t
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC^ers
WASH.NGTON,D.C.
2
-------
The assessments reported under section 305(b) support water quality management
programs in numerous ways. All states use their 305(b) assessments to assist in the identification
and ranking of threatened or impaired waters under section 303(d). I emphasize that submission
of a 303(d) list is not a substitute for a 305(b) report; rather according to the TMDL regulations,
state 305(b) assessments are one of several important sources of readily-available information
which must be considered by states in developing their 303(d) lists.
As we look ahead to the: 2000 reporting cycle, I'm optimistic that the next round of
reports will be even stronger. I expect these reports will demonstrate a significant expansion in
the number of waters assessed across all water body types and uses. I also expect to see an
increase in the documentation of data quality and use of electronic databases and geographic
information systems.
Individual state and tribal 305(b) reports are due on April 1, 2000. They should continue
to follow the Guidelines far the Preparation of Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates published in 1997. The guidelines reflect the consensus
of the state and federal members of the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup. They address key issues
affecting the quality and comparability of 305(b) reports including geographic referencing of data,
monitoring strategies for comprehensive assessment, biological assessment, and documenting and
improving data quality used to assess designated use support. If you'd like copies of these
guidelines, contact Susan Holdsworth, in my office, via telephone at 202-260-4743 or email at
holdsworth. susan@epa.gov.
To supplement the guidelines and reinforce areas of focus for the 2000 report, I am
attaching a series of fact sheets. The fact sheets cover elements of the!998 reports where many
states were deficient in their submissions. Please pay particular attention to these areas:
/ Comprehensive Assessments- Progress should result in full coverage by 2002
/ Electronic Reporting- All states must submit electronic reports in 2000
/ Abbreviated Reports- Focus on changes, but include citation to previous reports
/ Use Support Determinations- Evaluate all applicable uses and document data quality
/ Water Body Types- Include lakes, wetlands, ground water, coral reefs and other ocean
resources in addition to traditional focus on rivers and streams and estuaries
/ Sources and Causes of Impairment- Improve documentation of sources and causes
associated with waters identified as impaired or threatened
/ Core Performance Measures- Use 305(b) to report progress under state performance
partnership agreements
t
-------
My priority is to improve the quality of monitoring and assessment data and reporting.
This should be accomplished by thorough implementation of the 1997 guidelines- applied to all
waters of the United States. As we continue to work together to improve the quality of 305(b)
reports, please feel free to contact Susan Holdsworth, the national 305(b) coordinator at 202-260-
4743 or Margarete Heber, Chief of the Monitoring Branch at 202-260-7144.
Attachments
cc: (with attachments)
Assistant Administrator for Water
Deputy Assistant Administrators for Water
OW Office Directors
305(b) Consistency Workgroup
State, Territory and Interstate 305(b) Coordinators
305(b) Tribal Water Quality Coordinators
Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs
Regional 305(b) Coordinators
Regional WBS/ADB/STORET Coordinators
Regional Monitoring Coordinators
Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators
Regional TMDL Coordinators
Regional Watershed Coordinators
Regional Ground Water Representatives
Regional Drinking Water Coordinators
Regional Wetlands Coordinators
Regional NEP Coordinators
Regional Biologists
Regional REMAP Coordinators
National Water Quality Monitoring Council
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of
Water 4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Comprehensive Assessments
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act calls for each state to assess and report on the ability of all waters
of the state to support the goals of the Act. One of the major challenges facing states is obtaining
comprehensive coverage of state waters. Historically, most state assessments focus on rivers, streams,
lakes, and estuaries. Some types of waters are rarely assessed like wetlands, oceans and ground water.
Through implementation of the 305(b) Guidelines, states will achieve comprehensive assessment of most
waters over the next few reporting cycles.
One of the key issues addressed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup in the 305(b) Guidelines
was comprehensive assessment. The guidelines
specifically request that states and tribes document
their progress toward comprehensive assessments of
ail waters (Guidelines Vol. 1, pp 1-8 and 4-3). The
305(b) Consistency Workgroup, comprised of over
50 representatives from EPA, state, territories, and
tribes, identified a number of actions that, when used
together, will improve the amount and reliability of
data used to progress toward comprehensive water
quality assessment.
