United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
April 1987
v°/EPA
Water
_>
0
Guidelines for the
Preparation of the 1988
State Water Quality
Assessment (305(b) Report)
r
t
r
?
-
o^
oO
V>>
o
^
33
-------
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment (305(b) Report)
April 1, 1987
Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
OMB Nb. 2040-0071
-------
r S ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•OBttB^f uj
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR I 1987
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State
Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report)
^
FROM: William A. Whittirffton, Director
Office of Water Regulation and Standards (WH-551)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached are the final Guidelines for the Preparation of
the 1988 State Water Quality Assessment required under Section
305 of the Clean Water Act.
These Guidelines for the 1988 reporting cycle continue the
refinement of the basic assessment framework established in 1983
through a cooperative effort between EPA, the States, and the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) . Each biennial cycle since 1983 has
been marked by significant improvements in the State reports.
The 1988 Guidelines incorporate several refinements that will
enhance the usefulness of the reports for the States and EPA.
The 1988 cycle will begin the implementation of an automated
data management system to manage portions of the requested infor-
mation. This system, the 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS), will
ease preparation of the State reports, enhance the utility of
the information, and allow integration of the 305 (b) information
with data in other water quality-related information systems.
The WBS is currently under development and will be pilot-tested
in several States prior to delivery in Fall 1987. EPA will work
with each State in 1987 to reformat data in existing systems or
code and enter data from the 1986 State 305 (b) report. Use of
the WBS computer system will be optional for 1988. However,
States that do not use the WBS should provide the waterbody-
specific information in a format compatible with the WBS so EPA
can enter the data.
The 1988 Guidelines reflect several requirements resulting
from the Water Quality Act of 1987. Under the amendments, States
must prepare water quality information related to lakes, nonpoint
source pollution, and toxics in surface waters (sections 315,
-------
-2-
316, and 308 of the Water Quality Act, respectively). The State
305(b) report and the WBS format will be used as the mechanism
for reporting the identification of waters and sources under
these sections.
For lakes, all of the 315(a) requirements must be submitted
by April 1, 1988 in the 305(b) report. For the nonpoint source
requirements, the identification of waters and source categories
or specific sources should be included in the 305(b) report.
The nonpoint source priority ranking and management plan, however,
are not due until August 4, 1988. For surface water toxics, the
identification of waters should be submitted by April 1, 1988
in the State 305(b) report. Additional guidance for the surface
water toxics requirements will be forthcoming. States will be
permitted to update the information submitted under the Water
Quality Act requirements.
These Guidelines also adopt several suggestions by ASIWPCA
and the States to simplify the Guidelines and enhance consistency.
Where possible, text has been replaced by tables to describe
the core set of statewide summary data. Beginning with these
Guidelines, priorities will be identified for each reporting
cycle. Finally, we have made changes to several individual
data requirements in response to State and Regional comments on
the draft.
Please transmit the 1988 Guidelines to your States. If you
elect to provide your States with supplemental guidance, a copy
should be sent to Fred Leutner of the Monitoring and Data Support
Division for our records.
Thank you for your efforts in coordinating the water
quality assessment process with your States. As pollution con-
trol continues to shift toward water quality-based programs and
it becomes increasingly neccessary to integrate often separate
programs, the 305(b) process is assuming greater importance in
program management. It is essential we continue to make progress
in improving the process.
cc: Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I-X
-------
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment (305(b) Report)
CONTENTS
Background
The 305(b) process 1
Goals for the 1988 cycle
Introduction 2
Goals 2
Other considerations 3
1988 305(b) submission requirements and contents 5
1. Executive summary/overview 6
2. Background 6
3. Surface water quality 8
4. Ground-water quality 20
5. Special State concerns 23
6. Water pollution control program 23
7. Recommendations 26
Appendices
A. Key terms and definitions 27
B. Provisions of the Clean Water Act 31
-------
BACKGROUM5
THE 305(b) PROCESS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean
Water Act) establishes a process for the development of information concerning
the quality of the Nation's water resources and the reporting of this information
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and th'e U.S. Congress. The
requirements for this process are found in Sections 106(e), 204(a), 305(b),
and 314(a) of the Clean Water Act (see Appendix B). Each State, Territory,
and Interstate Commission must develop a program to monitor the quality of its
surface and ground waters and prepare a report every two years describing the
status of water quality. The EPA is required to transmit these reports to
Congress along with an analysis describing the status of water quality nationwide.
This process, referred to as the 305(b) process, is an essential aspect
of the water pollution control effort. It is the principal means by which the
EPA, Congress, and the public evaluate water quality, the progress made in
maintaining and restoring water quality, and the extent to which problems
remain. Most States rely on the 305(b) process for the information needed to
conduct program planning and to report to their legislatures on progress and
remaining problems in their pollution control programs. The 305(b) process is
an integral part of the State water quality management program requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 130. At the Federal level, the 305(b) process is becoming
more important as a result of increasing efforts to manage programs in a more
cost-effective manner.
The management objective for the 305(b) information transfer process is
to provide the information needed to:
(1) determine the status of water quality;
(2) identify water quality problems and trends;
(3) evaluate the causes of poor water quality and the relative contri-
butions of pollution sources;
(4) report on the activities underway to assess and restore water quality;
(5) determine the effectiveness of control programs;
(6) ensure that pollution control programs are focused on achieving
environmental results in an efficient manner; and
(7) determine the workload remaining in restoring waters with poor quality
and protecting threatened waters.
-------
GOALS FOR THE 1988 CYCLE
INTRODUCTION
In order to coordinate efforts among the States, Territories, and Interstate
Commissions, goals or themes for each 305(b) reporting cycle will be established
beginning with the 1988 cycle. This will enhance the quality of information
by minimizing the problems that result from some States emphasizing certain
topics while other States emphasize different topics. The goals for 1988 have
been established in consultation with State representatives.
GOALS
1. Increasing the Number of Assessed Waters
Assessed waters are those for which the State has sufficient information
to make judgements about water quality. The degree of assessment reported in
past 305(b) cycles has varied widely from State to State. Expressed as the
percentage of total waters, it ranges from one percent to 100 percent in the
1986 submittals. Nationally, about 20 percent of the waters were reported as
assessed.
