United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA841-S-97-002
September 1997
&EPA
The Updated 3O5(b) Guidelines:
Advantages and Expectations
Each State, Territory,
Interstate Water
Commission, the District
of Columbia, and
participating Tribe may
submit 305(b)
information in one of
three ways. These three
alternative reporting
formats are designed to
reduce paperwork, allow
more reporting flexibility,
and make information
available to the public
more quickly.
What is the 3O5(b) reporting process?
Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, States, Territories, the District of Columbia, Interstate Water
Commissions, and participating American Indian Tribes^assess and report on the quality of their waters.
The results of a 305(b) assessment are not raw data but rather statements of the degree to which each
waterbody supports the uses designated in State or Tribal water quality standards. Each State and Tribe
aggregates these assessments and extensive programmatic, information in a 305(b) report, a major document
usually involving information from multiple agencies. EPA then uses these individual 305(b) reports to
prepare a biennial National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. For more information about the
305(b) process, refer to the Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive Water Quality Assessments (305(b)
Reports) and Electronic Updates: Report Contents (EPA-841-B-97-002A) and Supplement (EPA-841-B-97-
002B). Report Contents shows the material to be included in a 305 (b) report, while the Supplement describes
the best monitoring and assessment processes to produce, the information for the report.
What is new about 305(b) reporting and what are the advantages?
The 305 (b) process has a goal of comprehensive assessments of the States' waters using a combination of
monitoring designs (see text box below). Beginning in 1998, each State is encouraged to include in its
305 (b) report a plan for achieving comprehensive coverage and a discussion about progress toward this goal.
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.
The 305 (b) process will also take advantage of modern information technology to provide more current
information on the status of the Nation's waters. EPA will make available to the public via the Internet the
assessment information provided electronically by the States and other participating jurisdictions.
The goals for 3O5(b) reporting include:
Comprehensive coverage characterizing all waters In each
State, Territory, Interstate Water Commission, the District
of Columbia, and participating Tribe. 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 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, States may provide 305(b) reports in one of
three ways. The preferred format is
ffl 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 approach is
In even years, an electronic report accompanied by an
abbreviated narrative report. The abbreviated 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
E 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.
-------
How were the 305(b) Guidelines
developed?
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup provided
many valuable recommendations and was a vital
component to die development of die 305(b)
Guidelines. The 305 (b) Consistency Workgroup
included representatives from nearly 50 States,
Tribes, and Interstate Commissions. The
Workgroup met in June and October 1996 and
had several subgroup meetings and telephone
conference calls, as well as two external peer reviews
for die technical concept of die aquatic life use
support approach. The goals of die Workgroup
were to improve accuracy and consistency of
305(b) reporting and keep the reporting
requirements fixed over time.
Why have annual electronic
updates?
Periodic, electronic updates are needed for three
reasons:
Assessments and data management should be
ongoing activities, not performed in haste prior
to preparation of a 305(b) report
States, EPA, and land management agencies
need die current information for ongoing
management decisions
EPA needs the data for biennial reports to
Congress, Clean Water Act reauthorization,
and other national planning activities.
What will annual electronic
updates include?
The bulk of a State's electronic update will consist
of waterbody-level assessment data for the previous
I IT . 1 »i>
Contents of an Annual Electronic Update
nil
X "WiUtrt^Qdy-leyei assessment data for die previous calendar year;
nearly all States already maintain diese files, which include:
fl | | | I* .....; ; ;..; ; ; ; ; :; ; ;.; ;.; ;.; ;..,;; ;.
^aierbody name and location
* Degree of designated use support
- Biological Integrity indicator (new)
' J^qituuiia or yressprs (causes) '
-1 Sources (e.g., urban runoff)
- Jj!j« For mos, t types of data
(e?,g.» miles of* the waterbody impaired by metals)
hi A G!$ coverage showing assessment results since last update, or hard-copy
mipi" lowing assessment results
M A brief dictionary and description of data sources
Mod ground water tables in database spreadsheet, or word processing
Sf. ,"!l !""!"i"!!' afl! .! 'aii'l" ' ! I """" ""!"!'!!! '!.f"1!!"!!'!'!'!"!" '.!!','
calendar year. These data files can be either EPA
Waterbody System files or State-developed
databases files (with common data element names
for sharing data among States or Tribes and EPA).
Other contents of an electronic update are listed
below.
In even-numbered years beginning in 1998, annual
electronic updates are due on April 1 with the
abbreviated narrative reports. In odd-numbered
years, annual electronic updates should be
transmitted to EPA by April if possible, although
they can be transmitted over the summer. Annual
electronic reporting should not be a large burden
for most States or Tribes. Nearly 40 States
transmitted the same types of assessment data in
electronic form during 1994-95.
EPA is offering technical support to States or
Tribes that need to create or upgrade assessment
databases. EPA and the Workgroup continue to
recommend that each State devote staffing of at
least one full-time equivalent (FTE) person to
305(b) assessments and data management year
round.