Monitoring Design
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup identified two
primary monitoring approaches that support
comprehensive assessments. They are rotating basin
monitoring and probabilistic sampling. A
combination of these approaches offers the best
means for making statistically valid statements about
water quality at the basin or watershed level as well
as statewide. The 305(b) Guidelines offer flexibility
in designing monitoring networks that best meet the
needs of states or tribes within the framework of
achieving comprehensive assessments of all
waterbody types and all applicable designated uses.
Under the rotating basin approach, states can
achieve comprehensive monitoring of all waters in a
state over a set period (typically five years) by
intensively monitoring approximately one-fifth of
their watersheds each year. Over 20 states have
implemented or are in the process of implementing a
rotating basin approach. The advantages of this
approach include greater cost-effectiveness and the
ability to support multiple regulatory and
programmatic objectives including:
• Listing impaired and threatened waters under
Section 303(d)
• Characterizing causes and sources of
impairments
Developing TMDLs
• Evaluating the effectiveness of TMDL
implementation
Reevaluating and revising water quality
standards.
See the 305(b) Guidelines Volume 2, Appendix B for
an overview of one state's rotating basin approach or
contact your EPA Regional Monitoring Coordinator
for detailed information on other states' approaches.
Probability-based monitoring utilizes a sample
survey design so that monitoring and assessment data
characterize, with defined statistical confidence, all
waters of the state. This approach eliminates the
potential for sampling bias towards waters with
known problems. Another advantage of a
probability-based design is that it allows the
extrapolation from a relatively small sample of
monitored sites to the entire population of waterbody
types covered by the design. At least seven states are
implementing or evaluating a probabilistic
monitoring approach, either at the basin, ecoregion,
or statewide level. For more information about the
characteristics of probabilistic monitoring, see
Guidelines Volume 2, Section 2.2 and Appendix I.
Probability-based assessments can also help evaluate
the adequacy of 303(d) lists by indicating the
proportion of waters that are expected to be
-------
threatened or impaired. However, probabilistic
monitoring alone does not identify the specific
location of all the impaired or threatened waters.
Some states use a probabilistic sampling design
within their rotating basin framework to ensure
comprehensive coverage for each basin and
ultimately across the state. This combination of
approaches enables a state to meet multiple program
objectives, achieve comprehensive assessment and
ensure statistically-defensible results. Under the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Project
Western Pilot, EPA and the states of Regions 8, 9,
and 10 are developing a probability-based sampling
design to characterize water quality of all perennial
rivers and streams of each state. For information
about EPA technical support for implementing such
sampling designs, contact your EPA Regional
Monitoring Coordinator.
Data Sharing
Collaboration among a wide variety of sources of
well-documented data is another means to increase
the amount of data used to assess water quality.
Many other organizations monitor water quality and
other related environmental attributes. Much of this
outside data meets the data quality objectives of
states and tribes' assessment programs. Examples of
potential sources of data include volunteer
monitoring groups, universities and cither federal and
state agencies. Appendix H in the 3Q5(b) guidelines
describes some additional sources of data for 305(b)
assessments.
The EPA Office of Water is working throughout the
agency and federal government to promote the use of
the new STORET as a data management and
warehouse tool for physical, chemical, and biological
data. A key feature of the new STORET is better
documentation of data quality. In addition to training
on STORET for states and EPA, we are also
providing training to tribes, volunteer monitoring
groups, and other federal agencies in order to
improve the accessibility of data of documented
quality. The 305(b) Guidelines, like the 303(d)
regulations, recommend using all relevant and
available data to supporting state and tribal 305(b)
assessments.
Monitoring Consortiums
Several states are forming monitoring councils or
consortiums to better utilize resources and maximize
the quality and quantity of water resource monitoring
data. A monitoring consortium brings together the
monitoring objectives and resources of a network of
stakeholders conducting complementary or
duplicative monitoring and facilitates a more efficient
monitoring program. Forming these partnerships
enhances not only the quality and reliability of
assessments, it improves the partners' understanding
of the 30S(b) assessments and expands the utility of
305(b) reports. EPA encourages states and tribes to
form or actively participate in monitoring councils or
consortiums. Contact EPA's liaison to the National
Monitoring Council, Chuck Spooner, at (202)260-
1314 or Susan Holdsworth for more information
about state monitoring councils or consortiums.
