STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE December 1987 Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. ------- . :, NOTE TO THE READER: This guidance is intended to be supportive of the program-specific guidance documents that provide the details on what EP A and the States must do in order to meet the Congressional mandates under . various provisions of the Water Quality Act (wQA). In carrying out responsibilities under the WQA, EPA and the States must address the requirements and deadlines in these documents. Documents that are available now (or in the immediate futUre) include: . . Clean Lakes Program Guidance Guidance on State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund . . Implementation of Requirements Under ~304(1) of the Clean Water Act, as Amended Nonpoint Source Guidance . . State Water Quality:;based Toxics Control Program Review Guidance ',' I' . Other guidance documents, policies,~trat<;gies. and regulations will become available throughout FY 1988. . ------- STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES: MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE INTRODUCTION The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) offers a special opportunity for regulatory agencies, the regulated community, and the public to implement the ambitious new initiatives in concert with ongoing core Clean Water Act (CWA) programs. States have been actively involved in water quality management planning since before the 1972 CWA, and, under the amendments, need to address important new responsibilities in the areas of surface water toxics, nonpoint source pollution, clean lakes, and estuaries. In addition, wetlands and groundwater represent very important resources that merit protective efforts. Hence there is both a compelling need and an excellent opportunity for States to be creatively responsive in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is actively encouraging States to meet the goals and requirements of the WQA to the fullest extent possible, and to do so in an open, consultative framework using the latest techniques of problem assessment and management. This document describes what EPA views as a rational process for States to use in satisfying their WQA requirements through an open and integrated three stage process of waterbody/resource assessment, water resource targeting, and strategic management planning. Each State has unique resources and environmental problems, different institutional arrangements, and different priorities. The problem assessment and management process described in this guidance allows each State great flexibility in determining how it will pursue an integrated approach to solving its particular problems within its particular institutional framework. The comprehensive process described in this guidance is intended to complement and coalesce, and to be supportive of EPA's program-specific guidance documents, policies, strategies, and regulations, which provide the details on what EPA and the States need to do in order to meet the Congressional mandates under the various provisions of the WQA. Therefore, in carrying out their responsibilities under the WQA (nonpoint sources, estuaries, Clean Lakes, and surface water toxics), EPA and the States will take into account these other documents as well (see inside front cover for listing). WQA IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES The following principles serve as the foundation for the process described in this document, as well as overall WQA implementation: 1. EPA and the States will strive to meet the statutory goals, requirements, and deadlines of the Act to the fullest extent possible. 2. EPA and the States will pursue with vigor both the new initiatives under the 1987 WQA and the ongoing programs, priorities and responsibilities of the traditional CWA programs. 3. Where all water quality problems cannot be addressed immediately, EPA and the States will, using multi-year approaches, set priorities and direct their efforts and resources to maximizing environmental benefits by dealing with the most serious water quality problems and the most valuable and threatened resources first. ------- 1 -2- 4. Where possible, EPA and the States will combine activities across program areas to promote environmental results, avoid redundant efforts, satisfy multiple requirements, and facilitate efficient, effective use of resources. 5. In meeti!lg near-term WQA statutory deadlines, States will exercise diligence in collecting existing and readily obtainable information to identify known and suspected water quality problems. In the longer-term, States will continue to collect and generate new data. 6. In order to capture as much information, data, and expertise as possible, EPA and the States will actively solicit input and participation from interested and informed parties throughout the process. . 7. EP A will encourage States through policies, guidance, and assistance to use innovative, comprehensive approaches to WQA implementation. 8. EPA will work with States to improve their capability to meet statutory requirements through training, technical support, guidance, and review of State programs and support to upgrade programs, as needed. 9. EP A will also exercise its oversight responsibilities to ensure national consistency in meeting the requirements of the WQA. 10. EP A will work with other Federal agencies consistent with the WQA to share information and data, and to encourage those agencies to operate their programs in support of State strategies. 