterize the conditions of the 2,111 USGS 8-digit CUs in
the conterminous United States (Alaska and Hawaii will come later). The
objectives of IWI include:
• Characterize the Nation's watersheds and identify watersheds at risk
• Serve as a baseline for dialogue among public and private partners
• Empower citizens to learn about and protect their watersheds
• Measure progress toward a goal of healthy, productive watersheds
To accomplish these objectives, EPA aggregated information on the key
environmental indicators—including the States' 1994 waterbody-level use
support data—to the CU level. EPA then created an overall characterization
of relative watershed condition based on these multiple data types. After
review by the States, the index of watershed health was made available in
July 1997 to the public via EPA's Surf Your Watershed page on the World
Wide Web. Surf Your Watershed is an electronic index to provide data, maps
and text to users on a thematic as well as geographic basis. It can be found
at http:/www.epa.gov/surf.
Through IWI, EPA and its partners are learning a great deal about strengths
and weaknesses of the Nation's water quality assessments. A common
issue for many States is the relatively low percentage of waters assessed in
a two-year period and a bias toward assessing known problem waters. One
solution for these States is to incorporate probability-based monitoring to
achieve more comprehensive assessments and eliminate bias. For this
reason, achieving more comprehensive assessments is listed in Sections 1.10
and 1.11 as both a long-term goal and a special goal for the 1998 305(b)
process.
1.10 Vision and Long-term Goals
The text boxes on the next few pages contain the vision and long-term goal
statements for State 305(b) reports and the National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress.
1.11 Goals for the 1998 and Future 305(b) Cycles
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
1-12
-------
1. THE 305{b) PROCESS
coordinate reporting efforts among the States, Territories, Interstate
Commissions, and Tribes. The goals for 1998 are to:
• Expand use of biological indicators and reporting
• Improve data management and institute annual/biennial electronic
reporting
• Achieve comprehensive assessment coverage (complete spatial coverage)
• Increase assessments of drinking water use support
• 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 (georeferencing)
Vision for State 305(b) Reports and the National Water Quality Inventory
Reports to Congress
(adopted by 305(b) Consistency Workgroup in 1995)
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 Commission 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 decision making 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.
1-13
-------
1. THE305(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 more useful and accessible
to decision makers by increased use of tools such as a modernized STORET; the EPA
Waterbody System (WBS); the EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3) and, when available, the
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); and geographic information systems (GISs).
• The reports move toward reporting assessment data by watershed and/or CU 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.
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 Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) (formerly the Department of Interior's National Biological Service), the
USGS National Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Status and Trends Program, the
National Wetlands Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Water
Quality Monitoring Council (formerly the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality or ITFM).
• The full Report to Congress and/or the Summary Report become available in electronic
format on the information superhighway; platforms may include the Internet or CD ROM.
(continued)
1-14
-------
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.
• 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 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 RF3 or, when available, NHD 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 Section 106 monitoring guidelines recommend a multi-
disciplinary State assessment team.
1-15
-------
1. THE305{b) PROCESS
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 aquatic ecosystems. 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, habitat, physical/chemical, and toxicity monitoring. Sections 3
and 4 of the Guidelines Supplement contain improved guidance for aquatic
life use support determinations and guidance for voluntary pilot biologicpl
integrity determinations.
EPA, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM),
and the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup have concluded 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 Data Management and Institute Annual/Biennial Electronic
Reporting
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. State assessment data are also receiving much
wider scrutiny now than ever before due to such initiatives as IWI. 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
waterbody-specific portion of the 305(b) information.
Extensive analysis of State assessment databases for IWI has identified
several areas for improvement for 1998. These problems greatly hamper
national analysis; solving them would help ensure that EPA properly
interprets State data. These problem areas are:
• Several States do not store sizes affected by sources or causes/stressors
• State-specific codes are sometimes not clearly defined
• Several States do not have electronic assessment databases at all
EPA intends to provide detailed feedback to each State about its 1996
assessment database and suggest ways to resolve such issues.
1-16
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
WBS users have recommended the following for the 1998 cycle:
• Maintain stability in basic WBS operations and file structure
• Develop a Windows version of WBS
• Continue reach-indexing waterbodies to the EPA Reach File (RF3) or,
when available, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), in interested
States
• Provide additional hands-on WBS and RF3/NHD training
• Promote the establishment of a full-time position for water quality
assessments and database management in each State and EPA Region;
the person in this position would maintain ongoing familiarity with WBS
and/or the appropriate customized State 305(b) database and ensure 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 those recommendations for which it has authority for
the 1998 cycle. The updated version of WBS will retain the same core
programs and user-friendly concepts (pop-up windows, pick lists) as the
previous version. EPA will provide an updated WBS and installation
instructions to States soon after transmittal of final 305(b) Guidelines. EPA
contacts for the WBS are the Regional 305(b) or WBS Coordinators and the
National WBS Coordinator (see page ii).
EPA expects all States to fully implement the WBS or a WBS-compatible
system. EPA has provided WBS users with technical assistance since 1987
and will continue to do so. WBS and customized State assessment
databases will be the vehicles by which States will transmit their annual
electronic updates beginning in April 1998 (in 1997 for some States). See
Section 6 for more information on these updates.
Assessment Database Managers—Text boxes with this PC logo appear in
several sections of these Guidelines. These boxes give important information
and helpful hints for ensuring accurate databases that will meet EPA's
requirements.
1-17
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Achieve Comprehensive Assessment Coverage (Complete Spatial
Coverage)
EPA established the following goals for the 1998 cycle and beyond:
• States progress toward characterizing surface and ground waters
comprehensively (in keeping with the State's rotating basin approach if
applicable) 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.
To help ensure national progress toward this goal, each State is asked to
include in its 1998 305(b) report a plan for comprehensive monitoring and
assessment of its waters. Section 4 describes the contents of this plan.
Section 2 of the Guidelines Supplement contains recommendations for using
a combination of targeted and probability-based monitoring to achieve more
comprehensive assessments.
Increase Assessments of Drinking Water Use Support
One of the findings of the last two 305(b) reporting cycles is the relatively
low percentage of waters that have been assessed for drinking water
designated use nationwide. EPA strongly encourages States to focus
resources on increasing the percentage of waters assessed for this use and
on enhancing the accuracy and usefulness of these assessments. This goal
is consistent with EPA's source water protection initiative under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. States are encouraged to use
source water assessments to delineate watershed areas (source water
protection areas) for all public water systems and thereby increase the
assessment of source waters for drinking water use. The States also are
encouraged to use this information from the source water assessments in
their 305(b) reports.
Document and Improve Assessment Quality
In the past, few States have tracked measures of assessment or data quality
in their 305(b) assessments. For 1998, the Guidelines ask States to assign
assessment quality levels to the aquatic life use support assessment for each
wadable river or stream waterbody (see Section 3.2 of the Guidelines
Supplement).
1-18
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
Such measures will be useful at the State level in planning and evaluating
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 report assessment description information at the national level.
Rather, EPA will use the information to determine the strengths and
limitations of State monitoring and assessment programs and improvements
needed, 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/stressors, and sources
of impairment 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. EPA is currently providing technical support to States to georeference
their waterbodies to RF3, EPA's national hydrologic database, to facilitate
GIS applications.
The goal for 1998 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 State and Regional 305(b) Coordinators; contact the National
305(b) Coordinator.
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. In addition to the individual waterbody or stream-segment level, the
most useful levels to water quality managers are the small watershed, the
large watershed (e.g., the USGS 8-digit CU), the river basin, and the
ecoregion. Figure 1-2 shows four of these different levels.
The goal for 1998 is to move closer to full integration of assessment
information at all scales. Fully integrated assessment information would
mean
• All waterbodies are georeferenced to RF3 (i.e., assigned locational
coordinates for GIS mapping and analysis).
1-19
-------
1. THE305(b) PROCESS
USGS Cataloging Unit
14-Digit SCS Watershed
Lake Waterbody
Figure 1-2. Hierarchy of nested watersheds (adapted from GIS coverages for the
Upper Tar-Pamlico River Basin, NC; RTI, 1994)
1-20
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
• Watersheds, basins, and other hydrologic units are selected to "nest"
within one another and to share common boundaries wherever possible.
• Assessment reports and maps can be generated electronically at any
hydrologic level and by ecoregion.
• 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.
To ensure progress toward this goal, EPA asks each State to include in its
1998 305(b) report a plan for georeferencing its waterbodies (streams, lakes,
estuaries and ocean shorelines) to RF3. If a State wishes to use a
hydrographic coverage other than RF3 with similar or better resolution, the
plan should address how this will be achieved and how it will be linked to
RF3 to enable national coverage. States that have already georeferenced
their waterbodies should simply document the process and the hydrographic
coverage they used. As described in Section 4, this georeferencing plan can
be included in the State's plan for achieving comprehensive assessments.
1.12 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 method for Tribal decision makers 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
1-21
-------
1. THE 305(b) PROCESS
the pollutants and stressors causing impairment of Tribal waters and the
sources of these stressors where possible.
The Guidelines Supplement contains a summary of key items for first-time
Tribal reports (Appendix F). 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--/C/7oi/WA7£r Our Waters: Tribal
Reporting under Section 305(b) (EPA 841-B-95-003). This booklet is
available through EPA Regional 305(b) Coordinators.
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.
1-22
-------
2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE THE 1996 305(b) GUIDELINES
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE THE 1996 305(b) GUIDELINES
This section summarizes changes since the 1996 Guidelines. The changes
are grouped below by topic.
2.1 New Format for the Guidelines
• These Guidelines are presented in two documents. The volume you are
reading now describes the information to be included in State 305(b)
reports. A separate Guidelines Supplement includes extensive
information on recommended procedures for conducting assessments
developed over the past 10 years by EPA and the 3Q5(b) Consistency
Workgroup
• New material since 1996 is contained in the Guidelines Supplement and
its Appendixes:
- Appendix B: Benefits of Rotating Basin Monitoring and Assessment:
South Carolina
- Appendix C: Water Environmental Indicators and 305(b) Reporting
- Appendix D: Data Dictionary for Annual Electronic Reporting
- Appendix G: Definitions of Selected Source Categories
- Appendix I: 305(b) Monitoring and Assessment Design Focus Group
Handouts
- Appendix K: Section 106 Monitoring Guidance and Guidance for
303(d) Lists
- Appendix M: Section 31 9 v. 314 Funding
2-1
-------
2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE THE 1996 305(b) GUIDELINES
2.2 New Information on the Context of 305(b)
• Section 1 of this volume describes the linkages among the 305(b) cycle,
annual electronic reporting, georeferencing, national water environmental
indicators, Performance Partnership Agreements, and other recent
initiatives.
• A brochure entitled "The Updated 305(b) Cycle: Advantages, Context,
and Expectations" accompanies these Guidelines. It is intended for
management of State water agencies, explaining the above concepts and
linkages.
2.3 Annual/Biennial Electronic Reporting
• Electronic updates of the 305(b) databases are key to the 305(b) process
for 1998 and beyond; Section 6 of this volume describes data elements,
format, and other matters.
• Electronic reporting will include a new voluntary pilot biological integrity
indicator. Section 4 of the Guidelines Supplement describes an approach
to measuring and reporting this indicator. States/Tribes will only report
the indicator in annual electronic reporting.
2.4 Comprehensive and Targeted Coverage
• Sections 1.6 and 4 of this volume and Section 2 of the Guidelines
Supplement contain information on achieving the long-term goal of
comprehensively characterizing all waters of the State on a regular basis.
This includes descriptions and brief examples of different monitoring
designs that a State/Tribe can use to make defensible statements about
use attainment of all its waters.
2.5 Individual Use Support
• Section 3 of the Guidelines Supplement includes expanded guidance for
making aquatic life use support decisions, including additional information
on using habitat and toxicity data and case studies of assessments
involving multiple data types
2.6 Ground Water and Drinking Water
• Section 5 of this volume contains revised guidance for reporting ground
water assessments of aquifers or hydrogeologic settings based on work
by the 305{b) Ground Water Subgroup
2-2
-------
THE 1996 305(b) GUIDELINES
Section 3.5 of the Guidelines Supplement contains recommendations for
making drinking water use assessments based on work by the 305(b)
Drinking Water Subgroup
2-3
-------
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
SECTION 3
305{b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
States must transmit their water quality assessments (Section 305(b)
reports) to the EPA Administrator by April 1, 1998, with draft reports to their
EPA Regional Offices for review and comment no later than February 1,
1998. 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.
The updated 305(b) process requires comprehensive assessments of the
State's waters using a combination of monitoring designs. Beginning in
1998, States are encouraged to include in their 305(b) reports a map and
plan for achieving the goal of comprehensive assessment coverage. States
should achieve comprehensive assessment coverage as soon as possible and
report in 1998 and subsequent 305(b) reports their status in achieving this
goal.
EPA is updating the 305(b) process to allow States to take advantage of
modern information technology to provide more current and comprehensive
information on the status of the Nation's waters. Three alternative reporting
formats are designed to reduce paperwork, allow more reporting flexibility
and make information available to the public more quickly. Each State,
Territory, Interstate Water Commission, the District of Columbia and
participating Tribe may submit 305(b) information in one of three ways.
The preferred format is:
• An annual electronic report accompanied in even years by an abbreviated
narrative report. The abbreviated narrative report will contain:
3-1
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
only the information required by law that has changed from the last
report, and a simple reference to that report.
The second and less preferred approach is:
• In even years, an electronic report accompanied by an abbreviated
narrative report. The abbreviated narrative report will contain:
only the information required by law that has changed from the last
report, and a simple reference to that report.
The third and least preferred approach is:
• In even years, a full hard-copy report as in the past, including all summary
tables and programmatic chapters.
Included in each of these three alternative formats is the plan for
comprehensive assessment coverage described above.
EPA will use all reports and electronic updates described above to report
biennially to Congress on the status of the Nation's waters. The Report to
Congress will include a new section which shows the progress made by the
States, other jurisdictions, and participating Tribes toward the goal of
comprehensive coverage of waters.
Beyond the national uses of the State 305(b) reports, there are many State-
specific and local uses. To meet these needs and provide comprehensive
programmatic information and data, EPA encourages States selecting the
first or second option to prepare a full hard-copy report periodically, including
complete programmatic chapters, maps, and summary tables as described in
Sections 3 through 6 of these Guidelines.
None of the reporting formats relieve the States of any specific grant
reporting requirements under related programs such as Sections 314 or 319.