*
For more information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of trie Guidelines:
Susan Holdsworth
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Electronic Reporting
During the 1998 reporting cycle, over 30 states submitted data electronically using the Waterbody
System or a compatible database. As described in the 30S(b) guidelines, all states should to submit data
electronically for the 2000 reporting cycle. Tribes are encouraged to report electronically as well.
New Assessment Database
The upgrade of the Waterbody System, called the
305(b) Assessment Database (ADB), was beta tested
by over a dozen states. After fine-tuning of the
system based on the beta tester feedback, it is now
available for use. While the Waterbody System still
functions, the ADB offers new and improved
features including a menu-based data entry screen
and automated data error checks.
OWOW encourages all Waterbody System users to
transfer to the ADB contact Tod Dabolt at 202-260-
3697 or dabolt thomas
-------
and display them on state web sites. Several states
received. Contact Tod Dabolt for more assistance
from EPA for their georeferencing work.
Metadata
Send your Assessment databases April 1,2000 as e-
rnail attachments, via FTP, or on disk to your EPA
Regional 305(b) Coordinator with a copy to Tod
Dabolt of OWOW. The transmittal should include
metadata providing basic information about the
format and content of the electronic data files (see
box). This information is critical for proper use of
your data, whether in the Assessment Database or
alternative software. A GIS coverage; should include
the standard types of metadata such as contact
person, contents, description of data dements,
definitions of user-defined codes, and projection;
also include datum, units, and any additional
parameters needed to use the coverage.
Metadata Needs
Contact person's name,
address, phone
Database format
Status of database, draft or
final
Contents of database,
entire state or selected
basins
Data dictionary defining
database fields and data
codes
Ground Water Reporting
In 1998, 31 states submitted updated ground water
tables in database, spreadsheet, or word processing
format. These tables, are described in Section 5 of
the 305(b) Guidelines, Volume 1. Contact Roger
Anzzolin of the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water, at (202) 260-
7282 or anzzolin.roger (Siepa.gov for WordPerfect
table format
•
For more information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of the Guidelines
contact:
Susan HokJsworth
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
Data Quality and Completeness
Section 6 of the 305(b) Guidelines, Volume 1,
describes data quality needs in detail. Refer to table
6-1 in the Guidelines for a list of key data elements
and page 6-9 for general data rules. For the year
2000 and beyond, ensure that the metadata fields in
your assessment database are populated Such fields
include assessment type, assessment comments, and
level of information codes (see Table 6-1). These
fields wiU make your database more useful to other
professionals in your agency as well as to EPA.
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of
Water 4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Abbreviated Narrative Reports
As an incentive to increase the use of annual electronic reporting, the 305(b) Guidelines offer states, territories,
commissions, and tribes the option of preparing an abbreviated narrative report instead of a complete narrative
report every two years if they transmit electronic databases. States, territories, commissions, and tribes must
negotiate with their EPA Regional 3Q5(b) coordinator before exercising this option. The idea is that EPA will use
the combination of the abbreviated reports, electronic 305(b) databases, and previously submitted complete reports
to prepare the national Report to Congress.
To prevent abbreviated narrative reports from referencing data and information that are too old, a complete
narrative report is required periodically. The next complete narrative report is required in 2002. An abbreviated
narrative report is acceptable in 2000, provided the EPA regional coordinator agrees that a complete report
already exists on file.
The intent of the abbreviated narrative report is to
focus on changes that occurred during the reporting
cycle such as:
/ Different basins or watersheds assessed
/ Improvements or reductions in water quality
/ Actions taken to improve program effectiveness
K' New information gathered to support
assessments
v' Better data management tools employed.
The abbreviated narrative report still needs to include
all the sections of a full report. However, rather than
drafting new text for each section, you may refer the
reader to specific sections of a previous complete
report. Of course, this means the previous report
must still be available review. A few specific
reminders about the abbreviated report are listed
below:
/ Reports accompanied by electronic databases do
not need to include summary tables of the level
of use support for each waterbody type if the
database can generate these tables. However,
it's a good idea to include summary tables to
help EPA correctly summarize your data.