Annual electronic updates can include only
assessment data for the basins or watersheds
assessed in the previous calendar year. This should
not present a problem if assessment databases are
kept up-to-date. If the State prefers, the 305(b)
database for the entire State can be transmitted
annually, with the previous calendar year's
assessments clearly marked. Several States will pilot
this effort by December 1997. For more
information, see the 1998 305(b) Guidelines.
What will biennial Reports
to Congress include?
EPA will provide a biennial 305(b) Report to
Congress based on summary data from State and
Tribal 305 (b) reports and electronic updates for the
previous two years.
EPA's Reports to Congress will contain:
All information historically included in biennial
Reports to Congress
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.
In addition, EPA will provide timely electronic
water quality information to the public annually on
assessed watersheds via the Internet.
-------
Figure 1. How recent Federal/State initiatives fit together.
Incentives
Implementation
Targeted and Probabilistic
Monitoring/Assessment
Reduced paper
reporting burden
1 Resources saved are
applied to assessments
and data management
1 Increased annual
information available
305(b)
Data Management
WB002
WB001
EIPA Support for Georeferencing
Waterbodies to RF3
Outputs
Annual
Electronic Updates
IWI
What other initiatives affect the
updated 3O5(b) cycle?
The 305 (b) reporting cycle is closely linked to
several recent Federal and State initiatives:
S Performance Partnership Agreements
National Water Environmental Indicators
Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)
H Surf Your Watershed
Reach Indexing
3 Targeted and Probabilky-based Monitoring.
Figure 1 shows how some of these initiatives are
related to each other, and the following sections
describe these initiatives in more detail.
How will 3O5(b) help States
meet Performance Partnership
; Agreements (PPAs)?
. PPAs will give the States more flexibility to set their
own programmatic priorities. In return, measuring
environmental performance and reporting on
certain water environmental indicators are among
the activities States agree to when entering a PPA.
Annual electronic updates under 305(b) provide
the mechanism for States to track and report on
two key environmental indicators as specified in
PPAs. More than 30 States are entering into or
considering PPAs with EPA. One result of a PPA
could be tnat a State receives EPA funding via
multiprogram grants. For example, a State might
receive a single grant combining multiple Clean
Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act grants.
-------
Figure 2. Water quality objectives and the 18 national indicators.
Public Health
1, Population served by community drinking water systems
violating health-based requirements*
2, Population served by unfiltered surface water systems
at risk (ram microbiological pollution*
3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding
lead action levels*
4, Source water protection*
5. Fish consumption advisories*
6, Shclilish growing water classification
Loadings and Other
16a, Selected point source
loadings to surface water*
1Gb. Sources ot point source
loadings through Class V
wetls to ground water*
17, Nonpoint source loadings
to surface water
18. Marine debris
Aquatic Ecosystems
7. Biological integrity
8. Species at risk*
9. Wetland acreage
/Conserve
& Enhance
Public
Health
Conserve
& Enhance
Aquatic
Ecosystems
Designated Uses
10a. Drinking water supply
designated use
10b. Fish and shellfish consumption
designated use
10c. Recreation designated use
10d. Aquatic life designated use
Support Uses Designated by States
'and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards'
Conserve or Improve Ambient Conditions
Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors
Ground water pollutants
12. Surface water pollutants*
13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants
in shellfish
14. Estuarine eutrophication conditions
15. Contaminated sediments*
* Data provided by States/
Tribes independent of 305(b)
Figure 3. Assessed rivers meeting all designated uses set in State/Tribal water standards 1994/1996.
Analysis of Alaska and
Hawaii reserved for Phase 2.
Percent of Assessed Watershed Rivers
Meeting All Designated Uses:
80 -100% Met
50 - 79% Met
20 -29% Met
< 20% Met
Insufficient Data
EH]
Index of Watershed
Indicators
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
National Water Quality Inventory
June 27,1997
-------
Figure 4. Use support map from Ohio's 1996 305(b)
report.;
Figure 5. Activities potentially affecting
water quality - Ashley River
Watershed (source: South
Carolina DHEC, 1996 Catawba -
Santee Basin Plan).
^ Municipal NPDES Discharges
^ Industrial NPDES Discharges
-fa Active Municipal Landfills
O Closed Municipal Landfills
-fa Active Industrial Landfills
O Closed Industrial Landfills
^ Mining Activities
A Ground Water Contamination Sites
«» Hydrography
-------
How does the updated 305(b)
process relate to National Water
Environmental Indicators?
The EPA Office of Water, with other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, and private organizations,
has developed a suite of 18 indicators (Figure 2).
Each State and its EPA Region should use these
core 18 indicators and others as suitable to measure
results in the State's PPA.
Two of the 18 indicators are to be reported in State
305 (b) reports and electronic updates:
Individual use support for drinking water,
aquatic life, recreation, and fish and shellfish
consumption
Biological integrity.