The remainder of this Section of the Guidelines describes the requirements
for full hard-copy 305(b) reports. For information about contents of the
abbreviated hard-copy reports under the first or second option, see the text
box in Section 1.3 of these Guidelines entitled "Contents of Abbreviated Hard-
copy 305(b) Reports."
The State/EPA 305(b) Consistency Workgroup agreed on the need for
periodic, electronic updates from the States on their waterbody-level
assessments. In order for EPA to prepare a timely Report to Congress,
States should provide electronic updates by April 1 of each year for the
waters assessed in the previous calendar year. Figure 3-1 shows the
schedule for hard-copy reports and electronic updates. See the text box on
3-2
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
page 3-5 and Section 6 for details. If a State is unable to transmit an
electronic update of their assessment data in a given year, the State should
send a biennial electronic update by April 1 of the following year covering
waters assessed in the previous two calendar years.
Sections 3 through 5 of these Guidelines describe the baseline of water
quality information required for the Section 305(b) report; however, each
State may expand on this baseline where it sees fit or as agreed upon with
its EPA Region. If a State has no information on a given measure or topic,
the report should clearly indicate that this is the case. Appendixes may be
used to supplement the report with information considered too detailed for
general reading.
Each State's assessment should be based on the most recent water quality
data available. 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, volunteer monitoring organizations, and Federal
agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
States should involve designated management agencies for nonpoint source
control programs in assessments for their respective source categories and
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 can be used to satisfy a State's reporting
requirements under Sections 106, 314, and 319 in addition to 305(b). See
Table 3-1. Because the date for State submission of the 305(b) reports is
the same date as submission of State Section 303(d) lists, States may. want
to submit their 303(d) lists with their 305{b) reports. However, since the
statutory and regulatory requirements differ for the 303(d) list and the 305(b)
report, States should submit each as a separate document. The 305(b)
reports, the assessments under 106, 314, and 319 if done separately from
the 305(b) report, and the 303{d) lists should be compatible. If
inconsistencies occur, States should explain them in a cover letter to EPA
Headquarters and the Regional Office.
3-3
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Completion Date
Product 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
State 305(b) reports S S
(Full or abbreviated
depending upon use of
electronic updates)
State annual electronic pilot* /" S S S
updates*
EPA Reports to / S
Congress
* Electronic updates are based upon assessments completed in the previous calendar year(s).
States/Tribes with electronic capability are encouraged to submit a "pilot" electronic update for
1997 by December 31, 1997; subsequent updates are due by April 1 of each year.
Figure 3-1. Schedule for the 305(b) Cycle
3-4
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Contents of Electronic Updates
The bulk of a State's electronic update will consist of waterbody-level
assessment data for assessments completed in previous calendar year. Some
States have indicated they would prefer to send their updated statewide
305(b) assessment databases for convenience or to ensure that EPA is working with the latest,
complete dataset. This is acceptable provided assessment dates are included for each
waterbody. If the State is using probability-based monitoring network, include waterbody-level
data for that network in the assessment database but report overall network results in the hard-
copy 305{b) reports.
The transmitted data files can be EPA Waterbody System files or State-developed database files
(provided EPA can convert the files to standard 305(b)/WBS codes). Note: nearly 40 States
transmitted their assessment databases in electronic form during 1994-95.
Section 6 lists the data elements that States should include for each waterbody. With the
exception of Biological Integrity fields, WBS and most State in-house programs already contain
these data elements. EPA will modify WBS to include these and any other new fields required
by these Guidelines.
In addition to the above, a State's electronic update will also include:
• A coverage or map showing cumulative extent of assessment coverage statewide (i.e.,
progress toward comprehensive assessment of the States's waters) and either a GIS
coverage showing assessment results since the last update or hard-copy maps showing
assessment results
• Metadata for the above files (database manager's name, phone number, agency, and a brief
data dictionary; see "Improving meta data" below)
• Updated ground water tables in database, spreadsheet, or word processing format
See Section 6 for more details on electronic updates.
3-5
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS 1 AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Table 3-1. Reporting Requirements Satisfied by 305(b) Reports
CWA
Section
106
305{b)
314
319
Requirement .
Requires States to report on the quality of navigable waters and, to the
extent practicable, ground water in 305 (b) reports as a condition of
receiving 106(e) grants for water quality monitoring programs.
106 monitoring guidelines include reporting elements for ground water,
wetlands, and estuaries (see Appendix K). Therefore, the 305 (b) report is a
convenient mechanism for reporting on programs such as:
• The National Estuary Program (CWA Section 320}
• Ground water protection programs
• Wetlands programs
Biennial reporting on the status of surface and ground water quality
statewide; subject of these Guidelines.
State assessment of status and trends of significant publicly owned lakes
including extent of point source and nonpoint source impacts due to toxics,
conventional pollutants, and acidification; must report through 305(b).
One-time assessment of the types and extent of nonpoint source (NFS)
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.
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 load (TMDL) lists as well as 305(b)
assessments. As in previous reporting cycles, EPA will continue to provide
States with technical assistance in implementing the WBS. A WBS Users
Guide is also available to assist users in the operation of the WBS. For more
information, contact the appropriate Regional 305{b) or WBS Coordinator.
3-6
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
305(b) CONTENTS - PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Each State should provide a 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/stressors and sources of water quality impairments
• Summarize the plan showing how the State/Tribe will achieve
comprehensive coverage of its waters.
• 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.
3-7
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
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 3-2. 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 3-2. Atlas
Topic , • -' • • -: , V " . :--:i'<<-iii.^
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 (subset)
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds3
Acres of significant publicly owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds (subset)
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Miles of ocean coast
Miles of Great Lakes shore
Acres of freshwater wetlands
Acres of tidal wetlands
Walue:*s
'Available from EPA RF3/DLG estimates ("Total Waters" estimates)
NOTE: Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic behavior, either as
stream channel miles under rivers or as total surface acreage under
lakes/reservoirs/ponds, but not under both categories. In general, impoundments
should be reported as lakes/reservoirs/ponds unless they are run-of-river impoundments
with very short retention times.
3-8
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUIVIMARY 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;
and number of lakes. 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 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
biennial 305(b) Reports 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.
EPA and USGS jointly plan to update the Total Waters database after
completion of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). 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. In particular, 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 the
Monitoring Branch, 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
3-9
-------
- PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
National Wetlands Inventory is recommended for State wetland acreage
estimates.
Maps
States should include maps and other graphical depictions of background
information relevant to water quality assessments. For the 1998 cycle, the
305(b) report should include maps of basins or watersheds used in rotating
basin surveys or statewide basin management, ecoregions,
physiogeographic provinces, Tribal lands, and other significant
characteristics of the State. EPA encourages the use of CIS coverages to
prepare these maps. [Note: In Section 4, 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 approach to water quality
management.
Watershed Approach
Include an overview of any watershed- or basin-oriented 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.
Water Quality Standards (WQS) 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 discussion 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 ambient 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.
3-10
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS 1 AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Point Source Program
Within the context of both technology-based and water-quality-based
controls, States should provide a general overview of the point source
control program. They should focus on program actions, their relationship
to 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.
IMonpoint Source Control Program
Section 31 9 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,
as necessary, 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 or other
State assessment database. 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 Program and Grants
Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997 and Future Years (May 1996) describes
annual reporting for the Section 319 Management Program, which is not
included in the 305(b) reporting process. Also, a NPS monitoring and
evaluation guide is available; see text box at end of Section 4.2 of these
Guidelines.
3-11
-------
- PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 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, Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA 840-B-92-003),
describes management measures that States are to achieve or implement
throughout their coastal zones.
States should use their 305(b) reporting process to document water quality
improvements in the Section 6217 management area. Where coastal water
quality is impaired or threatened even after the implementation of
management measures, then additional management measures are required.
The 305(b) reporting process should be used as one of the components to
the State's Coastal Nonpoint Program and the identification of threatened or
impaired waters. Additional information on the Section 6217 program can
be obtained from EPA's Nonpoint Source Control Branch at (202) 260-7085
or NOAA's Coastal Programs Division at (301) 713-3155.
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, interagency 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 economic and social costs
and benefits of actions necessary to achieve the objective of the Clean
Water Act. It is recognized that this information may be difficult to obtain
due to the complexities of the economic analysis involved. However, until
such time as comparable procedures for evaluating costs and benefits are in
wider use, States should provide as much of the following information as
possible.
Cost Information
EPA asks States to provide as much of the following information as
possible. Some possible sources of information are included in the text box
that follows.
3-12
-------
3-305(b)CONTENTS- PARTS IAND II: SUMMARY AMD BACKGROUND
• Capital investments in municipal facilities in the past 5 years, 10 years,
and since 1972,
• Capital investments in industrial facilities in the past 5 years, 10 years,
and since 1 972
• Investments in nonpoint source measures in the past 5 years, 10 years,
and since 1972 , ,
• 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. Business and industry may gain from
cleaner water by having lower water treatment costs or perhaps by having
lower wage costs due to the higher quality of life that their location has to
offer. .-.--.
Other non-recreational benefits can accrue from the role wetlands play as
natural filters or sinks for certain pollutants and from their crucial role as fish
nurseries. Society in general can benefit from improved habitat for
endangered or threatened species. ,
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
3-13
-------
3. 305{b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND 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 and 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 Operated 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 Revenue and
Expenditure by Level and Type of Government, by State" — This table indicates total
expenditures by State and local governments on sewerage (with capital outlay separated) and
solid waste management.
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
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 abatement 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)
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 (hazardous vs.
nonhazardous). Nonhazardous costs are further broken down (payments to industry vs.
sewage services payments to government).
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.
3-14
-------
3. 305(b) CONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
may attempt to document how people and firms are using the waters in the
State. Information on recreation participation rates 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 provided to States as they are
published. 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
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
people and business enterprises use and enjoy the water resources.
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
3-15
-------
j.J305(b)j;ONTENTS - PARTS I AND II: SUMMARY AMD BACKGROUND
• 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 or
sports fisheries, recovery of damaged aquatic environments, reduced costs
of water treatment undertaken at municipal and industrial facilities, or
reduced medical costs due to improved water quality for recreation. States
should also discuss the costs and benefits of water quality achievements for
programs or specific sites documented elsewhere in trie report. Examples of
such projects include Clean Lakes restoration 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 and that affect
its water quality program. List and discuss any special concerns that are
not specifically addressed elsewhere in this guidance, or, if they are
addressed, are not identified as special State concerns. This .section is a
key part of the assessment, describing the forces driving specific State
programs and illustrating the complex and varying nature of water quality
problems throughout the country. Include, if possible, the strategies that
are being planned or implemented to alleviate these problems and give site-
specific examples.
Second, provide recommendations as to additional general actions that are
necessary to achieve the objective of the Clean Water Act: providing for the
protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allowing
recreation in and on the water. Examples of recommendations include
developing more FDA action levels, improving training of municipal
treatment facility operators, correcting combined sewer overflows, placing
more emphasis on the identification and control of nonpoint sources, point
source/nonpoint source trading, statewide basin management, and other
watershed-based water quality management programs.
3-16
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
SECTION 4
305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter One: Current Surface Water Monitoring Program
To provide a perspective on their activities to evaluate water quality, States
must 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.
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
excerpted from Monitoring Program Work Plan elements in Section 106
Monitoring Guidance to the States (Appendix K of the Guidelines
Supplement), first issued by EPA in 1994, which is in turn based on the
ITFM framework for water quality monitoring. States could extract
information from existing documents such as basin plans, Performance
Partnership Agreements or 106 work plans 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
• Networks and Programs (for each include objectives, design
methodology, number of sites, sampling methods, sampling frequency,
parameters)
4-1
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
- Fixed-station networks
- Intensive surveys including rotating basin surveys
- Probability-based surveys
- 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
- status of State-coordinated volunteer monitoring program, if any
- use of volunteer monitoring data in report
- source of volunteer monitoring data used
- type of volunteer monitoring data used
• 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
- effectiveness in meeting program objectives
- changes needed to evaluate new problems
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.
States should also discuss any plans to use data generated by Federal
agencies such as EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP), USGS's NAWQA and NASQAN programs, or the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Status and Trends Program.
Finally, States 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
data systems, training, or technical assistance for new monitoring protocols.
4-2
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART 111: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter Two: Plan for Achieving Comprehensive Assessments
EPA has established a long-term goal of comprehensively characterizing
surface and ground waters of each State (in keeping with the State's
rotating basin approach if applicable) using a variety of techniques targeted
to the condition of, and goals for, the waters. These techniques may
include traditional targeted monitoring and probability-based designs. To
help ensure national progress toward this goal, each State is encouraged to
include in its 1998 305(b) report a plan and maps showing how they will
achieve comprehensive monitoring and assessment of its waters. EPA
believes that most of the work involved in developing such a plan will have
already been performed in the development of the State's Section 106
Monitoring Strategy. In cases where the existing strategy does not already
include comprehensive assessment of State waters, States are encouraged
to revise the strategy to achieve this goal. At a minimum. States should
attach a copy of their current Section 106 Monitoring Strategy to the 1998
305(b) report.
Prior to preparing this plan, EPA recommends that State monitoring and
305(b) staff hold a series of discussions with their EPA Regional Monitoring
and TMDL Coordinators regarding ways to adapt their current monitoring
program to achieve comprehensive monitoring. EPA can also provide
technical support for designing probability-based monitoring networks to
supplement existing networks. For example, EPA's EMAP staff have
extensive experience designing and conducting probability-based monitoring.
The EPA contact is shown on page ii.
See Section 2 and Appendix I of the Guidelines Supplement for more
information about different monitoring designs for achieving comprehensive
assessments. Among the possible approaches for a State to achieve
comprehensive assessments based on monitoring are:
• All sizes and categories of streams (or lakes or estuaries) are sampled
based on probabilistic monitoring designs. This type of design can be
incorporated into a State's rotating basin monitoring program.
• Certain categories of waterbodies are sampled based on probability-based
designs, while other categories are sampled with historical fixed station.
networks or other non-random designs.
As an example of the latter approach, a State might monitor its headwater
streams using a probability-based design, since the number of small streams
makes monitoring each one impractical. The State could monitor large
streams and rivers using a more traditional network. The probability
network would allow the State to draw valid inferences about the degree of
4-3
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
use support in its headwater streams, while the remaining streams and
rivers would be monitored through proper spacing of monitoring sites.
Similarly, small lakes could be monitored probabilistically and larger lakes
using other designs.