/ If you're using a probabilistic monitoring
network you do need to include summary tables
describing the network results in the abbreviated
report and transmit the waterbody-specific data
in the electronic update.
/ The abbreviated report must contain a complete
executive summary and a description of progress
toward achieving comprehensive assessments.
/ For each section of the 305(b) report that is
abbreviated, include a statement that no
significant changes have occurred since the last
complete 305{b) report and reference the section
or pages of the complete report where the
information can be found.
EPA Region 2 developed a checklist to review the
contents of 305(b) reports. It itemizes the contents
of the 305(b) report guidelines and identifies the
elements of an abbreviated report. Contact Susan
Holdsworth or your EPA Regional 305(b)
coordinator for a copy of the checklist.
You are encouraged to take advantage of the
abbreviated report in 2000 and to focus resources on
monitoring activities and implementation of the
electronic data management and reporting tools.
For more information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of the 305(b) Report
Guidelines contact:
Susan Holdsworth
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
*
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of
Water 4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Use Support Determinations
Through the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup, EPA and state representatives work together toward
improving the consistency among state and tribal 305(b) reports. While significant progress has been
made, there are still areas needing attention and new issues have been raised. Several of these are
highlighted below. Volume 2 of the 305(b) Guidelines (EPA-84I-B-97-QQ2B) provides instructions on
improving the completeness and consistency of water quality assessments.
Assessing All Designated Uses
For the year 2000 report and beyond, states and tribes
are asked to improve their coverage of all designated
uses including:
• Drinking water
• Swimming and other recreation
• Fish consumption
• Ceremonial uses
• Aquatic life
For example, increased coordination with state health
departments may improve the datasets available for
assessing drinking water and swimming uses. Wider
coverage offish consumption use may be possible
with more extensive analysis of fish tissue data and
greater coordination with the state agency issuing fish
consumption advisories.
See the 305(b) Report Guidelines Fact Sheet on
comprehensive assessments for more information on
increasing the amount of data available to make water
quality assessments. Section 3 of the 305(b) Report
Guidelines, Vol. 2, discusses data sources and other
factors relevant to expanding water quality
assessments to all designated uses.
Documenting the Type of Assessment Data
Improved documentation of Assessment Types for
these designated uses is needed (see Guidelines Vol.
2, Table 1-1). This is an important type of
information that will help other professionals in your
agency and in EPA properly use and interpret your
data.
Documenting Data Quality for Aquatic Life
Use Support Determinations
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup outlined a
process to begin implementing the Interagency Task
Force on Monitoring recommendations on integrating
the results of biological, habitat, chemical and
toxicological assessments to assess aquatic life use
support. This process includes documentation of the
type and quality of the information supporting the
assessment. It is detailed in Chapter 3, Volume 2 of
the 305(b) Report Guidelines.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup concluded that
descriptive information characterizing the level of
information or rigor in the method for assessing use
support is needed to more fully define and
understand assessment findings. The rigor of a
method is dictated by its technical components such
as spatial and temporal coverage, precision, and
sensitivity of the data. The Workgroup developed a
hierarchy of four levels of information for each of the
four data types- biological, habitat, toxicological,
and physical/chemical. These hierarchies provide
guidance in defining the level of information used to
make aquatic life use support determinations.
States, territories, commissions and tribes are asked
to use these hierarchies and report the level of
information used. The new 305(b) Assessment
Database (ADB) provides data fields for use in
entering this information, and states that do not use
the ADB can get help including these fields in their
own customized databases.
For more information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of the 305{b) Report
Guidelines contact:
Susan Holdsworth
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
>
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of
Water 4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Waterbody Types
EPA applauds efforts that have resulted in expanded assessment coverage of streams/rivers and
estuaries in recent years. We also recognize that coverage of other waterbody types is still low. Through
the implementation of monitoring strategies aimed at comprehensive assessment, states, territories,
commissions, and tribes will improve their understanding of the quality of all waters. For the year 2000
report and beyond, states and tribes are asked to improve their coverage of all waterbody types as much
as possible.
t
Assessing Ail Types of Waterbodies
The directives of section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act call for a description of the quality of all waters.
