July 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to
Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act
FROM: Diane Regas, Director /s/
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
TO: Water Division Directors
Regions 1-10
I am pleased to provide a copy of the Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and
Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act
(IRG). The 2006IRG was developed in a cooperative effort between EPA Headquarters, EPA
Regional offices, and a number of interested state partners. EPA also posted a draft version of
the guidance on its Web site for public comment between February 22,2005 and April 22,2005.
Subsequently, EPA received approximately 40 sets of comments on the draft from a wide range
of stakeholders. Those comments have been addressed in the final guidance.
This guidance is for states, territories, authorized tribes, and interstate commissions that
help states prepare and submit section 305(b) reports (hereinafter referred to as "jurisdictions").
It outlines development of their biennial Integrated Reports (IR) in support of EPA's strategy for
achieving a broad-scale inventory of water quality conditions. The objective of this document is
to provide jurisdictions a recommended reporting format and suggested content to be used in
developing a single document that integrates the reporting requirements of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) section 303(d), section 305(b), and section 314 (pursuant to the CWA, jurisdictions
report to EPA biannually on the condition of waters within their boundaries). Each IR will report
on the water quality standards attainment status of all waters, document the availability of data
and information for each water, identify certain trends in water quality conditions, and provide
information to managers in setting priorities for future actions to protect and restore the health of
our nation's aquatic resources.
As stated in its introduction, the 2006 IRG is a comprehensive compilation of relevant
guidance EPA has issued to date regarding IR; however, there are few changes from the 2004
guidance. The 2006 IRG provides: (1) increased emphasis on the use of the Assessment
Database (ADB) or comparable electronic data format (the ADB is being modified to
accommodate the recent format, content, and multi-category listing option that the guidance
suggests), (2) greater clarity on the content and the format of those components of the IR that are
-------
recommended and required under CWA sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314, (3) greater clarity on
issues associated with data solicitation, collection, consideration, and interpretation of water
quality standards, (4) additional information on the option to report water quality status of
individual segments in more than one category (e.g., to show that some designated uses of a
water are being attained and some designated uses are not), and (5) additional clarity and
flexibility on alternatives to total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for attaining water quality
standards (e.g., utilization of reporting "Category 4b").
Thank you for all of your help and input in the development of this 2006IRG. The
document may be found on our Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/imdl/2Q06IRG. Should
you have questions about the guidance, please contact Sarah Furtak at 202-566-1167.
-------
BPfl
L,
Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of
the Clean Water Act
July 29,2005
Watershed Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetland, Oceans and Watersheds
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
This document provides EPA's guidance for preparing the 2006 Integrated Report. The ,
Integrated Report is intended to satisfy the listing requirements of sections 305(b) and 314 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). This guidance document discusses existing requirements of the CWAJ
and EPA's implementing regulations. Those statutory and regulatory provisions contain legally j
binding requirements. This document describes those requirements; it does not substitute for '
them. The recommendations in this document are not binding; indeed, there may be other
approaches that would be appropriate in particular circumstances. When EPA makes a decision1
on a state's section 303(d) list, it will make each decision on a case-by-case basis and will be
guided by the applicable requirements of the CWA and implementing regulations, taking into I
account comments and information presented at that time by interested persons regarding the
appropriateness of applying these recommendations to the particular situation. j
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS v
I. INTRODUCTION 6
II REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT SECTIONS 303(o), 305(B), 314 AND
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS 9
III. RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION OF AN INTEGRATED REPORT 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14
PART A. INTRODUCTION 14
PARTB. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 14
PARTC SURFACE WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 17
PART D. GROUND WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 25
PART E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 25
IV. ISSUES CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF AN ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 29
V. FIVE-PART CATEGORIZATION OF WATERS 46
VI. REPORTING RESULTS 65
GLOSSARY 66
APPENDIX: DATA ELEMENTS FOR 2006 INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION FOR DEFINING AND LINKING SEGMENTS TO THE NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY
DATASET
70
in
-------
TABLES i
I
Table Page;
2-1 SUMMARY OF STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER CWA SECTIONS 303(o), 305(B) AND :
314 AND CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS 11
3-1 ATLAS 15
i
3-2 SIZE OF SURFACE WATERS ASSIGNED TO REPORTING CATEGORIES 19
i
3-3 ATTAINMENT RESULTS CALCULATED USING PROBABILISTIC MONITORING DESIGNS 2p
I
3-4 SEGMENT/POLLUTANT COMBINATIONS REMOVED FROM STATE'S YEAR 2004 SECTION 303(D) LIST
21
i
i
3-5 TMDL DEVELOPMENT STATUS 2JI
3-6 INDIVIDUAL DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT SUMMARY 22
i
3-7 SEE OF WATERS IMPAIRED BY CAUSES 22
i
3-8 SIZE OF WATERS IMPAIRED BY SOURCES 23
3-9 TROPHIC STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLICLY OWNED LAKES 24
3-10 TRENDS IN LAKE WATER QUALITY 24
i
3-11 SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY REPORTING ELEMENTS OF AN INTEGRATED REPORT 27
i
5-1 RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY INDICATORS FOR GENERAL DESIGNATED USE CATEGORIES . 52
I
5-2 DOCUMENTATION OF "Gooo CAUSE" TO MOVE SEGMENTS FROM CATEGORY 5 58
FIGURES
Figure Page
i
4-1 USING MULTIPLE TYPES OF DATA TO ASSESS ATTAINMENT 45
EXHIBITS ,
Exhibit Page
i
3-1 RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION FOR YEAR 2006 INTEGRATED REPORT SUBMITTALS 13
5-1 2006 INTEGRATED REPORTING GUIDANCE: SEGMENT CATEGORIZATION GUIDE 48
IV
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB Assessment Database
AU Assessment Unit
CALM Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology
CPP Continuing Planning Process
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
DQO Data Quality Objectives
DU Designated Use
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
GPRA Government Performance Report Act
IR Integrated Report
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program
OW Office of Water
PPG Performance Partnership Grant
PWS Public Water Supply
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RIT Reach Indexing Tool
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
STORET STORage and RETrieval
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USD A United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WQC Water Quality Criteria
WQS Water Quality Standard
-------
2006IR Guidance
I. INTRODUCTION i
I
The Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act was developed specifically for the 2006 reporting cycle, i
The objective of this document is to provide to states, territories, authorized tribes, and interstate
commissions1 a recommended reporting format and a suggested content to be used in developing a single j
document that integrates the reporting requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) and ;
section 305(b). This guidance for developing the Integrated Report (IR) supports the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) strategy for achieving a broad-scale, national inventory of water quality >
conditions. Use of the IR format will serve to report on water quality standards (WQS) attainment status \
of assessed waters, document availability of data and information for each segment, identify trends in
water quality conditions, and provide information to managers in setting priorities for future actions to '
protect and restore the health of our nation's aquatic resources. '
EPA has established a goal that all fifty-six states and territories utilize the integrated reporting,
format by 2008. EPA continues to promote this comprehensive assessment approach in order to enhance
the states' ability to track both programmatic and environmental goals of the CWA, and ideally, to ;
increase the pace of achieving these important environmental goals. This document includes '
recommendations designed to allow states and other interested stakeholders to track the progress of i
interim management actions by employing the multi-category reporting framework. By issuing this '
guidance well in advance of the April 1, 2006 deadline for submission of CWA section 303(d) lists and .
section 305(b) reports, EPA intends to encourage the broadest possible adoption of the integrated
reporting approach. (
EPA continues to advocate the use of the five-part categorization format for sorting waters (see (
box below for brief description and Section V). While this document is more comprehensive than j
previous Integrated Report Guidance, there are clarifications to the previous (2004) Integrated Report
Guidance. Specifically, this guidance provides:
• increased emphasis on the use of the Assessment Database (ADB) or compatible electronic data
format (the ADB is being modified to accommodate the recent format, content, and multi-
category listing option that the guidance suggests), '
greater clarity on the content and the format of those components of the IR that are recommended
and required under CWA sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314,
• greater clarity on issues associated with data solicitation, collection, consideration, and
interpretation of water quality standards, !
• additional information on (he option to report water quality status of individual segments in more
than one category (e.g., to show that some designated uses of a water are being attained and some
designated uses are not),2 and ;
additional clarity and flexibility on undertaking and reporting alternatives to total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) for attaining water quality standards (e.g., utilization of reporting "Category 4b").
In the remainder of this document, unless specified otherwise, states also refers to authorized tribes, '
territories and interstates commissions. '.
In this guidance document EPA refers to "designated uses" as the basis and unit for reporting water t
quality, although note that states determine their section 303(d) list (i.e., Category 5) consistent with 40 CFR 1 30.7
July 2005
-------
2006IR Guidance
It is important to note that certain components of the recommended format and content for the
2006 IR document are based on requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations (e.g.,
the submission of an approvable section 303(d) list), whereas other components are based on Agency
recommendations. In section II of this guidance, those components required by the CWA sections
303(d), 305(b), 314, and the corresponding regulations are identified.
In addition to identifying the required components in the 2006 IR submission, this guidance will
indicate the components of the 2006 IR document for which EPA recommends states provide an
opportunity for public review and comment (e.g., the list of impaired waters requiring TMDLs and the
assessment methodology used by the state to develop their IR document).
Five Reporting Categories
Category 1: AH designated uses are supported, no use is threatened;
Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all of the designated uses
are supported;
Category 3: There is insufficient available data and/or information to make a use support
determination;
Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being
supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not needed;
Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being
supported or is threatened, and a TMDL is needed.
July 2005
-------
2006IR Guidanck
Integrated Monitoring and Assessment
The Clean Water Act requires states to provide every two years an assessment of the quality of all
their waters (section 305(b)) and a list of those that are impaired or threatened (section 303(d)). To
efficiently meet this charge, EPA recommends that states, tribes, and other water quality monitoring
collaborators use a combination of monitoring and assessment techniques to:
1. increase the percentage and types of waters assessed;
2. reliably estimate the overall condition of all waters within a state; assess changes over
time; and measure progress toward the "fishable-swimmable" goal of the Clean Water Act
(section 305(b));
3. comprehensively identify all impaired and threatened waters to support section 303(d)
listing requirements; and
4. prioritize site-specific assessments needed to confirm the location of both high quality and
• impaired waters, and support control, restoration, and prevention actions.
EPA has strongly encouraged states to use integrated monitoring and assessment techniques. These
include probability-based assessments and other predictive tools, as well as site-specific assessments.
The use of probability assessments can eliminate the risk of generating a biased picture of water
quality conditions state-wide and provide a cost-effective bench mark of state water quality program
effectiveness. The probability-based assessment results can also help a state decide if it should target
certain waters for further assessment or if limited resources for water quality assessment could be
used more effectively in other ways. States currently using broad-scale probability-based assessment
to complement their site-specific assessment include VA, SC, KY, and IN, among others.
July 2005
-------
2006IR Guidance
II REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT SECTIONS 303(D), 305(B), 314
AND CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS
EPA strongly encourages states to submit a single report (the Integrated Report) that satisfies the
reporting requirements of CWA sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314. A summary of states' reporting
requirements for each of these sections and corresponding regulations is provided below:
Section 303(d) - by April 1 of all even numbered years, a list of impaired and threatened3 waters
still requiring TMDLs; identification of the impairing pollutant(s); and priority ranking of these
waters, including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years.
Section 305(b) - by April 1 of all even numbered years, a description of the water quality of all
waters of the state (including, rivers/stream, lakes, estuaries/oceans and wetlands). States may
also include in their section 305 (b) submittal a description of the nature and extent of ground
water pollution and recommendations of state plans or programs needed to maintain or improve
ground water quality.
Section 314 - in each section 305(b) submittal, an assessment of status and trends of significant
publicly owned lakes including extent of point source and nonpoint source impacts due to toxics,
conventional pollutants, and acidification.
A more detailed description of states' reporting requirements under sections 305(b), 303(d) and 314 and
corresponding regulations is provided in Table 2-1.
Integrated Reports that satisfy the reporting requirements of sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 also
satisfy the 305(b) reporting requirement for section 106 grant funds. For states to be eligible for section
106 grant funds, section 106(e)(l) requires that states must have the means to monitor water quality
(including "navigable waters and to the extent practicable, ground waters") and annually update water
quality data and include it in their section 305(b) submittals. Under Agency policy, EPA will not award
any section 106 funding under a section 106 grant or a performance partnership grant (PPG) to any state
that has not annually updated its monitoring data and submitted the most recent report required under
section 305(b) (Note that tribal recipients have different requirements). Annual updates to the STORage
and RETrieval (STORET) national warehouse satisfy the conditions of the section 106(e)(l) annual
update for the purposes of receiving section 106 funds (FY 2001 Clean Water Act Section 106 Guidance,
February 16, 2001 http://www.epa. eov/owm/rmes/section 106priorities.pdf).
Integrated Reports that satisfy the reporting requirements of sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 may
also be used to satisfy the water quality report requirement for section 205(j) grant funds. CWA section
205® requires states to determine the nature, extent, and causes of water quality problems in various
areas of the state and interstate region, and report on these annually. CWA regulations provide that in the
Threatened waters States may define "threatened waters" in their assessment and listing methodologies.
EPA recommends that states consider as threatened those waters that are currently attaining WQSs, but which are
expected to not meet WQSs by the next listing cycle (every two years). For example, segments should be listed if the
analysis demonstrates a declining trend in a specific water quality criteria (WQC), and the projected trend will result
in a failure to meet a criterion by the date of the next list (Le.., 2008 for purposes of the 2006 assessment cycle); or,
segments should be listed if there are proposed activities that will result in WQSs exceedances.
July 2005
-------
2006IR Guidance
years in which it is prepared, the section 305(b) report satisfies the requirement for the annual water ',
quality report under section 205(j). Furthermore, in years when the section 305(b) report is not required,
die state may satisfy the annual section 205(j) report requirement by certifying that die most recently '
submitted section 305(b) report is current or by supplying an update of the sections of the most recently
submitted section 305(b) report which require updating (40 CFR 130.8(d)). '
July 2005 10
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 2-1. Summary of State Reporting Requirements Under CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b), and
314, and Corresponding Regulations
Authority
CWA section 303(d);
40 CFR 130.7
CWA section 305(b);
40 CFR 130.8
State Reporting Requirement
By April 1 of all even numbered years, states must submit to EPA the
following information:
• A list of water quality-limited (impaired and threatened) waters still
requiring TMDL(s), pollutants causing the impairment and priority
ranking for TMDL development (including waters targeted for TMDL
development within the next two years).
« A description of the methodology used to develop the list.
• A description of the data and information used to identify waters,
including a description of the existing and readily available data and
information used.
• A rationale for any decision to not use any existing and readily available
data and information.
• Any other reasonable information requested by EPA, such as
demonstrating good cause for not including a water or waters on the list.
By April 1 of all even numbered years, states must submit to EPA the
following information:
• A description of the water quality of all waters" in the state and the extent
to which the quality of waters provides for the protection and propagation
of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows
recreational activities in and on the water.
• An estimate of the extent to which CWA control programs have improved
water quality or will improve water quality, and recommendations for
future actions necessary and identifications of waters needing action.
• An estimate of the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits
needed to achieve the objectives of the CWA and an estimate of the date
of such achievement.
• A description of the nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution and
recommendations of programs needed to control each category of
nonpoint sources, including an estimate of implementation costs.
• An assessment of the water quality of all publicly owned lakes, including
the status and trends of such water quality as specified in section
314(a)(l) of the CWA [see below for additional information].
July 2005
11
-------
2006IR Guidance
Authority
State Reporting Requirement
CWA section 314
States must submit the following information in their section 305(b) reports: '
• An identification and classification according to eutrophic condition of all,
publicly owned lakes in such state. i
* A description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use :
requirements), to control sources of pollution of such lakes.
• A description of methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate]
federal agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes.
• 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 i
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, including those lakes which are ,
known not to meet applicable water quality standards or which require
implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with i
applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has |
deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid;
deposition.
• 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 i
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. I
Note:
' "Waters of the United States" as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
July 2005
12
-------
2006IR Guidance
III, RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION OF AN INTEGRATED REPORT
As states transition from reporting water quality results under separate documents (e.g., section
305(b) reports and section 303(d) lists) to reporting under a single Integrated Report (IR), it would be
helpful to use a common organizational structure and method of reporting water quality results so that
members of the public can more easily review reports and lists from different states. EPA's
recommended organization for states' Integrated Report submittals is provided in Exhibit 3-1.
An annotated version of Exhibit 3-1 constitutes the remainder of Section III. The recommended
structure and content for an IR are based, in large part, on EPA's 1997 guidelines4 for CWA section
305(b) reports. Hence, states should consult EPA's 1997 guidelines for further details when needed.
The recommended organization provided in Section III also highlights what reporting elements
are required by sections 303(d), 305(b), 314, and corresponding regulations (as discussed in Section II),
versus those elements that are recommended. A summary of which elements of EPA's recommended
organization for an Integrated Report are required verus recommended is provided Table 3-11 at the end
of this section.
Exhibit 3-1
Recommended Organization for Year 2006 Integrated Report Submittals
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART A. INTRODUCTION
PART B. BACKGROUND
Bl. Total Waters
B2. Water Pollution Control Program
B3. Cost/Benefit Assessment
B4. Special State Concerns and Recommendations
PART C. SURFACE WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Cl. Monitoring Program
C2. Assessment Methodology
C3. Assessment Results
C4. Wetlands Program
C5. Trends Analysis for Surface Waters
C6. Public Health Issues
PART D. GROUND WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
PART E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4 Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments (305Cti) Reports') and
Electronic Updates: Report Contents: Office of Water, US EPA; EPA-841-B-97-002a, September 1997.
July 2005
13
-------
2006IR Guidance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary should highlight the report's major points of information, conclusions s
and recommendation. States should include in this section a summary of the overall water quality j
(surface water and ground water) in the state, description of the causes and sources of water quality i
impairments, summary of the plan showing how the state will achieve comprehensive coverage of its |
waters, discussion of the programs to correct impairments and discussion of the general changes or trends
in water quality.
In the summary of overall water quality status for surface waters, states may include the tables
requested in Section C.3 (Assessment Results). States are also encouraged to include in this section
summary maps that depict water quality status information. I
i
PART A. INTRODUCTION •
i
The Introduction should include a narrative discussion that defines the purpose and contents of i
the 2006 Integrated Report. The Introduction may include a rationale for why the state has chosen to
streamline its reporting of water quality status (i.e., the results of placing segments into the five
categories) and trends. The state may choose to explain why the use of this new reporting format will i
serve as a better mechanism to integrate CWA sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 efforts in the state. The '
state may also choose to discuss how this integrated reporting format will clarify the complementary role!;
of predictive tools (e.g., probability-based monitoring designs, models, and remote-sensing) and site-
specific monitoring to assess water quality conditions. ,
States may also describe in the Introduction how they are ensuring the development of an
integrated database of assessment information that reflects the status of water quality standards
attainment. Specifically, the Introduction may discuss how the state may increase the amount of
assessment information that is geo-referenced and transmitted electronically through the ADB or a |
compatible data exchange format. ,
PART B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 't
The Background section should include a description of total waters in the state, a description of j
the state's water pollution control program, a cost'benefit analysis of actions necessary to achieve the i
objective of the CWA, and any special state concerns and recommendations. '
B.I Scope of Waters in the Integrated Report
To put the report into perspective for the reader, the state should provide a brief water resource I
overview (as shown in Table 3-1) of all waters5 in the state. States are also encouraged to include ;
summary maps of water resource information in this subsection. <
5 "Waters of the United States" as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
July 2005 14
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-1. Atlas
Topic-
State Population
Total Miles of River and Streams
. Miles of perennial rivers/streams (subset)
. Miles of intermittent (nonperennial) streams
(subset)
. Miles of ditches and canals (subset)
. Border miles of shared rivers/streams (subset)
Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds'5
. Number of significant publicly owned
lakes/reservoirs/ponds (subset)
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds
. Acres of significant publicly owned
lakes/reservoir/ponds (subset)
Square Miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Miles of Ocean Coast
Acres of Freshwater Wetlands
Acres of Tidal Wetlands
Value
Scale"
N/A
Source1
N/A
Notes:
N/A Not applicable
* State may add categories to the atlas table to reflect special areas of interest (such as, acres of playas; acres of
riparian areas outside of wetlands; and miles of streams and acres of lakes on Tribal lands).
b State should specify the scale (e.g., 1:100,000; 1:24,000) in this column.
c State should specify the source (e.g., NHD, USGS quad maps, state inventory) in this column.
d Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic behavior, either as stream channel miles
under rivers or as total surface acreage under lakes/reservoirs/ponds, but not under both categories. In
general, impoundments should be reported as lakes/reservoirs/ponds unless they are run-of-river
impoundments with very short retention times.