Contents of the plan should include:
• How the State plans to investigate its options for comprehensive .
monitoring and assessment—i.e., the process the State will follow for
selecting a valid, cost-effective program including existing networks to
comprehensively determine designated use support and biological
integrity statewide.
• If known, a description of any proposed future monitoring networks,
including the types of information listed above under Chapter 1: Current
Surface Water Monitoring Program; several States have begun using a
combination of traditional and probability-based monitoring, and may be
able to prepare this part of the plan for their 1998 305(b) reports.
• Maps showing the schedule by watershed or basin for introducing the
necessary monitoring changes to achieve comprehensive monitoring.
• A plan for georeferencing all waterbodies (streams, lakes, estuaries and
ocean shorelines) to RF3. If a State wishes to use a hydrographic
coverage other than RF3 with similar or better resolution, the plan should
address how this will be achieved and how it will be linked to RF3 to
enable national coverage. States that have already georeferenced their
waterbodies should simply document the process and the hydrographic
coverage they used. See page ii for the EPA national contact for
georeferencing waterbodies to RF3.
Chapter Three: Assessment Methodology and Summary Data
Assessment Methodology
States should provide information on the methods they used to assess data
for determining use support status. This documentation should include
types of information used, data sources, 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.) should be explained in
detail. The use of flow charts of the decision process is recommended.
Appendix J of the Guidelines Supplement includes example assessment
methodologies with the appropriate level of detail. States not using the
4-4
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
WBS should describe the databases they use to track and report
assessments.
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; limited monitoring of
waterbodies affected by nonpoint sources). Also, EPA asks States to
discuss how they determine the extent of a waterbody represented by a
single assessment or monitoring site (see also Section 2.1 of the Guidelines
Supplement).
Approximately half of the States have adopted or are considering a
statewide basin management approach in which they assess all basins or
watersheds at regular intervals (typically three to five 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 the number of years 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.
To achieve more comprehensive coverage of its waters, a State could
assess a statistically valid subset of such waterbodies and intermittent
streams and infer the condition of the whole. See Section 4.2 of the
Guidelines Supplement for more information about probability-based
monitoring.
Finally, if water quality trends are reported, the State should include a
description of its methods and software.
EPA and many States represented on 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/stressors, as well as the locations of monitoring sites, dischargers,
land-disturbing activities, and threatened wetlands. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 are
watershed-scale maps that illustrate these types of features. These are
black and white copies of the original color maps. For examples of color
maps from 1996 State 305(b) reports, States may contact the National
4-5
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Natural Resources
Wando River Watershed
(03050201-080)
Figures 4-1 and 4-2
Source: 1996 Catawba-Santee Basin Plan,
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
Activities Potentially Affecting Water Quality
Ashley River Watershed
(03050202-040)
• MotrWNPDESMKkiria
* AcdvtMukfe*I
A GfM!>4W»i
-------
_____ 4^305(b^CONTEIMTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
305(b) Coordinator. EPA highly recommends the use of color maps for
displaying assessment results.
States with GISs can generate such maps by georeferencing their
waterbody-specific assessment data (e.g., WBS data) to the 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 water data to be displayed spatially and overlaid with other
data in a GIS. EPA is providing technical support for this process to States.
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 Waterbody System.
• Each State should seek technical input from EPA before reach indexing to
ensure Regional and national compatibility and to take advantage of
lessons learned in other States. The EPA contact for reach indexing is
shown on page ii.
For other information about the above items, contact the National 305{b)
Coordinator.
EPA recognizes that some State 305(b) programs may not have access to a
GIS for the 1998 report; 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 prepare 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 be at the
State level or basin scale. Basin-scale maps may be available from basin
plans under a statewide basin management approach.
Section 303(d) Waters
Each State must transmit a Section 303(d) list to EPA biennially, with the
next update due by April 1, 1998. Because the date for State submission of
the 305(b) reports is the same date as submission of State Section 303(d)
lists, States may want to submit their 303(d) lists with their 305(b) reports.
However, since the statutory and regulatory requirements differ for the
4-7
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER AjSSESSMEMT
303(d) list and the 305(b) report, States should submit each as a separate
document.
In any case, each State is 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 State's assessment database and most
recent 305(b) report. A deliberative analysis of existing information,
including best professional judgment, should be conducted to evaluate if the
information is adequate to support inclusion of a waterbody 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 EPA disapproves a State list, EPA
is required to identify waters and assign a priority ranking for TMDL
development.
For guidance regarding State and EPA responsibilities under Section 303(d)
and a list of EPA Regional TMDL Coordinators, see Appendix K to the
Guidelines Supplement. For more information, contact the EPA Watershed
Branch (202) 260-7074.
Table 4-1 is included here to show 305(b) staff the types of information
that States may include on their 303(d) lists. Note that the data field WBID
(waterbody identification number) in Table 4-1 will help EPA and the State
manage both 305(b) and 303(d) data in the future by providing a common
data element for cross-referencing data. States have the option to use WBS
to track this information. WBS contains a TMDL list module with cause and
source codes and other fields from Table 4-1.
Chapter Four: Rivers and Streams Water Quality Assessment
Designated Use Support
The State should prepare a table summarizing the extent of impairment of
designated use support (Table 4-2). States with statewide or regional fish
consumption advisories for mercury are asked to provide two versions of
Table 4-2, one version including impairment due to these advisories and one
version excluding such impairment. Presenting separate tables helps clarify
the extent of mercury advisory problems versus other more tractable
problems in the State.
4-8
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III:
SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
3
CO
"3
.0
+3
W
to
Hi
5
O
CO
'3
K-
•a
"o
(a
to
I
CO
1
+->
Information
«*-
o
(0
0)
£"
5
J2
(0
~\ -'\ti
"- '% w 52
«!5 W JK "W'-S
, -° jgj ll
\ X£. A
*" 111
S> H X
^ / jtt^.S js £
" "' "S *^ ^^§
In* Q ^ O
-ft. to ,0.
'^
1 - ' * Wv? ^
"% 1 1'S *g
> ^ BJ g .2
S - , * ,S'
? Q-
re <
£ ° D)
g £• i •
CO 2 0)
0 2 rj"
•O W "
ffl D) CO
05 C •
c to i
ro "5 S
E « 5
? c x
re re 0)0
jx 0) 05 c
o -a 5 o
re « -9 -c
L- cj re 4-*
r\ o> re o)
So- T= .C
^^ D 4-1 »—
03 ^_, G) "U
5 'i i 1
£ § cS 1
10 ~° So-.
O «- !2 o 2 H- CD o +j
'i» 1 US!
""0 T >.>->.9-o
-o "a w = -D -o-o < 0.
S±:^ £ o o o 0 —
eg .2 £^£2«
S c E (0 OOCUOOo
£.2£ § tototog"-§
Q-S'5 .£ 5^^^-2
» E S" ^
'o o £ ^ " » II I'
•8 ! £ £ -a
+- — . +5 D
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-2. Summary of Fully Supporting, Threatened, and Impaired Waters3
Degree of Use
Support
Size Fully Supporting All Assessed Uses
Size Fully Supporting All Assessed Uses but
Threatened for at Least One Use0
Size Impaired for One or More Usesd
Size Not Attainable for Any Use and Not Included
in the Line Items Above
TOTAL ASSESSED
Assessment Category ,
s s
Evaluated"
Monitored"
Total •*'
Assessed -
_ Sizeb
* See text regarding preparing two versions of this table if the State has a statewide or regional
fish consumption advisory due to mercury.
b Report size in each category (rivers and streams reported in miles).
0 Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size fully supporting
use (see Section 1.2 of the Guidelines Supplement). It should be added into the totals
entered in the bottom line.
d Impaired = Partially or not supporting a designated use.
4-10
-------
^_^_4.J305(bKX3j\ITENTS - PART III: SURff££WATER ASSESSMENT
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 4-2 for rivers and streams.
In addition, the State should prepare a table summarizing individual
designated use support (Table 4-3). Table 4-3 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 4-3 (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).
Assessment Database Managers—Whether you use WBS or a customized
system, to generate Table 4-2 accurately you may need to enter values for a
summary of uses (formerly overall use, Code 01) at least for waterbodies
having impairment of multiple individual uses. This is because of potential
overlap of impairment. For example, if a stream waterbody has 5 miles of
aquatic life use impairment and 2 miles of swimming use impairment, it could have from 5 to 7
miles of impairment. Note: if a State does not provide sizes for "summary of uses" Code 01 in
its database, EPA will assume that the total size impaired for a waterbody equals the largest
size impaired for any individual use.
WBS treats the summary of uses/overall use Code 01 the same as individual use codes. You
only need to provide data for this code if the waterbody has impairment of multiple individual
uses. Contact WBS User Support for further information; see page ii for telephone number).
4-11
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART HI: SURFACE WATER AJJ3ESSMENT
Several States separate CWA goals (fishable, swimmable) from State goals
(aquatic life use support (ALUS), primary contact recreation, etc.).
Therefore, States can also report on their own individual designated uses.
However, to ensure that EPA correctly interprets their summary data. States
should include in Table 4-3 values for the national designated use categories
(aquatic life, fish consumption, shellfishing, swimming, secondary contact,
drinking water, agricultural, cultural/ceremonial) whether or not they choose
to include State-specific uses.
Causes/Stressors 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/stressors arid sources of use impairment statewide.
States may also wish to prepare similar tabular information for waters that
fully support uses but are threatened.
Assessment Database Managers—Whether you use WBS or a customized
system, EPA needs your cooperation to accurately interpret your use support
data. For each waterbody, please fill in the size fields for the any of the
following national use support categories that apply:
• Aquatic Life Use
• Fish Consumption Use
• Shellfishing Use
• Swimming Use
• Secondary Contact Use
• Drinking Water Use
Even if you have State-specific subcategories for these uses, EPA also needs sizes for the above
national uses. Also, please complete the Assessment Category field to distinguish evaluated (E)
from monitored (M) assessments.
Note to WBS Users—If you follow the above instructions, WBS can be used to generate
Tables 4-2 and 4-3.
4-12
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS -r.PART'JII: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
to
£
co
t:
o
Q.
Q.
3
CO
0>
W
•
CO
JQ
(0
CO
•o
c
CD
CO
CD
if
O
.Q
03
*->
CO
CD
Q.
o .a
z «
. , K |
•M 0)
o c
Z t
CO O
N a
CO §•
CO
•^ 05
CO C
•c r
£ i.
S §
Kw
..0) TJ
^ C CO
= '€ «. S
U- o 3 +j
>• c
"• o
v a
«1
N 1
CO
0
D)
CD
•»-»
CD
O
CD
•*-»
CO
CD
to
>
"o
(D
N
D
JO
r*t
category applicat
ll
o
2
o
N
c p
4-13
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Relative Assessment of Causes/Stressors —
Causes/stressors are those pollutants or other'stressors (e.g., flow and other
habitat alterations, presence of exotic species) that contribute to the actual
or threatened impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. In Table 4-4,
States should provide the total size (in miles) of rivers and streams affected
by each cause/stressor category. A waterbody may be affected by several
different causes/stressors and its size should be counted in each relevant
cause/stressor category. See Section 1 of the Guidelines Supplement for
new discussion of the terms Major/Moderate/Minor and a list of
cause/stressor codes for the WBS. See the footnote to Table 4-4 regarding
the importance of leaving no blanks in Table 4-4; to avoid confusion in
national summaries, please use asterisks, dashes, or zeros as described in
the footnote.
The relative magnitude of causes/stressors does not necessarily correspond
to degree of use support. For example, a waterbody can have three
causes/stressors labeled as moderate, but have sufficient impairment from
these multiple causes/stressors to be assessed as not supporting.
Most of the causes/stressors in Table 4-4 are self-explanatory but some
warrant clarification:
• Siltation refers to the deposition of sediment on the bottom of a
waterbody causing such impacts as smothering benthic habitat in
streams or filling in of lakes.
• Thermal modification generally involves the heating of receiving waters
by point sources (e.g., plant cooling water) or nonpoint sources (e.g.,
runoff from pavement or elimination of bank shading).
• Flow alteration refers to frequent changes in flow or chronic reductions
in flow that impact aquatic life (e.g., as flow-regulated rivers or a stream
with excessive irrigation withdrawals).
• Other habitat alterations may include removal of woody debris or cobbles
from a stream.
• Exotic species are introduced plants and animals (e.g., Eurasian milfoil,
zebra mussels, grass carp) that interfere with natural fisheries,
endangered species, or other components of the ecosystem.
4-14
-------
SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-4. Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Cause/Stressor Categories
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (Reported in Miles)3
-, "'' " •*• ^
-* , * V-v — \*-v
Cause/Stressor Category" '"
Cause/Stressor unknown
Unknown toxicity '
Pesticides
Priority organics
Nonpriority organics
Metals
Ammonia
Cyanide
Sulfates
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 (macrophytes)
Total toxics
Turbidity
Exotic species
Excessive algal growth
Inappropriate littoral vegetation
Other (specify)
;;>'Sizexof Waters by-* * '
,? " , Contribution to Impairment3'*1 '^— .
Major0
'-*•;" ? Moderate/Minor", *^
(see footnotes on next page)
4-15
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Reported in total size (rivers and streams 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.
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.
Note that multiple moderate/minor causes/stressors can additively result in
nonsupport. See discussion in Section 1.9 of the Guidelines Supplement.
4-16
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
How to Avoid Double-counting Causes/Stressors
Assessment Database Managers—WBS and other State assessment
databases can generate Table 4-4 from waterbody-specific information. To
do so, users must complete Cause Size and Cause Magnitude fields for each
waterbody. Table 1 -2 of the Guidelines Supplement lists the national cause/stressor codes.
WBS Users—States can also add their own codes to WBS to track additional causes/stressors.
For 1997, EPA has added codes under Code 500-Metals, to track specific metals such as
mercury and copper. If a State chooses to add cause/stressor codes to WBS, or to use the new
subcategory codes, the data system can still be used to generate Table 4-5. To generate this
table, enter a total size for each major category of causes/stressors (the categories in Table 1-2
of the Guidelines Supplement such as 0500—Metals or 0200—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 zinc and 7 miles by copper, but the total
size impacted by "metals" may be only 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.
Non-WBS Users—Your customized database may also require a total size for each major
cause/stressor in order to avoid double counting. See diagram below. For more information,
contact WBS User Support at the number on page ii.
3 Miles
7 Miles - Copper
4-17
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Relative Assessment of Sources —
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 L of the Guidelines Supplement 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 4-5). A waterbody may be affected by
several sources of pollution and the appropriate size should be counted in
each relevant source category.