This characterization of water quality must include
two things. First, a comparison of water quality with
water quality standards. And second, an evaluation
of the extent to which water quality provides for the
protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational
activities.
Since the 305(b) Report Guidelines were last updated
in 1997, the implementation of comprehensive
assessments has expanded the amount of waters
assessed. The most significant increase was in the
amount of river and stream miles assessed in 1998.
For the 2000 report and beyond, states, territories,
commissions, and tribes are asked to continue this
trend of increasing coverage of waters and to expand
it to all types of waters.
Please refer to the 305(b) reporting guidelines and
the fact sheets on Comprehensive Assessment and
Ground Water for more information on this topic.
Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
Some states assess only a small fraction of their lakes
and reservoirs. Aggregated nationally, states and
territories reported on the quality of about 42 percent
of the nations lake acres in 1998. This increased
from 40 percent in 1996.
Chapter 4 in volume 1 of the 305(b) report guidelines
describes the information on assessments of lakes
needed in the 305(b) report.
This summer EPA is beginning a project to sample
fish tissue in lakes nationwide. This project,
implemented in partnership with states, will provide
valuable information to supplement efforts to assess
the quality of lakes.
Wetlands
Wetland assessment programs are still developing
and as a result only 4% of wetland acreage
nationwide was assessed for the 1998 305(b) reports.
The 305(b) Report Guidelines request that states,
territories, commissions, and tribes describe their
efforts to build wetland monitoring programs or to
integrate wetlands into existing surface water
monitoring programs. The guidelines ask for
information on progress toward developing and
implementing wetland water quality standards. They
also request description of efforts, and their success,
to prevent losses and expand restoration of wetland
acres.
Chapter 4 in volume 1 of the report guidelines
contains detailed guidance on describing wetlands
quality and programs to protect wetlands.
Coastal Resources
While coverage of the Great Lakes coastline is near
100 percent, the 1998 305(b) reports included
assessment information for only 4% of ocean
shoreline miles. The 305(fa) report guidelines
(chapter 4, volume 1) ask for separate information on
ocean coastal resources. Please refer to the report
guidelines for more information on reporting about
coastal resources. In addition, the next section
describes a new source of information on coastal
-------
resources- coral reef assessments. States and
territories are encouraged to include the results of
efforts to assess the conditions of coral reefs in their
2000 assessment report.
Coral Reef Assessment and Protection Efforts
Provide New Information on Coastal
Resources
In response to increasing evidence of the degradation
of coral reefs in the U.S. and around i:he world.
Presidential Executive Order 13089 en Coral Reef
Protection was issued on June 11, 1998. This
Executive Order establishes the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force and charges it with undertaking coordinated
and comprehensive coral reef mapping and
monitoring; research; conservation, mitigation, and
restoration; and international cooperation activities to
protect coral reef ecosystems. U.S. coral reef areas
include Hawaii, Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico,
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Hawaii and Florida shared reports on coral reefs in
1998. These documents provide data for the national
305(b) report to illustrate efforts underway to
monitor and assess the health coral reefs. In order to
ensure that information on the quality of coral reefs
becomes an integral component to the ocean
resources section of the national 305(b) Report to
Congress, the 305(b) guidelines for the 2002
reporting cycle will include information about
reporting on coral reef assessments. In the interim,
EPA encourages states and tribes to submit
information about the health of coral reefs as part of,
or a supplement to their 305(b) reports in 2000.
t
For more information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of the 305(b) Report
Guidelines contact:
Susan Holdsworth
National 305b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of
Water 4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Sources and Causes of Impairment
Many stales do a thorough job of tracking causes (stressors) and sources of impairment, while
other states do not. AH 305(b) assessments at the waterbody level should include
causes/stressors and sources contributing to impairment of designated uses. This information is
integral to the review and revision of water quality standards as well as the development of
TMDLs for priority impaired waters. Clearly, it is also important for a water quality
management program to track the causes and sources of pollution to waters that are not yet
impaired, but are threatened by a downward trend in water quality. This information is
important for targeting pollution prevention efforts.
t
For the 2000 reporting cycle, three aspects of
reporting on causes/stressors and sources need
improvement:
/ Including in assessment databases
causes/stressors and sources of impairment at
the waterbody level for all assessments
/ Including causes and sources for threatened
waters too
/ Linking causes/stressors and sources to
specific designated uses that are impaired or
threatened.