July 2005
15
-------
2006IR Guidance
I
Please note, most of the tables in this section ask states to report on the extent, or size of waters. |
To clarify the source of these measurements, states should include in this subsection a description of the |
process used to make measurements of waters in the state. To promote national consistency in I
measurement and reporting, EPA recommends the use of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), j
which currently supports measurements at the 1:100,000 scale. Additional information on the NHD is
available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/georef/nhd.htm. EPA notes that many states are now |
making measurements at the 1:24,000 scale. Therefore, for purposes of reporting measurements in the
Integrated Report, EPA asks that states indicate the scale at which the measurements were made.
B.2 Water Pollution Control Program
The state should provide a description of its approach to water quality management, including
overviews of any watershed-based programs; the WQSs program; the point source control program; the
nonpoint source control program; the TMDL program, and; program coordination with other state, tribal,
and local agencies. States may also choose to highlight atmospheric deposition reduction strategies in
this subsection. As shown in Table 2-1, CWA section 305(b) and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to provide the following information about their water pollution control programs:
• An estimate of the extent to which CWA control programs have improved water quality or
will improve water quality, and recommendations for future actions necessary and
identifications of waters needing action. \
• A description of the nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution and recommendations of\
programs needed to control each category of nonpoint sources, including an estimate of
implementation costs.
B J Cost/Benefit Assessment
As shown in Table 2-1, CWA section 305(b) (and associated regulations) also requires states to
provide an estimate of the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits needed to achieve the I
objectives of the CWA and an estimate of the date of such achievement. EPA recognizes that this [
information may be difficult to obtain due to the complexities of the economic analysis involved. Until i
such time as comparable procedures for evaluation costs and benefits are in wider use, states should
provide a brief narrative that includes as much of the following information as possible. i
(
For costs, EPA asks that states provide information on capital investments in municipal and I
industrial facilities, investments in nonpoint source measures, annual operation and maintenance costs of|
municipal and industrial facilities, total annual costs of municipal and industrial facilities, and annual i
costs to states and local governments to administer water pollution control activities. I
For benefits, EPA asks that states provide information on improvements in recreational and i
commercial fishing; extent of stream miles, lakes acres, etc., improved from impaired to meeting WQSs; j
reduced costs of drinking water treatment due to cleaner intake water; and increase in use of beaches and
recreational boating due to improved water quality. [
Jufy2005 16
-------
2006IR Guidance
B.4 Special State Concerns and Recommendations
In this subsection, states should (1) discuss special concerns that are significant issues within the
state and that affect its water quality programs and (2) provide recommendations for actions that are
necessary to achieve the objectives of the CWA,
PART C. SURFACE WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
The Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment section should include a description of the state's
monitoring program, a description of the assessment methodology for classifying all surface waters,
assessment results, a description of the state's wetlands program, an analysis of surface water quality
trends, and information on public health issues.
C.I Monitoring Program
This subsection should include a description (or reference applicable documents) of the following
elements of the state's monitoring program:
• Monitoring Program Strategy
• Monitoring Objectives
• Monitoring Design
• Core and Supplemental Indicators
Quality Assurance
• Data Management
• Data Analysis/Assessment
• Reporting
* Programmatic Evaluation
• General Support and Infrastructure Planning
EPA expects that states will develop, over time, a monitoring program that addresses the 10
elements listed above. The first of these elements (monitoring program strategy) is currently under
development by states and will include a timeline to complete implementation of all 10 elements by 2014.
Additional guidance on these elements is available in EPA's Elements of a State Water Monitoring and
Assessment Program (US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; EPA 841-B-03-003; March
2003).
As shown in Table 2-1, CWA section 305(b) and EPA's implementing regulations require states
to provide a description of the water quality of all waters6 in the States and the extent to which the quality
of waters provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water. As a result, EPA and the states have
established a long-term goal of comprehensively characterizing surface waters of each state using a
variety of techniques. These techniques may include traditional targeted monitoring, probability-based
monitoring surveys, targeted site-specific monitoring, landscape and water quality models, and remote
sensing. States should include a description of their approach to comprehensive assessment in this
subsection.
6 "Waters of the United States" as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
July 2005
17
-------
2006IR Guidance
States should also include in this subsection a schedule that identifies the waters that will be j
monitored and assessed during the next two-year reporting cycle. If this information is included in other i
documents, such as the state's section 106 workplan or a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG), the state'
may provide a reference to that document. EPA does not expect that all waters will be scheduled for '
monitoring during the next two-year reporting cycle. This short-term monitoring schedule should be
consistent with the state's monitoring priorities. The short-term monitoring schedule may present \
upcoming monitoring activities planned under the long-term strategy, including the use of probability- i
based monitoring, landscape and water quality models, and targeted monitoring to predict and verify
water quality conditions. EPA intends that the monitoring schedule will inform stakeholders and EPA of:
a state's upcoming monitoring activities and will help promote collaboration and coordination among '
monitoring organizations. '
C.2 Assessment Methodology !
i
This subsection should include a description (or reference applicable documents) of the state's ;
methodology for assessing the water quality attainment status of all waters7 in the state. The assessment i
methodology should be consistent with the state's WQSs and include a description of the following as ,
part of their section 303(d) list submissions: j
I
• What data and information were used to make attainment determinations (e.g., results from site-;
specific and probabilistic monitoring and other predictive tools); I
• How the data and information were used to make attainment determinations and place surface '
water segments in the five reporting categories; i
• Rationales for any decision to not use any existing and readily available data and information; :
• Changes in the assessment methodology since the last reporting cycle. i
Assessment methodologies that include the information listed above also satisfy the state's
requirements under CWA section 303 (d) (and associated regulations) to provide the following
information as shown in Table 2-1: (1) a description of the methodology used to develop the section '
303(d) list, (2) a description of the data and information used to identify [impaired and threatened] "
•waters, including a description of the existing and readily available data and information used, and (3) a
rationale for any decision to not use any existing and readily available data and information9.
EPA also encourages states to make the assessment methodology available to the public for
review and comment. Hence, states are encouraged to provide a description of the public participation •
process for die IR in this section, or reference their CPP as appropriate. Additional information on i
development/use of an assessment methodology and EPA's five reporting categories is provided in i
Sections IV and V of this guidance, respectively.
7 "Waters of the United States" as defined in 40 CFR 1 22.2.
8 Although a description of the state's assessment methodology is required, EPA does not approve or
disapprove the assessment methodology under CWA section 303(d).
July 2005 18
-------
2006IR Guidance
C.3 Assessment Results
This subsection should present the results of the state's surface water assessments, including the
five-part categorization of all surface water segments, probability-based survey results, the section 303(d)
list, and State-level summaries of designated use support. In addition, states should satisfy CWA section
314 (Lakes Program) reporting requirements in this subsection.
States should attempt to manage their assessment results in the Assessment Database (ADB) or a
compatible data management system and submit them electronically with the Integrated Report. That
system should provide the supporting information for this section. The summary tables provided in this
section can be generated directly out of the ADB and inserted into any word processing document.
Additional information on these reporting elements is provided below. How states organize the
presentation of their assessment results in hard-copy format is left to their discretion. For example, states
could organize their assessment results by the reporting elements italicized below, or by waterbody type
(e.g., rivers/streams, lakes/ponds, estuaries/oceans, and wetlands).
Five-Part Categorization of Surface Waters
States should assign all of their surface water segments to one or more of the five reporting
categories presented in Section V of this guidance. States should also include a summary of the extent of
surface waters assigned to each reporting category as shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Size8 of Surface Waters Assigned to Reporting Categories
Waterbody Type
River/stream miles
Lake/pond acres
Estuarine square miles
Ocean coast miles
Freshwater wetland
Tidal wetland acres
Category
1
2
3
4a
4b
4c
5
Total
in State
Total
Assessed
Note:
* For states that place surface water segments in more than one reporting category, the summation of the size of
surface water segments assigned to the five reporting categories will be greater than the "Total in State"
summation for each waterbody type. In such cases, EPA recommends that states provide a statement in the IR
that clarifies the discrepancy.
Results of Probability-based Surveys
States should report the results of probability-based surveys as shown in Table 3-3. EPA is
working on a supplemental module to the ADB for transmitting die results of probability-based surveys.
Reporting the results is particularly important because probability-based surveys allow states to report on
the condition of the entire population of surface waters (e.g., coastal waters, rivers and streams, estuaries,
etc.) included in the design. Site-specific assessment results will not result in an assessment of all surface
waters, unless the state is able to implement a census.
July 2005
19
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-3. Attainment Results Calculated Using Probabilistic Monitoring Designs
Project ID
Project Name
Target Population
Type of Waterbody
Size of Target Population
Units of Measurement
Designated_use
Percent_attaining
Percent_not_attaining
Percent nonresponse
Indicator
Assmt_date
Precision
STX_1
Downstate Sample Survey
All streams ordered 4 or greater
in basins C and D
River
100
Miles
Aquatic life
75%
23%
2%
Biological
20000201
90%
Section 303(d) List '
As shown in Table 2-1, The Clean Water Act and EPA regulations require states to submit the |
following information as part of their section 303 (d) list submission: ;
i
• A list of water quality-limited (impaired and threatened) waters still requiring TMDL(s)
[waters assigned to Category 5], pollutants causing the impairment, and priority ranking '<
for TMDL development (including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next1
two years). \
• Any other reasonable information requested by EPA, such as demonstrating good cause ,
for not including a water or waters on the list. !
Although states are not required to provide "good cause" for each delisting prior to receiving a '
formal request from EPA, EPA recommends that states do so in the IR. States should highlight in this '
subsection those segment/pollutant combinations that have been either added or removed since the last
reporting cycle and summary rationales ("good cause") for each delisting. Table 3-4 provides a (
recommended format for summarizing delisting rationales in this subsection. States should provide
detailed rationales for removing segment/pollutant combinations from their previous 303(d) lists in the i
record of decision for the list. :
i
States may also report on the status of their TMDL development by providing information such as'
that found in Table 3-5 in this subsection or in the discussion of their Water Pollution Control Program
(Section B.2). i
July 2005
20
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-4. Segment/Pollutant Combinations Removed from State's Year 2004 Section 303(d) List
Segment/
Pollutant
Combination
on Year 2004
Section 303(d)
List
Segment
(Waterbody)
ID
Summary* Rationale for Delisting of
Segment/Pollutant Combinations
(identify number of reason)
1 . State determines water quality standard is being
met
2. Flaws in original listing
3. Other point source or nonpoint source controls are
expected to meet water quality standards
4. Impairment due to non-pollutant
5 . EPA approval of TMDL
6. Waterbody not in state's jurisdiction
7. Other
Note:
Detailed justifications for removing waters from previous section 303(d) list should be provided in the
record of decision for the listing cycle in which the slate proposes the water for removal.
Table 3-5. TMDL Development Status
Segment/Pollutant
Combination
Segment ID
Project Status*
Projected TMDL
Submittal Date
Note:
* Under project status, states may provide a brief description of the status of TMDL development. This
could be done by providing a 1 or 2 word description of status (e.g., "completed", "in draft") or by
providing a more extensive description of status. For example, states may elect to include information on
whether the TMDL is being developed under court order deadline, whether supplemental monitoring is
being performed, and when public meetings are scheduled to be held.
State Summaries of Designated Use Support
The state should provide designated use support summaries for each waterbody type, as shown
in Table 3-6, States should include values for applicable designated use categories such as aquatic life,
fish consumption, shellfishing, swimming, secondary contact, drinking water, agricultural, cultural
ceremonial, etc.
EPA recognizes that states may have site-specific results, as well as results of probability
survey(s) that could be used to generate these results. When information from state-wide probability
surveys is available, that information should be used to complete Table 3-6 for the appropriate
waterbody type/use combination. Site-specific information should be used to provide designated use
summaries for waterbody types where probability-results are not available or to complement the results
of probability-results that are not state-wide in scope. It is important that the state indicate whether the
state-wide numbers in Table 3-6 were generated via probability or site-specific surveys. In addition,
states that report results based on probability surveys should complete Table 3-3 to provide additional
information. States should also include state-level summaries of causes and sources (when possible) of
impaired waters as shown in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, respectively.
July 2005
21
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-6. Individual Designated Use Support Summary (One Table for Each Waterbody Type)
Designated Use
Aquatic Life
State Defined
1.
2.
Fish Consumption
Shellfishing
Swimming
Secondary Contact
Drinking Water
State Defined
1.
2.
Agricultural Industrial •
Cultural or Ceremonial
State Defined
1.
2.
Size of Surface Waters
Total in
State
Total
Assessed
Supporting -
Attaining WQ
Standards
Not Supporting -
Not Attaining
WQ Standards
Insufficient
Data and
Information
Table 3-7. Size of Waters Impaired by Causes (One Table for Each Waterbody Type)
Cause/Impairment Type (Examples') from ADB
Ammonia (unionized)
Cause/Stressor Unknown
Chlorophyll a
Copper
Escherichia coli
Mercury
PH
Phosphorus
Turbidity
Etc.
Size of Waters Impaired
Notes:
* The parameters identified in this table are used as examples only. Please refer to the complete list of
causes available for reporting at http://www.epa.gov/waters/adb/
July 2005
22
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-8. Size of Waters Impaired by Sources (One Table for Each Waterbody Type)
Source Category (Examples') from ADB
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Combined Sewer Overflows
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Crop production
Rangeland grazing
Hydromodification
Atmospheric Deposition
Unknown Source
Etc.
Size of Surface Waters Impaired
Notes:
" The parameters identified in this table are used as examples only. Please refer to the complete list of
sources available for reporting at http://www.epa.gov/waters/adb/
CWA Section 314 (Clean Lakes Program)
As shown in Table 2-1, states are required to submit the following information about the status of
publicly owned lakes:
1. An identification and classification according to eutrophic condition of all publicly owned lakes
in such state.
2. A description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use requirements), to
control sources of pollution of such lakes
3. A description of methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate federal agencies, to
restore the quality of such lakes
4. 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
5. A list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such state for which uses are known to be
impaired, including those lakes which are known not to meet applicable water quality standards
or which require implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with applicable
standards and those lakes in which water quality has deteriorated as a result of high acidity that
may reasonably be due to acid deposition
6. 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.
July 2005
23
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-9 provides a recommended format for reporting on the trophic status of significant '
publicly owned lakes. States satisfy the requirement to provide a list of publicly owned lakes that are
known to be impaired by placing such waters in Category 5 and including them on the section 303(d) list.
Table 3-10 provides a recommended format for reporting on trends in lake water quality. States may ,
satisfy the requirement to provide a trend analysis of water quality in lakes in this subsection or in Trend \
Analysis for Surface Waters (Section C.5).
I
Table 3-9. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
Description
Total in state
Assessed
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
Unknown
Number of Lakes
Acres of Lakes
Table 3-10. Trends in Lake Water Quality
Description
Assessed For Trends
Improving
Stable
Degrading
Fluctuating
Trend unknown
Number of Lakes
Acres of Lakes
C.4 Wetlands Program
States may dedicate a section of their Integrated Report to providing a description of their wetlands
program if not already covered in another section of the Report. This section could include information
on development of wetland water quality standards, extent of wetland resources, integrity of wetlands
resources, and wetland protection activities.
C.5 Trend Analysis for Surface Waters
As discussed in Section C.3, states are required under CWA section 314 to report on lake water \
quality trends. In addition to lake trends, states may also report on water quality trends for other surface
waters in this section of the Integrated Report. To enhance states' and EPA's capability to perform water
quality trend analyses, states should routinely and comprehensively update STORET and ADB (or
compatible electronic data format). i
July 2005
24
-------
2006IR Guidance
C.6 Public Health Issues
In this subsection, states should provide information on public health issues, including information
on their programs related to drinking water supplies, beach use, and fish/shellfish advisories. For
drinking water programs, states should highlight the following information:
1. Total miles of rivers/streams and acres of lakes/reservoirs designated for drinking water use.
2. For waters designated for drinking water use, miles of rivers/streams and acres of lakes/reservoirs
assigned to each of the five reporting categories.
3. Summary of the methodologies used to perform drinking water use assessments under the Clean
Water Act, including the contaminants chosen for assessment and the rationale for their
selection. Note, states may reference their assessment methodology for this information.
4. Identification and extent of impaired miles of rivers/streams and impaired acres of
lakes/reservoirs that overlap source water areas of community water systems as delineated by
states under SDWA section 1453.
States should consult Section 4, Chapter 8 (Public Water Supply/Drinking Water Use Reporting)
EPA's 1997 guidelines9 for further details on reporting in this subsection.
PART D. GROUND WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
As discussed in Section II of this guidance, for states to be eligible for section 106 grant funds,
section 106(e)(l) requires that states must have the means to monitor water quality (including "navigable
waters and to the extent practicable, ground waters") and annually update water quality data and include it
in their section 305(b) submittals. In this section, states should include a summary of their ground water
monitoring and protection programs, ground water quality, ground water contamination sources, and
ground water/surface water interactions. States should consult Section 5 (Ground Water Assessment)
EPA's 1997 guidelines10 for further details on reporting ground-water monitoring data.
PART E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EPA regulations require states to describe in their Continuing Planning Processes (CPP) the
process for involving the public and other stakeholders in the development of the section 303(d) list (40
CFR 130.7(a)). EPA encourages the state to provide opportunities for public participation in the
development of the Integrated Report and demonstrate how it considered public comments in its final
decisions.
States should respond to commenters by including a responsiveness summary in their Integrated
Reports or by making the summary available by other means used by the state (e.g., internet posting,
mailing to commenters). States should submit or make available to EPA at the time of the Integrated
Report submittal a copy of all comment letters, e-mail, etc., received from the public and a responsiveness
summary addressing all comments. The responses should provide enough detail to clearly explain how
9 Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive Stat&Water Quality Assessments f 3Q5ffr> Reports') and
Electronic Updates: Report Contents: Office of Water, US EPA; EPA-841-B-97-002a, September 1997,
10 Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality Assessments OOSrtA Reports')
and Electronic Updates: Report Contents: Office of Water, US EPA; EPA-841-B-97-002a, September 1997.
July 2005
25
-------
2006IR Guidance
the state considered the comment and whether and how the placement of waters in the five categories '
changed in response to the comment. I
If the state received comments on a particular issue that opposes or questions the state's decisions,
the Regions should determine whether those comments are adequately addressed in the state's comment :
response document. If the Region agrees with the state's substantive decision, but believes that the state'sl
comment response is inadequate, the Region can work with the state to supplement its response even after
the formal submission is made (but prior to the Region's approval or disapproval action). If the state is \
unwilling or unable to supplement the state's responses, the Region should address the issue in its decision
document or elsewhere in the administrative record. >
July 2005 26
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 3-11. Summary of Water Quality Reporting Elements of an Integrated Report
Reporting Element
Executive Summary
Part A. Introduction
Required* (•) Versus
Recommended (O)
o
O
Part B. Background Information
B.1 Total Waters
B.2 Water Pollution Control Program
Description of water quality management program
An estimate of the extent to which CWA control programs have improved water
quality or will improve water quality, and recommendations for future actions
necessary and identifications of waters needing action.
A description of the nature and extent ofnonpoint source pollution and
recommendations of programs needed to control each category ofnonpoint
sources, including an estimate of implementation costs.
B.3 Cost/Benefit Analysis
B.4 Special State Concerns and Recommendations
o
See below
O
•
•
•
o
Part C. Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment
C.I Monitoring Program
C.2 Assessment Methodology
Description of data and information was used to make attainment determinations
Description of haw the data and information was used to make attainment
determinations
Rationales for any decision to not use any existing and readily available data and
information.
Description of changes in the assessment methodology since the last reporting
cycle
C.3 Assessment Results
Assessment Database (ADB)C and georeferencing information
Five-part categorization of waters
Results of Probability-based designs
303(d) list: list of water quality-limited (impaired and threatened) waters still
requiring TMDL(s) [waters assigned to Category 5], pollutants causing the
impairment and priority ranking for TMDL development (including waters
targeted for TMDL development within the next 2 years).
Changes from previous 303 (d) list (i.e., the water/pollutants that have been added
and the water/pollutants that have been delisted and the reason for their delisting)
o
See below
•
•
•
0
•"
(See below)
O
0
0
•
o
July 2005
27
-------
2006IR Guidance
Reporting Element
Status ofTMDL development
State summaries of designated use support
Eutrophic condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State
A description of procedures used to control pollution and restore water quality
Methods used to mitigate high acidity in lakes
A list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such State for which uses
are known to be impaired and those lakes in which water quality has deteriorated
as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid deposition
An assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes
C.4 Wetland Program
C.S Trends Analysis
C.6 Public Health Issues
Part D. Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment
Part E. Public Participation
Description of public participation process
Copy of all comment letters, e-mail, etc., received from the public and a
responsiveness summary
Required' (•) Versus
Recommended (O)
o
O
o
o
•
•
•
0
o ;
o
O ;
See below
o ;
o ;
Notes: '
i
* Required by Clean Water Act sections 303(d), 305(b) or 314 and their corresponding regulations. I
b C WA section 305(b) requires states to provide a description of the water quality of all waters in their state. As a
result, EPA and the states have established a long-term goal of comprehensively characterizing surface waters of'
each state using a variety of techniques. These techniques may include traditional targeted monitoring, '
probability-based monitoring surveys, targeted site-specific monitoring, landscape and water quality modeling, :
and remote sensing. I
c- EPA strongly encourages all states to use the ADB. If the state is not using the ADB, this assessment unit specific
information should be submitted in a compatible electronic system. The state should work with EPA to ensure j
that the electronic assessment information submitted can be compiled by EPA for regional and national reporting1
and can be sorted into the five part list as outlined in the IR guidance. '
July 2005
28
-------
2006IR Guidance
IV, ISSUES CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF AN ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A. What constitutes an assessment methodology?