Table 4-5 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 provide aggregate
source category totals for the source categories shown in Table 4-5. The
cell entitled "Other" in Table 4-5 should actually be a State's list of specific
additional sources not included in the preceding categories.
The Natural Sources category should be reserved for waterbodies impaired
due to naturally occurring (nonanthropogenic) conditions. See Section 1.7
of the Guidelines Supplement for a discussion of appropriate uses of this
source category.
For technical or economic reasons, impairment by a natural 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/stressors with sources for a waterbody in
their assessment databases whenever possible (see Section 1.8 of the
Guidelines Supplement). A special cause/source link field is provided in
WBS for this purpose. Linked cause/source data are very important 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.
4-18
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-5. Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Source Categories
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams (reported in miles)3
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
* 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 1.9 of the Guidelines Supplement.
c 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.
4-20
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS — PART IH: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
How to Avoid Double-counting Sources
Assessment Database Managers—Many State assessment databases track
and report on a detailed list of source subcategories under some of the
general categories such as Agriculture. The full list of source categories is
given in Section 1.7 of the Guidelines Supplement.
To use these databases, including the WBS, to generate Table 4-5 from waterbody-specific
information, users must complete Source Size and Source Magnitude fields for each waterbody.
If source subcategories are used, users must always enter a size for each appropriate general
source category (such as 1000—Agriculture). WBS and customized State databases may not
accurately calculate the size of waters affected by Agriculture from the agriculture
subcategories (Table 1 -3 of the Guidelines Supplement) because the sizes of waters affected by
each subcategory may overlap and not be additive. For example, consider a waterbody with 5
miles affected by croplands, 7 miles affected by pastureland, but a total of 10 miles affected by
the Agriculture general category because the two subcategories of sources overlap. The
following sizes should be stored in the State's assessment database.
Code 1000 Agriculture (general category) 10 miles
Code 1050 , Crop related sources 5 miles
Code 1350 Grazing-related sources 7 miles
To be able to generate Table 4-5 using the WBS and most customized State databases, total
mileage must be entered for each general source category affecting a waterbody (i.e., for the
categories in Table 4-5) whether or not source subcategories are also entered.
7 Miles - Grazing
4-21
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter Five: 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 4-2 through 4-5 should be developed
for all assessed 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.
The remainder of this chapter deals with reporting requirements under
Section 314. The focus is on significant publicly owned lakes. EPA asks
States to report on all lakes using Tables 4-2 through 4-5 but only
significant publicly-owned lakes in Tables 4-6 through 4-11. Under the
abbreviated hard-copy reporting option, a State need not repeat Tables 4-6
through 4-11 biennially unless it has information indicating that conditions
have changed. If the State has information that the conditions in its 314
lakes are changing more frequently, than these summary tables should be
reported biennially or all required 314 lake-specific data reported in
electronic updates. Such electronic updates would satisfy the Section 314
biennial reporting requirement.
Clean Lakes Program
Section 314(a)(2) of the
CWA, as amended by the
Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires the States to
submit an 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.
Although all lakes should be included in the
summary tables described in the "Summary
Statistics" section above (i.e.. Tables 4-2
through 4-5), the reporting requirements
described below are specific to the Clean
Lakes Program. Data in Tables 4-6 through
4-11 should be for significant publicly owned
lakes only. If States wish to report such
information for private lakes, they may do so
using similar tables. However, totals for
Section 314 significant publicly owned lakes
must always be distinguished from private
lakes.
For 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). Therefore, the term "lake" in this section will refer to
"significant publicly owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds."
4-22
-------
4. 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-6. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
> •*»?• , - '/
^? N'1 ^~* ^
I *l «mr •*-"
Total
Assessed
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
Unknown
^ *~* **"* ; '•''r&'tff^' ' /J-^~
Number W^^0s''!' ..
' -,,-~>S^."' X/'j^' ffK>~ -A*'- '$
..//^^pVeagi^-.'dfdt.akes/ <%
•>
WBS Users—WBS can generate lakes summary Tables 4-6 through 4-11 if
you enter the required data for individual lake waterbodies. One key data
element is the "significant publicly owned lake" field on WBS Screen 1. For
further information, see the WBS Users Guide or contact WBS User Support
at the telephone number on page ii.
States should include the specific assessment elements as outlined in
Section 314(a){1 )(A-F) as part of their 305{b) reports (see Appendix A of
the Guidelines Supplement).
.(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 305(b) report as
well.)
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 specific information on
each lake. Lake-specific information may be submitted by computer disk or
a hard-copy appendix to the State report.
4-23
-------
4.J305(b)JX)NTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Each State should report the following information:
Background —
• The State's definition of "significant" as it relates to the purposes of this
assessment. The definition must consider public interest and use.
• Total number of significant publicly owned lakes and number of acres of
significant publicly owned lakes in the State.
• Any other background information the State considers relevant to this
discussion.
Trophic Status [314(a)(1)(A)] - Table 4-6
• The total number of lakes and lake acres in each trophic class (dystrophic,
oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, hypertrophic). (Note: Table 4-6 is a
summary, not a list of all lakes.)
• A discussion of the approach used to determine trophic status and why it
was selected.
Control Methods [314(a)(1)(B>]
• A description of procedures, processes, and methods to control sources
of pollution to lakes including
- point and nonpoint source controls
- land use ordinances and regulations designed to protect lake water
quality.
A general description of the State pollution control programs as they relate
to the protection of lake water quality. In particular, discuss the State lake
management program, including related activities under the nonpoint source,
point source, wetlands, and emissions control programs, and any other
relevant program activities. Also, describe the State's water quality
standards that are applicable to lakes.
Restoration/Protection Efforts [314(a)(1)(C)3 -- Tables 4-7 and 4-8
• 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
4-24
-------
4. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-7. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques
" ,^ I'fJr ^' .£' '^Re^abiufftiqn^lechnlgueSit?'-' , ^js^tB*/
Application of Aquatic Plant Herbicides
Hypolimnetic Withdrawal of Low DO Water
Dilution/Flushing
Shadinq/Sediment Covers or Barriers
Sand or Other Filters Used to Clarify Water
Food Chain Manipulation
Biological Controls
Shoreline Erosion Controls/Bank Stabilization
Inteqrated Pest Manaqement Practices Applied
Animal Waste Manaqement Practices Installed
Land Surface Roughening for Erosion Control _
Tecfmique iHas^ij
IflSires ofi£ak|fs
4-25
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-7. Lake Rehabilitation Techniques (continued)
"Rehabilitation Technique
Riprappinq Installed
Unspecified Type of Best Manaqement Practice Installed
Other Watershed Controls (Specify)
Other Lake Protection/Restoration Controls
Local Lake Manaqement Proqram In-place
Public Information/Education Proqram/Activities
Local Ordinances/Zoninq/Reflulations to Protect Lake
Point Source Controls
Other (Specify)
Number of
Lakes Where
Technique Has
Been Used
Acres of Lakes
Where V
Technique HasT
Been Used
Table 4-8. List of Clean Lakes Program Projects Active During
1996 - 1998 Reporting Period
Name of Project
Type of
Project8
Federal
Funding
($)
Problems
Addressed
Management
Measures
Proposed or
Undertaken"
Completed?
(Yes/No) -H
* Lake Water Quality Assessment (LWQA), Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III.
b Refer to Table 4-7 for a partial list of management/rehabilitation measures.
4-26
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
among Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies concerned with lake
protection, restoration, and management.
• A description and tabulation of techniques to restore lake water quality.
Table 4-7 provides a list of lake rehabilitation techniques as well as a
format for reporting the number of lakes and the acreage of lakes where
each technique has been applied. The WBS can be used to generate
Table 4-7 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.
• A description and tabulation of Lake Water Quality Assessment grants
and Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III Clean Lakes projects funded under
Section 314 or Section 319 that have been undertaken and/or completed.
Table 4-8 shows one way to present this information. State Clean Lakes
records, EPA's Clean Lakes Program Management System (CLPMS), or
the 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) can provide the
information needed for Table 4-8. For more information, contact the EPA
Watershed Branch staff at (202) 260-7107.
Note that in recent years EPA has not requested funding for Section 314 but
rather has encouraged States to use Section 319 to support lakes work that
was previously supported under Section 314. Thus, Phase I, II, and III
projects, and lake water quality assessments which were previously done
under the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program are eligible for funding under
Section 319, with some caveats. In November 1996 EPA issued
"Questions and Answers on the Relationship Between the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Program and the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program" to
clarify questions regarding funding of lake activities under Section 319 (see
Appendix M of the Guidelines Supplement).
Impaired and Threatened Lakes [314(a)(1)(E)] -
• Provide summary tables on designated use support and causes and
sources of nonsupport in lakes similar to Tables 4-3 through 4-5. 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.
4-27
-------
4. 1998305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Acid Effects on Lakes [314(a)(1)(D); 314(a)(1)(E)I -- Tables 4-9 and 4-10 .
• 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 4-9 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 4-10 shows one way to present the information. WBS will
generate Tables 4-9 and 4-10 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.
Table 4-9. Acid Effects on Lakes
Assessed for Acidity
Impacted by High Acidity
Vulnerable to Acidity
Number of Lakes
Acreage of Lakes
Table 4-10. 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 1.7 of the Guidelines Supplement for description of natural sources.
4-28
-------
4. 1998 305{b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Toxic Effects on Lakes [314(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 [314(a)(1)(F)] - Table 4-11
• 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 4-11 shows EPA's preferred way to
present this information. '
• 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: 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 1993). Contact the Watershed Branch at (202) 260-7107 for a
copy.
Table 4-11. Trends in Significant Public Lakes
\"' :/, ;^ -;;: *$ ;-"?"
Assessed for Trends
Improving
Stable
Degrading
Trend Unknown
<, rjNurnber of Lakes-Z- -"-
'¥ '<• < * 7s;-
, , *£ ! -4s * V - * * , ''
'' Acreage, offtakes - <
4-29
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter Six: 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 4-2 through 4-5 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 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 6), States should report further information on
estuaries, coastal waters, and Great Lakes including:
• A case study from at least one estuary/coastal/Great Lakes area. States
are encouraged to describe problems and challenges, not just "success
stories."
• Information on eutrophication including:
- occurrence, extent, and severity of hypoxia and anoxia (low or
complete absence of dissolved oxygen);
4-30
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACEiWATER ASSESSMENT
- 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.
• 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 operations.
• information on changes in living resources including discussion of any
increases or decreases in the abundance or distribution of species
dependent on estuarine, near coastal, or Great Lakes waters; changes in
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.).
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 1 992, 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 7: Wetlands Assessment.
Chapter Seven: 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 Administration Wetlands Plan calls for a no overall net
4-31
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
loss in the short term and a net increase in the quantity and quality of our
Nation's wetlands in the long term. 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, wetland monitoring programs
are in their infancy (see 1994 National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress) and no State is operating a statewide wetland monitoring
program. For this reason, it is important that States in their 305(b) reports
describe their efforts to build wetland monitoring programs or to integrate
wetlands into existing surface water monitoring programs.
In addition, States should report on their efforts to achieve the no overall net
loss goal for wetland function and acreage. 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.
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 6 (Estuary and Coastal
Assessment).
States that wish to do so may report separately on riparian 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, States are
encouraged to geographically or spatially represent the information (e.g.,
report information by watershed unit and include maps).
Development of Wetland Water Quality Standards
In July 1990, EPA published guidance on the level of achievement expected
of States by the end of FY1993 in the development of wetland water
quality standards. Although most States have incorporated wetlands into
4-32
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
their definition of State waters, currently only a few States have developed
comprehensive wetland-specific standards. Water quality standards for
wetlands are necessary to ensure that, under the provisions of the Clean
Water Act, wetlands are afforded the same level of protection as other
waters. Development of wetlands water quality standards provides a
regulatory basis for a variety of 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 1994 305(b) reports, almost all States reported on their efforts
to develop wetlands water quality standards. To date, over 27 States, have
received wetland protection grants to develop wetland-specific water quality
standards. By the end of FY99, EPA expects all States to designate specific
beneficial uses and adopt narrative criteria for their wetlands.
Table 4-12 is a guide for presenting tabular information on development of
State wetland water quality standards.
To supplement the information in Table 4-12, 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.
Table 4-12. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
«"•*''* '
f • ' , * fc"*'~
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
Antidegradation
Implementation Method
/- ^"" "~
r,.. In Place
Undei^Development
!*»*•» <
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
• Briefly describe efforts to integrate wetland protection through 401
certification and wetlands water quality standards with the NPDES
storm water program. Specifically, relate any criteria used in evaluating
stormwater impacts to wetlands.
Integrity of Wetland Resources
The development of wetland biological assessment methods is a growing
area of emphasis for EPA, States, and Tribes. Development of monitoring
methods and initiation of pilot monitoring programs are among the priorities
for the Wetlands Protection Grants Program.
States should discuss their efforts (including current research) to develop
programs to monitor the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of
wetlands and to integrate wetlands into existing surface water monitoring
programs. States should include information on the scope and
comprehensiveness of the program (e.g., geographic coverage), types of
monitoring (e.g., biological, chemical, physical), and how use support
decisions are made. States should also discuss efforts to conduct wetland
functional assessments (e.g., Hydrogeomorphic Approach [HGM]).
EPA has recently established a workgroup of States, Federal agencies, and
academics to improve wetland biological assessment methods and
programs. Because of these partnerships, EPA has set a 1999 performance
measure for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1 5
States/Tribes developing tools and programs to assess and monitor overall
wetland improvement/deterioration. EPA encourages States to report on
specific monitoring methods and criteria either already in effect or under
development'. Biological monitoring is critical for States to continue to refine
their designated uses to more adequately reflect and protect existing
wetland conditions.
EPA encourages States to report on the attainment of designated uses in
their wetlands. To the extent possible, complete Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5
(designated use support, causes/stressors 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 1994
305(b) reports, 13 States reported on sources of wetland loss, 12 reported
on causes and sources degrading wetlands, and 8 States reported on
designated use support in some portion of their wetlands.
States should also report on wetland monitoring programs by volunteers and
whether they are working to be able to use this information in the 305(b)
4-34
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
report. Rhode Island Sea Grant and EPA jointly issued in January 1994 a
national directory of volunteer monitoring programs, many of which have
wetland components (Rhode Island Sea Grant, 1994). States can obtain a
copy from the EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Monitoring Branch, (202) 260-7018. EPA is compiling an annotated
bibliography of volunteer monitoring manuals which is available through our
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands.