/" Documenting the approaches used to identify
causes/stressors and sources.
addressed by the 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup in the next round of revisions to the
305(b) Guidelines.
The new Assessment Database can help states or
tribes track causes/stressors and sources related
to impaired waters and threatened waters, as
well as linking causes/stressors to specific
designated uses. See the 305(b) Fact Sheet
"Electronic Reporting." The contact for
information about electronic tracking and
reporting of causes/stressors and sources is Tod
Dabolt, (202) 260-3697 or e-mail
dabolt.thomas@epa.gov.
Several states are not tracking these important
data, resulting in incomplete or inaccurate
summaries and other problems. Since 305(b)
assessments become a starting point for
development of TMDLs, it is important for states
to more fully document the causes and sources
associated with threatened and impaired waters
as well as the methodology used to identify them.
A description of the approaches used by states,
territories, commissions and tribes should
become an element of the methodology section of
the 305(b) report. This topic will likely be
For more information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of the 305(b) Report
Guidelines contact:
Susan Holdsworth
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
s
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
4S03F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Core Performance Measures
Under the National Environmental Performance Partnership System, EPA and the Environmental
Council of States (ECOS) agreed that core performance measures are a limited set of national measures,
designed to help gauge progress towards protection of the environment and public health. ECOS and
EPA worked to develop core performance measures for use by states and EPA in negotiating
Performance Partnership Agreements.
Water quality monitoring and assessment activities support several of the core performance measures.
The state 305(b) report is a mechanism through which states report on core performance measures
dealing with water quality. EPA is looking for annual updates on the core performance measures
through the annual electronic update of state 305(b) assessments.
t
There are three performance measures that are
directly supported by states 30S(b) assessments.
The first two measures listed below are typically
included in the summary tables in a state's
305(b) report. The third measure is a new
addition, but can be generated from the state's
305(b) assessment database.
1. Number and percent of assessed river
miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles
that have water quality supporting
designated beneficial uses, including, where
applicable:
(a) fish and shellfish consumption;
(b) recreation;
(c) aquatic life support; and
(d) drinking water supply.
Reporting on this core performance measure is
the centerpiece of the 305(b) report. The
strength of this performance measure is
maximized when states, territories, and tribes
achieve comprehensive monitoring and
assessment.
2. Percent of total river miles and lake acres
that have been assessed for the need for
fish consumption advisories; and
compilation of state-issued fish
consumption advisory methodologies, as
reported through the National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories.
This core performance measure also utilizes the
305(b) assessment to track river miles and lake
acres that have been assessed for fish consumption
use support.
The other element of this measure, not specifically
included in 305(b) reports, is the compilation of
state-issued fish consumption advisory
methodologies. These are reported through the
EPA National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories database.
3. Number and percent of assessed river
miles, lake acres, and estuary square miles
identified as impaired that
(a) are covered under the Clean Water
Action Plan's Watershed Restoration
Action Strategies (WRAS), and
(b) were restored to support their
designated uses during the reporting
period. (The reporting period is two
years.)
Note: (b) is not limited to waters covered
under CWAP's WRASs.
In responding to part (a) of this core performance
measure, states report which watersheds (using
the 8-digk HUC or finer geographic resolution)
are covered by WRAS. For each WRAS
watershed, EPA will need to know the total
number of stream miles, the number of assessed
-------
miles, and the number of impaired miles within
that watershed. (The reporting period is two
years.)
If a state uses the assessment database or a
compatible electronic database to store its
assessment data, EPA should be able to calculate
this core performance measure for ihe state. The
state needs to ensure that it stores HUC numbers
or other appropriate geographic codes in its
assessment database, or has reach-indexed its
assessments to the Reach File (RF2), The state
also needs to provide the database and adequate
documentation (metadata) to EPA in order for
EPA to calculate the number and percent of
impaired miles covered by the WRAS.