The assessment methodology constitutes the decision process (including principles of science,
statistics and logic used in interpreting data and information relevant to segment conditions) that a state
employs to determine to which of the five integrated reporting categories a segment belongs. It is
important that assessment methodologies must be consistent with applicable WQSs. They should also be
consistent with sound science and statistics.
As described in section 130.7 (b)(6) (i- iv), each state shall provide documentation to the
Regional Administrator at the time that the integrated report or the separate section 303(d) list is
submitted. This documentation must support the state's determination to list or not list its segments as
required in 130.7(b)(l) and 130.7(b)(2). A major component of this documentation is a description of the
methodology that the state used to develop their Integrated Report or the separate section 303(d) list.
The methodology should: 1) explain how the state identifies, considers (evaluates) all existing
and readily available data and information; 2) articulate the basics of the quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) criteria used to evaluate data submitted by outside entities to determine what weight, if
any, should be assigned to said data and information; and 3) explain the analytical approaches, including
statistical analyses, used to infer true segment conditions from all valid existing and readily available
information. The decision processes the states describe in the methodology should provide all
stakeholders with the opportunity to understand exactly how assessment decisions are made.
Prior to submission of its Integrated Report, each state should provide the public with the
opportunity to review and comment on the methodology, consistent with their continuing planning
process (CPP), public participation policies, and monitoring strategies.
B. What will EPA do with the methodology?
When a state has by rulemaking adopted a methodology as part of its approved water quality
standards and the water quality standards are applicable for CWA purposes, 40 CFR § 131.21, EPA will
apply the approved methodology as it reviews the state's submission in order to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the section 303(d) list (Category- 5). If a state has not by rulemaking adopted a
methodology into its water quality standards, EPA will consider the state's methodology, to the extent
that it reflects a reasonable interpretation of the state's water quality standards and sound science, in
determining whether to approve or disapprove the section 303(d) list. In either scenario, EPA encourages
the state to make available the most recent methodology used to develop the current Draft 2006 Integrated
Report (or separate 303(d) list) prior to submission of their IR. The methodology allows EPA and other
reviewers to understand the decision process followed by the states as they review the 2006 Draft. Where
EPA has concerns with the assessment methodology, EPA will provide comments to the state to assist in
developing an approvable section 303(d) list.
For methodologies that are not part of the state's applicable water quality standards, EPA will
consider the methodology as it assesses whether the state conducted an adequate review of all existing
and readily available water quality-related information, whether the factors that were used to make listing
July 2005
29
-------
2006IR Guidance
and removal decisions were reasonable, whether the process for evaluating different kinds of water- j
quality related data and information is sufficient, and whether the process for resolving jurisdictional |
disagreements is sufficient. If EPA finds that the state's methodology is inconsistent with its water '
quality standards, and its application has resulted in an improper section 303 (d) list, EPA may disapprove!
the list. Regardless of the suitability of the methodology, EPA must review the list for consistency with
the relevant provisions of the CWA and the regulations. ,
EPA sees the methodology as an evolving document which states periodically revise as I
appropriate at some time during the listing cycle11. As such, EPA strongly encourages states to submit j
their draft and current methodologies to EPA and to the public for review and comment (but not formal ;
approval) well in advance of any deadline the state sets for submission of data and information. \
C. Data Assembly '•
40 CFR section 130,7(b)(5) requires that "Each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and'
readily available water quality related data and information to develop the list." <
i
States should solicit data and information including, but not limited to, the types listed below: [
• observed effects (see glossary) [
• closures, restrictions and/or advisories applicable to swimming, fish consumption, and ,
drinking water \
• violations of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards i
• segment-specific ambient monitoring-chemical, physical, and/or biological i
• large-scale probabilistic monitoring designs • ;
• simple dilution calculations '
• predictive (simulation) modeling, ,
• landscape analysis j
• remote sensing i
• complaints and comments from the public
i
To the extent practicable, such types of data and information should be drawn from existing '
compilations of information regarding water quality, including, but not limited to:
• publicly-available databases (e.g., STORET) ;
• source water assessments per the Safe Drinking Water Act ;
• monitoring information from pesticides registrations '
• watershed plans and other kinds of water quality or natural resource management plans
• Superfund Records of Decision !
• reports prepared pursuant to sections 305(b), 303(d), 314, and 319 of the CWA
1' EPA notes that it does not view state regulatory provisions concerning assessment methods that merely \
describe the sufficiency or reliability of information necessary for states to make an attainment decision as water '
quality standards, because they do not have the effect of changing the ambient conditions (i.e., magnitude, duration!
frequency of concentrations of pollutants) considered necessary to support a designated use.
July 2005 30
-------
2006IR Guidance
Such types of data and information should also be solicited from a wide variety of organizations
and individuals, such as:
• other state agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Agriculture Departments
• federal agencies, including EPA, USGS, NOAA, USDA, and USFWS
• local governments
• drinking water utilities and state agencies responsible for SDWA implementation
universities and other research institutions
• environmental consulting firms
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees
• conservation/environmental organizations
• outdoor recreation organizations
• citizen monitoring groups
EPA regulations provide that states should actively solicit organizations and individuals such as
those listed above. See 40 CFR 130.7(b)(5)(iii). EPA considers active solicitation as notifying local,
state, and federal agencies, members of the public, and academic institutions that the state is seeking
water quality related data and information for the purpose of developing the Integrated Report, through
notices in the State Register, notices or announcements in appropriate local or trade papers, direct
mailings to members of the public that have previously submitted public comments or other interested
parties on the State's mailing list, or announcements and requests for data at appropriate public meetings
or informational meetings. EPA recommends that states also request such data and information via letters
sent to other state agencies, federal agencies and academic institutions that may have data/information.
If the state has specifications for data and information, these specifications should be included in
any requests for information. To facilitate the timely completion of a draft list that can be distributed for
public review and comment, states may set a reasonable "cut-off" date after which no additional data or
information will be considered in the preparation of the draft section 303 (d) list and other aspects of a
preliminary Integrated Report. If a state institutes a cutoff date for data submission, effective prior to
establishing a draft list, there could also be a separate data solicitation step prior to compilation of a final
303(d) list. Under this scenario, the state would compile the preliminary list using all information it has
at hand based on identified data sources. Additional data submissions during the public comment period
would then be evaluated, appropriate changes to the draft list would be made based on these new data or
information.
If the state intends to consider only data and information submitted prior to a certain cutoff date,
the state should clearly explain that this is the only opportunity for the public to provide data and
information for the current assessment cycle, and that data submitted after that cutoff date would be
considered during the next listing cycle. States should provide a mechanism for an exception to the limit
for the submission of data if the submitter can demonstrate that the data were readily available prior to the
data cutoff date and should have been included in any reasonably diligent state review of data. EPA will
generally limit its review of a state listing submission to the data and information assembled by the state
prior to the data cutoff date if the state was reasonably diligent in assembling available data and
information and soliciting data and information from the public.
July 2005
31
-------
I
2006IR Guidance
EPA is aware that many states have turned to the rotating basin strategy as a technically sound
approach for making assessment determinations of the state's waters. In this approach, the available .
monitoring resources are concentrated or targeted in one portion of the state for a specified period of time,
thus allowing for data to be collected and assessed in a spatially and temporally focused manner. Over
time, every portion of the state is targeted for this higher resolution monitoring and assessment effort |
(often over a five-year period), however the state must consider all existing and readily available data and
information during the development of its 2006 Integrated Report, regardless of where in the state the
data and information were generated.
t
(
The state should make reasonable efforts to obtain and consider sources of data and information j
not provided by commenters. If particular data/information referenced in the public comments are not i
provided, EPA expects states to make a reasonable effort to secure the data. Solicitation requests should \
note that at a minimum commenters should provide as much information as possible in order for the state;
to be able to obtain the data or information, and again emphasize any state criteria for considering and '
prioritizing data sets. !
D. How should the methodology describe data and information expectations? (
i
i
/. Data Quality Considerations
i
A state must evaluate all existing and readily available data and information, to establish how it •
should be used in attempting to make a WQS attainment status determinations, applying reasonable and
scientifically sound data evaluation procedures. Such evaluation protocols should strike a balance ,
between: (1) employing only the very highest quality data, and (2) employing as much useful information
about the condition of as many segments as possible. That is, these protocols should reflect both |
legitimate concerns about basing decisions on the best possible information and the fact that there is i
relatively little or no segment-specific monitoring data or other forms of assessment-relevant information
available for the majority of the nation's waters. .
Such protocols/evaluation criteria would include typical elements of a quality assurance project •
plan (QAPP). Examples of such elements include a description of the methods used to collect the data in.
the field, a description of the methods to assure proper handling and "chain of custody" of the samples •
during transport to the laboratory, documentation of the laboratory methods used to perform the analysis '
of samples, and a description of any independent audits to verify the consistency of the data. In their j
articulation of QA/QC expectations for data and information submitted by others, states should describe ;
the types and amount of metadata mat should be provided along with specific sets of data and ,'
information. If an outside entity fails to provide necessary metadata along with submitted data and
information, the state should attempt to obtain the metadata from the data-submitting organization before
concluding that the data and information is of low quality, simply due to lack of metadata.
Data quality criteria should be published along with any solicitations of data and information. j
Ideally, such QA/QC protocols should be made available to the public well in advance of any such i
solicitation for any given IR reporting cycle. !
July 2005 32
-------
2006IR Guidance
In addition to articulating their data review criteria, EPA recommends that states work with data-
generating organizations not only during the period of time just before the Integrated Report
development, but on a more continual basis, to help ensure their data are collected and stored in such a
way that the data will of high quality. States may wish to encourage such organizations to develop
QAPPs and submit them to the state for review and comment, and even perhaps formal approval by the
state. A state may elect to employ a rebuttable presumption that data and information submitted by
organizations with a state-approved QAPP meets the state's QA/QC standards. Lack of a State-approved
QAPP should not, however, be used as the basis for summarily rejecting data and information submitted
by such organizations, or assuming it is of low quality, regardless of the actual QA/QC protocols
employed during the gathering, storage, and analysis of these data.
2. Data Representativeness Considerations
The spatial and temporal representativeness of data and information should be considered by
states as they attempt to characterize conditions in a given segment. Clearly, the degree of confidence in
a WQS attainment status determination increases as the amount of data and information grows. Ideally, all
decisions about the WQS attainment status of individual assessment units would be based on a complete
census of water quality conditions, which could involve sampling every portion of a waterbody at
frequent intervals. Unfortunately, gathering this vast amount of data is not currently feasible, due to the
limitations of current monitoring technology as well as the amount of funding available for gathering and
analysis of water quality information.
Even for those segments where unusually large amounts of monitoring data is available,
compared to most waterbodies, the percentage of all possible locations in time and space from which data
has been collected is very, very small. Given this situation, states and EPA will continue to need to make
WQS attainment status determinations by extrapolating, in time and space, to a substantial degree, from
individual points of data.
Hence, state methodologies should describe, in general terms, the decision logic used to
determine the temporal and spatial extent a grab sample can be construed to represent. In order to make
credible assessment determinations, states should employ approaches that strike a balance between the
extremes of: (1) considering every grab sample to be representative of merely the instant in which, and
the drop of water from which, each was taken; or, (2) assuming each such sample is representative of
conditions over several years, and covering hundreds of stream miles or hundreds of lake acres. (Note
that available data and information should be used to assess attainment of applicable water quality
standards unless a specific technical rationale is provided to support a determination that such data and
information should not be used (see 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iii-iv)).
Many state numeric water quality criteria include multiple day averaging periods, while most
state monitoring programs do not collect samples at a rate of one or more per day. In such circumstances,
states should decide how far out in time to extrapolate from the time at which a particular single grab was
collected. EPA recommends that such decisions be based on contextual information regarding conditions
when and where the grab was taken. For example, such information might include: 1) precipitation, 2)
streamflow, 3) location of point source discharges in relation to the monitoring site, 4) land use patterns in
the vicinity, 5) expected patterns of pollutant loading from the different kinds of sources present in the
July 2005
33
-------
2006IR Guidance.
watershed, 6) occurrence of a chemical spill or other unusual event, and 7) historic patterns of pollutant
concentrations in the monitoring segment and/or waterbodies similar to it.
For instance, such contextual information might indicate that levels of a pollutant under study are
likely to have remained fairly constant over a certain period. This would generally be a reasonable
conclusion if, for example, available information suggested that both pollutant loadings and stream flow
remained fairly steady over that period. In such cases, it could be reasonable to assume that the
concentration seen in a sole available grab sample was representative of average conditions over the
period of interest. On the other hand, if it were known that the watershed draining into a segment had a
large number of precipitation-dependant sources of pollutants, a particular sample had been collected
during the only significant rainfall that occurred during that period, and the precipitation event was of a
duration shorter than the averaging period used in the water quality standard, then it could make sense to
conclude that the concentration in that sample was not roughly equal to the average over the period in
question (e.g., 1 day, 4 days, 7 days).
Similarly, contextual information can help inform a decision as to how far out in space to
extrapolate from a particular sampling point. Where no point source dischargers are present and land use
practices are the same over large areas, assuming data collected at a particular monitoring site is
representative of conditions over a long stretch of river could be reasonable. On the other hand, if a
number of point sources and a variety of nonpoint sources are found along a similar length of stream, it
may be prudent to presume that data from a particular sampling site is representative of only a portion of
that river reach.
In deciding how broad a span of time and space to assume a particular grab sample might
represent, States may wish to consider the implications of a more expansive versus a more cautious i
approach to interpreting available monitoring data in the context of available metadata. Willingness to |
extrapolate further in time and space will generally lead to making WQS attainment/non-attainment
determinations on a larger number of waters and designated uses, while a more cautious approach can
result in a higher proportion of waters and uses being reported as "status unknown".
Though a determination of whether a single grab sample can reasonably be construed to be I
representative of (i.e., close in value to) average conditions over a specified period is an important step ill
the assessment process, the mere fact that the only grab sample available for a particular period is not \
deemed representative of average conditions over said period does not necessarily mean that it could not
be used as the basis of a WQS attainment status determination. For instance, despite being non- ;
representative of the average concentration, it may be indicative of the average, or at least a fairly reliable
indicator of whether or not the average concentration in the waterbody over said period is above or below
the level specified in the WQS. j
|
For example, it is widely known that dissolved oxygen levels rise and fall in most waterbodies ,
following a diurnal cycle. Hence, if a grab sample were collected at 5 a.m. (around when DO levels ,
should be at the lowest point during the daily cycle) and the DO level in the sample was above, or even j
somewhat below, the level specified in an applicable WQC expressed as a 24 hour average concentration,
it would be reasonable to assume the daily average concentration of DO on the day the one grab was j
collected was higher than that specified by the WQC. (Conversely, if a DO sample were collected at
6p.m., i.e., during the high end of the diurnal cycle of DO levels, and the concentration was below, or
July 2005 34
-------
2006IR Guidance
even slightly above, the specified concentration, it could be reasonable to conclude that the 24-hour
average DO level was below that specified by the WQC.)12
Awareness of the types of sources upstream of a site and knowledge of the weather at the time of
sampling can also be instructive. For instance, if the level in the sole grab of a pollutant associated
primarily with nonpoint sources was slightly higher than the criterion-concentration, but the grab had
been taken during a one-in-10-year one-hour rainfall event, it could be reasonable to assume the 4-day
average was lower than the criterion-concentration.
Similarly, EPA believes that data should not automatically be treated as unrepresentative of
relevant segment conditions solely on the basis of its age without supporting information indicating that
the data are not a good indicator of current conditions. However, older data should be evaluated with
care. For example if the most recent data for a particular assessment unit is 10 years old, and that data
indicated that average and/or peak conditions in a segment at that time were worse than those specified by
an applicable WQC; and, since that time, all the sources of the pollutant in question had been required to
dramatically lower the levels of the pollutant in their effluent, and few changes that would lead to
increased loadings of the pollutant had taken place in the watershed, it could be reasonable to assume that
the segment was now meeting the WQC for that pollutant. By contrast, if 15 year old data indicated that
a segment was then just barely meeting WQS for several pollutants associated with urban runoff, and the
watershed of that segment had since that time undergone considerable urbanization, a conclusion that the
segment was no longer meeting WQC for some or all of those pollutants could be warranted.
States should be cautious about employing assessment methodologies that assign little or no
weight to data consistent with state QA/QC protocols based on the theory that it is "unrepresentative"
simply because the data seem to reflect unusual circumstances. Rather, such unusual circumstances
should be evaluated in the context of the specific requirements of applicable WQSs. In assessing
potential adverse effects on humans or other life forms, it is just as important to be cognizant of potential
short term events as it is to reflect longer term "average" conditions. Short term exposure to very high
levels of pollutants (or low level of necessary elements like oxygen) can be extremely harmful, even
lethal. For this reason, EPA and state WQC for a number of pollutants include concentration/duration
combinations for short periods as well as such combinations for longer periods. Such criteria are
typically referred to as acute and chronic WQC, respectively.
Extreme values or "outliers" can be very relevant when dealing with WQC aimed at protecting
humans or other life forms against adverse effects of acute (short term) exposure to pollutants. The fact
that such values may occur fairly infrequently and are not representative of long term average conditions
is unimportant when dealing with WQC expressed as short-term that should occur only rarely, if ever.
EPA's WQC addressing acute exposure of freshwater aquatic life to toxic chemicals are an example of
WQC expressed in this way - they are one-hour average concentrations that should be surpassed no more
than once every three years on average. WQC expressed as instantaneous concentrations never to be
surpassed address even more rare, but nevertheless harmful, conditions.
12 Another example of using data sets consisting of just one grab sample to make inferences about
conditions over longer periods is illustrated by one aspect of the 1986 EPA water quality criteria document for
bacteria fwww.epa.govAvateTscience /be aches/1986crii.pdf).
July 2005
35
-------
2006IR Guidance
Caution regarding exclusion of "outliers" is expressed in EPA's Guidance for Data Qualify j
Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis (QA/G-9) (EPA/600/R-96/084) published in July 2000,'
available at http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html): \
\
l
"One should never discard an outlier based solely on a statistical test. Instead, the decision to i
discard an outlier should be based on some scientific or quality assurance basis. Discarding an >
outlier from a data set should be done with extreme caution, particularly for environmental data !
sets, which often contain legitimate extreme values. If an outlier is discarded from the data set, |
all statistical analysis of the data should be applied to both the full and truncated data set so that
the effect of discarding observations may be assessed. If scientific reasoning does not explain the
outlier, it should not be discarded from the data set." (EPA/600/R-96/084, pp. 4-26). \
I
Additional guidance about "outliers" can be found in the discussion of trimmed means on page 33
of Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Survey Design and Statistical Evaluation ofBiosurvey '
Data (EPA/822/B/97/002). !
f
However, disregarding valid data gathered during extreme conditions (e.g., significant droughts j
or floods) can be appropriate if applicable state's WQS include a provision specifying that some or all >
WQC do not apply during certain rare events, such a 7Q10 low (or high) stream flow. Also, data (
collected at certain times of years could legitimately be disregarded when making use support status '
determinations based on seasonal WQC - ones that apply only to times of year other than that when these
particular data were collected. i
In addition to such "temporal waivers" of WQS, state regulations often contain "spatial wavers"-f
portions of segments in which some or all WQS do not apply. Mixing zones in the immediate vicinity of?
NPDES-regulated discharges are the most common example of such exemptions. Hence, data collected j
within the confines of designated mixing zones should not be applied against some or all WQC otherwise
applicable to the receiving segment.
3. Data Quantity Considerations i
EPA encourages the collection of adequate data to make welt-grounded attainment
determinations. EPA has not established, required, nor encouraged the establishment of rigid minimum!
sample set size requirements in the WQS attainment status determination process. EPA is particularly :
concerned with application of such thresholds state-wide, without regard to key factors like the manner in
which applicable WQC are expressed, variability in segment-specific conditions, and fluctuations in rates
of pollutant loading. Rather if employed, target sample set sizes should not be applied in an assessment (
methodology as absolute exclusionary rules, and even the smallest data sets should be evaluated and, in
appropriate circumstances, used. While it may be appropriate to identify target sample sizes as a
methodology is developed, states should not exclude from further consideration data sets that do so solely
because they not meet a target sample size. A methodology may provide for an initial sample size screen.;
but should also provide for a further assessment of sample sets that do not meet the target sample size.