The inconsistency in the degree of assessment results from two factors —
differences in the level of effort expended on monitoring, and different opinions
about how much information is needed to report a water as assessed. It is
important to include information on as many waters as possible in the 305(b)
process. Therefore, criteria for reporting are discussed in these Guidelines
and two levels of assessment are specified for compiling the data on assessed
waters. The two levels of assessment reflect conclusions based on ambient
monitoring data and conclusions based on other information. The second level
of assessment is appropriate for many waters in most States and States are
encouraged to report on those waters. It is also important, however, that those
conclusions be identified as separate from assessments based on monitoring data.
2. Improving Data Quality and Utility
Information from the 305(b) process is becoming critically important as
control efforts shift from technology-based to water quality-based approaches.
Information is also needed to answer key programmatic questions. To improve
data consistency and usefulness, the waterbody-specific (previously termed
segment-specific) portion of the 305(b) information will be managed in a com-
puterized data system. Waterbody-specific information has been a part of the
305(b) reports since 1982 and most States included segment data in their 1986
submittal.
The data system, called the Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS), is
expected to be operational by October 1987. The system will reside on the EPA
mainframe computer and will be indexed to STORET and several other EPA data
bases. States will have the option of using the mainframe computer or using
-------
personal computer programs developed by EPA to manage the waterbody-specific
data. In either case/ flexibility will be provided for States to add their
own data elements to enhance their program management capabilities.
The EPA will transfer the 1986 305(b) data to the new data system so that
States have the opportunity to update the information and use the system to
help prepare their 1988 305(b) report. States are requested to report waterbody-
specific information through the data system or prepare it in a format consistent
with the system so that EPA can enter the data. EPA expects to compile many
of the statistics for the 1988 National water quality assessment directly from
the data system.
3. Identifying Waters Affected by Toxic Pollutants
Section 304 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by Section 308 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, requires each State to identify waters in which additional
controls are needed on point source discharges of toxic pollutants. Consistent
with the FY88 Operating Guidance, the States should identify these waters in
their 305(b) report by April 1, 1988. States may update their identification
of waters at any time.
The identification of waters should be submitted as part of the waterbody-
specific information discussed in section 3.h of these Guidelines. States may
use the WBS to maintain their lists of waters as well as to identify specific
sources requiring additional control. EPA will provide additional guidance
on the definitions and procedures to use in identifying waters.
4. Developing Information On Nonpoint Source Impacts
Section 316 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 requires each State to submit
a State Assessment Report that, among other requirements, identifies waters
which, without additional action to control nonpoint sources of pollution,
cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain water quality standards or
the goals and requirements of the Act.
Consistent with the FY88 Operating Guidance, the State should use its 305(b)
report as the formal mechanism for reporting this information. Information
provided under Sections 3.f and 6.c of these Guidelines will satisfy the Section
316 requirement for the Nonpoint Source Assessment Report.
To meet this requirement, States may rely on the use of their waterbody-
specific information dealing with causes for non-attainment of standards and
sources of pollution. This information may also be useful in assessing the
relative contributions of point and nonpoint sources as well as the types of
water quality problems that result.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Ground water -
The information requested for ground-water quality is similar to the information
requested for the 1986 cycle but with additions to reflect developed or developing
-------
State ground-water programs and recent new statutory authorities for ground-
water protection. Many States have developed ground-water protection strategies.
States are encouraged to use their State ground-water protection strategies as
the basis for the 1988 submittal. These Guidelines request that States
describe changes in their programs in addition to the information on ground-
water quality and on contaminant sources.
The EPA is in the process of developing recommended indicator parameters
and criteria for determining the success of ground-water quality programs.
However, these recommendations are not available in time to include in these
1988 Guidelines. EPA suggests that States consider including these indicator
parameters in their reports where possible in order to aid in the feasibility
testing that will be underway.
Trends in surface water quality -
Information on trends in water quality will be a goal for the 1990 305(b)
cycle. There are two primary reasons why it is not a major goal for 1988.
First, adequate trend reporting requires considerable data collected over a
number of years. The best baseline period for comparison is 1981-82, the
first period for which evaluations of the degree of designated use support
were made. The period evaluated for the 1988 cycle is 1986-87. The five year
span between these two periods is considered to be too small for trend analysis.
Second, a segment-by-segment analysis will be required in many cases. States
may wish to analyze trends by entering data for the baseline period to the
Section 305(b) waterbody system in order to simplify data analysis. Because
the 1988 cycle represents the start-up for the Waterbody System, deferring
analysis of trends until the 1990 cycle will make it more feasible for States
to use the System.
Wetlands -
The 1988 Guidelines request limited information on wetlands. This topic
is under consideration as a major goal for the 1990 305(b) cycle. States are
asked to provide basic data on wetland quality and rates of loss, and to describe
their programs for wetlands monitoring, inventory development, and protection.
Estuaries and Coastal Waters -
In view of the growing degradation problems in the Nation's near coastal
waters, there is a need for increased water quality reporting on estuaries and
coastal waters. The States are encouraged to focus more attention on these
waters. This topic is under consideration as a major goal for the 1990 305(b)
cycle.
-------
1988 305(b) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS
The Clean Water Act requires that the States transmit their water quality
assessments (Section 305(b) reports) to the EPA Administrator by April 1,
1988. States should provide draft reports to their EPA Regional Office prior
to the final deadline of April 1, 1988. EPA requests that the States submit
four (4) copies of their final reports to the Monitoring and Data Support
Division (WH-553).
These Guidelines describe the types of water quality information that provide
a comprehensive description of statewide water quality (both surface and ground
water), and that in turn may be compared among States, Regions, and/or nationally.
These guidelines should be considered as the baseline of water quality information
required for the Section 305(b) Report; however, each State may expand on this
baseline where it sees fit or as agreed upon between the State ind EPA Region.
Appendices may be used to supplement the report with information considered
too detailed for general reading.
Each State's assessment should be based on the most recent water quality data
available. However, coverage should not be restricted to only those waters
assessed in the 1986-1987 reporting period. In order to produce a comprehensive
portrayal of the State's water quality, all waters for which the State has
information should be included.