Extent of Wetland Resources
States should describe any assessments of wetland acreage changes over
time (by wetland type if that information is available). This description
should include efforts to attain 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 wetland
information). States are encouraged to provide information on wetland
types and their historical, most recent, and second most recent acreages
(specify when available). Table 4-13 is provided as a guide for formatting
information; see also the example tables from Wisconsin's 1994 305(b)
report in Appendix N of the Guidelines Supplement. Define wetland types
using the Cowardin classification system currently the Federal standard for
wetland classification (Cowardin et al., 1979; FWS/OBS-79/31). If another
classification system is used, please identify the system. Also, list sources
of information and discuss reasons for acreage change, where known. EPA
encourages States to include maps of significant wetlands if this information
is available and to describe current or planned inventory programs for their
wetland resources.
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).
Additional Wetland Protection Activities
This section is designed to update readers on State wetland protection
activities and provide States with an opportunity to exchange information on
achievements and obstacles in protecting their wetland resources.
Discussions need not be extensive or detailed but should:
4-35
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART HI: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-13. Extent of Wetlands, by Type
Wetland Type8
Historical
Extent
(acres)1
1996 Reported
Acreage2
(second most
recent acreage)
Most Recent
Acreage3
(if any
recorded)
% Change
From 1996 to
Most Recent
Sources of Information:
1 (include date of inventory)
2
3 (include date of inventory)
1 Use Cowardin et al. (1979)—Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States, Fish and Wildlife Report FWS/OBS-79/31— or report classification system used.
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) Wetland Grant Program.
Briefly describe the most effective mechanism or innovative approach
used in protecting wetlands (such as Outstanding Resource Waters, State
Wetland Conservation Plan, watershed or local planning, State Program
General Permits under Section 404, Section 401 certification and wetland
water quality standards). Note if these are being partially supported by
the 104(b)(3) State Wetland Grant Program.
Briefly describe agency responsibilities for wetland protection and
coordination between the water quality agency and other natural resource
agencies.
4-36
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Please discuss any challenges your State is facing in developing wetland
monitoring programs and any recommendations you have for EPA.
Appendix N of the Guidelines Supplement includes wetland information from
previous 305(b) reporting as an example for States to generate ideas for
reporting on and developing wetland monitoring programs.
Chapter Eight: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
In this chapter, States report on selected public health/aquatic life concerns.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup recommended that Tables 4-14 through
4-18 in this chapter be optional for 1996 and beyond. Tables 4-14 and
4-16 are not useful for national compilations because this could lead to
erroneous conclusions. For example, some States only store data for the
last column of Table 4-14, which can lead to the appearance that a high
percentage of monitored waters show elevated toxics. Fish kills (Table 4-
16) are difficult for some State 305(b) programs to track, causes and
sources of fishkills are often unknown, and summary statistics are not
useful above the State level. Both of these tables may contain useful
information for an individual State, however. For these reasons, these
tables are optional for State 305(b) reporting. EPA will not use fishkill data
in the Report to Congress.
Table 4-15 contains information that is available through other EPA national
listings and therefore is optional for 305(b) reporting. EPA will use the
national listings in preparing the 305(b) Reports to Congress. Nonetheless,
a State may choose to include its own information for the public's benefit
and to supplement national data.
EPA will provide its national listings to States to support the preparation of
Table 4-17; however, this table is optional for 305(b). Table 4-18 is
optional because EPA will obtain summary data for the Report to Congress
from NOAA. States are asked to provide Table 4-19 because it contains
important information not available elsewhere.
Size of Waters Affected by Toxicants
Using the format in Table 4-14, States may take the option to report on the
extent of toxicant-caused problems in each waterbody type. However, EPA
will not use this data in the Report to Congress. WBS can generate the
totals needed for this table from waterbody-specific information. Each State
defines "elevated levels of toxicants," which can include exceedances of
numeric State water quality standards, 304(a) criteria, and/or Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels or levels of concern (where numeric
criteria do not exist). Elevated levels of toxicants may occur in the water
4-37
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-14. 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 -S
for Toxicants CP&'
' ' ' p
Size with Elevated
Levels of Toxicaftts
Note: Optional—States may choose to present this table for use at the State level, but EPA will
not aggregate this information to the national level in the Report to Congress.
WBS Users-To generate the totals needed for Table 4-14 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 4-14 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 4-14:
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).
4-38
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
column, in fish tissue, or in sediments. As a means of providing
perspective. States should discuss which toxic pollutants have been
monitored for and include a list of those toxic pollutants for which the State
has adopted numeric criteria.
Public Health/Aquatic Life Impacts
EPA has developed a Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories to
encourage information exchange among (and within) States. For 1997, EPA
and the States are updating the Listing to include all known advisories as of
December 1996. EPA will provide the Listing to State 305(b) Coordinators
in 1997. The Listing program includes electronic mapping capabilities.
Annual updates are planned. Contact the EPA Office of Science and
Technology (OST) at ,(202) 260-1 305 for more information.
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 4-1 7. A summary report is
currently under review (EPA-823-D-96-003). Contact EPA/OST at (202)
260-5388 for more information.
EPA will obtain information on fish consumption advisories and sediment
contamination from EPA's national databases. EPA will then provide the
results to the States approximately six months prior to the due date for the
State 305(b) reports. 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.
If the State 305(b) agency collects the following types of information for
management purposes, reporting it in the 305(b) report will enhance the
value of the report to the public and EPA. Note that several of the following
types of information are optional for State 305(b) reports because EPA will
obtain data from other sources (see Tables 4-15 through 4-19)
• Fishing or shellfishing advisories currently in effect
• Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities; States may choose to distinguish
recurring fish kills from other pollution-caused fish kills occurring during
the reporting period (clearly identify approach used)
• Sites of known sediment contamination
• Shellfish restrictions/closures currently in effect
4-39
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART 111: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
• Restrictions on surface drinking water supplies (see next section)
• Restrictions on bathing areas during this reporting cycle
• Incidents of waterborne disease during this reporting cycle
• Other aquatic life impacts of pollutants and stressors (e.g., reproductive
interference, threatened or endangered species impacts).
WBS Users—WBS offers two options for preparing Tables 4-1 5 through 4-
19. First, WBS 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 these codes, WBS users can perform a wide
variety of queries and generate lists of waterbodies that can be used to
prepare Tables 4-15 through 4-19. The WBS Aquatic Contamination Codes
are:
1 = Fish/shellfish tissue contamination above FDA/NAS/levels of concern
2 = 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
3 « Bathing area closure, occurred during reporting period
4 = Pollution-related fish abnormality observed during reporting period
5 = Shellfish advisory due to pathogens, currently in effect
6 = Pollution-caused fish kill, occurred during reporting period
7 = Sediment contamination
8 = Surface drinking water supply closure, occurred during reporting period
9 = Surface drinking water supply advisory, occurred during reporting period
10 = Waterborne disease incident, occurred during reporting period.
See the WBS User's Guide or contact WBS User Support (page ii) for more information.
4-40
-------
4. 1998305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-15. Waterbodies Affected by Fish and Shellfish3 Consumption
Restrictions Due To Toxicants (optional6)
•* -*£.' ,
s «_4mVof. '"
* Waterbody and *
Identification No. ,,
* i or Reach No. f,
^ "
'&•— »^
' **"''*•?
> 'Waterbody,"
' type
\
*•?
* t^^-ay
x-A "-*•
Sfee -
" Affected
* v~ ** v A"1 ""> /*
- ~, ,. Type of Fishing Restriction
~* ^l^ojpo.nsumplior) -- ~.'lf
V f \
General
Population
f,
'.>(Siuft-
• population
, > Limited Consumptibn '„
^** > > /
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-17. Waterbodies Affected by Sediment Contamination3 (optional)
Name of
Waterbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
Causes(s) (PollutanttsJ) 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(b) Coordinators; contact EPA/OST at (202) 260-5388. Optional because EPA will use the
National Sediment Inventory in the Report to Congress, not this table.
Table 4-18. Waterbodies Affected by Shellfish Advisories due to Pathogens (optional)
Noma of
Waterbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
*" /
Sources of Pathogens and/of Indicators*
* Indicators include, but are not limited to, fecal coliforms and E. coli
Optional because EPA will use data from NCAA's National Shellfish Sanitation Program in the Report to Congress.
Table 4-19. Waterbodies Affected by Bathing Area Closures
Nemo of
waterbody and
Identification No.
or Reach No.
Waterbody
Type
Size
Affected
Cause(s)
(PolIutantEsJ)
of Concern*
Source(s) of
Pollutant(s)
Comments
(Chronic or
One-time Event)
,?
•• Month/Year
of Closure
Pollutants include, but are not limited to, medical waste, fecal coliforms, £. coli, enterococci, and other indicators
of pathogenic contamination.
4-42
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Public Water Supply/Drinking Water Use Reporting
One of the findings of the last two 305(b) reporting cycles is the relatively
low percentage of waters that have been assessed for drinking water
designated use nationwide. EPA strongly encourages States to focus
resources on increasing the percentage of waters assessed for this use and
at the same time enhancing the accuracy and usefulness of these
assessments. This goal is consistent with EPA's source water protection
initiative under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
States are encouraged to use source water assessments to delineate
watershed areas (source water protection areas) for all public water systems
and thereby increase the assessment of source waters for drinking water
use. The States also are encouraged to use this information from the source
water assessments in their 305(b) reports.
EPA and the 305(b) Drinking Water Focus Group (DWFG) developed Tables
4-20 through 4-22 for reporting information related to drinking water use
support. States are requested to complete these tables to provide statewide
estimates of the total waterbody areas that support drinking water use, are
fully supporting but threatened for drinking water use, partially support
drinking water use, do not support drinking water use, and are unassessed.
EPA asks that States be aware of the potential to overstate the degree to
which source waters support drinking water use. Caution should be taken
in assuming that a waterbody is fully supporting drinking water use due to
the absence of an MCL violation. Furthermore, a source water should not
be characterized as meeting drinking water use if that water has never been
assessed. Both of these circumstances are misleading and overstate the
degree to which source waters support drinking water use.
For source waters that are characterized as "fully supporting," EPA and the
DWFG encourage States to specify the contaminants or groups of
contaminants evaluated during the assessment. A list of the contaminants
used in the assessment should be included.in the 305(b) report.
For source waters that are characterized as "threatened," "partially
supporting," or "nonsupporting," States are encouraged to specify the
contaminants or groups of contaminants causing the impairment (e.g.,
source water quality is characterized as "partially supporting" drinking water
use due to the detection of agricultural chemicals). EPA acknowledges that
specifying the specific contaminants causing an impairment may be
burdensome to many States; however, States are still encouraged to provide
this information as it will enable EPA to more accurately assess national
4-43
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART lllj^URFACEJ/VATER_ASSESSMENT
water quality and potential threats. EPA and the DWFG developed
Table 7-20 to assist States in reporting this information.
States are asked to use Table 4-20 to list the waterbodies assessed for
drinking water designated use support. For each of the assessed
waterbodies, States are asked to specify the contaminants included in the
assessment. A brief discussion of the rationale used to finalize the list of
contaminants along with some qualification as to why certain other
contaminants were not used in the assessment should also be included in
the 305(b) report.
To give perspective to the tabulated data reported by States in their 305(b)
Reports, the DWFG requested that several short narratives be provided in
the reports. Following is a brief summary of these narratives:
D the methodology used to perform the assessment(s),
D the level of detail incorporated into each assessment, and
D the rationale used to select and finalize the list of contaminants used
in the assessment(s).
States are asked to use Tables 4-21 and 4-22 to indicate the total miles of
rivers and streams and acres of lakes and reservoirs designated for drinking
water use. For the miles and/or acres of water designated for drinking
water use, States are asked to indicate the total areas that have been
assessed. For these assessed areas, States are requested to use Tables 4-
21 and 4-22 to report the miles and/or acres categorized according to each
of the use support classifications and to calculate the percentage of waters
in each category. Most of this information can be derived from Table 4-3
(Individual Use Support Summary). The primary difference between
Tables 4-21 and 4-22 and Table 4-3 is that States are asked to list the
major contaminants contributing to impairment in Tables 4-21 and 4-22.
For waterbodies that are categorized as "fully supporting," States should list
all the contaminants considered in the assessment.
If States choose to use public water supply compliance monitoring data in
these assessments, it is important to recognize that these data are collected
and managed by State agencies having authority under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The use of these data in assessing source waters for drinking
water use support within the 305(b) program necessitates communication
and cooperation across State agency boundaries. EPA and the DWFG
recognize and acknowledge the difficulties inherent in obtaining and using
these data without the benefit of the drinking water staff's experience and
4-44
-------
_4^J998^05(b^CQjMTENTS - PART 111: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
expertise. EPA and the DWFG recommend that State 305(b) Coordinators
facilitate a working relationship between the State drinking water and Clean
Water Act program staff to provide the most accurate and representative
assessment of source waters based on finished water quality data.
Table 4-20. Summary of Contaminants Used in the Assessment
Rivers and Streams
(List Waterbodies)
Contaminants
Included in the
Assessment3
Lakes and
Reservoirs
(List Waterbodies)
Contaminants
Included in the
Assessment3
aContaminants may be either listed individually, or reported as contaminant groups (e.g.,
pesticides, metals, semivolatile organic compounds, etc.)
4-45
-------
4. 1998 305(b) CONTENTS - PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 4-21. Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments
for Rivers and Streams
Total Miles Designated for Drinking V
Total Miles Assessed for Drinking Ws
Mites Fully Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Miles Fully Supporting
but Threatened For
Drinking Water Use
Mites Partially Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Mites Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Vater Use
jter Use
% Fully Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Fully Supporting but
Threatened for Drinking
Water Use
% Partially Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Contaminants
Table 4-22. Summary of Drinking Water Use Assessments
for Lakes and Reservoirs
Total Waterbody Area Designated foi
Total Waterbody Area Assessed for 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
• Drinkinq Water Use
Drinking Water Use
% Fully Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Fully Supporting but
Threatened for
Drinking Water Use
% Partially Supporting
Drinking Water Use
% Not Supporting
Drinking Water Use
Contaminants
4-46
-------
5. 305{b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
SECTION 5
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 two years in its State 305(b) report. To provide guidance in preparing
the 305(b) reports, EPA worked with States to develop a 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.