(EPA suggests that states avoid setting target sample set sizes higher than the amount of data available at
most sites.) '
July 2005 36
-------
2006IR Guidance
Assessments based on larger sample sets are more likely to yield accurate conclusions than
assessments based on smaller sample sets. For example, smaller sample sets are more prone to lead to
erroneously concluding that at a WQC has not been exceeded, because they result in a lower probability
of detecting WQSs exceedances that have actually occurred. (EPA, Consolidated Assessment and Listing
Methodology- Toward a Compendium of Best Practices (CALM) July 2002, pp. 4-9).
Any target sample set size thresholds must be consistent with the state's EPA-approved water
quality standards. Hence, when making an determination based on comparison of ambient data and other
information to a numeric WQC expressed as an "average" concentration over a specified period of time, a
statement of a desired number of samples may be appropriate. Still, the methodology should provide
decision rules for concluding nonattainment in cases where the target data quantity expectations are not
met, but the available data and information indicate a reasonable likelihood of a WQC exceedance (e.g.,
available samples with major digressions from the criterion concentration, corroborating evidence from
independent lines of evidence such as biosurveys or incidence of waterborne disease, indications that
conditions in the waterbody and loadings of the pollutant into the waterbody have remained fairly stable
over the period in question).
Even a very small set of samples may be sufficient to indicate impairment, particularly when the
duration/averaging periods of relevant WQC are quite short (an hour or less). For example, one grab
sample meeting QA/QC specifications with a concentration higher than the criterion - concentration for a
toxic compound could well be grounds for concluding that a WQC expressed as a concentration not be
surpassed at any time had been exceeded. A single sample with a concentration that digressed from (was
above) the criterion-concentration would be a particularly strong indicator of exceedance of such a
criterion if it was the only sample that had been collected, hi such a situation, the rate of digression in the
sample set (in this instance a set of one) was 100%. This means that, if the timing of the sample was
picked randomly, the chances are good that if additional samples had been taken over the period of
concern, the vast majority of those would also have had concentrations above the criterion-concentration.
(Of course, if the sole sample were collected during a time, condition and/or location condition excluded
from application of said WQC, by the state's WQS regulation, it would not be an appropriate basis for
303(d)-listing a segment. Commonly encountered examples of such exclusions include streamflows
below the low-flow 7Q10 or areas inside the designated mixing zone for an NPDES permittee.) NOTE:
See Sec. IV.D.2 for discussion of a somewhat different issue regarding use of single grab samples.
4. Providing Excluded Data (considered and evaluated, but not used) to EPA
EPA regulations require states to provide as part of their section 303(d) list submission a rationale
for not using any existing and readily available water quality-related data and information in developing
the list. 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iii). EPA recommends that states provide such a rationale on a segment-
specific basis to assist EPA in reviewing the state's listing decisions. EPA may also request that states
provide any data or information they decided not to use to develop their list and a case-specific rationale
for that decision to not use the data in a particular WQS attainment status determination. EPA may
review the data and rationale, disapprove section 303(d) listing decisions if appropriate, and make
changes in die section 303(d) list based on data and information that was improperly excluded. Failure by
a state to provide a reasonable technical rationale for a specific determination or for a decision not to use
particular data or information may result in partial disapproval of the list for failure to include segments in
Category 5, and potential additions of segments to the section 303(d) list by EPA.
July 2005
37
-------
2006IR Guidance
E, Should a state use information other than site-specific ambient monitoring data?
Yes, as appropriate. Categorization decisions should generally not be based only on site specific '
ambient monitored data, and what was directly observed in the limited set of samples available to the !
water quality assessor, when other relevant types of information are available. For example, EPA '
regulations require that "reports from dilution calculations and predictive modeling" be included in the |
data and information that a state considers in its assessment process for section 303(d) listing (Category 5)
purposes (40 CFR 130.7(b)(5)(ii)). Likewise, it may be appropriate to place a segment in any of the other
four IR categories based on assessments resulting from the consideration of assessment tools such as ;
predictive modeling, remote sensing data, land use analysis, knowledge about pollutant sources and j
loadings, observed effects, etc. (see longer listing of types of data and information in Sec. IV, Part C). I
EPA believes that a valid assessment of a segment's condition should involve drawing
conclusions beyond those which would be arrived at by taking into account nothing more that what was J
directly observed in the fraction of all possible segment conditions over a given span of time and volume j
of space represented by a typical set of ambient data. Simple dilution calculations, for example, can be I
used to estimate what concentration of a pollutant might be present under conditions (e.g., streamflow, ,
pollutant loads) different from those extant at the times sampling was performed. j
i
F. How should states use results of probability-based monitoring?
i
i
States should report the results of probability-based assessments as a component of their
Integrated Report. A probability-based monitoring design is a type of sample survey design that ensures <
monitoring at a representative set of sample sites from which inferences can be made about the larger I
population or resource under investigation (e.g., rivers and streams throughout a state or watershed). It is
similar to an opinion poll in which a sample of people are selected at random to represent a larger j
population. Probability-based designs are used in a wide range of disciplines when conducting a census'
(e.g., sampling every stream mile) is not economically feasible or is not necessary.
i
i
States are encouraged to use probability-based monitoring designs for developing probabilistic
statements about waterbody conditions over broad scales (basins, the entire state). EPA believes that a i
probability-based monitoring design applied over large areas, such as an entire state or a large watershed,
is a cost-effective approach to producing a statistical statement, of known confidence, describing the
aggregate condition of water resources. For instance, based on such a study, a state might be able to state,
with 75% confidence, that 37% of lakes of 50 acres or less fail to meet WQC for total phosphorus. [
In addition, sampling performed under probability-based surveys provides site-specific data about
each sample location. These data should be considered along with any other site-specific data that might
be available, to determine if they should be used to make WQS attainment status determinations, leading
to placing segments in the five categories. j
July 2005 38
-------
2006IR Guidance
The results of probability-based monitoring provide a useful benchmark for the extent that
segments are likely to be healthy or degraded. This may help states refine their understanding of how
much additional targeted monitoring is needed to complete identification of segments needing restoration,
as well as high quality waters needing extra protection.
Though probability-based monitoring programs usually result only in a statistical statement, of
known confidence, about aggregate waterbody conditions across a large area, in some instances, results
may be compelling enough to support site-specific decisions about water quality in segments besides
those from which ambient data were collected. For example, if a probability-based survey offish tissue
from a random sample of lakes across a state found, with a reasonably high level of confidence, that a
very high percentage of lakes contain fish with tissue contaminant concentrations exceeding advisory
levels, decision makers might decide to list all of the state's lakes as impaired for fish consumption use
However, see Section V.H.6 below for additional guidance on use offish consumption advisories in
attainment determinations. For more information on the design and implementation of probability-based
sample surveys, visit EPA's Aquatic Resource Monitoring web page at
http://wmv.epa.uov/rAeerl/arm/index.him.
G. How should statistical approaches be used in attainment determinations?
The state's methodology should provide a rationale for any statistical interpretation of data for the
purpose of making an assessment determination.
/. Description of statistical methods to be employed in various circumstances
The methodology should provide a clear explanation of which analytic tools the state uses and
under which circumstances. EPA recommends that the methodology explain issues such as the selection
of key sample statistics (arithmetic mean concentration, median concentration, or a percentile), null and
alternative hypotheses, confidence intervals, and Type I and Type II error thresholds. The choice of a
statistic tool should be based on the known or expected distribution of the concentration of the pollutant
in the segment (e.g., normal or log normal) in both time and space.
Past EPA guidance (1997 305(b) and 2000 CALM) recommended making non attainment
decisions, for "conventional pollutants" — TSS, pH, BOD, fecal coliform bacteria, and oil and grease13
— when more than "10% of measurements exceed the water quality criterion." (However, EPA guidance
has not encouraged use of the "10% rule" with other pollutants, including toxics.) Use of this rule when
addressing conventional pollutants, is appropriate if its application is consistent with the manner in which
applicable WQC are expressed. An example of a WQC for which an assessment based on the ten percent
rule would be appropriate is the EPA acute WQC for fecal coliform bacteria, applicable to protection of
water contact recreational use. This 1976-issued WQC was expressed as, "...no more than ten percent of
the samples exceeding 400 CPU per 100 ml, during a 30-day period." Here, the assessment methodology
is clearly reflective of the WQC.
13 There are a variety of definitions for the term "conventional pollutants." Wherever this term is referred
to in this guidance, it means "a pollutant other than a toxic pollutant."
July 2005
39
-------
2006IR Guidance
On the other hand, use of the ten percent rule for interpreting water quality data is usually not
consistent with WQC expressed either as: 1) instantaneous maxima not to be surpassed at any time, or 2)!
average concentrations over specified times. In the case of "instantaneous maxima (or minima) never to !
occur" criteria use of the ten percent rule typically leads to the belief that segment conditions are equal or;
better than specified by the WQC, when they in fact are considerably worse. (That is, pollutant j
concentrations are above the criterion-concentration a far greater proportion of the time than specified by
the WQC.) Conversely, use of this decision rule in concert with WQC expressed as average
concentrations over specific times can lead to concluding that segment conditions are worse than WQC,
when in fact they are not. ,
I
If the state applies different decision rales for different types of pollutants (e.g., toxic, '
conventional, and non-conventional pollutants) and types of standards (e.g., acute vs. chronic criteria for
aquatic life or human health), the state should provide a reasonable rationale supporting the choice of a
particular statistical approach to each of its different sets of pollutants and types of standards. j
i
i
2. Elucidation of policy choices embedded in selection of particular statistical approaches and use \
of certain assumptions '
:
EPA strongly encourages states to highlight policy decisions implicit in the statistical analysis |
that they have chosen to employ in various circumstances. For example, if hypothesis testing is used, the
state should make its decision-making rules transparent by explaining why it chose either "meeting WQS"
or "not meeting WQS" as the null hypothesis (rebuttable presumption) as a general rule for all waters, a '
category of waters, or an individual segment. Starting with the assumption mat a water is "healthy" when
employing hypothesis testing means that a segment will be identified as impaired, and placed in Category
4 or 5, only if substantial amounts of credible evidence exist to refute that presumption. By contrast, |
making the null hypothesis "WQS not being met" shifts the burden of proof to those who believe the j
segment is, in fact, meeting WQS.
Which "null hypothesis" a state selects could likely create contrasting incentives regarding
support for additional ambient monitoring among different stakeholders. If the null hypothesis is
"meeting standards," there were no previous data on the segment, and no additional existing and readily j
available data and information are collected, then the "null hypothesis" cannot be rejected, and the
segment would not be placed in Category 4 or 5. In this situation, those concerned about possible ,
adverse consequences of having a segment declared "impaired" might have little interest in collection of
additional ambient data. Meanwhile, users of the segment would likely want to have the segment
monitored, so they can be ensured that it is indeed capable of supporting the uses of concern. On the i
other hand, if the null hypothesis is changed to "segment not meeting WQS," then those that would prefer
that a particular segment not be labeled "impaired" would probably want more data collected, in hopes of
proving that the null hypothesis is not true.
Another key policy issue in hypothesis testing is what significance level to use in deciding i
whether to reject the null hypothesis. Picking a high level of significance for rejecting the null hypothesis
means that great emphasis is being placed on avoiding a Type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis, when
in fact, the null hypothesis is true). This means that if a 0.10 significance level is chosen, die state wants
to keep the chance of making a Type I error at or below ten percent. Hence, if the chosen null hypothesis
July 2005 40
-------
20061R Guidance
is "segment meeting WQS," the state is trying to keep the chance of saying a segment is impaired - when
in reality it is not - under ten percent.
An additional policy issue is the Type II errors (not rejecting the null hypothesis, when it should
have been). The probability of Type II errors depends on several factors. One key factor is the number of
samples available. With a fixed number of samples, as the probability of Type I error decreases, the
probability of a Type II error increases. States would ideally collect enough samples so the chances of
making Type I and Type II errors are simultaneously small. Unfortunately, resources needed to collect
such numbers of samples are quite often not available.
The final example of a policy issue that a state should describe is the rationale for concentrating
limited resources to support data collection and statistical analysis in segments where there are
documented water quality problems or where the combination of nonpoint source loadings and point
source discharges would indicate a strong potential for a water quality problem to exist.
EPA recommends that, when picking the decision rules and statistical methods to be
utilized when interpreting data and information, states attempt to minimize the chances of making either
of the two following errors:
• Concluding the segment is impaired, when in fact it is not, and
• Deciding not to declare a segment impaired, when it is in fact impaired.
States should specify in their methodology what significance level they have chosen to use, in
various circumstances. The methodology would best describe in "plain English" the likelihood of
deciding to list a segment that in reality is not impaired (Type I error if the null hypothesis is "segment
not impaired"). Also, EPA encourages states to estimate, in their assessment databases, the probability of
making a Type II error (not putting on the 303(d) list a segment that in fact fails to meet WQS), when: 1)
commonly-available numbers of grab samples are available, and 2) the degree of variance in pollutant
concentrations are at commonly encountered levels. For example, if an assessment is being performed
with a WQC expressed as a 30-day average concentration of a certain pollutant, it would be useful to
estimate the probability of a Type II error when the number of available samples over a 30 day period is
equal to the average number of samples for that pollutant in segments state-wide, or in a given group of
segments, assuming a degree of variance in levels of the pollutant often observed over typical 30 day
periods.
H. How should states use community-level bioassessment data?
Many states use multi-metric, community-level biological assessments to report water resource
condition. Biological assessments provide direct measures of the cumulative response of the biological
community to all sources of stress. Therefore, a biocriteria/bioassessment represents a very useful
indicator of the use support status for aquatic life.
Credible assessments of biological condition can be accomplished with far fewer samples than
with parameter-specific monitoring. However, attention to proper quality assurance and control is equally
important in biological monitoring as it is in chemical and physical measurements. Threshold values for
segment impairment determinations as well as quality assurance should be addressed in the state's
methodology.
July 2005
41
-------
2006IR Guidance.
States should include biological assessments in the data and information they assemble and
evaluate in developing their Integrated Reports, and must provide a rationale for any decision not to use .
the assessments in developing their section 303(d) lists.
I
States using biological assessments to make reporting determinations should also consider other i
types of data and information (i.e., chemical and physical). In instances in which the indication of aquatic
life use support provided by biosurvey data and that provided by chemical and/or physical data differ, ]
EPA continues to support the principle of independent applicability (see Section IV.K. below), as most
recently articulated in its Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology guidance.
i
I. What information should the state provide regarding its interpretation of its WQS? \
i
When deciding whether to put a segment in Category 1, 2, 4 or 5, a state is trying to answer the '
question, "What does available ambient monitoring data and other information tell us about whether or '
not this segment is meeting WQS?" In order to answer this question, it is necessary to be very clear about
the WQS that apply to the segment- the DUs assigned to the segment, as well as the numeric water '
quality criteria (WQC) applicable to each DU, along with narrative WQC. j
Ideally, states' WQS regulations will clearly articulate each DU and all WQC applicable to that
DU. However, in some instances, there may be ambiguity in the way WQS are expressed. For example, a
WQC could refer to an "average" concentration. This could mean the median, the arithmetic mean, die I
geometric mean, or something else describing a central tendency. Also, WQS regulations and guidance '
sometimes do not clearly state a duration component of a WQC (criterion-duration) - particularly some ;
types of human health (HH) criteria. (For reference purposes: EPA HH criteria for carcinogens are ,
presumed to have a duration of a year or more; whereas a duration of 30 days is employed in criteria i
addressing human pathogens and water contact recreation. EPA's aquatic life WQC for toxic chemicals
present acute and chronic concentrations applicable to exposure durations of (a) 1 hour and (b) 4 days,
respectively.)
j
For toxic ("'priority" pollutants) and protection of freshwater aquatic life, EPA guidance i
recommends use of a once in three year maximum allowable excursion recurrence frequency (Guidance
for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303 (d) and 305(b) of the.
Clean Water Act, Section III (F), EPA, 2003). Hence, for example, if a state freshwater aquatic life j
WQC were expressed as "1-hour average concentration not to surpass 22 ug/L", EPA would assume an '
applicable excursion frequency of no more than once in 3 years.
J. How should states handle shared waters? I
States with shared waters should make every effort to coordinate with each other in the
development of their Integrated Reports. Coordination should occur early in the process. Where
possible, states should work together to collect, assemble, solicit, and assess all readily available data and
information relevant to the shared waters. Assessments for waters that are shared by neighboring states
should be as consistent as possible. This is particularly important for segments listed in Category 5.
However, differing state WQS can make consistent attainment decisions difficult. In such cases, EPA
July 2005 42 '""
-------
2006IR Guidance
Regional offices and interstate commissions, where applicable, should assist in resolving inconsistencies
when they arise. The Integrated Report should document the coordination that has occurred between
neighboring states and interstate commissions.
Some interstate commissions are required to prepare a section 305(b) report, but the responsibility
of preparing Integrated Reports and section 303 (d) lists rests with the states. Data and information in an
interstate commission section 305(b) report should be considered by the states as one source of readily
available data and information when they prepare their IR and make decisions on segments to be placed
in Category 5; however, data in a section 305(b) interstate commission report should not be automatically
entered in a state IR or section 303(d) list without consideration by the state about whether such inclusion
is appropriate. EPA has made the necessary modification to its ADB system to ensure that interstate
commission data stays segregated from state data.
1C How does the state make attainment decisions when different types of data indicate a
different attainment status?14
To address the possibility of conflicting results among different types of data used to assess
attainment with WQS, EPA recommends that states apply the policy on independent applicability as
appropriate for making WQS attainment decisions. This policy was initially crafted to address
development of NPDES permit discharge limits. Its use is slightly different in the context of WQS
attainment decisions.
The intent of this policy is to protect against dismissing valuable information when evaluating
aquatic life use support, particularly in detecting impairment. EPA's policy on independent application is
based on the premise that any valid, representative dataset indicating an actual or projected water quality
impairment should not be ignored when one is determining the appropriate action to be taken. However,
EPA recognizes that there are circumstances when conflicting results should be investigated further
before the attainment or nonattainment decision is made. For example, states may obtain multiple
datasets of varying quality, which may influence the reliability of the assessment results.
Figure 4-1 elaborates on the use of the independent application policy in reconciling conflicting
results among different datasets used to assess attainment with aquatic life-based WQS. The decision
process begins in the upper left of Figure 4-1. When a state, territory, or authorized tribe has two or more
types of data that do not indicate consistent attainment status, it should determine whether differences in
assessment results can be attributed to differences in the quality of the datasets. For example, this may
involve consideration of analytical methods, review of sampling techniques, and detailed assessment of
datasets. When the differences are due to data quality issues, the independent application policy allows
for resolving the differences by cleaning the data or weighing the higher quality dataset more favorably in
the attainment decision.
rait K of Section IV has been adapted from pages 3-9 to 3-10 of EPA's Consolidated Assessment and
Listing Methodologies (CALM), July 2002.
July 2005 43
-------
2006IR Guidance
When detailed data analysis fails to identify data quality issues that explain the discrepancies, '
site-specific environmental conditions should be considered (e.g., effects of water chemistry, or the ability
of species to adapt over time). Site specific WQC may be explored via application of the water effects '
ratio, resident species recalculations, or other appropriate methods.
July 2005 44
-------
2006IR Guidance
Th*f« arc *
-------
2006IR Guidance
V. FIVE-PART CATEGORIZATION OF WATERS
Use of the Integrated Report format and the use of the five-part categorization scheme envisions
that each state provides a comprehensive description of the water quality standards attainment status of all
segments within a state. In this guidance, the term "segment" is synonymous with the term "assessment i
unit" (AU) used in previous IR Guidance. Fundamental to this accounting is the use of a consistent and
rational segmentation and geo-referencing approach for all segments including rivers, streams, lakes, '
wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters. There is no single approach to the development of a segmentation
scheme. However, it is important that the selected segmentation approach be consistent with the state's :
water quality standards and be capable of providing a spatial scale that is adequate to characterize the
WQS attainment status of the segment. The IRG provides some recommendations on how states may '
develop a segmentation scheme for monitoring, assessing and categorizing water quality conditions. '
Additionally, the IRG provides recommendations for assigning individual segments to the five-category' '
system. ,
i
A. Recommendations for Segmenting Waters
EPA recommends that states consider using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)15 coding ;
scheme to georeference their segments, where segments may comprise part of an NHD reach, an
individual NHD reach, or a collection of NHD reaches or parts of reaches. Alternatively, if a state has
already developed a comparable Geographic Information System (GIS) framework, EPA requests that ;
states provide any relevant information necessary to allow consistent georeferencing. Additionally, this <
information should be included in the state's ADB submission. States generally partition waters to
represent homogeneity in physical, biological or chemical conditions. This segmentation may reflect an a
priori knowledge of factors such as flow, channel morphology, substrate, riparian condition, adjoining '•
land uses, confluence with other waterbodies, and potential sources of pollutant loadings (both point and'
nonpoint). While there is no single default dimension for a segment size, states have utilized these or
similar principles when they defined the segments used in their water quality standards. Other factors '
may include the following: \
• The expected natural variability of the measured criteria associated with the WQSs. !