A new data management system, the Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS),
has been developed and included as part of these Guidelines to manage much of
the waterbody-specific, quantitative information concerning surface water
quality and sources of pollution. States are encouraged to submit their waterbody-
specif ic information by computerized data transfer using the WBS. When computer-
ized data transfer will not be used, the information should be prepared in
written form in a format consistent with the WBS (preferably using WBS input
forms). In such cases, EPA will provide data coding and entry assistance.
In the years in which it is prepared, the biennial water quality assessment
(Section 305(b) report) satisfies the requirement for the annual water quality
report under Section 205(j). In years when the assessment is not required,
the State may satisfy the annual 205(j) report requirement either by certifying
that the most recently submitted water quality assessement is current; or by
supplying an update of those sections of the assessment that require it (see
40 CFR Part 130).
In order to ensure comparability of information developed by many jurisdic-
tions, it is necessary to use consistent measures, terms, and definitions. Key
terms, with a discussion of their definitions and uses, are included in Appendix A.
The State Section 305(b) report should be organized into seven sections. The
contents of each section are described below under the section headings.
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Each State should provide a concise executive summary/overview that is
comprehensive and clear enough to stand alone. For both surface and ground
water, it should:
o describe overall State water quality (for surface water, include a
summary of the degree of designated use support for the different
waterbody types);
o describe the major factors affecting use support;
o discuss the general trends in water quality;
o briefly recap the highlights of each section of the report, particu-
larly the objectives of the State water management program and
issues of special concern to the State.
2. BACKGROUND
To put the report into perspective for the reader, a brief State overview
should be provided, as follows:
2.a. Atlas
State population
State surface area
No. of water basins
(according to State subdivisions)
Total no. of river miles*
No. of border miles (subset)
No. of lakes/reservoirs/ponds*
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds*
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays*
No. of ocean coastal miles*
No. of Great Lakes shore miles*
Acres of freshwater wetlands*
Acres of tidal wetlands*
Names of border rivers:
-------
*Classified under State water quality standards (WQS). If statewide WQS
exist, the default is waters depicted on a USGS hydrologic map with scale
of 1:500,000. Another rationale can be used but should be explained.
NOTE: Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic
behavior, either as stream channel miles under rivers, or as total surface
acreage under lakes/ponds, but not under both categories.
2.b Summary of classified uses
Classified
Use
Total Size Classified for Use
Rivers
(miles)
Lakes
(acres)
Estuaries
(sq. miles)
Other
(specify)
Aq. Fish & Wildlife
Domestic water supply
Recreation
Agriculture
Industrial
Navigation
Nondegradation
Other (specify)
Unclassified
Explain what kinds of waters (if any) are unclassified and how the State
determines which waters should be classified.
-------
3. SURFACE WATER QUALITY
3.a Status
3.a.1 Methodology -
States should provide information on the methods they have used to collect
and analyze monitoring data for determining use support status. The classifi-
cation categories and criteria for determining the status of waters are presented
in Figure 1 of Appendix A. However, since the use of an alternate system to
determine use support (such as a water quality index) is acceptable as long as
it generally corresponds to the guidelines contained in Figure 1, the State
should describe any alternate system it has used.
3.a.2. Water Quality Summary -
State submissions should include summary statistics on designated use support
and attainment of Clean Water Act goals. A standard reporting format is provided
below.
Data should be divided by types of waterbody, as follows: Rivers (reported
in miles); lakes (reported in acres); estuaries (reported in square miles);
coastal waters and Great Lakes (reported in shore miles). In addition, States
should report on freshwater and tidal wetlands where possible. Since States
are in many cases just beginning to assess wetlands and may not have developed
criteria for interpreting water quality information in relation to State water
quality standards, reporting on use support in wetlands is optional.
DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT
Type of Waterbody:
Degree of
Use Support
Assessment Basis
Evaluated
Monitored
Total
Assessed
Size fully supporting
Size threatened*
Size partially supporting
Size not supporting
TOTAL
*Size threatened is a subset of the size fully supporting and is not included in
the totals entered in the last line.
-------
ATTAINMENT OF CWA GOALS1
Type of waterbody:
Goal Attainment Fishable Goal Swimmable Goal
Size meeting
Size not meeting
Size not attainable2
reporting on a combined basis, repeat the same number of miles/acres/square
miles for both goals.
goal is not attainable if standards are less stringent than the goal,
based on an EPA-approved use attainability analysis.
3.b Maps
Maps displaying designated use support information for rivers, lakes,
estuaries, oceans, Great Lakes and wetlands are very useful in interpreting
information on a geographic basis. Using the analysis conducted when deriving
the previous summary of support of designated use(s), display waterbodies
according to one of the three use support categories. Maps on a basin scale
are most appropriate.
NOTE: USEPA Region 4 is developing software programs that will access
STORET data, analyze the data using various options for criteria
and indices, and output the results using STORET/REACH mapping
capabilities. For additional information, contact George Collins,
Office of Integrated Environmental Analysis, USEPA, 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta GA, 30365.
3.c Causes of nonsupport of designated uses
For those waters assessed that are not fully supporting their designated
uses, provide the following information to illustrate the causes and sources
of use impairment statewide.
-------
10
3.C.1 Relative assessment of causes -
For each of the waterbody types (e.g., rivers, lakes, etc.) provide the
total size of waters affected by each category of cause. A water may be
affected by several different causes and should be counted in each relevant
cause category. If the magnitude of the cause is listed in the waterbody-
specific information as High, the size with less than full support should be
included as a major impact below; if listed as Moderate or Slight, the size
should be included as a moderate/minor impact.