Using guidelines established by EPA, early 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 (PWS).
These data did not always provide a complete and accurate representation
of ambient ground water quality (i.e., background or baseline water quality
conditions of an aquifer or hydrogeologic setting). Neither did 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.
In the 1 996 Guidelines, EPA encouraged 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 ground
water management priorities. The assessment of ground water quality
within specific aquifers or hydrogeologic units provided for a more
meaningful interpretation of ground water quality within the State. It also
enabled States to report results for locations of special interest.
Using the 1996 Guidelines, States achieved improved reporting on ground
water quality within the 305(b) program. Several States noted that the
1996 Guidelines provided incentive to modify their ground water programs
to enhance their ability to provide more accurate and representative
5-1
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
information. Recognizing this progress, EPA is working with States to
maintain the established continuity and momentum in assessing the quality
of our Nation's ground water. As part of this effort, EPA is continuing to
request that States assess ground water quality for selected aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings.
EPA recognizes that assessment of the entire State's ground water
resources on an aquifer-specific basis is a monumental task. To ease the
burden, EPA suggested in the 1996 Guidelines that ground water quality be
assessed within selected aquifers and/or hydrogeologic settings
incrementally over a period of ten years. For 1998, States are encouraged
to set a priority for reporting results for areas of greatest ground water
demand and vulnerability. If States so choose, they may focus their
beginning assessments to well-defined areas such as wellhead protection
areas. States are encouraged to provide short narratives describing how
aquifers or hydrogeologic settings were selected for assessment. States will
be encouraged to expand their ground water assessment efforts to include
additional aquifers and/or hydrogeologic settings each subsequent reporting
period. 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) by the year 2006.
EPA recognizes that data collection and organization varies among the
States, and that a single data source for assessing ground water quality
does not exist for purposes of the 1998 305(b) reports. EPA encourages
States to use available data that they believe best reflect the quality of the
resource. However, for most States to obtain the data generally required to
provide an accurate and representative assessment of ground water quality
cooperation between multiple State agencies may be necessary. Although
EPA recognizes and acknowledges the difficulty in obtaining data across
agency boundaries, coordination in data collection and management efforts
between State agencies is in most cases highly important. EPA encourages
State water protection programs to begin coordination of data collection and
management efforts for ease of reporting, to provide an opportunity for
greater quality control, and to reduce inconsistencies in reported data.
States may choose to use one or multiple sources of data in the assessment
of ground water quality. Several potential data sources have been
identified, including:
• Ambient water quality data from dedicated monitoring well networks ,
• Untreated or finished water quality data from ground-water-based public
water supply wells,
5-2
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
• Untreated or finished water quality data from private or unregulated
wells.
In the absence of a dedicated ground water monitoring network, States may
choose to use data collected from Public Water Supply Systems (PWSs) 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 1998 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.
In addition to introducing the assessment of ground water quality within
selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings in the 1996 Guidelines, EPA
encouraged States to provide information on ground water-surface water
interactions, thus reflecting the growing awareness of water resource
managers on the importance of ground water-surface water interactions and
their contribution to water quality problems. Recognizing that many of the
problems related to ground water-surface water interactions are difficult to
study and that limited data exist, EPA made reporting information on this
subject optional for 1996. EPA will continue to request this information,
but it will remain optional.
EPA and States represented on the 305(b) Ground Water Focus Group,
which consists of interested State and EPA personnel, discussed the issues
involved in revision of these Guidelines. In general, these guidelines present
four Tables designed to direct States in reporting on the quality of their
ground water resources. An overview of the most important sources of
ground water contamination and the associated contaminants impacting
ground water quality is requested along with a summary of the State's
ground water protection efforts (Tables 5-1 and 5-2, respectively). Ground
water quality of specific aquifers or hydrogeologic units as it relates to
contaminant sources and the occurrence of particular groups of
contaminants is also requested (Tables 5-3 and 5-4, respectively).
All four of the Tables presented herein were requested in the 1996
Guidelines. The most significant change to these current guidelines is the
re-ordering of the Tables into general and aquifer-specific categories and the
deletion of a table that focused on ground water-surface water interactions
with a request for a narrative rather than tabulated analytical data. As
5-3
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
previously stated, reporting information on ground water-surface water
interactions will remain optional for 1998. For Tables 5-1 through 5-4,
States are encouraged to provide a short narrative explaining the
methodology used to complete the tables as well as the data type and
reporting interval used in the assessment.
EPA and the 305(b) Ground Water Focus Group recognize and fully accept
that there will be significant variability in the information that States will be
able to provide in the 1998 305(b) reporting cycle. However, EPA expects
that the direction of future reporting cycles will be evident, and that States
will begin to develop plans and mechanisms to compile, organize, and
evaluate the 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 water resources. EPA will
continue to ask for this information in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 requests information for contaminant sources within the State
that are the greatest threat to ground water quality. EPA developed
Table 5-1 as a guide to States in reporting the major sources of
contamination that threaten their ground water resources. The contaminant
sources presented in Table 5-1 are based on information provided by States
during previous 305(b) reporting periods. Using this list, States are
encouraged to check the ten highest-priority sources of ground water
contamination. It is not necessary to individually 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.
Table 5-1 should be included in State 305(b) reports. Instructions for
completion of this table follow the table.
5-4
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 5-1. Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Contaminant Source
Ten Highest-
Priority
Sources (/) m
Factors 'Considered in
Selecting a
Contaminant Source (2)
Contaminants (3)
AgriculturahActivities r - '„, * ' 4 x '
Agricultural chemical facilities
Animal feedlots
Drainage wells
Fertilizer applications
Irrigation practices
Pesticide applications
On-farm agricultural mixing and
loading procedures
Land application of manure
(unregulated)
•
Storage andsTreatmeht Activities', \' - - ; //' f
Land application (regulated or
permitted)
Material stockpiles
Storage tanks (above ground)
Storage tanks (underground)
Surface impoundments
Waste piles
Waste tailings
Disposal Activities^ xsi. ''4 * * s - - L '' <
Deep injection wells
Landfills
Septic systems
Shallow injection wells
:| Otfijer v : ^ I??' - <-*\/*'(i
Hazardous waste generators
Hazardous waste sites
Large 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
Small-scale manufacturing and
repair shops
Other sources (please specify)
5-5
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 5-1
1. Indicate by a check (/) up to ten contaminant sources identified as highest priority in
your State. Ranking is not necessary. Provide a narrative describing the methodology
used to complete this table and the justification for prioritization of the sources
indicated (e.g., professional judgement or actual data evaluation, etc.). If actual data
are used, please describe the type of data used and the reporting interval.
2. Specify the factor(s) used to select each of the contaminant sources. Denote the
following factors by their corresponding letter (A through I) and list in order of
importance. Describe any additional or special factors that are important within your
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. Documented from mandatory reporting
H. Geographic distribution/occurrence
I. Other criteria (please add or describe in the narrative)
3. 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)
5-6
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
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 provided
an overview of the legislation, statutes, rules, and/or regulations that were
in place. It also provided an indication of how comprehensive ground water
protection activities were in the State. EPA requested this same information
in a table format in 1996 to more uniformly summarize and characterize the
information provided. EPA is continuing to request each State to complete
and submit this information in tabular form. Table 5-2 was developed to
assist States. Instructions for completing Table 5-2 follow the table.
States are also 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 non-direct 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, or 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.
5-7
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Table 5-2. 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
Source Water Assessment Program141
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
Other programs or activities (please specify)
Check
.(/) m
Implementation
Status (2)
Responsible
State Agency (3)
5-8
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 5-2
1. Place a check (*O in the appropriate column of Table 5-2 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 5-2 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.
4. In the accompanying narrative, include the number (and/or percentage) of community
public water supply systems with source water protection programs in place. Include
the population served by these systems, if the information is available. Also, identify
the agency responsible for making assessment information available to the pubic.
5-9
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Summary of Ground Water Contamination Sources
For the first time in 1996, EPA began requesting that States assess ground
water quality for selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings. EPA
developed two tables (herein referred to as Tables 5-3 and 5-4) that provide
States with a format for reporting this information. EPA is continuing to
request that States complete these two tables to the degree that their
resources permit.
EPA worked with States to develop Table 5-3 (Summary of Ground Water
Contaminant Sources) as a means of assessing the stress on individual
aquifers or hydrogeologic settings within the State. Specifically, States are
encouraged to use Table 5-3 to report information on the type and number
of potential contaminant sources within the reporting area. If desired, Table
5-3 may also be used to indicate the status of actions being taken to
address ground water contaminant problems. This latter information is
optional and it is left up to the discretion of the State as to whether they
want to report it.
Table 5-3 should be included in State 305(b) reports. Instructions follow
the table. A short narrative describing the methodology used to complete
this table should also be included.
5-10
-------
5. 305{b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
(a
3
CO
_
ro
o
o
I
•a
o
5
n
in
CO
c 5
— o
0) 3- C -D
.E ~ .o .o
05 O S- rf
D> O ^3 '
O U5 CO
T^ ^ •—
03 Q ^
g'To < i
Q.
73 ID
>- Q.
X CO
ro
Q
Number of sites
with cleanup
completed
(optional)
»*- c
§ £ ro c 9-
-3 .tZ CO
Z « o —
"o .c oj c —
•9 en a> c ~
t 0 t 0 Q.
= .«; o 4= o
Z « o o —
CO
Ills
llllll
Up11
w
Li!
E " « a.
z > —
c
CO
c
E
c
o
u
"55 £ ±J o
§~ — * g
1: E
•" j- = S
t ±; £ c
Z 3 ro g
•o
•5 2 §> -o 3
- ~ ? g »
O C (U
^_ £ *- ,!s co
||18 =
|"§
^ u_
•^ ^
o S
1 1
g
1CERCLIS
(non-NPL)
I DOD/DOE
I-
RCRA
Corrective
Action
1 Underground
Injection
V)
in
0}
CO
tn
1 Non-Point
Sources151
If
O g-
f
.2
S
S
^ a.
.2 E
?ll I
• X £ ^~
o> w
111
:- n_
z
i c = § c
i i. I 11
CD cn
z _j
• o
a! £
z o
§§
il
5-11
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 5-3
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, lithology, 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, a spatial description of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting that
can be used to fix the general location of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting on a
map. States may opt to supply this information using whatever method is most
appropriate. For example, States may choose to supply a rough map or
longitude/latitude information. If States supply longitude/latitude information, they
may present this information for the approximate middle of the aquifer or for four
points around the aquifer such that the general two-dimensional location of the
aquifer could be determined. They should use a good quality base map (such as a
U.S. Geological Survey Quad Sheet) to obtain the longitudes and latitudes.
3. Indicate, if desired, if the spatial information exists in a digital format and can be
provided in map form. States are encouraged to provide maps, if possible.
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.
5. Note that potential source types may include point sources as well as non-point
sources. Potential non-point source types that States may consider include
agricultural sites, septic systems, industrial contamination of unknown origin, and/or
wastewater treatment plant discharges.
6. Indicate the total number of sites in each of the categories listed in Table 5-3. If the
exact number of sites is not known, States are encouraged to estimate the numbers
of sites. Note that in some cases, the information requested is optional and need not
be entered.
7. 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.
5-12
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Summary of Ground Water Quality
EPA encouraged States to provide a description of overall ground water
quality in previous 305(b) reports. Due to the expense involved in collecting
ambient ground water monitoring data, a comprehensive evaluation of the
resource 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 not provide an accurate
representation of ground water quality and it became evident that a series of
indicator parameters were 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
continued to use MCL exceedances in ground-water-based PWS, but also
allowed the option to use other data that may be available to States. The
data used in the assessment was 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).
Beginning in 1996, States were encouraged to select specific aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings for ground water assessment based on data
availability and State-specific priorities. States were encouraged to review
the types of monitoring data that were available (e.g., PWS, ambient and/or
compliance monitoring data), how much data was available, the quality of
the data (e.g., confirmed MCL exceedances), and whether the data could be
correlated to a specific aquifer or hydrogeologic setting. If data could be
correlated to specific aquifers or hydrogeologic settings, States were asked
to consider giving priority to aquifers or hydrogeologic settings that support
significant drinking water supplies and/or were sensitive to land use
practices. If data could not be correlated to specific aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings, States were asked to consider developing plans and
mechanisms to report the information in future 305(b)'reporting cycles.
EPA recognized that reporting data for specific aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings within States was new and that there would be significant
variability in the information that States were able to provide in 1996. To
ease the burden, EPA suggested 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 ten-year period. For
purposes of the 1998 305(b) report, EPA is encouraging States to continue
5-13
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
to assess ground water quality for specific aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings such that the goal is achieved by the year 2006.
As noted earlier, EPA recognizes that a single data source 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
of ground water quality. Several potential data sources have been
identified, including:
• Ambient water quality data from dedicated monitoring wells or networks
(optional),
• Untreated or finished water quality data from ground-water-based public
water supply wells,
• Untreated or finished water quality data from private or unregulated wells
(optional).
The source water assessments required under the 1996 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act should be a very important data source for
assessing ground water quality. These assessments, as outlined in EPA's
August 1997 guidance, require that States complete source water
delineations and source inventory/susceptibility analyses for the public water
supplies in the State within two years after EPA approval of the program.
These source water protection areas for ground-water based systems are
synonymous with "Wellhead Protection Areas" as defined in
Section 1428(3).
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 PWS 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 groundwater quality and contamination.
Table 5-4 was developed as a guide to States to report ground water quality
based on data collected from well networks. 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
5-14
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
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 5-4
(more explicit instructions follow the table). These groups include volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SOCs),
nitrates (NO3), and other constituents. Nitrate is emphasized because of its
widespread use, persistence, and relatively high mobility in the environment.
Pesticides may also be emphasized under SOCs if a State so desires. Other
constituents that States may wish to consider are the indicator parameters
developed by the Intergovernmental Task Force for Monitoring Water Quality
(ITFM) for monitoring in areas with different types of land uses and sources
of contaminants (An Approach for a National Ground-Water Quality
Monitoring Strategy, U.S.G.S., Open File Report, 1996).
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 5-4 because they are important to recognize and address as part of
water quality planning.
State definitions of vulnerability and sensitivity should be consistent with State 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).
5-15
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
It is important to note that Table 5-4 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. EPA recognizes ground water management
priorities and practices vary among the States and that there will be
significant variation in the information that States are able to provide in
Table 5-4.