• The type of water (e.g., a small stream, a wide river, a tidal and stratified estuary, and coastal
shoreline). ,
• Time of travel of a parcel of water in the waterbody or segment or the magnitude of any tidal
excursions. (
• The amount of and type of data and information necessary to provide a reasonably accurate !
characterization of the criteria (or core indicators) associated with the designated uses in the
segment or waterbody. ;
• Any expected changes in significant influences in the watershed (land use, point or nonpoint j
sources of pollutants).
• Any site-specific concerns such as patchy or unique habitat distribution patterns or biological ;
population distributions. (
By making this recommendation, EPA is not equating availability of geographical information on a water
segment in the NHD with the legal definition of water of the U. S. under C WA.
July 2005 46 '~
-------
2006IR Guidance
Using NHD or other comparable GIS framework, a state should assign a discrete "address" or
geo-location to each segment, and document the process used for defining water segments in their
methodologies. The physical boundaries (beginning and end points) of a segment should be defined in
such a manner that a scientifically valid assessment of each and every segment can be made. The
individual size of a segment will vary based upon methodologies. Segments should, however, be larger
than a sampling station but small enough to represent a relatively homogenous parcel of water (with
regard to hydrology, land use influences, point and nonpoint source loadings, etc.).
B. How should segments be assigned to EPA's five reporting categories?
EPA continues to advocate the use of the five category approach for classifying (he WQS
attainment status for each segment. In this guidance document EPA refers to "designated uses" as the
basis and unit for reporting water quality. A segment is considered impaired when WQS16 are not being
supported and/or met, and is considered threatened when WQS are not expected to be fully supported
and/or met in the next listing cycle. In classifying the status of water quality in 2006, states have the
option to report each segment in one or more categories. EPA recommends that states use the following
five reporting categories to classify segments as meeting or not meeting applicable WQS:
Category 1: All designated uses are supported, no use is threatened;
Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all of the designated uses are
supported;
Category 3: There is insufficient available data and/or information to make a use support determination;
Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being
supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not needed;
Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being
supported or is threatened, and a TMDL is needed.
Exhibit 5-1 provides an example of how to consider designated uses in the categorization process.
EPA believes that the placement of segments into the five reporting categories best allows states to
document attainment of applicable WQSs, and to develop monitoring strategies that effectively respond to
the needs identified in the assessment, white ensuring that the attainment status of each water quality
standard applicable to a particular segment is addressed.
Water quality standards include designated use(s), criteria, and the antidegradation policy. Water quality
criteria are important elements of water quality standards and attainment of criteria should also be evaluated in
making listing decisions (See 40 CFR 130.7 (b)(3)). Failure to meet WQC warrant listing of waters under section
303(d). EPA has not developed guidance at this time on determining attainment status for antidegradation policies.
EPA recognizes that such policies, while an important part of WQS, may not lend themselves to "attainment"
determinations on a segment specific basis.
July 2005
47
-------
Exhibit 5-1. 2006 Integrated Reporting Guidance: Segment Categorization Guide
The following schematic describes a process states might consider using for determining the
placement of segments into the Integrated Report (IR) Categories. The process begins with the
assessment of the water quality standard attainment status (designated use(s), criteria) of each segment,
and concludes with the placement of each segment into one or more of the five IR Categories. The
assessment of the water quality standards attainment status should be consistent with the state's
assessment and listing methodology and must ensure that segments not meeting or not expected to meet
applicable water quality standards are identified. While the schematic focuses on the assessment of
designated uses (DU) for each segment, as previously stated all components of the water quality standard
are considered in the categorization of a segment.
Step-by-step process to categorize a segment
i
1. For each segment, assemble and consider all existing and readily available data and/or information to.
determine the support status for each individual designated use. I
2. Based on the data and information available, make support decisions for each DU in the segment and1
assign the appropriate symbol (•+, •-, ?, T, 4a, 4b, 4c - See Symbols and Definitions). j
3. Using the results of Step 2, place the segment into the appropriate category or categories. i
Symbols and Definitions:
t
•+ = The existing data and information shows that a use is supported.
•- = The existing data and information shows that a use is not supported.
? = There is insufficient existing data and information to make a use support determination, [
consistent with the state's assessment and listing methodology.
T = A use in this segment is currently being supported, but is THREATENED and it is projected :
not to be supporting by the next scheduled list submission date. !
4a = A TMDL to address a specific segment/pollutant combination has been approved or established
by EPA. j
4b = A use impairment caused by a pollutant is being addressed by the state through other pollution '
control requirements.
4c = A use is impaired, but the impairment is not caused by a pollutant. '
In the following schematic, each box represents one (1) segment. Each segment may contain one
or more DUs. After compiling and considering all existing and readily available data and information for
each DU in a specific segment, support decisions are made. Placement of the segment into the
appropriate category or categories is based on the sufficiency of the data and information, and the analysis
of whether the data demonstrates that the DU is supported. !
48
-------
SEGMENTS (1DU)
ASSESSMENT
SEGMENT #2 (2 DUs)
DU1DU2
ASSESSMENT
SEGMENT #3 (3 DUs)
DU1,
SEGMENT #4 (4 DUs)
DU1,DU2,DU3,DU4
SEGMENT CATEGORIZATION
ASSESSMENT
•+,•+,?
ASSESSMENT
DU1
DU2
DU3
DU4
ci-
Oi,:
SEGMENT 3
€»'
cz&m ^
4a
CS ';'
Additional examples are provided below to further illustrate the process of segment classification into
multiple categories.
DU1
DU2
DU3
DU4
Multi-Category
€1
C5
SEGMENT 1>; '
41)
C5
S1OM1NTF 1
SEGMENT a *
CS
4c
4c
SECBMQB* &
4h
States have the option to place segments into more than one of the five categories when
appropriate. The placement of segments into more than one category will allow states to:
49
-------
20061R Guidance
]. Demonstrate progress in the efforts to develop TMDLs,
2. Track progress as segments incrementally attain some, but not all water quality standards, and '
3. Identify those segments where there is a need to obtain additional data and information for j
purposes of determining attainment status of some water quality standards.
While EPA recommends that states adopt and utilize the IR format for reporting the status of their
water quality in 2006, states may choose to submit separate 303(d) and 305(b) reports. Furthermore, even'
if a state chooses to use the IR format, it may choose to place each segment into only one category and '
rely on the reporting capability of ADB to provide detail on the support status of all individual uses. ;
More detailed guidance for determining the appropriate categorization of segments is provided below. It [
is important to note that states must consider all existing and readily available data and information in ',
developing their section 303(d) lists, and may choose to assess a segment and assign the segment to a ',
category using data and information other than monitored data (e.g., land use, pollutant loading (
coefficients, remote sensing data, modeling, etc.). !
i
C. May a state use subcategories or additional categories in its Integrated Report? '
i
Yes, in order to refine their classifications, states may choose to establish new or additional I
subcategories in addition to the proposed five major categories. For example, a state may decide to divide
Category 3 into two subcategories in order to distinguish between those segments for which no data ,
and/or information exist from those segments for which some data and/or information exist, but the data ,
are insufficient to make a determination whether the segment is attaining applicable standards. A state
may also choose to use subcategories for segments placed into Category 3 when establishing monitoring .
priorities. For example, the state may place its segments into different subcategories depending on ,
whether the segment is high, medium, or low priority for follow-up monitoring based on information j
from probability-based monitoring, landscape or water quality models, land use data, or limited site- '
specific monitoring.
D. Which segments should states include in Category 1?
Segments may be placed into Category 1 if all designated uses are supported, and no use is
threatened. When a segment meets the Category 1 requirements, the state has concluded, consistent with
their water quality standards (and their assessment methodology) that sufficient data and information exist
to determine that all applicable water quality standards are being attained, thereby making the use of i
Category 2 unnecessary for this segment, (see Category 2 discussion below). By placing a segment into
Category 1, the state is also concluding that there are adequate data and there is sufficient information to j
make a determination for any water quality standard, making the use of Category 3 unnecessary for this
segment (see Category 3 discussion below). • ,
July 2005 50
-------
2006IR Guidance
I. In order to place a segment in Category 1, must states have specific data and information
regarding the status of each water quality standard?1'
No. States may describe in either their assessment methodology or in their water quality
standards a subset or hierarchy of indicators (as described in the CALM guidance and Elements of a State
Water Monitoring and Assessment Program) that serve to characterize whether conditions in a segment
are capable of meeting all applicable water quality standards.
Because limited resources affect the design of water quality monitoring programs, the state
should use a tiered approach to monitoring that includes a core set of baseline indicators selected to
represent each applicable designated use, plus supplemental indicators selected according to site-specific
or project-specific decision criteria. Using this tiered approach, the state should be able to make the best
use of its resources to meet water quality decision needs, including assessing water quality standards
attainment and designated use support, identifying needed changes to water quality standards, describing
causes and sources of impairments, developing water quality-based source controls, and assessing
whether water quality standards are attained. Where the assessment of the supplemental indicators
applicable to every designated use in a segment documents that all uses are supported and no use is
threatened, that segment should be placed into Category 1.
The monitoring strategy should define a core set of indicators (e.g., water quality parameters) for
each water resource type that include physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological, and biological/ecological
endpoints as appropriate, that reflect designated uses, and that can be used routinely to assess attainment
with applicable water quality standards throughout the state. This core set of indicators is monitored to
provide Statewide or basin/watershed level information on the fundamental attributes of the aquatic
environment and to assess water quality standards attainment/impairment status. Previously, chemical
and physical indicators were emphasized; however, biological monitoring and assessment should assume
a prominent role in state monitoring as well.
The monitoring strategy should also describe the process the state uses for identifying
supplemental indicators to monitor. Supplemental indicators are often key to identifying causes and
sources of impairments and targeting appropriate source controls. These supplemental indicators may
include each water quality criteria in the state's water quality standards, any pollutants controlled by the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and any other constituents or indicators of
concern.
Table 5-1 presents examples of recommended core and supplemental water quality indicators.
The Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology provides additional information on
considerations for selection of supplemental indicators (see
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html, Chapter 10).
17 i
Part D(l) of Section V has been adapted from Section II (Part D) of Elements of a State Water
Monitoring and Assessment Program; Office of Water, US EPA; EPA 841-B-03-003, March 2003.
July 2005
51
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 5-1. Recommended Water Quality Indicators for General Designated Use Categories.
Recommended
Core
Indicators
Supplemental
Indicators
Aquatic Life &
Wildlife
*Condition of
biological
communities (EPA
recommends the use
of at least two
assemblages)
*Dissolved oxygen
"Temperature
"Conductivity
*pH
"Habitat assessment
"Flow
"Nutrients
"Landscape
conditions (e.g., %
cover of land uses)
Additional
indicators for lakes:
"Eutrophic
condition
Additional
indicators for
wetlands:
"Wetland
hydrogeomorphic
settings and
functions
"Ambient toxicity
"Sediment toxicity
"Other chemicals of
concern in water
column or sediment
"Health of
organisms
Recreation
"Pathogen
indicators
(E. coli,
enterococci)
"Nuisance plant
Growth
"Flow
"Nutrients
"Chlorophyll
"Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
Additional
indicators for
lakes:
"Secchi depth
Additional
indicators for
wetlands:
"Wetland
hydrogeomorphic
settings and
functions
"Odier chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
"Hazardous
chemicals
"Aesthetics
Drinking Water
"Trace metals
"Pathogens
"Nitrates
"Salinity
*Sediments/TDS
"Flow
"Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
"Volatile organic
compounds
(VOCs) (in
reservoirs)
"Hydrophyllic
pesticides
"Nutrients
"Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
"Algae
Fish/Shellfish
Consumption
"Pathogens
"Mercury
"Chlordane
"DDT
"PCBs
"Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
uses)
"Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
1
|
Source: Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program; Office of Water, US EPA; EPA
841-B-03-003, March 2003.
July 2005
52
-------
2006IR Guidance
2. Should states use biosurvey data to list a segment as in attainment for aquatic life use support?
EPA encourages the use of biosurvey data in concert with other specified and supplemental
indicators for making an aquatic life use attainment determination. Properly developed biosurvey data
can provide direct evidence of aquatic life use support. States may develop, consistent with their
assessment methodology and water quality standards, their own bioassessment approach to assessing
aquatic life use support. CALM and the 2003 Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program, recommend the use of at least two assemblages (e.g., fish and macroinvertebrates) in such
assessments (See Table 5-1 taken from Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program).
3. What data should states have to determine that a segment is meeting a "fish consumption " use?
Assessment determinations regarding fish/shellfish consumption uses should be based on
parameter-specific data for two groups of pollutants: (1) human pathogens, or indicators thereof, and (2)
chemicals with high bioaccumuJation potential. Among the hioaccumulative pollutants, EPA
recommends mercury, chlordane, Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) as core indicators.
£. Which segments should states include in Category 2?
Segments should be placed in Category 2 if the state determines that available data and/or
information indicate that some, but not all of the designated uses are supported. If the state has chosen to
use the multi-category approach, segments reported in Category 2 may also be reported in Categories 3,4,
or 5 depending upon the results of the analysis of all available data and information on the other uses in
the segment. However, if a single-category approach is used, Category 5 takes precedence over all other
categories.
F. Which segments should states include in Category 3?
Segments should be placed in Category 3 when there is insufficient available data and/or
information to make a use support determination. Category 3 is consistent with and responds to one of
the recommendations in the National Research Council's (NRC) report, Assessing the TMDL Approach
to Water Quality Management (2001), in which the authors suggested that a category be created for those
segments where there existed insufficient data and/or information to assess the use. The state should
identify those segments that are higher and lower priority for followup monitoring, and may do so using
predicative tools such as probability surveys or landscape models. Category 3 provides states with the
flexibility to monitor these segments in a manner consistent with their overall monitoring strategy and
schedule.
G. Which segments should states include in Category 4?
Segments may be placed in Category 4 if available data and/or information indicate that at least
one designated use is not being supported or is threatened, but a TMDL is not needed. States may place
segments that meet this definition in one of the following three subcategories:
• a state developed TMDL has been approved by EPA or a TMDL has been established by
EPA for any segment-pollutant combination (Category 4a);
July 2005
53
-------
2006 JR Guidance
• other required control measures are expected to result in the attainment of an applicable ',
water quality standard in a reasonable period of time (Category 4b);
• the non-attainment of any applicable water quality standard for the segment is the result 1
of pollution and is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4c). i
i
/. Which segments should states include in Category 4a? '
i
Segments should be placed in Category 4a when a TMDL to address a specific segment/pollutant
combination has been approved or established by EPA. Once the TMDL has been approved or !
established, the state should implement the TMDL as soon as practicable. Additionally, EPA encourages
states to provide monitoring schedules for these segments to ensure that sufficient data and information ,
are obtained to document progress of the implementation actions towards meeting the applicable water i
quality standards. Segments in this category may also be included in other categories, as appropriate (See
Exhibit 5-1). I
t
Z Which segments should states include in Category 4b?
t
EPA regulations recognize that alternative pollution control requirements may obviate the need '
for a TMDL. Segments are not required to be included on the section 303(d) list if technology-based
effluent limitations required by the Act, more stringent effluent limitations required by state, local, or (
federal authority, or "[ojther pollution control requirements (e.g., best management practices) required by
local, State or Federal authority" are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards j
(see 40 CFR 130.7(b)(l)) within a reasonable period of time. This guidance acknowledges that the most
effective method for achieving water quality standards for some water quality impaired segments may be
through controls developed and implemented without TMDLs (referred to as a "4b alternative"). The I
discussion below focuses on the use of "other pollution control requirements" as a basis for the '
conclusion that a segment does not need a TMDL.
a. What demonstration does EPA expect a state to make to support a successful Category 4b |
proposal? i
i
EPA will evaluate on a case-by-case basis a state's decisions to exclude certain segment/pollutant
combinations from Category 5 (the section 303(d) list) based on the 4b alternative. States should provide
in their submission the rationale which supports their conclusion that there are "other pollution control
requirements" sufficiently stringent to achieve applicable water quality standards within a reasonable [
period of time. >
i
Specifically, this rationale should include: (1) a statement of the problem causing the impairment,
(2) a description of the proposed implementation strategy and supporting pollution controls necessary to
achieve water quality standards, including the identification of point and nonpoint source loadings that'
when implemented assure the attainment of all applicable water quality standards, (3) an estimate or
projection of the time when water quality standards will be met, (4) a reasonable schedule for '
implementing the necessary pollution controls, (5) a description of, and schedule for, monitoring
milestones for tracking and reporting progress to EPA on the implementation of the pollution controls, :
and (6) a commitment to revise as necessary the implementation strategy and corresponding pollution '
controls if progress towards meeting water quality standards is not being shown. EPA acknowledges th!at
the level of rigor necessary to support the state's rationale will vary depending on the complexity of the
July 2005 54
-------
20061R Guidance
water impairments and corresponding implementation strategies. Note that a state could pursue water
quality trading under 4b, so long as it follows the principles described in the Agency's relevant guidance.
If the Agency determines that the controls are not, in fact, "requirements," or that they will not
result in attainment of applicable water quality standards within a reasonable time, then EPA may
disapprove the state's failure to include the segment at issue on the section 303(d) list (i.e., Category 5)
and add the segment to the list. In subsequent list submissions, EPA may determine that a segment that
has been placed into Category 4b must go back into Category 5, if the circumstances have changed such
that the state can no longer support its original 4b demonstration.
b. What constitutes acceptable "pollution control requirements" to support Category 4b
alternatives?
Because of the case-specific nature of water quality impairments and controls designed to address
such impairments, EPA cannot identify classes of controls that will always be adequate to support a
conclusion that a segment is not required to be included in Category 5. In evaluating whether a particular
set of pollution controls are in fact "requirements" as specified in EPA's regulation, the Agency will
consider a number of factors including: (1) authority (local, state, federal) under which the controls are
required and will be implemented with respect to sources contributing to the water quality impairment
(examples may include: self-executing state or local regulations, permits, and contracts and grant/funding
agreements that require implementation of necessary controls), (2) existing commitments made by the
sources to implementation of the controls (including an analysis of the amount of actual implementation
that has already occurred), (3) the availability of dedicated funding for the implementation of the controls,
and (4) other relevant factors as determined by EPA depending on case-specific circumstances.
Since the overriding objective of the 4b alternative is to promote implementation activities
designed to achieve water quality standards in a reasonable period of time, for all of the factors listed
above, EPA will evaluate each 4b alternative on a case-by-case basis, including in particular the existence
of identifiable consequences for the failure to implement the proposed pollution controls. Depending on
the specific situation, "other pollution control requirements" may be requirements other than those based
on statutory or regulatory provisions, as long as some combination of the factors listed above are present
and will lead to achievement of WQSs within a reasonable period of time. For example, established
plans of government agencies that require for attainment of WQS with a reasonable period of time may
qualify even when their components include incentive-based actions by private parties. States may also
choose to rely on controls that have already been implemented where there is sufficient certainty that
implementation will continue until WQS are achieved and will not be reversed. Because the controls are
already in place and achieving progress, EPA may consider such controls to be requirements even if their
implementation did not occur pursuant to binding legal authority.
c. What constitutes a reasonable period of time for purposes of 4b?
EPA expects that segments impaired by a pollutant but not listed under section 303(d) based on
the implementation of existing control requirements will attain WQSs within a reasonable period of time.
What constitutes a "reasonable time" will vary depending on factors such as the initial severity of the
impairment, the cause of the impairment (e.g., point source discharges, in place sediment fluxes,
atmospheric deposition, nonpoint source runoff), riparian condition, channel condition, the nature and
behavior of the specific pollutant (e.g., conservative, reactive), the size and complexity of the segment (a
July 2005
55
-------
2006IR Guidance
simple first-order stream, a large thermally-stratified lake, a density-stratified estuary, and tidally- '
influenced coastal segment), the nature of the control action, cost, public interest, etc. States should !
consider such factors and provide, as stated in Section IV.G.2.A. above, a time estimate by which the
controls will result in WQS attainment, including an explanation of the basis for their conclusion. EPA
will evaluate on a case-specific basis whether the estimated time for WQS attainment is reasonable. |
i
d. What are some examples to illustrate how the preceding guidance would be applied? ;
EPA will evaluate on a case-specific basis each set of controls a state uses to support a decision to,
include a segment in Category 4b. The following circumstances are examples of controls which may be !
sufficient to support such a decision, depending on the facts of the specific case:
i
• A waterbody is impaired solely by point sources. Each point source has an NPDES permit j
containing limits sufficient to implement WQS in that waterbody by the end of the permit terms. •
• A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint source sediment input. The state has adopted regulations '
requiring sources to implement certain best management practices (BMPs), and can enforce the \
regulatory requirements under state law. The state demonstrates that implementation of BMPs by(
these sources will result in meeting WQS in the waterbody in a reasonable time. j
• A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint sources and the state has entered into contracts for source
remediation. Implementation of the contract terms will result in attainment of WQS in the ;
waterbody in a reasonable time. While the state cannot obtain specific performance as a contract
remedy, it can file a claim for significant monetary damages if the terms are not met. i
• A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint sources which have already implemented some or all of
certain measures that will result in attainment of WQS in that waterbody in a reasonable time.