The Biological Integrity Indicator
!!"'Bio,f6gicaI .integrity is the condition of the biota and
'"k wl|at ir^jin Scosysjep ||wt is mininiajlv influenced by
Ip'wljijji^i ar^'c^psystern approaches this condition. Many
:lK '§taf^ Wa bjpmonitoring programs can already
*! aslilSliflS iildicatot. , ""*" ',',',
EPA will report on these and die remaining
indicators periodically in a national indicators
report, a companion document to the 305 (b)
National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
Together, the indicators measure five national water
objectives as shown in Figure 2. The indicators with
asterisks in Figure 2 are based on State data, but
States will not need to include this information in
their 305 (b) reports or electronic updates because
EPA will incorporate State data directly from other
national databases into Reports to Congress. EPA
will obtain data for the remaining indicators from
national data sets by other Federal agencies.
What is the Index of Watershed
Indicators (IWI)?
Through IWI, EPA and its public and private
partners are combining information on selected
indicators to characterize conditions and
vulnerability hi the 2,111 Cataloging Unit
watersheds in die contiguous United States
(Alaska and Hawaii will come later). The
objectives of IWI are to
II Characterize the Nation's watersheds and
identify watersheds at risk
H Empower citizens to learn about and protect
their watersheds
H Serve as a baseline for dialogue among public
and private partners
II Measure progress toward a goal of healthy,
productive watersheds.
How are 3O5(b) data used for
IWI?
The State 305 (b) databases are the most heavily
weighted sources of data that EPA uses to meet IWI
objectives. We aggregate 305(b) data and most of
the other national water indicators at the 8-digit
Cataloging Unit watershed level. This allows us to
create maps that show the health of the Nation's
watersheds for each indicator, as well as an overall
presentation aggregating all indicators. Figure 3
shows the map for 305(b) data. IWI data and other
indicators of watershed health are available publicly
on our Surf Your Watershed page on the World
Wide Web (http://www.epa.gov/surf/). We
encourage States and Tribes to add additional data
to Surf Your Watershed, and we will periodically
update IWI data to reflect new State 305(b)
electronic data.
How does 305(b) relate
to reach indexing?
Reach indexing is the process of linking electron-
ically or georeferencing a State's water quality
information to the EPA Reach File for mapping
and spatial analysis. In 1998, the latest version of
the Reach File - RF3 (at 1:100,000 scale) - will
become part of a federal standard National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD).
Many types of information can be georeferenced to
RF3, including:
305(b) waterbodies
! Monitoring sites
H Water supply intakes
H Impaired waters reported on 303 (d) lists.
Approximately a dozen States have completely or
partially reach-indexed their 305 (b) information.
-------
What are the advantages
of reach indexing?
The State acquires a geographic information system
(GIS) data layer containing locations of waterbodies
within the RF3 stream network. This gives the
State powerful mapping and spatial analysis
capabilities for specific streams within watersheds,
for example. Figure 4, from Ohio's 1996 305 (b)
report, shows aquatic life use support in streams.
Similar maps of pollutants/stressors and sources of
impairment are easy to generate. Figure 5 shows a
variety of features for a watershed in South
Carolina; this figure is taken from a basin
management plan.
Maryland's Probability-based Monitoring
Maryland uses probability-based design to assess headwaters, while targeted
fixed-station sites are retained on their larger streams. E'elaware also uses
probability-based monitoring to assess the ecological condition of streams;
; sampling sites are selected randomly from all points where roads cross streams.
How can a State increase the
extent and accuracy of its
3O5(b) assessments using
multiple monitoring designs?
EPA and the States are aware that a relatively low
percentage of waters are assessed each two-year
period and that there may be a bias toward problem
waters. The 305 (b) results need to be more
representative of waters across each State. The
305 (b) Guidelines recommend a solutiona
combination of traditional "targeted" monitoring
sites and probability-based monitoring. Several
States are using such a combination of monitoring
designs (see text box). EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has
developed expertise in probability-based design, and
EPA is establishing a mechanism to help States
investigate and implement probability-based design
for their specific needs.
What are the advantages
of incorporating probability-
based designs into monitoring
programs?
Probability-based selection of monitoring sites
enables a State to say with known confidence what
percentage of streams across a basin or the State are
: achieving designated uses. Maryland uses
probability-based design to assess headwaters, while
targeted fixed-station sites are retained on their
, larger streams. Maryland has found the approach
1 useful for answering dozens of management
questions with known levels of confidence, such as
"how many miles of first- through third-order
streams in the basin fully support aquatic life uses?"
- or "what percentage of stream miles are impaired
due to low pH?"
As more States incorporate probability designs into
dieir monitoring programs, Reports to Congress
will more accurately reflect the water quality of the
Nation's waters. That is, State assessment results
' will be more comprehensive and representative of
true conditions with known confidence. Achieving
more comprehensive and representative assessments
is a goal for the 1998 305(b) cycle and beyond.
EPA Contacts
305(b) Process; Waterbody
System; Electronic Reporting
IWI; Water Environmental
Indicators
Surf Your Watershed
Probability-based
Monitoring Design
Reach Indexing
Barry Burgan
(202) 260-7060
Sarah Lehmann
(202) 260-7021
Karen Klima
(202) 260-7087
Phil Larsen
(541) 754-4362
Tod Dabolt
(202) 260-3697
Photo by Jim Crawford
-------
------- |