TOTAL SIZES OF WATERS NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
AFFECTED BY VARIOUS CAUSE CATEGORIES
Type of waterbody:
CAUSE CATEGORIES MAJOR IMPACT1 MODERATE/MINOR IMPACT1
Unknown toxicity
Pesticides
Priority organics
Nonpriority organics
Metals
Ammonia
Chlorine
Other inorganics
Nutrients
pH
Siltation
Organic enrichment/DO
Salinity
Thermal modification
Flow alteration
Other habitat alterations
Pathogens
Radiation
Oil and grease
total size (i.e., miles, acres, square miles, as appropriate)
-------
11
3.C.2 Relative Assessment of Sources
For each of the waterbody types (i.e., rivers, lakes, etc.) provide the
total size of waters affected by each category of source. A water may be affected
by several sources of pollution and should be counted in each relevant source
category. If the magnitude of the source is listed in the waterbody-specific
information as High, the size with less than full support should be included
as a major impact below; if it is listed as Moderate or Slight, the size should
be included as a moderate/minor impact.
TOTAL SIZES OF WATERS NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
AFFECTED BY VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES
Type of Waterbody:
SOURCE CATEGORY1 MAJOR IMPACT2 MODERATE/MINOR IMPACT2
Point Sources
Industrial
Municipal
CSO
Storm sewers
Nonpoint Sources
Agriculture
Silviculture
Construction
Urban runoff
Resource extract.
Land disposal
Hydro/habitat mod.
Other
1 States may further separate major sources as needed (see Table 1). For
example, agriculture may be separated into irrigated agriculture, rangeland,
and f eedlots ) .
2In total size (i.e., miles, acres, square miles, as appropriate)
-------
12
3.d Public Health/aquatic life concerns
3.d.1 Toxics-related concerns -
Toxic pollutants are of growing concern throughout the country; however,
in many cases there is little definitive information available on their extent
and impact on the aquatic environment. The information reported under 3.C.1
above provides a measure of the relative contribution to use impairment of
various classes of toxic pollutants. In this section, report on the extent of
toxics-caused problems.
TOTAL SIZE AFFECTED BY TOXICS
WATERBODY
SIZE MONITORED
FOR TOXICS
SIZE WITH ELEVATED
LEVELS OF TOXICS*
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (miles2)
Coastal waters (miles)
Great Lakes (miles)
Freshwater wetlands (acres)
Tidal wetlands (acres)
*Elevated levels are defined as exceedances of State water quality standards,
304(a) criteria, and/or FDA action levels, or levels of concern (where numeric
criteria do not exist).
To the extent possible, provide information on the following public health
and aquatic life impacts attributable to toxics. States are encouraged to
rely on tabular formats to summarize key statistics regarding toxic impacts,
but may wish to supplement tables with narrative as appropriate.
o Discuss the relative levels of toxic pollutants in fish/shellfish,
including a comparison with National Academy of Sciences criteria and
Food and Drug Administration action levels, and the location
of areas of concern.
-------
13
o Discuss general trends in toxics contamination.
o Prepare tables for each of the following:
1. FISHING ADVISORIES AND BANS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT
For each waterbody where an advisory or ban is in effect, list the
waterbody name, pollutants of concern, type of restriction (advisory
or ban), area affected (in miles, acres, etc.), date established,
source of pollution, and other comments as appropriate (e.g., species
affected).
2. FISH KILLS/ABNORMALITIES
For each waterbody where a fish kill or fish abnormality due to
toxics has been reported, list the location (waterbody), type of
effect (kill or abnormality), date observed, number of fish affected,
area affected, pollutants, and sources of pollution. If the State
has reported this information to EPA via the pollution-caused fish
kill reporting process, this table is optional.
3. SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
For each waterbody where sediment contamination due to toxics is
found, list the location (waterbody), estimated area affected,
pollutants, and sources of pollution.
4. CLOSURE OF SURFACE DRINKIN3 WATER SUPPLIES
For every occurrence of surface drinking water closures due to
toxics, list the location (waterbody), estimated daily supply
lost, pollutants, and suspected sources.
3.d.2 Non-toxics concerns
Conventional parameters such as pathogens can also pose threats to human
health. To the extent possible, report on the extent of these problems. States
are encouraged to report in tabular format, with supplemental narrative as
appropriate.
o Prepare tables for each of the following:
1. CLOSURES OF BATHIN3 AREAS DUE TO NON-TOXICS
For every bathing area closed due to non-toxics, list the
location (waterbody), date/length of closure, pollutants, and
sources.
-------
14
INCIDENTS OF WATERBORNE DISEASE
Where incidents of waterborne disease are reported, list the
waterbody affected, population affected, pollutants, and sources.
CLOSURE OF SURFACE DRINKIIG WATER SUPPLIES
v
For every occurrence of surface drinking water closures due to non-
toxics, list the location (waterbody), estimated daily supply lost,
pollutants, and suspected sources. *
3.e Lake Information
In this section, States should include the information required by Section
314 of the CWA as amended. This section and section 6.b will constitute the
assessment under Section 314. It should be noted that some of this information
(especially on trophic conditions) should already be available through Clean
Lakes classification reports and may only need to be updated. States should
place more emphasis on (B) and (C) below.
(A) Provide an identification of all publicly owned lakes, classified
according to eutrophic condition and, if possible, water quality trend.
(B) Provide a list and description of those publicly-owned lakes in your
State for which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes which
are known not to meet applicable water quality standards or which require
implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with applicable
standards.
(C) Identify those lakes listed in (B) in which water quality has de-
teriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid
deposition and/or acid mine drainage.
(D) Provide a general assessment of the status and trends of water quality
in lakes, including but not limited to, the nature and extent of pollution
loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to which the use of
lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly with respect to
toxic pollution.
3.f Nonpoint source information
A Nonpoint Source Assessment is required by Section 319(a) of the CWA as
amended. If States have not submitted their Nonpoint Source Assessment to EPA
prior to April 1, 1988, the Assessment should be included as part of the Section
305(b) report. To meet the requirements of the CWA, the Assessment should
provide the information listed below, as well as the information described in
Section 6.c of this document.
-------
15
o Provide a list of those waterbodies that, without additional action to
control nonpoint sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected
to attain or maintain standards.
o Identify those categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources or,
where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources which add significant
pollution to each waterbody listed above in amounts which contribute
to not meeting water quality standards.