The controls are unlikely to be removed or reversed (e.g., watershed restoration measures '
pursuant to 319 grant). j
• A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint sources within federal lands where a forest management
plan has been developed and is being implemented. In this case, certain elements are included in
the forest management plan emphasizing BMP certification programs, require adaptive
adjustments of practices, and specify monitoring options needed to demonstrate compliance with
state water quality standards. '
3. Which segments should states include in Category 4c? '
Segments should be placed in Category 4c when the states demonstrates that the failure to meet [
an applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but instead is caused by other types of -
pollution. Segments placed in Category 4c do not require the development of a TMDL. Pollution, as
defined by the CWA is "the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, ,
and radiological integrity of water" (section 502(19)). In some cases, the pollution is caused by the f
presence of a pollutant and a TMDL is required. In other cases, pollution does not result from a pollutant
and a TMDL is not required. States should schedule these segments for monitoring to confirm that there
continues to be no pollutant associated with the failure to meet the water quality standard and to support'
water quality management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment. Examples of j
circumstances where an impaired segment may be placed in Category 4c include segments impaired
solely due to lack of adequate flow or to stream channelization.
July 2005 56
-------
2006IR Guidance
EPA encourages the state to collect or assemble additional data and/or information to verify the
initial placement of the segment, and to re-categorize the segment based on the assessment of the
additional data and/or information where appropriate.
H. Which segments should states include in Category 5?
This category constitutes the section 303(d) list that EPA will review and approve or disapprove
pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7. States must include on their section 303(d) list those waters required to be
listed by the Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing regulations. Segments must be placed in
Category 5 when, based on existing and readily available data and/or information, technology-based
effluent limitations required by the Act, more stringent effluent limitations, and other pollution control
requirements are not sufficient to implement an applicable water quality standard and a TMDL is needed.
40CFR130.7(b)(l).
A segment that is included in Category 5 may also be included in other categories where
appropriate. For example, the segment may be attaining some applicable standards, in which case it may
also be included in Category 2. As the state develops and EPA approves TMDLs for the pollutants
identified as causing a Category 5 segment to exceed an applicable standard, the segment can be placed in
Category 4a, but must also remain in Category 5 if it is exceeding any applicable standard and a TMDL
needs to be developed for the pollutant causing that exceedance. However, note that Category 5 takes
precedence if the state chooses to list a segment in only one category.
/. Is Category 5 of the Integrated Report for 2006 a new section 303(d) list, and must the state
account for all segments previously listed as needing a TMDL in the 2004 list?
The section 303(d) list (segments hi Category 5) once approved (or, if necessary, established by
EPA following disapproval of a state's list) is a new list that replaces the previous list. The time frame
for establishing TMDLs should be 8 to 13 years from the date of the original listing. For example, a
segment originally included on the 1998 section 303(d) list, and still identified on the 2006 submission as
requiring a TMDL, should be addressed by 2011.
Segments included on previous 303 (d) lists or previously placed in Category 5 should be
accounted for in subsequent submissions. However, the fact that a segment was previously included in
Category 5 (or on the 303(d) list) does not necessarily mean that it must remain hi Category 5 until a
TMDL is established. In some cases, removing a segment from Category 5 prior to TMDL development
may be warranted. For example, the state may determine that the conditions have changed such that the
segment is no longer required to be on the section 303(d) list (e.g., if new data and/or information shows
that the applicable standard is met). Alternatively, the state may determine that other required control
measures are sufficient to implement the applicable standard, and therefore may move the segment to
Category 4b. The state may also determine based on the assessment of new data and information that
pollutants do not cause or contribute to the impairment of the segment and therefore may move the
segment to Category 4c. The state may also demonstrate that the original Category 5 listing was
erroneous (i.e., not consistent with its assessment methodology or WQSs).
EPA may request, as discussed below, that the state demonstrate good cause for not including
individual segments (including previously listed segments) in Category 5 (40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv)). EPA
may request this demonstration if the state does not develop an adequate record supporting the basis for
July 2005
57
-------
2006IR Guidance,
the decision or does not specifically explain its decision to move segments previously listed in Category 5
to other categories. i
2. What constitutes good cause for not including in the current submission segments that were '
previously included in Category 5 (the section 303(d) List) ?
i
To provide interested stakeholders with a more complete understanding of the changes that may
have occurred from one IR cycle (or 303(d) submission) to the next, and to help expedite EPA's review
and approval/disapproval action for those segments in Category 5, EPA recommends that states submit '
with their IR (or their 303(d) list) a table documenting changes in segment placement or categorization '
from the 2004 IR, and a brief summary of the basis for those changes. Table 5-2 provides an example of j
how states might do this.
Table 5-2. Documentation of "Good Cause" to Move Segments from Category 5.
Segment previously
in Category 5
Segment 2 14
Segment 266
Segment 321
Segment 349
Segment 350
New placement
in 2006
Category 4a
Category 4c
Category 4b
Category I
Category 3
Explanation for change
TMDL completed and approved by EPA for Chromium.
The analysis of new data concluded that the aquatic life
use impairment is solely due to low river flow.
The state has proposed an alternative approach to attain
WQS by implementing required controls via NPDES
permits.
The assessment of new data documents that applicable
WQS are now being attained.
Previous listing in Category 5 was inconsistent with
assessment methodology. Available data insufficient to
determine attainment status.
In addition, EPA may request that states provide "good cause" for not including on the 2006 '
section 303(d) list (Category 5) submission segments that were previously included on the list. If EPA \
makes such a request, the state must explain its basis for not including the segment on the list. Consistent
with 40 CFR 130.7(b), "good cause" for not including segments in Category 5 may be based on the I
following determinations:
• The assessment and interpretation of more recent or more accurate data in the record demonstrate
that the applicable WQS(s) is being met. '
• The results of more sophisticated water quality modeling demonstrate that the applicable WQS(s)
is being met. i
• Flaws in the original analysis of data and information led to the segment being incorrectly listed!
• A demonstration pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7(b)(l)(ii) that there are effluent limitations required by
state or local authorities that are more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations,
required by the CWA, and that these more stringent effluent limitations will result in the '
attainment of WQSs for the pollutant causing the impairment '
July 2005
58
-------
2006IR Guidance
• A demonstration pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7(b)(l)(iii) that there are other pollution control
requirements required by state, local, or federal authority that will result in attainment of WQSs
for a specific pollutant(s) within a reasonable time (i.e., 4b).
• Documentation that the state included on a previous section 303(d) list an impaired segment that
was not required to be listed by EPA regulations, e.g., segments where there is no pollutant
associated with the impairment,
• Approval or establishment by EPA of a TMDL since the last section 303(d) list.
• A state inappropriately listed a segment that is within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
section 1151.
• Other relevant information that supports the decision not to include the segment on the section
303(d) list.
EPA has the authority to disapprove a submission if EPA identifies existing and readily available
information that shows a segment is required by the CWA and EPA regulations be included in Category 5
(the section 303(d) list). In that situation, EPA will partially disapprove the state's list and identify
additional segments for inclusion in Category 5.
3. Can previously listed segments (without new data or information) be delisted solely because they
have not yet been assessed with a new methodology?
No. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to remove segments previously listed in
Category 5 (without new data or information) solely because they have not yet been assessed with a new
methodology. However, there are some situations where a segment may be removed from Category 5
without relying on data and information collected after the date of the previous list. For example, if the
state evaluates the pre-existing data and information using a new or revised methodology that accurately
reflect the applicable WQS, and the results of that evaluation provide a "good cause" basis for not
including the segment on the 2006 section 303(d) list, the segment would no longer need to be included in
Category 5. However, the delisting should only occur if it is determined that the basis for the decision is
consistent with the state's applicable WQSs and is reasonable.
4. Must Category 5 include threatened segments?
Yes, states must include threatened segments in Category 5 where appropriate (40 CFR 130.7(b)).
The definition of "water quality limited segment" in EPA's regulations implementing CWA section
303(d) includes waters not expected to meet applicable water quality standards, which EPA refers to as
"threatened" waters. 40 CFR 130.20. EPA recommends that states consider as threatened those
segments that are currently attaining WQS, but are projected as the result of applying a valid statistical
methodology to exceed WQS by the next listing cycle {every two years). For example, segments should
be listed if the analysis of existing data and information demonstrates a declining trend in the segment's
WQS, and the projected trend will result in a failure to meet that standard by the date of the next list (i.e.,
2008 for purposes of the 2006 assessment cycle). The state assessment and listing methodology should
describe how the state identifies threatened segments.
July 2005
59
-------
2006IR Guidance
5. Must Category 5 include an impaired segment if the specific pollutant causing the impairment '
has not been identified?
Yes, if a designated use is not supported and the segment is impaired or threatened, the fact that |
the specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for excluding the segment from Category 5.
These segments must be listed unless the state can demonstrate that no pollutant(s) causes or contribute to
the impairment. Prior to establishing a TMDL for such segments the pollutant causing the impairment <
must be identified. ;
i
If the assessment of the new data and information demonstrates that the use impairment is not ;
associated with a pollutant and is attributable only to other types of pollution (e.g., flow or habitat j
alteration) the segment may be placed into Category 4c. EPA has developed guidance to assist states in ;
identifying the causes of a biological impairment. This document, "Stressor Identification Guidance," '
was released in December 2000 (EPA 822-B-00-025). This document is also available on the Internet at: <
http://www.epa.gov/ost/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.pdf. !
i
6. When should Category 5 include segments covered by fish and shellfish consumption advisories? J
EPA generally believes that fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain shellfish
growing area classifications based on segment specific information demonstrate impairment of CWA '
section 101 (a) "fishable" uses. This applies to fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain
shellfish area classifications for all pollutants that constitute potential risks to human health, regardless of
the source of the pollutant. Furthermore, advisories based on the results from probability surveys or other
predictive tools having a high degree of confidence (i.e., 95%) may also form the basis of listing segments
as impaired. States, on their own prerogative, may choose to place segments into Category 5 (or on the ]
section 303(d) list) using probability surveys when fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain
shellfish area classifications constitute potential risks to human health. '
For purposes of determining whether a segment is impaired and should be included on section '.
303(d) lists states are required to consider all existing and readily available data and information (see 40 .
CFR 130.7). This should include physical, chemical and biological data, including data on pathogens i
(such as bacteria and phytotoxins) as well as fish and shellfish tissue concentration data, where such data1
are existing and readily available. States collect several types of monitoring data to help determine if ;
segments are attaining or maintaining applicable water quality standards. If a state does not consider
particular existing and readily available data and information in deciding which segments are impaired (
and must be placed on the section 303(d) list, they must provide an explanation to EPA of why they did .
not use such data and information. I
While numeric human health criteria for ambient water column concentrations of pollutants are &
basis for determining impairment, the attainment of such criteria does not always mean that designated
uses are being protected. Segment-specific factors sometimes cause pollutants, including pathogens, to '
accumulate in fish and shellfish tissue at higher levels than predicted by the methodology used to derive'
the numeric human health criteria. Examples of such factors include water temperature, nutrient levels, [
food web structure, the concentration of dissolved organic carbon in the ambient water, and
accumulations in the sediment. Hence, a segment can be meeting numeric ambient water quality criteria,
but not attaining the designated uses because fish or shellfish tissue concentrations exceed levels that are
protective of human health. In instances where tissue concentrations indicate an impairment of the '
July 2005
60
-------
2006IR Guidance
designated use, even though ambient water column concentrations of pollutants do not indicate an
exceedance, EPA recommends states translate the applicable narrative criteria on a site- specific basis or
adopt site specific numeric criteria to account for higher than expected exposures from contaminated fish
or shellfish tissue and protect designated uses.
Applicable shellfish growing area classifications should be used as part of determinations of
attainment of water quality standards and listing of impaired segments. Shellfish growing area
classifications are developed by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) using water column
and tissue data (where available), and information from sanitary surveys of the contributing watershed, to
protect public health. The states review these NSSP classifications every three years. There are certain
NSSP classifications and data that do not necessarily indicate WQS violation. These include:
"Prohibited" classifications set as a precautionary measure due to the proximity of wastewater treatment
discharges, or absence of a required sanitary survey; shellfish tissue pathogen data (which can fluctuate
based on short-term conditions not representative of general water quality); or short-term actions to place
growing areas in the closed status.
When deciding whether to identify a segment as impaired, states need to determine whether there
are impairments of designated uses and narrative criteria, as well as the numeric criteria. Although the
CWA does not explicitly direct the use of fish and shellfish consumption advisories or NSSP
classifications to determine attainment of water quality standards, states are required to consider all
existing and readily available data and information to identify impaired segments on their section 303(d)
lists. For purposes of determining whether a segment is impaired and should be included on a section
303(d) list, EPA considers a fish or shellfish consumption advisory, a NSSP classification, and the
supporting data, to be existing and readily available data and information that demonstrates non-
attainment of a section 101(a) "fishable" use when:
• the advisory is based on fish and shellfish tissue data,
• a lower than "Approved" NSSP classification is based on water column and shellfish tissue
data (and this is not a precautionary "Prohibited" classification or the state water quality
standard does not identify lower than "Approved" as attainment of the standard),
• the data are collected from the specific segment in question, and
• the risk assessment parameters (e.g., toxicity, risk level, exposure duration and
consumption rate) of the advisory or classification are cumulatively equal to or less protective
than those in the state's water quality standards.
This applies to all pollutants that constitute potential risks to human health, regardless of the
source of the pollutant. However, for fish/shellfish advisories for "dioxin and dioxin-like compounds",
due to unique risk characterization issues, listing decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
EPA acknowledges that in some cases, fish and shellfish consumption advisories may not
demonstrate that a section 101 (a) "fishable" use is not being attained in an individual segment. For
example, a state may have issued a statewide or regional warning regarding fish tissue contaminated with
a bioaccumulative pollutant, based on data from a subset of segments. A state may use a higher fish
consumption value in determining the need for an advisory compared to the value used in establishing
water quality criteria for the protection of human health. As noted above, a state may also classify
shellfish growing areas "Prohibited" as a precautionary measure due to the proximity of wastewater
treatment discharges or where a required sanitary survey has not been conducted. In such instances, these
July 2005
61
-------
2006IR Guidance l
segments need not be listed as impaired under section 303(d) unless there are segment specific data (and j
the data were not considered during the development or review of a non-precautionary NSSP ,
classification), showing non-attainment of section 101(a) uses. (
I
Some fish and shellfish consumption advisories and NSSP classifications are based on Food and '
Drug Administration (FDA) action levels as opposed to EPA's risk-based methodology for the protection <
of human health. FDA action levels are established to protect consumers of interstate snipped, '
commercially marketed fish and shellfish rather than fish and shellfish caught and consumed within the •
state. FDA action levels also include non-risk based factors (e.g., economic impacts) in their derivation, ,
while water quality criteria must protect the designated uses without regard to economic impacts. i
Where tissue contamination that triggers an advisory based on FDA action levels indicates an
exceedance of state human health criteria, the advisory is an indication that section 101(a) "fishable" usesj
are not attained, and therefore, these segments should be placed into Category 5 or included on the 303 (d)
list. j
f
7. How should Category 5 handle segments for which WQS are being revised or where temporary ,
variances are in place? I
i
The attainment decision must be based on the applicable WQS. In the case of a standard that is >
being revised, that standard is not applicable until it has been approved by EPA. 40 CFR 131.21.
Therefore states must include in Category 5 segments that do not meet an applicable WQS at the time of'
listing, even if the new standard is in the process of being revised to be less stringent, until such time as '
EPA approves the revised standard. However, these segments would not have to be considered a high ,
priority for TMDL scheduling. If EPA approves a revised standard in the future, the segment may be i
removed from the section 303(d) list at that time provided the segment does not meet the listing !
requirements with respect to the new standard. With respect to variances, which are temporary and '
usually apply to a particular discharger, but may also apply to a segment, the applicable WQS typically is
the underlying standard, and therefore the segment should be placed in Category 5 if it does not support |
one or more of the designated uses in the underlying standard. >
I
8. Must Category 5 include a segment where the criterion has been exceeded, but the exceedance iq
the result of background or natural conditions? '
i
hi some cases, a segment may exhibit water quality characteristics or chemical concentrations ;
approaching or exceeding those levels established in the state's water quality standards due solely to non-
anthropogenic causes. If the state's water quality standards include a specific exclusion for exceedances
caused by "natural conditions", these segments would not be considered impaired (i.e., they could be
excluded from Categories 4 and 5). These segments should instead be placed into Categories 1 through 3
as appropriate. For such segments, these background or natural conditions can be defined by assessing the
results of water quality monitoring efforts, by the use of predictive models, or a characterization based on
data from a watershed with similar hydrologic, land use, and pollutant loading characteristics. '
July 2005
62
-------
2006IR Guidance
9, What additional information is needed for segments in Category 5?
Identification of Pollutants
Section 130.7(b)(4) requires states to identify, for each segment included on the section 303(d)
list (Category 5), the "pollutants causing or expected to cause violations of the applicable water quality
standards." For the 2006 listing cycle, segments identified as impaired or threatened based on biological
criteria should be included in Category 5 unless the state demonstrates that a pollutant is not causing the
impairment, or inclusion in Categories 4a or 4b is warranted. States must identify all pollutants that are
known to be causing the impairment of a segment.
Prioritization and TMDL Schedule
Section 303(d)(l) requires states to "establish a priority ranking" for the segments it identifies on
the list, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such segments, and to
establish TMDLs "in accordance with the priority ranking." Consistent with section 130.7(b)(4) each
state shall also submit biennially a priority ranking including waters targeted for TMDL development in
the next two years. Each listed pollutant-segment combination (i.e., those in Category 5) must receive a
clear priority ranking, which EPA recommends be either in the form of a scheduled TMDL completion
date or a ranking such as high, medium, or low. States have considerable flexibility in deciding how best
to apply these factors in prioritizing their list of waters needing TMDLs. For example, a waterbody with
a severe water quality problem may be given a high priority for TMDL development in light of the
severity of the concern. Conversely, a severe water quality problem may require complex analysis before
developing a TMDL, and the state may therefore choose to give it a lower priority to allow time to collect
necessary information and complete the analysis. Thus, the most severe water quality problems or the
most toxic pollutants need not always be given the highest priority for TMDL development, if
circumstances warrant a lower priority. EPA will review the priority ranking but will not take action to
approve or disapprove it.
Federal regulations provide that "schedules for submissions of TMDLs shall be determined by the
Regional Administrator and the State" (40 CFR 130.7(d)(l)). Factors such as the state's use of a rotating
basin approach or commitments specified in court orders or consent decrees may be considered when
states develop priorities and schedules. EPA recommends that states develop a schedule for establishing
TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable and that the schedule (1) identifies which TMDLs will be
established in each year of the upcoming integrated reporting cycle and (2) estimates the approximate
number of TMDLs to be established for each year thereafter. EPA encourages the states to ensure that the
schedule provides that all TMDLs for every pollutant-segment combination listed on previous section
303(d) lists be established in a time frame that is no longer than 8 to 13 years from the time the pollutant-
segment combination is first identified in Category 5. EPA will not take any action on the schedule. The
schedule is intended to help the public and EPA to understand the state's priorities and assist in work
planning.
In developing their schedules, states will need to decide which TMDLs are higher priority than
others. States need not specifically identify each TMDL as high, medium or low priority. Instead, the
schedule itself can reflect the state's priority ranking. The CWA does not prescribe a particular method of
expressing a priority ranking, and EPA believes a TMDL schedule is a reasonable, efficient way to
demonstrate priority ranking. In some circumstances, the order in which TMDLs are established might be
July 2005
63
-------
2006IR Guidance
1
subject to some modifications as the schedule is implemented, based on logistical efficiencies or data
availability.
July 2005
64
-------
2006IR Guidance
VI. REPORTING RESULTS
. States are required to submit their water quality report (integrated or separate 303 (d) and 305(b))
to EPA by April 1,2006. At this time, states should also submit their assessment results electronically in
the ADB or compatible data management system along with georeferencing information. The EPA
regional offices will provide states in their regions with the appropriate contact information for submitting
both the water quality report and electronic assessment results.