Review of the information provided using Table 5-4 for the 1996 reporting
cycle indicated that this was indeed the case. Although the majority of
States completed Table 5-4, a variety of styles were used to present the
data. The variety of styles was attributed more to the deficiency of some
types of information rather than a States unwillingness to provide the
information. Most frequently, information related to natural sensitivity or
vulnerability to land-use practices and well closures/wells requiring special
treatment were not provided. Most States provided information comparing
analyte concentrations to water quality standards (MCLs). Depending upon
State data availability, comparisons were made for individual samples,
individual wells, or well networks. States reported information for counties,
established ground water basins, hydrogeologic subareas, hydrdgeologic
regions, and Statewide areas. Another variation was reporting information
for specific analytes or for groups of analytes.
EPA expected the variability seen in Table 5-4 and was encouraged at the
progress made in 1996 in assessing ground water. EPA is continuing to use
Table 5-4 to request information from States on an aquifer-specific basis.
With time, it is hoped that more and more States will be able to provide
increasingly more accurate and representative assessments.
The columns in Table 5-4 were not assigned any type of use-support
designation for purposes of the 1996 305(b) reporting cycle. Furthermore,
the information supplied by States in 1996 were not used to assess the
quality of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting as a whole, but were used to
assess the quality of ground water collected from a monitoring point within
the designated aquifer or hydrogeologic setting. These same ideas will be
followed in the 1998 305(b) reporting cycle.
5-16
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
ra
Q
D)
C
O
3
CT
in
—
HI?
~
ZZ CL CD
.2 o 0-
CD
.o .9- _JD
en o js
_o = > Q)
X)
| "*o S"*S) S " 2 c1^ c ^o
®D>U50^ c'Sg^E^^"
ojccc° Q)t5"DoS_jt^ro^j
jfc-QCDCD* ^» E J 3 >
o ° a 2 co -^
•*- CO Q. CD to C
|| o||S
III Illl
0 g O 8 i= O £
« ^*'= 03 C O) (/)
iS'-g a f C -g CO
~ to o- o ra Jo SI
z .0 CD z s= ia to
_ §§
Q O ™
c "™ "o
o to S
S •§ o
T3 cd — 1 -QJ
iiil
itaooiS^BS
"5 °& %-.
•S ~ S I to I
Z 5 co > to •£-
"§> § mS
E 0-E-g
V' CO D. *°
1 m
0 ° » |,
CD c > "re ™
•S m •'g CD w .0
^ "g; g _ aj Q_
Z 5 co > co Q
g
Q
a m
11
So
Q_
•5- c
§. « 01 E
•H w£ c?
o m to
l-g <
.2
Q
II
g
O
O
_
8
CO
i
_
CD
6
riff
nil
O
§
5?
8
CO
*
„
QJ
o
fe
ro , >»
^ jd p
iflll
§
o
o
CO
O
_,
I
5-17
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
i 5
!o-
H o CC is
I
o
I
•o
a>
in
own*
Us
•si-3-g
g|§5
i s.
I o
•5 °^ i,
i_ *D -Q T!
to c > ra g
o — -3 ^r ,. fc
E
O
Z
is.
, .s ^
235
ra «fe
.
5
5
a
CDS
f|
11
w "
ss
IS
II
1*
r= «
E Q)
3is
1(5
'
t
a&
3 §
5-18
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 5-4
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, lithology, 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. Indicate, if desired, a spatial description of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting that
can be used to fix the general location of the aquifer or hydrogeologic setting on a
map. States may opt to supply this information using whatever method is most
appropriate. For example, States may choose to supply a rough map or
longitude/latitude information. If States supply longitude/latitude information, they
may present this information for the approximate middle of the aquifer or for four
points around the aquifer such that the general two-dimensional location of the
aquifer could be determined. They should use a good quality base map (such as a
U.S. Geological Survey Quad Sheet) to obtain the longitudes and latitudes.
3. Indicate, if desired, if the spatial information exists in a digital format and can be
provided in map form. States are encouraged to provide maps, if possible.
4. Record the reporting period. For purposes of this table, it is assumed that the data
was collected over a single timeframe. If this is not the case, please indicate in a
note at the bottom of the table, the appropriate timeframe for each data source.
5. For the type of monitoring data being used (e.g., untreated 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 be considered in Table
5-4 if they are known to be representative of the source water.
6. 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.
7. 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.
5-19
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Instructions/Notes for Table 5-4 (continued)
8. Report the total number of wells for which nitrate concentrations range from
background levels to less than or equal to 5 mg/L. Indicate the total number of
wells for which other anthropogenic constituents are not detected at concentrations
above the method detection limits and for which naturally-occurring constituents are
consistent with background levels.
9. Indicate the number of wells that are located in either sensitive or vulnerable areas
that have nitrate concentrations that typically range from background levels to less
than or equal to 5 mg/l. Also for wells that are located in either sensitive or
vulnerable areas, indicate the number of wells, 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.
10. Report the total number of wells for which nitrate is detected at concentrations that
range from greater than 5 to less than or equal to 10 mg/l or for which
anthropogenic constituents are detected at concentrations that exceed the method
detection limits but are less than or equal to the MCLs.
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. Pesticide compounds should be included under the category of SOCs.
16. Other parameters that States may consider include metals, total dissolved solids,
odor, turbidity, or indicators as developed by the ITFM.
17. Check the major use(s) of water from the aquifer or hydrogeologic unit and the
use(s) that have been affected by water quality problems.
5-20
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Summary of Ground Water-Surface Water Interactions
Nationwide, many water quality problems may be caused 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.
Reflecting the growing awareness of ground water-surface water
interactions and their contribution to water quality problems, EPA is asking
States to provide information that may be used to assess impacts to water
quality. Of course, EPA recognizes that many of the problems related to
ground water-surface water interactions are difficult to study, and as a
result, limited information is available. As a consequence, reporting
information on this subject is optional for 1998.
However, if information is available, EPA asks States to report information
on significant water quality problems resulting from ground water-surface
water interactions.
States are encouraged to provide a narrative that describes the type and
source of the contamination (e.g., land application of fertilizers, septic
systems, salt-water intrusion, or animal waste-holding ponds); the primary
land use in the vicinity of the source (e.g., agricultural, residential, industrial,
undeveloped, etc); the aquifer(s) and surface water bodies impacted; the
relative magnitude of the contamination (surface water versus ground
water); 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; whether contamination
is transitory or long-term; and any actions being taken to address the
problem.
Conclusion
These Guidelines will assist States to fulfill the requirements of Section
106(e) of the Clean Water Act that 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) Ground Water Focus Group to develop this comprehensive approach
to assessing ground water quality as applied on a national scale. The
approach presented in these Guidelines is consistent with the approach
taken in the previous 1996 reporting cycle.
5-21
-------
5. 305(b) CONTENTS - PART IV: GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Ground water quality will continue to 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 will
continue to request States to consider groundwater-surface water
interactions and their effects on water management 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 2006 , it is
hoped that ground water quality will be characterized in the majority of each
State. As databases develop over time, trends in ground water quality in
States, Regions, and in the Nation will be evaluated as part of the 305(b)
process.
5-22
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305{b) ASSESSMENTS
SECTION 6
ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
6.1 Background
As described in Section 1 and Figure 1-1 of these Guidelines, electronic
updates are important components of the updated 305(b) reporting cycle
and of Performance Partnership Agreements between the States and EPA.
Sections 6.2 through 6.7 present information on electronic reporting
including a detailed list of data elements. These sections are based on the
recommendations of the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup in October 1996.
Section 6.8 discusses acceptable formats for transmitting data files.
Section 6.9 gives a set of "data rules" for States not using the EPA
Waterbody System to help ensure that EPA can use and properly interpret
their data.
6.2 Importance of Electronic Updates
In order for the updated 305(b) reporting cycle to succeed, EPA and the
305 (b) Consistency Workgroup agree on the need for periodic, electronic
updates from the States on their waterbody-level assessments. Such
updates are important for two reasons:
• EPA needs the assessment data for biennial reports to Congress, Clean
Water Act reauthorization, and other national planning activities
Assessment Database Managers—EPA recognizes that annual electronic
reporting is a new approach. If you have questions about the contents of
electronic reports or changes that might be needed in your database, please
call the National 305(b) Coordinator or WBS User Support at the numbers on
page ii. Also, please pay special attention to text boxes with this PC logo.
These boxes contain important information on improving the data quality and
completeness of your databases, whether WBS or customized.
6-1
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
• Water quality assessments and data management should be ongoing
activities, not performed in haste just prior to preparation of a 305(b)
report.
6.3 Contents of Electronic Updates
The bulk of a State's electronic update will consist of waterbody-level
assessment data for assessments completed in previous calendar year(s).
These data files can be EPA Waterbody System (WBS) files or State-
developed database or spreadsheet files. If a State uses a customized
assessment database rather than WBS, data files must be provided in a form
that EPA can convert to standard 305(b)/WBS codes. Nearly 40 States
transmitted their assessment databases in electronic form during 1994-95.
Some States have indicated they would prefer to send their updated
statewide 305(b) assessment databases rather than only data for
waterbodies assessed in the previous year. This may be more convenient
for the State and would help ensure that EPA is working with the latest,
complete dataset. This practice is acceptable provided assessment dates
are included for each waterbody. If the State is using a probability-based
monitoring network, include waterbody-level data for that network in the
assessment database but report overall network results in the hard-copy
305(b) reports.
Table 6-1, lists the data elements that States should include for each
waterbody. With the exception of the biological integrity fields, WBS and
most State in-house programs already contain these data elements. EPA
will modify WBS to include new fields required by these Guidelines. The
voluntary pilot biological integrity indicator is explained further in Section 4
of the Guidelines Supplement. Methods for biological integrity of streams
and rivers are available and methods for lakes and estuaries will follow in
subsequent years.
Appendix D of the Guidelines Supplement contains a data dictionary for the
data elements in Table 6-1. For information on other data elements the
State may wish to track, see the data dictionary in the WBS Users Guide
available from the Regional or National WBS Coordinators.
In addition to the data elements in Table 6-1, a State's electronic update
should also include:
• A GIS coverage showing assessment results since last update or hard-
copy maps showing assessment results
6-2
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
'.-•1'ir i ' •••' • t'j
Table 6-1. Key Data Elements for Electronic Updates (with national WBS codes)3
Descriptive Information for Each Waterbody
. WBID
WBNAME
WBTYPE
WBSIZE
WBUNIT
WBCU
WBSCS
WBLOCN
WBSIGLAKE
ASDATE
ASCYCLE
ASWQLTD
ASTMDL
ASBDATE
ASEDATE
Waterbody identification number
Waterbody name
Waterbody type (river, lake, etc.)
Waterbody size
Size units (miles, acres, square miles)
USGS 8-digit Cataloging Unit number
NRCS small watershed number
Location text (optional)
Significant lake? (yes or no)
Assessment date
Assessment cycle (1994, 1996, 1997, etc.)
Water quality limited? (optional)
On 303(d) list? (optional)
Begin sampling date
End sampling date
Use Support Data for Each Waterbody for Each Use*
USE
FULLY
THREAT
PARTIAL
NOTSUPP
NOTATTAIN
NOTASS
Use code (20 = Aquatic Life, etc.)
Size fully supporting this use
Size threatened for this use
Size partially supporting this use
Size not supporting this use
Size that cannot attain this use
Size not assessed
At a minimum, include all national use categories that apply to the waterbody (aquatic life,
drinking water, swimming, fish consumption, secondary contact, shellfishing, cultural/
ceremonial, agriculture); see "Designated Use Support" in Section 4 of these Guidelines.
Biological Integrity Indicator*
EXCELL
VERY
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
NUMSITES
Size of waterbody rated Excellent
Size of waterbody rated Very Good
Size of waterbody rated Good
Size of waterbody rated Fair
Size of waterbody rated Poor
Number of biomonitoring sites sampled for this assessment
*Voluntary pilot indicator; see Guidelines Supplement Section 4
(see also "Assessment Metadata" below for data elements that apply to this indicator)
6-3
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table 6-1. Key Data Elements for Annual Electronic Updates8 (cont'd)
Cause/Stressor Data for Each Waterbody
ASCAUSE
Cause/stressor code:
0100 Unknown toxicity
0200 Pesticides
ASCASIZ
ASCAMAG
2700 Biodiversity impacts
Size affected by each cause
Relative magnitude of each cause
Source Data for Each Waterbody
ASSOURC
Source codes—major categories at a minimum:
0100 Industrial Point Source ,
0200 Municipal Point Source
0400 CSO
ASSOSIZ
ASSOMAG
9050 Sources outside State jurisdiction
Size affected by each source
Relative magnitude of each source
ASTYPE
ASCMTS
BIOJ-EVEL
HAB LEVEL
PC_LEVEL
TOX LEVEL
Assessment type codes such as
120 = surveys of fish/game biologists
321 = RBP III benthos surveys
610 = Calibrated models
Comments on the assessment
Biological assessment level of information15
Habitat assessment level of information13
Physical/chemical assessment level of information15
Toxicity assessment level of information15
"See Appendix D of the Guidelines Supplement for a data dictionary and see the WBS
Users Guide for more details.
bData elements described in Section 3 of the Guidelines Supplement.
6-4
-------
fr.ELECTttONICREPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
• A GIS coverage or map showing how and when the State plans to
achieve comprehensive assessment of the State's waters
. • Descriptive information about the data files (database manager's name,
phone number, agency, period covered (calendar year, water year, etc.)
and a brief data dictionary)
• Updates of significant developments, additions, or changes in ground
water quality assessments using database, spreadsheet, or word
processing format
• Updated Clean Lakes tables (Tables 4-6 through 4-11) only if conditions
in significant publicly owned lakes changed in the previous year.
6.4 Reporting Frequency
States and Tribes with existing electronic reporting capability are encouraged
to transmit their 1997 electronic updates by the end of December 1997. In
even-numbered years beginning in 1998, annual electronic updates are due
April 1 with the abbreviated narrative reports. In odd-numbered years,
annual electronic updates should be transmitted to EPA in April if possible,
although they can be transmitted over the summer. These updates can
consist of (1) assessment data for only those basins or USGS CU watersheds
assessed in the previous calendar year, or (2) the entire statewide database
as updated. For States doing rotating basin monitoring, annual electronic
reporting should not be a problem if States keep their assessment databases
up-to-date.
If a State is unable to transmit an electronic update of its assessment data in
a given year, the State should send a biennial electronic update by April 1 of
the following year covering waters assessed in the previous two calendar
years.