Otherwise the state will need to report the
number of unpaired miles in the watersheds
covered by the WRAS.
Part (b) of this core performance measure is
tracking progress toward restoring impaired
waters. Measuring the effectiveness of
restoration activities requires follow up
monitoring over a long period of time. Those
using a rotating basin monitoring design will
detect improvements through return monitoring
(e.g., every 5 years).
t
For more Information about the 305(b)
program or a copy of the 305(b) Report
Guidelines contact
Susan HoWsworth
National 305b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susaflOepa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of
Water 4503F
June 1999
305(b) Report Guidelines
Fact Sheet
Ground Water Assessments
EPA applauds efforts by States to assess ground water quality using the Ground Water Guidelines.
Ground water quality assessments are performed and reported by States under the 305(b) program,
providing much needed information to characterize water quality in the nation's aquifers. Gaps that
exist in the data preclude a comprehensive assessment of our nation's ground water quality. These gaps
can be filled by (I) increasing the number of states that report results. (2) increasing the number of
aquifers for which results are reported, and (3) designing monitoring programs to collect ambient
ground water quality data.
t
The 305(b) program is definitely moving in the
direction of more and better ground water quality
assessments, but there is still much that needs to be
done. Coverage of the aquifers within a state and the
number of states reporting ground water quality
monitoring data needs to be increased.
Data Comparability
For the 1998 305(b) cycle, 31 states reported ground
water quality monitoring data. An additional 14
states also reported data. However, these data were
not reported in a format that was compatible with the
305(b) data format and could not be used in the
national summary. To avoid the loss of valuable
data, states must use the formats presented in Section
5 of the 305(b) Guidelines, Volume 1. Furthermore,
it is expected that all states will report ground water
quality data in 2000.
Monitoring Design
The 305(b) Ground Water Focus Group identified
two monitoring approaches that support
comprehensive ground water assessments. These
two approaches offer flexibility in designing
monitoring networks that best meet the needs of
states within the framework of achieving
comprehensive ground water assessments.
Specifically, states may implement either a statewide
monitoring approach or a rotating basin approach in
which approximately one-fifth of the state's aquifers
are assessed annually. Over the course of five years,
a comprehensive assessment will be completed and
the cycle can be repeated. See the 305(b) Fact Sheet
"Comprehensive Assessments."
States that have the ability to monitor ground water
quality on a statewide basis should report their most
current monitoring results in 2000. States that have
implemented the rotating basin approach should
report results for the aquifers selected for assessment
in 2000.
Monitoring Data
States need to focus assessment efforts by collecting
ground water quality data that is most representative
of the resource itself. Specifically, states need to rely
less on finished water quality data and more on
ambient monitoring data and/or untreated water
quality data. Only as a last resort should states
default to finished water quality data. Ground water
samples should be analyzed for the suite of chemicals
most likely to be present in the area and have the
greatest potential to adversely impact the resource.
Reporting Formats
Ground water assessment data should be reported
using the four table formats presented in Section 5 of
the 305(b) Guidelines, Volume 1. The tables are
available in WordPerfect format from EPA. The
tables may be submitted to EPA in either paper or
electronic formats. States should strive to display
aquifers, sources of contamination, and contaminants
in GIS format to improve the capability for better
analysis and understanding of ground water
conditions.
-------
States should provide abbreviated naixative reports
with the tabulated data. The abbrevijited reports are
expected to include all the sections of the full report.
If no significant changes have occurred since
submittal of the last fall report 305(b) report, sections
in the abbreviated report may be completed by
referring the reader to information in the last full
report. The abbreviated report must contain a
description of the status toward achieving
comprehensive assessment and the methodology used
to complete the four tables.
The EPA contact for ground water reporting is Roger
Anzzolin of the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, (202) 260-7282 or
anzzolin.roeer@epa.gov.
t
For more information about the 305{b)
program or a copy of the 305(b) Report
Guidelines contact:
Susan Holdsworth
National 305(b) Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
holdsworth.susan@epa.gov
(202) 260-4743
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
------- |