As part of the review of the submittals, the EPA regional offices will coordinate with the states to
makes revisions to (if necessary) and finalize the electronic assessment results. The EPA regional offices
will provide the electronic assessment results to EPA headquarters when the results are ready to be
incorporated into the National Assessment Database (NAD).
July 2005
65
-------
I
2006IR Guidance ]
GLOSSARY I
AssembleJdata and information') Through solicitation and other means, gathering all existing and readily >
available water quality-related data and information. 1
Assessment Unit (AID. A waterbody whose attainment status is reported in the Integrated Report. An All,
must be named and located based on the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Where the states's or
territory's spatial resolution is on a finer scales than NHD, EPA will translate that resolution into the i
NHD. " I
!
Attainment The condition of meeting applicable water quality standards. '
i
Assessment Making a decision, based on all valid (accepted^) existing and readily available water quality,
-related data and information, about the condition of a segment with regard to WQS (i.e., making a WQS \
attainment status determination.) ',
Averaging period The period of time over which the receiving water concentration is averaged for j
comparison with criteria concentrations (see also Criterion-Duration). (
i
Categorization determination Deciding in which of EPA's five summary categories (or a state's
equivalent system) a particular segment-designated use combination or segment-pollutant combination ,
belongs. >
t
Causefs) of Impairment The stressor(s), whose presence in a waterbody is/are, singly or in combination,!
causing or contributing to failure to meet any applicable WQS. Impairment causes include, but are not '
limited to, pollutants and other forms of pollution. (
i
Characterization determination Making, based on all valid existing and readily available water quality-'
related information, a WQS attainment status determination; or, deciding that additional data collection j
and analysis will be needed before attainment status can be determined. A characterization determination
can be made with regard to one or more, or all, of the WQS applicable to a segment. i
Consider (data and information') Determining whether individual data points, data sets, or other forms of
information meet previously published quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) specifications (see
also evaluate (data and information)). Data and other information meeting such specifications is valid i
Criterion-Duration The period of time (averaging period) over which ambient data is averaged for
comparison with a criterion-magnitude. For example, certain EPA WQC for protection of aquatic life are
expressed, in part, as 4-day average concentrations of a particular pollutant (i.e., the criterion-duration is 4
days). WQC expressed as a "concentration not to surpass (supercede, exceed, etc.)" are often called
"instantaneous criteria", in that their duration/averaging period is just a second (instant). '
i
Criterion-Frequency That element of a numeric WQC describing how often waterbody conditions can
surpass the combined magnitude and duration components (i.e., specifying the allowed number of
excursions that can occur within a certain period time (i.e., the acceptable rate of excursions). For i
example, certain EPA aquatic life WQC are stated as "the 4-day average concentration of the pollutant j
July 2005
66
-------
2006IR Guidance
shall not supercede ug/L more often than once every 3 years, on average." Here, the criterion-
frequency is "once every 3 years, on average."
Criterion-Magnitude for Criterion-Concentration) That element of a numeric WQC specifying acceptable
ambient levels of a pollutant or other indicator. Most criterion magnitudes are expressed as
concentrations (e.g., milligrams/liter), though magnitudes for some parameters are expressed differently
(e.g., pH and temperature).
Data Quality Objectives A specification of the quality of the data needed in order to meet the monitoring
project's goals.
Designated Uses (DID Those uses specified in state or tribal water quality standards regulations for a
particular segment, whether or not they are being attained. (40 CFR 131.3.(g)) Uses so designated in
WQS are not meant to specify those activities or processes that the waterbody is currently able to fully
support. Rather, they are the uses/processes that the state or tribe wishes the waterbody to be clean
enough to support, whether or not the waterbody can, in its current conditions, fully support them.
Digression (Exception') A single grab sample, or set of spatially-composited samples, with a concentration
inconsistent with (higher than in most cases, but lower than for some parameters like dissolved oxygen)
the criterion-concentration in an applicable WQC. For example, if the criterion-concentration for a
pollutant is 13 ug/L, and one has 4 grab samples containing concentrations of 9 ug/1,17 ug/L, 5 ug/L and
22 ug/1, one would have observed two digressions" in this set of samples (see excursion and exceedance,
for comparison).
EvaluateXdata and information') Determining whether individual data points, data sets, or other forms of
information meet previously published quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) specifications (see also
consider (data and information)). Data and other information meeting such specifications is valid.
Exceedance A situation in which ambient conditions are inconsistent with those desired conditions
described by the combined three elements of a numeric WQC (magnitude, duration, and frequency). Put
another way, when the rate of excursions is higher than that specified by the criterion-frequency. For
example, an exceedance would have occurred if a WQC for a certain parameter says "the one-hour
average concentration shall not surpass 40 ug/L more often than once in 3 years, on average" and during a
given 3 year (1095 day) period there are two or more one hour periods in which the average concentration
was 41 ug/L or higher. Waters on which one or more exceedances are failing to meet WQS, and therefore
must be placed on the state's, territory's or tribes' section 303(d) list. By contrast, occurrence of a
digression or an excursion does not, in and of itself, constitute a failure to meet applicable WQS.
Excursion Having an average concentration in a set of samples, or in a waterbody itself, that is
inconsistent with the average concentration specified by the combination of the magnitude and duration
components of an applicable WQC. For example, if a WQC says the 30-day average concentration of
pollutant "x" should be no greater than 77 mg/L, and the results of monitoring, modeling or other studies
indicate there is a 30-day period with a concentration of 88 mg/L, then an excursion has occurred
(compare with digression and exceedance).
Existing and Readily Available Water Quality-Related Data and Information The definition of this term
includes, but is not limited to:
July 2005
67
-------
2006IR Guidance
• Information found in watershed plans and other types of water quality management plans; i
• Information contained in reports and databases developed pursuant to the CWA, including: ,
Integrated Reports, separate section 305(b) report, a section 303(d) list, a section 314 lakes
assessment, a section 319(a) nonpoint assessment, STORET, the ADB, etc.;
* Information appearing in reports and databases developed pursuant to other federal statutes and ,
programs, including but not limited to SDWA section 1453 source water assessments, Superfund{
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act reports, the Toxic Release Inventory, USDA t
programs, and USGS programs; >
• Restrictions and/or advisories regarding shellfish harvesting and water-based recreation; ;
• Any observed effect (see definition below); '
• Results from site-specific biological, chemical, and physical monitoring and surveys;
• Results of utilization of remote-sensing technology efforts; and
• Results of use of predicative tools/extrapolative tools (e.g., probabilistic surveys, landscape- j
models, dilution calculations and models estimating pollutant loadings and ambient water j
quality). ;
1
Impairment Failure to support a water quality standard. '
Observed effectCs') Direct manifestations of an undesirable effect on waterbody conditions. For example,
fish kills, fish lesions, depressed populations of certain aquatic species, and bioassessment scores are ,
observed effects indicating changes in aquatic communities. Major algal blooms, undesirable taste and i
odor in raw and finished drinking water, and increased incidences of gastroenteritis and other waterbome
diseases among swimmers are also observed effects. Depending on a state's water quality standards and
specific waterbody conditions, observed effects may form the basis of an impairment decision. For
example, depending on the magnitude and cause of a fish kill, this observed effect may or may not result'
in an assessment of "impaired." Generally speaking, pollutants and pollution are not considered observed
effects (e.g., lead, pesticides, phosphorus); rather, they are causes of observed effects. ;
Parameter A specific pollutant, or other chemical/physical condition, such as phosphorus, copper, E. coli
bacteria, BOD, temperature, pH, turbidity, etc i
i
Quality assurance project plan fQAPP') A written document that outlines the procedures a monitoring ;
project will use to ensure that the samples participants collect and analyze, the data they store and
manage, and the reports they write are of high enough quality to meet project needs. \
I
Quality assurance (OA) The overall management system which includes organization, planning, data ;
collection, quality control, documentation, evaluation, and reporting activities. QA provides the '
information needed to ascertain the quality of data and whether they meet the requirements of a project.\
QA ensures data will meet defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence. ,
Quality control COO Routine technical activities whose purposes are, essentially, error control. Since \
errors can occur in either the field, the laboratory, or in the office, QC must be part of each of these i
functions.
Population A group of animals (including humans), or plants belonging to the same species. This is the
definition of "population" utilized most often in environmental sciences. Statisticians, however, use this
word in a much broader sense-the set of individuals, items, circumstances or conditions that is being
studied. Frequently "target population" is used by statisticians to describe the entire universe of
July 2005 68
-------
2006IR Guidance
things/situations from which a set of samples is taken. Hence, the "target population" from which a set of
water quality samples were taken would be all concentrations of the parameter of interest in every drop of
water found in a particular assessment unit in every second of time over a certain period. The term
"waterbody conditions" is used in mis document in reference to what statisticians call "population".
Sample A single measurement or aliquot. Often called a "grab sample" in environmental monitoring.
(Note: This is a different use of "sample" than that commonly employed by statisticians. What a
statistician would call a "sample" is referred to as a "sample set" in this document.)
Sample Set A group of individual measurements or aliquots (i.e., a collection of "samples").
Section 304(a) criteria Those WQC developed by EPA under authority of section 304(a) of the CWA,
based solely on the latest scientific information regarding the relationship that levels of a stressor
(pollutant, etc.) has to effects on aquatic organisms or human health. These criteria are issued as guidance
to states, territories, and tribes for use in developing their own WQC.
Segment A waterbody (river, lake, bay, estuary, wetland, etc.) or portion thereof,
Threatened waters EPA recommends that states consider as threatened those waters that are currently
attaining WQSs, but which are expected to exceed WQSs by the next listing cycle (every two years). For
example, segments should be listed if the analysis demonstrates a declining trend in a specific water
quality criteria (WQC), and the projected trend will result in a failure to meet a criterion by the date of the
next list (i.e., 2008 for purposes of the 2006 assessment cycle); or, segments should be listed if there are
proposed activities that will result in WQSs exceedances.
Unsupported uses Those designated uses that are not fully supported by conditions in the waterbody to
which those uses are assigned by WQS.
Use (data and information') Employing data and information to make a characterization determination.
Valid (data and information') Data meeting QA/QC specifications. Status should use all such data and
information making characterization determinations.
Water Quality Criteria (WOO Elements of state, territorial, or tribal WQS, expressed as parameter
(pollutants, etc.) levels or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports one or more
designated uses. Numeric WQC addressing chemical or physical conditions contain three attributes: 1)
magnitude (e.g., concentration), 2) duration (averaging period), and 3) frequency (recovery interval).
Water Quality Standard (WQS) Provisions of state, tribal, or territorial (or, in some cases, federal) law
which define the water quality goals for a waterbody/segment. WQS consist of: designated uses, water
quality criteria (both numeric and narrative), as well as antidegradation policies and implementation
procedures.
WOS Attainment Status Determination Deciding, based on use of all valid existing and readily available
data and information, whether WQS, or components thereof, are being met or are not being met.
July 2005
69
-------
APPENDIX
DATA ELEMENTS FOR 2006 INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT AMD
DOCUMENTATION FOR DEFINING AND LINKING SEGMENTS TO THE NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET
(Seventeen Sheets)
-------
2006IR Guidance
Data elements for 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report and
documentation for defining and linking segments to the National Hydrography Dataset.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to report water quality monitoring and assessment
information to satisfy CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b). EPA recognizes that states use a variety of
monitoring designs which allow them to characterize waters of the United States at different scales. This
reporting format accommodates jurisdiction-wide or watershed-level assessments based on probability
designs and attainment decisions on individual segment. The purpose of this appendix is to provide a
consistent format for the Integrated Report. This appendix is organized as follows:
A. Reporting Segment Results
1) Define the segment
2) Report segment geographic information using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
3) Report on the trophic status for all lakes
4) Report attainment decisions for the segment's standard and each of its designated use(s)
5) Document how and when the attainment decision for each segment-designated use
combination was determined
6) Report any pollutants and non-pollutants causing impairments and their probable sources
7) Report any observed effects of pollution for each segment-designated use combination
8) Report on approved TMDLs and provide a schedule for establishing TMDLs
9) Documenting the monitoring schedule
B. Reporting Attainment Decisions based on Probability Designs
1) Identify the waters assessed through a probability design ("target population")
2) Report the geographic locations of the target populations using NHD
3) Report attainment results for standards
4) Report the precision and date of the attainment results
5) Report all pollutants and non-pollutants causing impairment and their probable sources
C. Data Elements to be reported using EPA's Assessment Database or an equivalent relational database
D. Minimal Database Design to support Electronic Submission
July 2005
A-l
-------
2006IR Guidance
A. Reporting Segment Results
The following information should be submitted in order to identify and characterize segments. f
Jurisdictions should use a relational database to store and maintain their attainment results and, document i
decisions on standards attainment status, identify any pollutants or other types of pollution and their I
sources for all segments not attaining standards, and report the assessment metadata for each attainment
decision. All segment information should be provided in a database format, preferably using EPA's
Assessment Database (ADB) software. Following is a brief description of the data elements EPA expects!
to receive in electronic format. The permissible value domains for these data elements should be used j
and can be downloaded from http://www.epa. gov/waters/adb. This includes a standardized list of ,
pollutants and non-pollutants, sources, assessment type and confidence codes.
i
1) Define the segments '
|
As described in this guidance, all waters in the state that are "waters of the United States" (as defined n 40
CFR 122.2) should be assessed and reported on. These types of water may include, but are not limited to.
lakes, rivers, estuaries, coastal shorelines, wetlands, oceans and ground water. The basic unit for :
assessing attainment status for sections 305(b) and 303 (d) attainment is the segment. |
The following descriptive information should be included for each segment: j
• unique segment identifier (primary key) |
segment's type (river/stream, lake/reservoir, coastal shoreline, wetland, etc.) I
• segment's size and units of measurement •
• segment's name and location on the NHD ,'
• segment's designated uses \
2) Reporting segment geographic information using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) !
Each state and territory must define their segments, in order to report the status of all of the Nation's !
waters in an effective and consistent manner. Segments are the basic unit of record for conducting and j
reporting the results of all water quality assessments. Currently, state and territory segments are defined
using a wide range of criteria - from individual monitoring stations to Natural Resource Conservation '
Service watersheds. Sometimes these segments are defined using geographic information systems (GIS)
but more often are only described textually. As a consequence, it is extremely difficult to ensure adequate
assessment of all waters. EPA strongly encourages states and territories to uniformly adopt the National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) reach addressing protocol for assigning segments. Through a unique reach
number and a position, reach addresses precisely locate water features, such as segments. These reach
addresses get stored in a GIS compatible format. NHD reaches are typically defined from confluence to
confluence and are the hydrographic equivalent of a street's block number. A reach address is analogous
to a street address number. Additional NHD information and data is available from USGS,
http://nhd.uses. gov. EPA will provide hands on training to any interested jurisdiction on the protocols for
linking water quality information to the NHD. Once the segment has a reach address, other critical water
quality data — such as the segments position within the stream networks, flow, and any other information
linked to the NHD - becomes readily available.
July 2005
A-2
-------
2006IR Guidance
States and territories should document the process used for defining segments in their assessment
methodologies. Segments should not span more than one water quality standard. The individual size of
segments will vary based upon assessment methodologies, segments should, however, be larger than a
sampling station but small enough to represent a homogenous standard attainment within individual
segments. An individual segment may comprise part of a NHD reach, an individual NHD reach, or a
collection of NHD reaches and or parts of reaches.
The use of the NHD protocol for segment delineation provides powerful mapping and spatial analysis
capabilities for all water quality characterization activities. This delineation approach will help target
resources and activities such as scheduling monitoring, issuing permits, and targeting restoration
measures. In particular, the application of NHD will provide much more spatial resolution in identifying
segments requiring the establishment of TMDLs. Furthermore, the incorporation of NHD will aid in
developing and implementing management actions in individual and/or multiple segments. Jurisdictions
should use the NHD protocols for defining and linking the segments covered by completed TMDLs or
bundles of TMDLs. This TMDL specific geographic information should be submitted to EPA
simultaneously with a TMDL's submission.
For each segment in Category 5, the use of the NHD convention clearly defines the geographic bounds
affected by the TMDL. This should delineate the specific geographic location of the targeted segment, a
clear description of the standard, and a more focused representation of the relevant watershed(s) which
contribute point and non-point source pollutant loads. For example, in the establishment of a TMDL for a
section 303 (d) listed segment, pollutant reduction efforts in a non-impaired segment may be the most
logical and efficient action to the attainment of the standard in the impaired segment. By linking TMDLs
to NHD the management actions throughout a watershed will be visible.
EPA recognizes that some states and territories may work with other spatial hydrographic data, however,
states and territories should still provide NHD addresses for their segments. NHD is currently being
developed at higher resolutions and jurisdictions may use these data. States and territories interested in
developing higher resolution NHD are encouraged to work with United States Geological Survey
(USGS).
The NHD-Reach Indexing Tool (RIT) is a useful tool for creating segment's reach addresses and can
delineate user-defined polygons in wetlands, large estuaries, oceans, and near coastal segments. All GIS
coverages submitted to EPA should have unique segment identifiers that match those in the jurisdiction's
assessment database. Table 1 lists the basic requirements for a GIS submission and the appropriate
metadata that should be included.
3) Report on the trophic status for all lakes
The trophic condition of all lakes must be reported using values found on
http://www.eDa. eov/waters/adb.
July 2005
A-3
-------
2006IR Guidance
Table 1. Reporting on Segment Geographic Information
Water
Type
GIS Coverage
Database Metadata
Rivers
River segments should
be included as a linear
feature in a GIS
coverage (e.g., ESRI
Shapefile). NHD
event table format is
preferred.
Include standard metadata requirements for NHD event tables. A
list of these requirements can be found at:
http://www.epa.EOv/waters/georef/nhdrit datastructure.pdf
Otherwise provide Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata about the
coverage, as well as the location of an segment identifiers in the
coverage that can be joined to those in the database. FGDC
metadata requirements can be found at:
http://www .fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.htnil
Lakes
Lake segments can be
included as a linear or
polygon feature in a
GIS coverage (e.g.,
ESRI Shapefile).
NHD event table
format is preferred.
Include standard metadata requirements for NHD event tables. A
list of these requirements can be found at:
http://www.epa. gov/waters/georef/nhdrit datastructure.pdf.
Otherwise provide Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata about the
coverage, as well as the location of a segment identifiers in the
coverage that can be joined to those in the database. FGDC
metadata requirements can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.htinl
Estuaries
Estuarine segments
should be included as
a polygon feature in a
GIS coverage (e.g.,
ESRI Shapefile).
Include Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content
Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata about the coverage, as
well as the location of a segment identifiers in the coverage that c
be joined to those in the database. FGDC metadata requirements
can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Coastal
Waters
quality
Coastal shoreline
segments should be
included as a linear
feature in a GIS
coverage (e.g., ESRI
Shapefile). Other near
coastal units (e.g.,
shellfish beds) should
be reported as
polygons.
Include standard metadata requirements for NHD event tables. A
list of these requirements can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/georef/nhdrit datastructure.pdf.
Otherwise provide Include Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata about
the coverage, as well as the location of a segment identifiers in the
coverage that can be joined to those in the database. FGDC
metadata requirements can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Wetlands
Wetlands segments
should be included as
a polygon feature in a
GIS coverage (e.g.,
ESRI Shapefile).
Include Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content
Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata about the coverage, as
well as the location of a segment identifiers in the coverage that
can be joined to those in the database. FGDC metadata
requirements can be found at:
htto://www .fgdc. gov/metadata/conts(arLhtml
4) Report attainment decisions for the segment's standard and each of its designated use(s)
July 2005
A-4
-------
2006IR Guidance
EPA encourages states and territories to provide assessment information for every segment's designated
use(s). Each segment's designated use should be assessed and reported to have one of the following
conditions:
Fully Supporting
Not Supporting
Insufficient or no data and information - Segments with insufficient data and information to
support an attainment determination for a standard
Not Assessed
For segments which are not attaining one or more designated uses, jurisdictions should determine and
report if the segment is expected to attain its standard (i.e., all designated uses) in the near future. For
these segments, jurisdictions should report the other pollution control requirements which when
implemented will result in the attainment of water quality standards. Jurisdictions should also report the
dates these actions were or will be implemented and the anticipated year of attainment. This information
is need by EPA to validate the assumptions jurisdictions used when placing segments in Category 4b.
Threatened waters are those segments where a jurisdiction has determined that sufficient data exists to
determine that all designated uses are being attained, and that non-attainment is predicted by the time the
next Integrated Report is due to be submitted. These segments should be included in Category 5.
5) Document how and when the attainment decision for each segment-designated use combination
was determined
EPA requests the following information be included to document the attainment decision for each
assessed segment designated use:
i
Assessment date (e.g., December 20, 2005) - This date documents when the jurisdiction
completed the technical analysis of data and made its decision on the segment's designated use
attainment status. A common way to store a full Y2K-compliant date is in the character format
YYYYMMDD (e.g., 20031220 for December 20, 2005).