3.g. Estuary Information (coastal States)
Information on estuaries should include the following:
o A case study from at least one estuary/coastal area. States are
encouraged to describe problems and challenges, not only "success
stories."
o Information on eutrophication including:
- occurrence, extent, and severity of hypoxia;
occurrence, extent, and severity of algal blooms possibly related
to pollution; and
- estimated nutrient loadings broken out, if possible, by point sources,
combined sewer overflows, and nonpoint sources
o Information on pathogen contamination including acreages under five
U.S. Pood and Drug Administration National Shellfish Sanitation Program
classifications^
o Information on habitat modification including the status and trends in
acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation, acreage of tidal wetlands,
miles of diked or stabilized shoreline, and dredging operations.
11985 National Shellfish Registry of Classified Estuarine Waters. December 1985.
Available from the aSEPA, Monitoring and Data Support Division ((202) 382-7018)
or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA, 22161.
-------
16
3.h Waterbody-specific information
Waterbody-specific information should be provided for all waters that have
been assessed. For waterbodies which fully support all uses/ only the asterisked
items need be reported.
The Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS) is designed specifically to
manage this baseline information. At a minimum, provide the information described
below in a format compatible with the WBS, preferably using WBS coding forms.
States using the computerized WBS system may elect to include a printout of
the segment-specific data in their submission, but are not required to do so.
The WBS includes several features designed to ease data entry including
waterbody identification short-cuts and reduced information levels for waters
fully supporting uses. State-specific data elements can be added to the system
to enhance utility. Additional guidance, forms, and instructions for using
computer systems to manage this information will be available.
For each assessed waterbody, provide the following:
o ID Number* - State waterbody identification number
o Indexing* - information to index the waterbody to various data systems.
Indexing is possible at the cataloging unit, watershed,
and segment level.
o Name of Waterbody*
o Nearby Landmark (optional)
o Location* - detailed narrative description of the
waterbody (optional if indexed)
o Type and Size*- River (mi.), Lake (acres), Estuary (mi.2), Great
Lake/ocean (shore mi.), Wetland (acres)
o Date of Assessment*
o Assessment Level* - Evaluated or Monitored
o Monitored for Toxics* - Yes or No
o Assessment Description - Select from five codes: Presence of sources,
Predictive modeling, Fixed Station data, Limited Field
Assessment, Full Survey (optional).
-------
17
o Generic Designated and Impaired Uses* - Identify the designated uses
and those that are impaired, using the following codes (an
optional decimal character may be used to further subdivide
these categories to reflect State uses):
01 Aquatic Fish & Wildlife 40 Recreation
03 Warm water fishery 42 Primary contact
06 Cold water fishery 44 Secondary contact
08 Shellfish protection 46 Nbncontact
10 Domestic water supply 50 Navigation
20 Agriculture 70 High quality/
21 Irrigation Nondegradation
22 Livestock watering
30 Industrial
o Overall use support* - The size corresponding to each category of
degree of use support. For multiple use waters, use the
classification rules contained in Figure 1 (Appendix A ).
Reported sizes must add up to total waterbody size reported
above.
o Size Threatened* - The size that is fully supporting uses but threatened.
o CWA Goal Support* - The size corresponding to each category of CWA
goal support.
o Water Quality Limited - Indicate if the waterbody is currently water
quality limited (Y/N)
o Trophic Status and Trend - 0 = oligotrophic; M = mesotrophic;
E = eutrophic; D = dystrophic; U = unknown. I = improving;
S = stable; D = degrading.
o Causes - list causes for impaired uses from the codes below. For
each, indicate the magnitude to which the cause contributes
to the use impairment (H = high; M = moderate; S = slight).
1 = unknown toxicity 9 = nutrients
2 = pesticides 10 = pH
3 = priority organics 11 = siltation
4 = nonpriority organics 12 = organic enrichment/DO
5 = metals 13 = salinity
6 = ammonia 14 = thermal modification
7 = chlorine 15 = flow alteration
8 = other inorganics 16 = other habitat alterations
17 = pathogens
18 = radiation
19 = oil and grease
-------
18
Sources - list the sources that contribute to the causes listed above.
Source codes are listed in Table 1. For each, indicate
the magnitude to which the source contributes to the use
impairment (H = high; M = moderate; S = slight).
Specific sources - NPDES numbers and name/description of nonpoint
sources contributing or threatening use impairment
(optional).
Planned actions - planned dates of next assessment, wasteload allocation,
and completion of corrective measures (i.e., best management
practices, reissuance of relevant permits, etc.)
304(1) - status of waterbody relative to the listing requirements of
CWA section 304(1) as amended.
Aquatic contamination - enter if applicable: 1 = contaminated tissue
observed; 2 = consumption restriction; 3 = abnormalities
observed.
-------
19
TABLE 1. Source Category Codes
0 POINT SOURCES
01: Industrial
02: Municipal
03: Municipal Pretreatment (indirect dischargers)
04: Combined sewer overflows (end-of-pipe control)
05: Storm sewers (end-of-pipe control)
*
1 NONPOINT SOURCES
'10 Agriculture
11: Non-irrigated crop production
12: Irrigated crop production
13: Specialty crop production (e.g., truck
farming and orchards)
14: Pasture land
15: Range land
16: Feedlots - all types
17: Aquaculture
18: Animal holding/management areas
20 Silviculture
21: Harvesting, reforestation, residue
management
22: Forest management
23: Road construction/maintenance
30 Construction
31: Highway/road/bridge
32: Land development
40 Urban Runoff
41: Storm sewers (source control)
42: Combined sewers (source control)
43: Surface runoff
70 Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
71: Channelization
72: Dredging
73: Dam construction
74: Flow regulation/modification
75: Bridge construction
76: Removal of riparian vegetation
77: Streambank modification/
destabilization
80 Other
81:
82:
Atmospheric deposition
Waste storage/storage tank
leaks
83: Highway maintenance and
runoff
84: Spills
85: In-place contaminants
86: Natural
90 Source unknown
50 Resource Extraction/Exploration/Development
51: Surface mining
52: Subsurface mining
53: Placer mining
54: Dredge mining
55: Petroleum activities
56: Mill tailings
57: Mine tailings
60 Land Disposal (Runoff/Leachate From Permitted Areas)
61: Sludge
62: Wastewater
63: Landfills
64: Industrial land treatment
65: On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
66: Hazardous waste
-------
20
4. GROUM3-WATER QUALITY
As stated in Section 106(e)(1) of the Clean Water Act, ground-water quality
information should be reported in the Section 305(b) reports. This information
is to be reported by the State agency designated to develop or implement the
State's ground-water program. The following should be regarded as the baseline
of water quality information States should report. States are encouraged to
provide any additional quantitative ground-water quality information that is
generally available or has been addressed in their ground-water strategies.