6.5 Focus for 1997: Improving Data Quality
In 1996, EPA analyzed the States' electronic assessment databases. Several
recurring issues came to light during this process. As a result, the
Workgroup recommended the following ways to improve the quality of
assessment data at the State and national levels.
Provide descriptive information—EPA needs certain information to properly
interpret the States' assessment results. All States should track such data in
their databases to inform EPA of the sources and quality of their data. As a
first step for 1998, each State should:
6-5
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
• Track Assessment Type Codes and Assessment Levels (see Guidelines
Supplement Sections 1.3 and 3.1)
• Provide a brief dictionary of the data elements and codes in its
assessment database, including any variations from standard national
305{b) data elements and codes and how the cause/stressor magnitude
and source magnitude codes are used
Provide complete data—States should include all needed data elements.
Missing data were a big problem in 1994-95. The most obvious problem is
missing size data at the waterbody level:
• Size affected by the major source categories (e.g., "acres impaired by
Agriculture)
• Size fully supporting, partially supporting, etc., each designated use
("e.g., miles fully supporting Aquatic Life")
Another data gap is missing lakes data from some States. To eliminate the
above problems with missing data, EPA will give feedback to each State
through the Regions on data missing from the 1996 and future assessment
databases.
6.6 Reporting Ground Water Quality Data Annually
In the 1996 305(b) Guidelines, EPA for the first time encouraged States to
assess ground water quality for selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings
within the State that reflect State ground water management priorities.
Using these Guidelines, States achieved improved reporting on ground water
quality within the 305(b) program. Several States noted that the 1996
Guidelines provided incentive to modify their ground water programs to
enhance their ability to provide more accurate and representative information.
Recognizing this progress, EPA is working with States to maintain continuity
and momentum in assessing the quality of our Nation's ground water. As
part of this effort, EPA is continuing to request that States assess ground
water quality for selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings. Although EPA
recognizes that the Clean Water Act requests that States report this
information biennially, EPA encourages States to report this information
annually to ease the reporting burden. Reporting on an annual basis will
encourage development of innovative methodologies for data collection,
improve overall reporting, and lessen the level of effort needed to produce
305(b) reports.
If States opt to report annually, they may consider using a rotating
monitoring approach described in the introduction to Section 5. Using this
6-6
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305{b) ASSESSMENTS
approach, the State is divided into areas and ground water quality in each
area is evaluated and reported on an annual basis. An increasingly greater
portion of the State is assessed with each successive year. If States decide
against implementing the rotating monitoring approach, they may opt to
report significant developments or changes in ground water quality on an
annual basis.
States are asked to provide annually or biennially the information using
Tables 5-1 through 5-4. The submittal of narratives and accompanying text
on an annual basis is left to the discretion of the State as to whether they
are needed to support the information provided in the four tables. States can
transmit these tables in database, spreadsheet, or word processing format.
6.7 Staff Needs
EPA and the 305(b) Workgroup concluded that water quality assessments
and data management must be ongoing activities. Key staff needs include:
• Short term —each State needs at least 1 full time staff member devoted
to doing assessments and managing the data year-round; typically, such
staff can also do assessments and reporting for basin plans
• Short term —each 305(b) Coordinator needs access to e-mail, the World
Wide Web, and file transfer on the Internet (e.g., FTP)
• Long-term — each 305(b) Coordinator needs access to GIS support and
global positioning system (GPS) capability; in the meantime, EPA will
provide support for producing maps when feasible
6.8 File Format and Transfers
Data files will consist of State 305(b) assessment databases or subsets-i.e.,
each State will send its updated WBS database or other State assessment
database.
For ground water tables, States may choose whatever format is easiest for
them, e.g., spreadsheets, databases, or word processing tables.
States can transmit electronic updates to EPA via diskettes, e-mail, FTP
through the Internet, high-capacity disks, or tapes. Most States send data
on diskettes/although five States sent their 1996 data via e-mail.
6-7
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
6.9 Special Information for Non-WBS States
This section includes essential "data rules" to ensure that EPA can use the
data files from customized State assessment databases. It also includes
helpful hints for States that are redesigning their assessment databases.
Following these "rules" will help ensure that EPA properly interprets State
data for Reports to Congress and for initiatives such as Surf Your Watershed
on the World Wide Web and the Index of Watershed Indicators project. See
Section 1 for descriptions of these initiatives.
States that follow these "rules" will also be able to prepare accurate
summary tables such as those in Section 4 of these Guidelines.
Assessment managers should compare the following items to their existing
spreadsheets or databases to identify any potential problems in generating
summary tables, or problems that EPA may be having in properly
interpreting their data. Contact WBS User Support at the telephone number
on page if for more information.
Modern relational database programs for PCs are well suited to the large
waterbody databases and reports required in the 305(b) process. In
addition, WBS and customized State relational databases offer more
powerful querying capabilities than spreadsheets. However, several States
use spreadsheets successfully to track their assessment results.
Spreadsheets are suitable for this purpose if properly designed. Tables 6-2
and 6-3 show a suggested format that closely resembles the WBS (dBASE)-
type files. Such a format facilitates data transfer to EPA national databases
and also promotes accurate State summary reports for 305(b). Problems
arise with the traditional spreadsheet format in which all information for a
waterbody is contained in a single row; this format results in very wide
spreadsheets and makes summary reports difficult. Some difficulties may
be alleviated by breaking up the wide table into workbooks or sub-tables.
Contact WBS User Support at the number on page ii for more information.
6-8
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
General WBS-type 'Rules' (for both spreadsheets and databases)
1)
2)
3)
4)
The data files heed to provide an assessment of all waterbody types (rivers, lakes,
estuaries, coastal waters, etc.) with sizes (not placeholders marked with 'X', etc.], and
should avoid presenting a list of the problem waters only.
The 'key' assessment data elements needed for the use support, causes/stressors, and
sources of pollution summary tables must be provided for each waterbody (see
Table 6-1).
Waterbodies should be located in rows with all assessment information in columns.
Waterbody IDs must be unique in order to avoid double counting in creating summary
tables.
I
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
Each waterbody type (river, lake, estuary, etc.) must be clearly defined - specifying
the waterbody type in the waterbody name or waterbody ID is not sufficient for data
aggregation purposes at the national level.
Column headings should resemble the key data elements for electronic updates defined
in Table 6-1, as. well as the alrea'dy defined codes for use support, causes/stressors,
and sources, etc. If this is not possible, a data dictionary table must be provided
equating the column headings with the WBS fields. Keeping the column headings
length up to nine characters will aid EPA in conversions to other database engines.
Columns should be either numeric or character fields but not both.
Only a single entry in a cell is allowed (number or character), with no comma-delimited
entries. Waterbody name, ID, location, etc. must not be collapsed together in a single
spreadsheet/database cell. Similarly, only one cause or source code should appear in a
given cell.
A single magnitude code must be associated with a cause/stressor or source code.
E.g., the same waterbody should not be shown as both "Major" and "Moderate" for
Agriculture.
A 'single monitoring category (Evaluated, or Monitored) must be associated with a
particular waterbody size.
Uniform units must be used throughout the spreadsheet/database depending on the
waterbody type, for example: miles for river and streams, acres for lakes.
Each assessment for a waterbody must have an assessment date (ASDATE).
Word processing files are not acceptable because they usually cannot be converted to
a database format.
6-9
-------
6. ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
(0
1
1
00
Q.
W
O
H-
0
(0
j=
to
CD
ra
W
*-•
«
0
o
o.
Q.
w
0)
O
to
E
£
•o
"O
CU
C
8
CU
CC
*
M
8
CI2205-OM-L1
E
1
8
1
8
O
a
s
a
8
r-
CT6000JH
3
,
m
§
8
0
1
s
a
S
8
tn
s
c
B
8
1
s
S
0
I
1
1
ri
S
<
Oi
8
criooi-oo-
8
n-i-oo-iooiio
s
I
|
8
O
1
-,
S
<
8
8
CT2205-02-
8
CT220S-02-1-L1
a
1
§
1
8
_
s
s
8
a!
CT6000_00
8
j
10
1
1
8
1
—
VO
s
1
Bl
8
S
B
8
CT7108
CO
to
co
•a
CO
£
Q.
•2
Q.
O
13
4-1
CO
0)
ra
+•«
(O
o
M-
co
13
Q
0)
0
o
o
»*-
13
E
£
0)
TJ
0)
o
u
CU
cc
^^
C')
co
.JO
CO
c
i
1
!
f
•3
1
s
1
„
s
flj
g
t
I
*
•1
a
8
I
s
s
8
X
CT6QOOJ)
CT6000
V)
8
R
1
vo
s
8
c:
CT6000_0
000913
w
1
1
m
s
§
=«
|
a
8
!
s
s
8
or
o
CT7108J)
CT7108
S
1
oo
S!
S
8
^
°
CT6000
a
S
rn
en
1
<
8
j
8
i
s
03
1
8
00
s
<
H
J
8
i
B
i
e
c
B
a
1
en
8
DO
<
8
j
I
3
S
1
IH
-------
7. REFERENCES
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
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.
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.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States.
Annual Association for American Geographers 77(1 ):118-1 25.
Reckhow, K. H. and S. C. Chapra. 1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake
Management (2 vols). Butterworth Publishers, Boston.
Rhode Island Sea Grant and U.S. EPA. 1994. National Directory of
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. EPA 841-B-94-001.
University of Rhode island, Narragansett and EPA Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1994. Nutrient Modeling and
Management in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Prepared for the N.C. Division
of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
7-1
-------
7. REFERENCES
Smeltzer, E. and Heiskary, S. A. 1990. "Analysis and Applications of Lake
User Survey Data," in Lake and Reservoir Management, 6(1): 109-118.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. 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. 1995. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories, Vol 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. EPA 823-R-95-
007. 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.
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. 1995a. Knowing Your Waters: Tribal Reporting Under Section
305(b). EPA 841B-95-003. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
Washington, DC. ,
U.S. EPA. 1995b. WBS96 Users Guide. Office of Wetlands, Oceans arid
Watersheds, Washington, DC.
7-2
-------
State and Territorial 305(b) Coordinators
For State-specific water quality
information, contact
Michael j. Rief
Alabama Department of
Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Branch
P.O. Box301263
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334) 271-7829
Drew Grant
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
410 Willowby Street - Suite 105
)uneau,AK 99801-1795
(907)465-2653
Patricia Young
Project Officer for American Samoa
U.S. EPA Region 9 MCE-4
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1591
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 682-0744
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-1530
(916)657-0642
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Donald Gonyea
Bureau of Water Management
Planning Division
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860) 424-3827
Brad Smith
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628
(609)883-9500
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Environmental Regulations
Administration (DC)
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
2100 Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202)645-6611
Rick Copeland
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Mail Stop 3525
2600 Blair Stone Road ,
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 921-9421
W. M.Winn,lll
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Water Quality Management
Program
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905
Eugene Akazawa
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
Don Zaroban
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Management
100 N. Senate Avenue
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)233-2482
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources .
Water Quality Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
DesMbines, IA 50319
(515) 281-8905
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Office of Science and Support
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-5580
Tom VanArsdal!
Kentucky Department
for Environmental Protection
Division of Water
14ReillyRoad
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Management
Division
P.O. Box82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504)765-0511
Jeanne Difranco
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7728
Sherm Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment
Tawes State Office Building, 0-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-2951
Warreri Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536
(508) 792-7470
Sandra Kosek
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
(517)335-3307
Elizabeth Brinsmade
MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road North
StPaul, MN 55155
(612)296-8861
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(573) 751-7024
Christian J. Levine
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Science
Water Quality Division
Metcalf Building
P.O. Box 20091
1520 E. 6th Avenue
Helena, MT 59620
(406)444-5342
Mike Callam
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
1200N. Street, Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-2875
Glen Gentry
Nevada Bureau of Water Quality
Planning
Division of Environmental
Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
Greg Comstock
New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Division
64 N. Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2457
-------
Kevin Berry
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Land and Water Planning
401 East State Street, CN-418
Trenton, N) 08625
(609)633-1179
Erik GalJoway
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe,NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Fred Van Abtyne
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Monitoring and Assessment Bureau
SO Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-0893
Carol Metz
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083
Mike EH
North Dakota Department
of Health
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Btimarck,ND 58502-5520
(701)328-5210
Ed tonkin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614)728-3385 '
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-5205
Robert Baumgartrver
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5323
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 8465
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)789-3638
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
Water Resources Division
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-6519
David Chestnut
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5393
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Watershed Protection Division
523 East Capitol, )oe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3882
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) 239-4607
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6859
Jerome McArdle
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury,VT 05671-0408
(802) 241-3776
Ronald A. Gregory
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality -
Water.Division
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond^VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4471
U.S. Virgin Islands Division
of Environmental Protection
Water Gut Homes 1118
Christiansted, St Thomas,
VI 00820-5065
(809) 773-0565
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia,WA 98504-7600
(360) 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
Phil Ogle
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building - 4th West
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-5622
-------
Interstate Commission 305(b) Coordinators
Howard Colub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Tribal 305(b) Contacts
Blackfeet Environmental Program
Attn: Gerald Wagner
P.O. Box 2029
Browning, MT 59417-2029
(406) 338-7421
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Campo EPA
Attn: Michael L. Connolly
36190 Church Road, Suite 4
Campo, CA 91906
(619)478-9369
The Coyote Valley Reservation
Attn: Jean Hunt
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
Gila River Indian Community
Attn: Glen Stark
Water Quality Planning Office
Comer of Main and Pima Streets
Sacaton,AZ 85247
(602) 562-3203
Hoopa Valley Reservation
Attn: Ken Norton
P.O. Box 1348
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-4275
Hopi Tribe
Water Resources Program
Attn: Ron Morgan
P.O. Box 123
Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
(520)714-1886
Robert Edwards
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
1721 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391
(717)238-0423
Hopland Band of Porno Indians
Attn: R. Jake Decker
P.O. Box 610
Hopland, CA 95449
(707) 744-1647
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Chris Devers
P.O. Box 86
Pauma, CA 92061
(619)742-3579
San Carlos Tribal EPA
Attn: Lynette Patten
35 WestTonto, #1
San Carlos, AZ 85550
(520)475-2218
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Jamie S. Megee
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
(909) 654-2765
Three Affiliated Tribes
Attn: Jim Heckman
Environmental Div., HC3 Box 2
3 miles west of New Town
New Town, ND 58763
(701) 627-3627
OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997-522-178/90336
-------
------- |