Assessment type - Jurisdictions should list all types of data they used to make each use attainment
decision (e.g., physical/chemical monitoring, toxicity testing (e.g., bioassays), benthic macro-
invertebrate surveys, etc.).
Assessment confidence - Assessment confidence levels, which range from 1 (least rigorous) to 4
(most rigorous) should be reported for each assessment type. Jurisdictions should provide
definitions of their assessment confidence levels in their assessment methodologies.
6) Report any pollutants and or non-pollutants causing impairment and their probable sources
Jurisdictions should report all of the pollutants or other types of pollution for impaired or threatened
segments. The list of acceptable pollutants and other types of pollution is available on
http://www.epa.gov/waters/adb. The list contains a complete set of chemical characteristics and non-
pollutant causes of impairment. Jurisdictions should link the specific pollutant to the designated use or
designated uses that are not being attained.
July 2005
A-5
-------
I
2006IR Guidance:
Jurisdictions should also identify the probable sources contributing to an impairment. The sources should '
be documented using the list provided on http://www.epa.gov/waters/adb. These sources need to be j
linked to the appropriate pollutant causing the impairment.
7) Report any observed effects of pollution for each segment-designated use combination i
I
Jurisdictions should document and report any observed effects of pollution for each segment-designated
use combination. Observed effects may include; fish lesions, fish kills, stream bottom deposits, low '
combined biota/habitat bioassessment How jurisdictions use observed effects to make attainment !
decisions is dependent upon a jurisdictions' interpretation of their water quality standards and should be
documented in their assessment methodology. f
8) Report on approved TMDLs and provide a schedule for establishing TMDLs
\
Jurisdictions must submit an estimated schedule for establishing TMDLs for every pollutant on each |
segment in Category 5. This schedule should specify the year for all TMDLs which will be established (
prior to the next Integrated Report, and the number per year for all others. In addition jurisdictions should
indicate which of the pollutants on impaired segments have an approved TMDL. Jurisdictions should
indicate the date EPA approved these TMDLs and the EPA TMDL identification number. Information on
the approval date and EPA TMDL identification number can be found on '
http://www.epa. gov/watcrs/tmdl. :
B. Reporting assessments based on State-wide or -watershed-levelprobability designs
The following sections address the data requirements recommended by EPA for reporting probability- i
based assessments. This guidance defines the data elements and format necessary to document a I
jurisdiction's assessment based upon probability based monitoring designs. Each data element is defined
in Table 3.
i
1) Identify the waters assessed through a probability design ("targetpopulation ") ,
Study area findings should be associated with the area's standard(s) and should be clearly documented ,
along with the target population that was monitored to develop the indicator. For instance, wadeable
perennial streams throughout a state and territory may be the target population for an indicator of ,
biological integrity related to aquatic life support. Each probability survey project should be assigned ah
ID (a Probability Survey Project ID).
2) Report the geographic locations of the target populations using NHD
Where the target population is not the same as an entire state, maps should be provided that use polygons
to highlight a project's geographic area such as all waters of a specific class (e.g., lakes) throughout
watershed units, eco-regions, or other geographic regions. States and territories are expected to have GIS
polygon coverages (e.g., ESRI Shapefile) related to each probability survey project. GIS coverages
should conform to Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standard for Digital Geospatial
Metadata. State in-house probability survey project polygons should be available with basic FGDC
July 2005
A-6
-------
2006IR Guidance
compliant metadata in either a shapefile format or in a standard ESRI export file format (*,eOO).
Additional information can be found at: http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.htmi.
Additional information to define the geographic frame (sample frame or "population") for a probability
survey project should include such items as: the water type relevant to the project (e.g., rivers); or other
"stratification" features.
States and territories are also expected to develop size estimates for the entire target population. States
and territories should be able to document the CIS Hydrography coverage or other data layer used to
develop their target population sizes.
3) Report attainment results for water quality standards
For each probability survey project, attainment results should be summarized. The presentation of the
study's findings should apply a breakpoint that clearly defines the estimated percentage of the total target
population meeting standards and the percentage not meeting standards. For each probability survey
project, a description of the project methodology should be provided. Where there are a small number of
standard project designs, a state can make reference to pertinent sections from its monitoring strategy,
QAPP and/or assessment methodology materials. The estimated percentage of the target population
meeting standards should also be accompanied by the precision of the estimate, in the form of 90 or 95%
confidence intervals.
4) Report the precision and date of the probable attainment results
A major attraction of probability designs is that statistics can be developed that show the confidence
levels associated with attainment results. States and territories should provide a discussion of the
statistical tests they apply to produce the precision value information or refer to other documents that
provide this information such as a QAPP or assessment methodology. As with reporting for segment
results, the assessment date should be included for each probability survey project indicating when the
state and territory finished the technical analysis of data and made its decision on the standards attainment
status.
5) Report any pollutants and non-pollutants and their probable sources
Where possible, EPA requests that states and territories develop pollutant and source summary
information for each of their probability survey projects. The maximum impact percentage should not
exceed the percent for the use non-attainment results reported.
July 2005 A-7
-------
2006IR Guidance'.
C. Data elements to be reported using EPA's Assessment Database or an equivalent relational i
database ,
Data elements to be reported using either EPA's Assessment Database or the relational database structure '
outlined in Section D, Minimal Database Elements to Support Electronic Submission. i
Table 2. Segment Specific Data Elements to be reported in the 2006 Integrated Re
Field Name
STATE
TOT_WATER_TYPE
TOT_WATER_SIZE
SCALE
TOT_SOURCE
ID305B
CYCLE
WATER_NAME
LOCATION
Field
Type
Text
Text
Numeric
Text
Text
Text
Date
Text
Text
Domain
httrx/AvwweDa.
govAvaters/adb/
htto://www.et)a.
govAvaters/adb/
Dependent
upon units used
to measure
Free Text
Free Text
Free text,
Jurisdiction
specific
YYYY
Free Text
Free Text,
Jurisdiction
specific *Note,
this does not
replace linking
Assessment
Units to the
NHD
Description
State or jurisdiction
abbreviations
Water type for the
Atlas of Total waters
within a jurisdiction
Water size for the
Atlas of Total waters
within a jurisdiction
Scale (i.e. 1:24,000)
of the source used to
determine the water
size for the Atlas of
total waters within a
jurisdiction
Source used to
determine the water
size for the Atlas of
total waters within a
jurisdiction
Unique identifier for
Assessment Unit ID
(state defined)
Reporting Cycle
Name of Assessment
Unit
Text description of
the Assessment
Unit's location
Requirement
Condition
Always
Required
Always
Required
Always
Required
i
Always .
Required :
i
i
i
Always •
Required j
t
i
Always ,
Required '
Always
Required j
Always !
Required !
Always
Required j
i
t
jort
July 2005
A-8
-------
2006IR Guidance
Field Name
WATER TYPE
WATER_SIZE
SIZE UNIT
TROPHIC STATUS
TREND
CYCLE_LAST_ASSESSED
MONITORING_SCHEDULED_DA
TE
PREVIOUSID305B
Field
Type
Text
Numeric
Text
Text
Text
Date
Date
Text
Domain
http://www.epa.
eov/waters/adb/
Dependent
upon units used
to measure
http://www.eoa.
gov/waters/adb/
httD:/Avww.epa.
Eov/waters/adb/
http://www.epa.
Eov/waters/adb/
YYYY
YYYY
Free Text
Description
Water type for the
Assessment Unit
(e.g., River, Estuary,
Wetland)
Size of the
Assessment Unit
Size unit (e.g. Miles
if WATER TYPE is
River)
Trophic status of
publicly owned lakes
Trend of publicly
owned lakes
The most recent
cycle that an
Assessment Unit was
assessed
Date by which
additional monitoring
for attainment status
will be completed
Used for tracking
Assessment Units
from cycle to cycle.
This field would be
used when there is a
change in the ID
structure for an
Assessment Unit, or
if an Assessment
Unit gets split
Requirement
Condition
Always
Required
Always
Required
Always
Required
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Conditionally
Required: If an
Assessment unit
has changed
from the
previous
reporting cycle,
then a record
needs to be
maintained of
how the new ID
matches with the
previous ID
July 2005
A-9
-------
I
2006IR Guidance]
Field Name
PREVIOUSCYCLE
USE NAME
ATTAINMENT
THREATENED_FLAG
ASSMNT TYPE
ASSMNT CONF
Field
Type
Date
Text
Text
Text
Numeric
Numeric
Domain
YYYY
http://www.epa.
eov/waterscien
ce/wgs
Fully
Supporting, Not
Supporting,
Insufficient
Information or
Not Assessed
Y/null
htto://www.eDa.
sov/waters/adb/
http://www.epa.
Eov/waters/adb/
Description
Cycle for the
previous Assessment
Unit ID. Used for
cycle tracking
Description of the
designated use which
is being assessed
The attainment status
for a particular
designated use
associated with an
Assessment Unit
Flag used to indicate
threatened waters.
Threatened
assessment units are
those assessment
units where uses are
being attained, but
non-attainment is
predicted by the time
the next Integrated
Report is submitted.
Caption describing a
category of data
types used to make
attainment/impairme
nt decision
A score ranging from
a lower range of 1 up
to 4 indicating
reliability and
precision for a
category of standard
specific assessment
type
Requirement
Condition
Conditionally
Required: If
PREV1OUSID3
OSBis
populated, then
the cycle that the
previous ID is
associated with
should also be
populated.
Always
Required :
Always ,
Required <
i
[
Conditionally
Required: Must !
be populated if |
the use is
Threatened 1
i
i
t
;
j
Conditionally
Required: Must
be populated for
all uses that are
assessed
Optional
i
!
July 2005
A-10
-------
2006IR Guidance
Field Name
ASSMNTJDATE
CAUSE_NAME
SOURCE_NAME
CYCLE_FIRST_LISTED
POLLUTANT_FLAG
EXPECTED_TO_ATTAIN_DATE
IMPLEMENTATION_ACTION
Field
Type
Date
Text
Text
Date
Text
Date
Text
Domain
YYYYMMDD
htto://www.epa.
gov/waters/adb/
http://www.epa.
eov/waters/adb/
YYYY
Y/N
YYYY
Free Text
Description
Date the use
attainment decision
was made. Can be
entered for each
assessed use.
Description of the
pollutants, non-
pollutants and
observed effects
Description of the
source of the
pollutant
First Year (cycle)
water was listed for a
given cause of
impairment
Marked Y if the
cause of impairment
is a pollutant, N if
the cause is pollution
Date by which the
assessment unit is
projected
to attain its standards
Pollution control
requirements other
than a TMDL taken
for an Assessment
Unit to meet
standards
Requirement
Condition
Optional
Optional
Optional
Conditionally
Required:
Required for
303(d) listings
Conditionally
Required: Must
be populated if
the Cause of
Impairment is a
pollutant
Conditionally
Required:
Required for
parameters that
are causes of
impairment, but
will meet
standards by
some given date
in the future.
Conditionally
Required: At
least one action
is required for
each
EXPECTED T
O ATTAIN DA
TE
July 2005
A-ll
-------
2006IR Guidance
Field Name
ACTION_DATE
TMDL_SCHEDULE
TMDL_PRIORITY
TMDL_COMPLETION_DATE
TMDL ID
TMDL PROJECT STATUS
Field
Type
Date
Date
Text
Date
Numeric
Text
Domain
YYYYMMDD
YYYY
High, Medium,
Low
YYYYMMDD
http://www.eDa.
govAvaters/tmd
1
http://www.epa.
eov/waters/adb/
Description
Date other pollution
control requirement
was/will be
completed
Date when the
jurisdiction
anticipates
submitting the
TMDL for EPA
approval
State's priority for
developing a TMDL
Date TMDL was
completed or the date
by which a TMDL is
projected to be
completed
EPA assigned unique
identifier for
approved TMDLs
Brief description
regarding the status
of the TMDL
development for a
given Assessment
Unit/Pollutant
combination.
Requirement
Condition
Conditionally
Required:
Required for
each
IMPLEMENTA
TION_ACT1ON
Conditionally
Required: Either
TMDL_SCHED
ULEor
TMDL_PRIORI
TY must be
populated for
causes that are
part of the
303(d) list.
Conditionally
Required: Either
TMDL_SCHED
ULEor '
TMDL_PRIORI ,
TY must be ,
populated for
causes that are ,
part of the >'
303(d) list.
i
Optional i
i
Conditionally t
Required: Must -
be populated for|
causes that have;
had TMDLs :
established '
Optional i
i
i
July 2005
A-12
-------
2006IR Guidance
Field Name
TMDLJSTATUS_COMMENT
DELISTING_REASON
DELISTINGjCOMMENT
DELISTING_DATE
MONITORING_STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT_METHODOLOGY
Field
Type
Text
Text
Text
Date
BLOB
BLOB
Domain
Free Text
htto://www.epa.
gov/waters/adb/
Free Text
YYYYMMDD
Free Text
Free Text
Description
Summary comment
describing the status
oftheTMDL
development for a
given Assessment
Unit/Pollutant
combination.
Reason an
Assessment
Unit/Cause has been
removed from the
303(d) list
Summary comment
describing the
reasons for delisting
Date an Assessment
Unit/Cause has been
removed from the
303(d) list
The jurisdiction's
current monitoring
strategy document
stored in PDF, MS
Word or WordPerfect
format.
A copy of the
assessment
methodology used to
make attainment
decisions stored in
PDF, MS Word or
WordPerfect format.
Requirement
Condition
Optional
Conditionally
Required: Must
be populated for
Assessment
Units/Causes
that have been
removed from
the 303(d) list
Optional
Conditionally
Required: Must
be populated for
Assessment
Units/Causes
that have been
removed from
the 303(d) list
Optional
Optional
July 2005
A-13
-------
2006IR Guidance!
Table 3. Probabilistic Monitoring Data Elements to be reported in the 2006 Integrated Report
Field Name
PROJECTJD
CYCLE
PROJECT_NAME
TARGET_POPULATION
WATER TYPE
WATER_SIZE
SIZE UNIT
LOCATIONJYPE
LOCATION_DESC
INDICATOR
Field
Type
Text
Date
Text
Text
Text
Numeric
Text
Text
Text
Text
Domain
Free text
jurisdiction
specific
YYYY
Free Text
Free Text
jurisdiction
specific
http://www.ep
a.eov/waters/a
db/
Dependent
upon units
used to
measure
http://www.er)
a.eov/waters/a
db/
Free Text
Free Text
Free Text
Description
State assigned identifier
used to uniquely identify
the study/project
Reporting Cycle
Name of the project
Description of the
project's target
population
Water type for the
assessment unit (e.g.,
River, Estuary, Wetland)
Size represented by the
target population
Size unit (e.g. Miles if
WATER TYPE is
River)
Description of the type
of location (i.e. 8-digit
HUC, County, etc.)
Values for locations
associated with an
Assessment Unit or
Project ID.
A description of the
indicator that was
monitored (e.g.
Biological indicator,
Trophic State Index,
etc.)
Requirement
Condition
Always
Required
Always
Required
Always
Required
Always
Required
Always
Required
Conditionally
Required:
Required if
WATERJTYP'
E is populated ,
Conditionally
Required: !
Required if
WATER_SIZ '
E is populated !
Optional :
i
i
Conditionally ;
Required:
Required if '
LOCATION,'
TYPE is
populated '
Always
Required
July 2005
A-14
-------
2006IR Guidance
Field Name
ASSMNT_DATE
PRECISION
CONFIDENCE
USE_NAME
PERCENT_ATTAINING
PERCENT_NOT_ATTAINING
PERCENT_NON_RESPONSE
CAUSE_NAME
Field
Type
Date
Numeric
Numeric
Text
Numeric
Numeric
Numeric
Text
Domain
YYYYMMD
D
1-100.00
1-100.00
Designated
Uses as
described in
state water
quality
standards
1-100.00
("/(.Attaining +
%Not
Attaining + %
Nonresponse
should not
exceed 100)
1-100.00
(%Attaining +
%Not
Attaining + %
Nonresponse
should not
exceed 100)
1-100.00
(%Attaining +
%Not
Attaining + %
Nonresponse
should not
exceed 100)
http://www.ep
a.eov/waters/a
db/
Description
Date the attainment
decision was made
Precision of the
estimate, in the form of
90 or 95% confidence
intervals
The confidence interval
(% +/-) for the standard
attainment decision
Description of the
designated use which is
being assessed
Percent of target
population attaining
standard
Percent of target
population not attaining
designated standard
Estimated percent of the
target population for
which a use attainment
assessment could not be
completed
Description of the
pollutants, non-
pollutants and observed
effects
Requirement
Condition
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Always
Required
Always
Required
Optional
Optional
July 2005
A-15
-------
20061R Guidance '
Field Name
CAUSE_PERCENT
SOURCE NAME
SOURCE_PERCENT
MON1TORING_STRATEGY
ASSESSMENT_METHODOLOGY
Field
Type
Numeric
Text
Numeric
BLOB
BLOB
Domain
Sum of all
impairment
percentages
not to exceed
the percent not
attaining
http://www.ep
a.gov/waters/a
dfc/
Sum of all
source
percentages
not to exceed
100% for a
given
impairment
Free Text
Free Text
Description
Percent of non-attaining
population impaired by a
specific cause (30%
non-attainment
attributed to nitrogen)
Description of the
source of the pollutant
Percent of non-attaining
population attributable
to a particular source of
pollution (e.g. of the
30% of nitrogen
impaired waters, 70%
was potentially
attributable to
agricultural runoff)
The jurisdiction's
current monitoring
strategy document stored
in PDF, MS Word or
WordPerfect format
A copy of the
assessment methodology
used to make attainment
decisions stored in PDF,
MS Word or
WordPerfect format
Requirement
Condition
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
1
i
t
D. Minimal Database Design to support electronic submission of the Integrated Report «
The data elements and business processes outlined in the previous three sections must be assembled into'a
relational database design. EPA's Assessment Database is one data base design capable of storing and '
reporting the attainment status of a jurisdiction's waters. States and territories should use EPA's i
Assessment Database to track the attainment status of their segments and to submit the supporting {
information behind their Integrated Report. If a state or territory or authorized tribe chooses not to use the
Assessment Database, then at a minimum they should use the database design outlined in Diagram A to
transmit their Integrated Report to EPA. EPA will provide any interested state or territory training and .
support using the Assessment Database.
July 2005
A-16
-------
Diagram A. Entity relationship diagram for the minimum elements needed to support an
electronic submission of the Integrated Report.
A
v:.wr»s.»» j*
*c|-M. ^ __;
*-*r-^\- *«*.
*fek^ *
K r
"| t ~~~»~-
* ' O %A SSWWSj****?' /'
**
ASIV-AV*
*« & ?»» , ,
«* A «**
'*.* £ 5^s^,
& 4 'vfti^OSaW , ,
, 5, >v -w««a>!s«igs«s«<. /
•. "" *,* * 'T
a ^r!
^ Hi..^.
1 ** A «"•
«•# *j >»>* .. ,
>£' !>, «!«»,>*
*!!«. !S\ W*J»-
j : }*
^i*?'**1** V x I
'** A ??*'•*
*& A ****
'**«(, «>fe« /
"«*'A ' •="?>''
t t 1.%V^* V ^ S "^ ^«^
A-
'?
^W8W5,«»Ea'' *',^ „ ]
f '
» ^*» ^ %v*v» :
(4!> jg «aass5i»»^ ,' ( i
,
«,<.*>««:
v»*^A' !T?
** A
% *t
^M2^SS^SSi^SLJi *
f&J*ijMd - ;' \ -"-
Sv+frff>.ff.f*ff*'*f*ff*fi ^ f ^ -t^ •, 1,
4t jfe ' ft V ^tc?* •* i
*3S. /4 &ft*> \
-K
gPf**>K*)C»V< ^ % •> '
JAM^feJ '- ' ;
^V.^ ^ ^ N "«-j*
^* A «»» „ '
»* A *»
* * «w,»4.«as
;»- A ,««j«« ,
!a^feUUfejL,lJ
^ 4 cA '\ ^
** ,A - i'*'* ; J - •
Ifj^flfltf
•a^, A aioaww
I g^. ;«<«s.>*^:»
,-,% >**^ XXXX y M v
. , AJWtS.WOS.K
A
.a^x&ill^d VIJ
w.tw* ^| f,
.-*,* ** **»
* A; «»*"»
' * A ~—»*•
' * A
*,
"^
?feJdtJ
** A «» /
5>
^U-Hi.^wasswa ' " ,, ;i f
j' &M&M-& , ^ ^ ;^
1**^'**^ ;; ^ |
«.*'
i' i\x" y»xb?'f"r?>f
> A ' »»<.i«w % N '
I—,
*,
>f—
jxccua^fK
O
O
a-t jW f«s
A
'A
3>«»
;*U?>U
A-17
-------
------- |