EPA, with the assistance of States and ASIWPCA, is in the process of
developing indicators that could be used to determine the status and trends
in ground-water protection efforts in the following areas:
o Drinking water - Public water supplies; private supplies
o Point sources of contamination - Hazardous waste disposal
sites; non-hazardous waste disposal sites; underground
storage tanks.
o Areawide sources of contamination - pesticides; septic systems.
EPA hopes that the States will begin efforts to use indicators as the
basis of reporting on ground water and will work with EPA on their development.
This approach, however, is not required by EPA.
4.a. Overview
Provide a brief summary overview describing in narrative form the general
quality of the State's ground water, issues of concern now and for the future,
and progress in developing ground-water protection programs. This should
serve as an introduction to the State's ground-water conditions and special
issues. The State should also summarize any major ground-water quality studies
it has conducted.
4.b. Ground-water quality
Provide the following information on ground-water quality. Note that
baseline information is already available in the State Ground-Water Program
summaries developed by EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection, and should be
updated as appropriate. The State may include explanatory narrative or addi-
tional quantitative information as preferred.
4.b.1 Major sources of contamination -
Using the following table, check the major sources of ground-water
contamination and provide the relative priority of the top five (1 = highest,
2 = next highest, etc.). The relative priority of the source could be based
on the findings of the State's ground-water protection strategy, a related
study, or a combination of such factors as number of sources, location
relative to valuable ground waters, risk to human health and the environment
from released substances, and suitability of existing controls.
-------
21
MAJOR SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
SOURCE
CHECK
RELATIVE PRIORITY
Septic tanks
Municipal landfills
On-site industrial landfills
(excluding pits, lagoons,
surface impoundments)
Other landfills
Surface impoundments (excluding
oil and gas brine pits)
Oil and gas brine pits
Underground storage tanks
Injection wells (incl. Class V)
Abandoned hazardous waste sites
Regulated hazardous waste sites
Salt water intrusion
Land application/treatment
Agricultural activities
Road salting
Other (specify)
-------
22
4.b.2 Contaminating substances -
Using the following table, check those substances contaminating ground-
water in the State due to the above sources. Specific contaminants or contaminant
groups can be listed separately if clarification is needed. The State may
indicate those substances for which it is considering developing ground-water
standards. '
SUBSTANCES CONTAMINATING GROUND WATER *
Organic chemicals: Metals*
Volatile
Synthetic Radioactive material
Inorganic chemicals: Pesticides*
Nitrates
Fluorides Other agricultural chemicals*
Arsenic
Brine/salinity Petroleum products*
Other
Others (specify)
*These substances should be checked in preference to the organic or inorganic
category in which they are found.
-------
23
5. SPECIAL STATE CONCERNS
This section should be devoted to the discussion of special concerns that
are significant issues within the State and 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 which are being planned or implemented
to alleviate these problems, and give site-specific examples.
6. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
6.a Point source control program
Within the context of both technology-based and water quality-based
controls, provide a general overview of the point source control program.
Focus on program actions, their relationship to water quality, and their
effectiveness in improving water quality. Discuss, in particular, State
programs to assess and control the discharge of toxic pollutants.
EPA will use information available through the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) to summarize national progress. We encourage the States to provide
additional quantitative information if they desire.
6.b Lakes program
In order to fulfill the requirements of section 314 of the Clean Water
Act as amended, States should provide the following along with the water quality
information described in 3.e.
(A) Provide a general description of procedures, processes, and methods
(including land use requirements), to control sources of lake pollution;
(B) Provide a general description of methods and procedures, in conjunction
with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore lake quality;
(C) Provide a general discussion of methods and procedures to mitigate
the harmful effects of high acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing
and restoring buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from lakes
toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high acidity.
6.c Nonpoint source control program
One of the goals for the 1988 305(b) cycle is to develop comprehensive
information on the effects of nonpoint sources on water quality. Data on the
-------
24
specific sources, extent, and relative impact of nonpoint source pollution is
requested in the surface water quality section. In this section, States
should discuss the technical, economic, and political factors important in
their State and the status of programs designed to address the problem. States
should address legislation, regulations, policies, organization changes,
funding, and programs that relate to mitigation of nonpoint source pollution.
The effectiveness of these changes or programs should be evaluated. Specific
quantitative information should be included in the program discussion and
example cases are encouraged. *
At a minimum, States should discuss the following topics required under
the CWA amendments of 1987: *
o describe the process, including intergovernmental coordination and
public participation, for identifying best management practices and
measures to control each category and subcategory [see Table 1] of
nonpoint sources and, where appropriate, particular nonpoint sources
identified in section 3.f and to reduce, to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, the level of pollution resulting from such category,
subcategory or source.
o describe State and local programs for controlling pollution added from
nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality of, each such portion
of the navigable waters, [listed in section 3.f] including but not
limited to those programs which are receiving federal assistance.
6.d. Ground-water protection program
States should provide information on their ground-water strategies and relat-
ed programs. This information could include discussions of policy, ground-water
standards, monitoring, interagency coordination, ground-water classification
and mapping, special source controls, and legislation and regulations.
There has been considerable activity in the area of ground-water protection
in the last several years. States are specifically requested to describe program
initiatives put into effect since their 1986 submittals, including their development
of wellhead protection programs.
6.e. Wetlands protection program
Provide a general discussion of State activities to protect wetlands.
This discussion should include programs to inventory and classify wetlands
resources/ acquisition and conservation programs, State wetlands statutes,
regulatory programs, and educational programs.
If information was not provided in previous sections, describe the status
of wetlands, the relative importance of various activities that adversely
impact wetlands, and rates of wetland loss.
6.f 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
-------
25
Water Act. It is recognized that this information may not be readily available
due to the complexities of the economic analysis involved. However, until such
time that procedures for evaluating costs and benefits are in wider use and have
become available to the states/ provide as much of the following information as
possible.
As a measure of the costs of pollution control activities, discuss capital
investments in municipal and industrial facilities, and the costs of operating
these facilities. In addition, include the costs of administering water pollution
control activities through State and local government offices.
Also provide, if possible, information on the beneficial outcomes resulting
from actions taken to maintain or improve water quality conditions in the State.
Some examples might include increasing demand for water-based recreational
activities, improvements in commercial fisheries, recovery of damaged aquatic
environments, and reduced costs of water treatment undertaken at municipal and
industrial facilities.
Discuss the costs and benefits of water quality achievements for programs
or specific sites documented elsewhere in the report. Examples of such projects
include Clean Lakes restorations and nonpoint source control projects.
6.g Surface water monitoring program
Include a general discussion of the State monitoring program; briefly discuss
any changes in program emphasis that are planned or have taken place since the
last report.
o Provide a brief historical discussion of the program including resource
allocations covering at least the last five years (i.e., from 1981).
o Briefly describe the program to identify and characterize toxic pollutant
problems (water/fish/sediment).
o Briefly describe the fixed station network (location, parameters sampled,
frequency of sampling, type of station) and how the data are used in the
program.
o Briefly describe the intensive survey program (describe each survey
including survey locations for the previous two years, planned surveys,
purpose of surveys). Organize discussion by geographic region and type
of survey.
o Briefly describe the biological sampling program (location, sample
organisms, frequency of sampling, purpose of sampling) and how the
data are used.
o Briefly describe the toxicity testing/health testing program.
o Briefly describe any use attainability or site-specific criteria
modification studies conducted or planned.
-------
26
o Briefly describe, if possible, any other special monitoring studies
such as long-term estuarine studies, etc.
At the discretion of the EPA Regional office, the report may reference
other documents in place of discussion of these topics for all except the first
bullet.
•
t
7. RECOMME NDATIO MS »
Provide recommendations as to additional general actions which 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. Recommendations provided in prior cycles include: developing
more FDA action levels, improving training of municipal treatment facility
operators, correcting CSOs, placing more emphasis on the identification and
control of nonpoint sources, etc.
-------
27
APPEIOIX A
K2Y TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
1 . Waterbody -
Any contiguous body of water identified by the State. A waterbody can be as
large as a river sub-basin (i.e., a USGS Cataloging Unit) or as small as a stream
segment.
2. Assessed waters -
Assessed waters refers to those waterbodies for which the State is able
to make a judgment about the degree to which the designated use is supported.
Such waters are not limited to waters that have been directly monitored — it
is appropriate in some cases to make judgments based on other information.
"Assessed waters" should also include waters assessed prior to the current report-
ing period if the State believes that the assessment conclusions are still valid.
States are encouraged to report on all waters for which a reasonable
judgment can be made. There are many waters in most States for which ambient
monitoring is done infrequently or not at all. In the past/ many States have
not reported on those waters. Such waters should be included in the 30 5 (b)
process if the State has any reasonable basis for evaluation. To encourage
reporting on more waters/ and to distinguish between assessment bases, "total
assessed waters" is subdivided into two categories.
o "Evaluated waters" are those waterbodies for which the assessment is
based on information other than current site-specific ambient data, such
as data on land use, location of sources, predictive modelling using
estimated input variables, surveys of fisheries personnel, and citizen
complaints. As a general guide, if an assessment is based on ambient data
that is older than five years, the State should consider it "evaluated."
o "Monitored waters" are those waterbodies for which the assessment is based
on current site-specific ambient data (i.e., data no more than 5 years
old) .
3 . Monitored for toxics -
Significant public concern centers on contamination of water resources by
toxic constituents. Although contamination may not be likely for many waters, it
is important to report on the extent that potential contamination is being examined.
Waters are "monitored for toxics" if ambient monitoring information is
collected that is capable of indicating the presence of toxic substances.
This measure includes waters so monitored but for which no toxics were found.
The actual data required will vary according to potential exposure routes.
For example, where a water is not used as a drinking water but is fished, a
bioassessment or ambient toxicity survey coupled with fish tissue chemical
analyses might be considered sufficient to detect toxics contamination. For
reporting, waters monitored for toxics is a subset of waters monitored (i.e.,
those waters are counted in both categories ) .
-------
28
4. Degree of support -
The degree to which water quality supports the designated uses specified
in State water quality standards is divided into three categories as follows:
fully supporting uses, partially supporting uses, and not supporting uses.
General guidelines that may be useful in defining these terms are presented in
Figure 1. It should be noted that the terms refer to all uses designated for
a waterbody. Classification rules for waterbodies with multiple designated
uses are included in Figure 1. '
The criteria in Figure 1 are general guidelines. States may use other
indices provided they are documented and generally analogous to these criteria.
In Section 3.a.1, States should describe the data analysis protocols they used
to determine the degree of use support.
In past reporting cycles, some States have not expressed water quality
status in terms of the degree of use support, instead either listing monitoring
data or providing the results of a procedure for ranking relative water quality.
One of the principal purposes of collecting monitoring data, however, is to
enable judgments about whether water quality standards are being attained.
Also, national assessments of water quality depend on a common framework of
evaluation. It is essential that States develop their information in terms of
the degree of use support.
5. Threatened waters -
Threatened waters refers to those waters that fully support their designated
uses but that may not fully support uses in the future because of anticipated
sources or adverse trends of pollution. States are requested to identify
those waters as a separate subset of the waters that fully support uses. For
example, if 12,000 stream miles are fully supporting uses and 300 of those
miles are threatened, the State would report that 12,000 miles are fully supporting
uses.
6. Fishable/Swimmable -
Section 305 of the CWA requires the assessment of the degree to which the
goals of the CWA have been attained. The goals are found in Section 101 and
include the achievement of fishable and swimmable waters. Support of CWA goals
is considered to be a separate and independent criterion from the degree of
designated use support.
Meeting the fishable goal is defined for the purpose of the 305(b) process
as: providing a level of water quality consistent with the goal of protection
and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
Fishing advisories, consumption bans, and high incidences of fish abnormalities
are indications that waters may not be supporting healthy aquatic populations
and do not support the fishable goal. Meeting the swimmable goal is defined
as providing a level of water quality that allows for recreational activities
in and on the water.
-------
29
classif ica
a
3
CO
•8
jj
CO
«
IH
O
IH
0)
CD
CD
w
•H
4J
1
£
H1
•f-i
4J
IH
Assessment
Descriptio
(0 (0
CO -H
CD 0)
CD CJ
4-1 -H
CD O -H -b
4-1 4J W CD
SO M
M.-H £ .^
°'H^'rB S
CD -H -H IH CJ
0)
CD
T3
3
CO
4-> CD en
CJ -H
S» 3 CD 'H 8
^8
co eu x TJ
3 ,2 CD 05
3 3 g
CD 4J O 4-)
M 3 4-) V4 3 en
co 4J
CD C M-I
4J
C
CJ CD ^4J
CO C
CD -H
O 0 M 3? CO -H CDU-H i-l CD
C M-I O fl
CD M 4J -i-i
CQCD ••H4->(0
CD 4-) CD it 4J
Q4-
r
0 4J (0
OP in CD 4J
m 3 4-> 3
CDrH gt
fi IH O CD
g DI (01 iH
J I 9
C r^ CO
4->
3
'S
i
a
U-l
o
CO -U
•H • (d
(d (d
•1-1 C -,-t |Q
CD cu CD d •
4-1 S 4-> O C
•H .H MH >H
>H <4f I-l O)
CJ O 4J O
CO
cjCeniHloccg
Sl-S^LSa, b
S^M,
'O cfl fd fO
>,.^ T3 -H -H CD IH .
CMC lHrt3CD4->CO
(3eD(T3CO(D 5
id id 4.
CD •> O -r
rH TJ .r
O CD M-
CD IH T
3 ai
Tj
C CD
O 4J
:S 8
U >i
4J
C
•I-l
UH (rt o
O CD O C CD
I I
I C CO CD
MH o eo &
•H CO CD
in eo >(
pe
s
Site visit by
ed biological
l. Rapid bioa
nt protocols m
ed
ne
me
us
fit
•d o
C -i-1
Q CQ.
8
3
CQ
3
M-l
CD
CO
0)
CO
3
S1
CO
•8
4J
a
en
2
en
en
3
S1
CD
•8
4J
i-l
3
CO
•r-l
4J
i-l
S\
CQ
0)
CO
3
0
i-l
3
S
•H
fd
•H
ti
£
CO
CO
S
3
CD
S1
•rl
CO
-------
30
In some cases, the achievement of the CWA goals is precluded by physical
constraints, irrevocable impacts, and severe socioeconomic impacts. In these
cases, the State water quality standards may exclude the fishable or swimmable
goal based on the results of a use attainability analysis. Thus, there are
three possible outcomes for any waterbody when the question of CWA goal
support is considered, as follows:
- the fishable and/or swimmable goals are supported;
the fishable and/or swimmable goals are not supported but are attainable;
and
State water quality standards do not include fishable and/or swimmable
uses (i.e., the CWA goals are not attainable).
States may report on each goal independently or as a combined criterion.
When combined, EPA will assume that both goals are equally supported or not
supported.
-------
31
APPENDIX B
PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
SEC. 305. WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
(b)(l) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrotro
' » by April 1. 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and
biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—
* (A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters
• t in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate sup-
plemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account
seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of
water required by the objective of this Act (as identified by the
Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 304(a)
of this Act) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B)
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters
of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which pro-
vides for thejprotection and propagation of a balanced population*
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in
and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the require-
ments of this Act, together with recommendations as to additional
action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters
such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of
this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of
such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such
achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources
of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which
must be undertaken to control each category of such sources,
including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together
with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975,
and October 1,1976, and biennially thereafter. .
SEC. 106. GRANTS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
(e) "Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make
any grant under this section to any State which has not provided or is
not carrying out as a part of its program—
(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to
compile and analyze data on (including classification according to
eutrophic condition), the quality of navigable waters and to the
extent practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring;
and provision for annually updating such data and including •
it in the report required under section 30S of this Act;
-------
32
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (Continued)
SEC. 204. LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
(a) Before approving grants for any project for any
treatment works under section 201(g)(l) the Administrator shall
determine —
"(2) that (A) the State in which the project is to be located (i)
is implementing any required plan under section 303(e) of this
Act and the proposed treatment works are in conformity with
such plan, or (ii) is developing such a plan and the proposed
treatment works will be in conformity with such plan, and (B)
such State is in compliance with section 305(b) of this Act;".
SEC. 314. CLEAN LAKES
(a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to
the Administrator for his approval —
"(A) an identification and classification according to
eutrophic condition of all publicly owned lakes in such
State;
"(B) a description of procedures, processes, and methods
(including land use requirements), to control sources of
pollution of such lakes;
"(C) a description of methods and procedures, in conjunc-
tion with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the qual-
ity of such lakes;
"(D) methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful
effects of high acidity, including innovative methods of
neutralizing and restoring buffering capacity of lakes and
methods of removing from lakes toxic metals and other
toxic substances mobilized by high acidity;
"(£) a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in
such State for which uses are known to be impaired, includ-
ing those lakes which are known not to meet applicable
water quality standards or which require implementation
of control programs to maintain compliance with applicable
standards and those lakes in which water quality has de-
teriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be
due to acid deposition; and
"(F) an assessment of the status and trends of water
quality in lakes in such State, including but not limited to,
the nature and extent of pollution loading from point and
nonpoint sources and the extent to which the use of lakes is
impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly with
respect to toxic pollution.
"(2) SUBMISSION AS PART OF 30S(bXl) REPORT.— The informa-
tion required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the
report required under section 305fbXl) of this Act, beginning
with the report required under such section by April 1, 1988.
------- |