11. The State may incorporate its multi-year sews into its water quality management (WQM) plan pursuant to the Continuing Planning Process (CPP) or its ~ 106 Annual Program Plan. The State will submit its completed WQA assessment(s) as part of its FY 1988 biennial ~305(b) Report, which will be updated on an annual basis where specifically required by law. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCWS AND OTHER WQAlCW A ACTIVITIES Before describing the State Clean Water Strategy (sewS) process, it is important to recognize that this is a voluntary process that can be used along with other management planning documents and activities underway. These activities fall into two general categories: new activities under the WQA and ongoing activities under the ew A. Other WQA Ma~erials and Actions There are a number of documents that pertain to implementation of the WQA of 1987, and it is important to understand the relationship among these various documents. EPA initially produced a Section-bv-Section Analysis of the separate provisions of the WQA in succinct narrative form. The purpose of this document was to familiarize Regions, States, and the regulated community with the basic provisions in the law. The Clean Water Strate~ - 1987 then set forth some general implementation principles and EPA's initial recommendations for States to follow in developing an integrated, strategic approach to WQA implementation that is set fonh more fully in this document. The Strategy also included eleven program-specific Attachments that described the Agency's general pro~ strategy for each area. ------- -3- In addition, each program has been conducting workgroups to prepare individual guidance documents, regulations, and policies for Regions and States to use in addressing specific implementation issues. A number of these guidance documents are now available in final form (see inside front cover for listing), and, as mentioned above, this document in no way supersedes those program-specific guidances. Finally, the FY 1988 A~ency Qperatin~ Guidance sets forth the specific national priorities and program activities that EPA Regions and States will undertake in FY . 1988, and served as the basis for negotiating FY 1988 workplans. The Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Act of 1987 EP A and the States have been engaged in an array of water pollution control programs and activities for many years; The process described in this document is not intended to drive the entire water pollution control program in the shon-term. Regions and States are expected to maintain the integrity of their core water pollution control programs and activities consistent with available resources and national priorities, policies, regulations and guidance. Congress continues to fund these core programs, and did not intend for EPA or the States to lose momentum in existing program implementation. In addition, there are some mandates under the WQA of 1987 that place constraints on the degree to which activities can be merged. In the area of surface water toxics controls under ~308, for example, the initial round of individual control strategies for point sources must be implemented by February 1989. In order to meet this statutory deadline, States do not have any discretion regarding either timing or location of control measures. Consequently, these are critical activities that must proceed immediately and independent of any coordinated effon, while the key longer-term activities under ~308 (such as setting priorities for new toxics monitoring, problem assessments and controls) may be folded into an integrated, strategic approach. While the WQA sets forth some priorities explicitly in the law, however, EPA and the States have some degree of flexibility in other areas. The sews exercise is intended to enable States to take advantage of these opportunities, and to deal with their water quality problems in a holistic, rather than piecemeal, fashion. This may lead to implementation of a watershed or geographic-based approach, which combines the tools and resources of several programs on selected waterbodies, or to an approach that provides a better mesh between ongoing CW A activities (such as wetlands protection) and new WQA activities. STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES State Clean Water Strategies (SCWS) provide States an opponunity to satisfy their WQA requirements. through an open and integrated three stage process of waterbody/resources assessment, water resource targeting, and strategic management planning. The following is a brief description of how EPA views the process. Within this overall framework, however, States are actively encouraged to use innovative and creative approaches to completing each step. Each State and EP A should agree to a consultative process throughout the development and implementation of the SCWS. In addition, where States appear to be using techniques that are especially successful, EP A will make this information available immediately so that other States can benefit from these experiences. ------- , -4- There are three themes that recur throughout this guidance and throughout the entire sews process. The first is the necessity to establish -- and keep in the forefront -- long-range, multi-year water quality objectives. The second is the imPOrtance of establishing early, effective involvement of public interest groups, elected officials, the media and others who may be interested and able to assist in the process. The third is "targeting," which is the process of ordering and adjusting priorities to ensure that available resources and efforts are applied to programs that will achieve the greatest water quality benefits. Step 1: Assessments (Fall - Spring 1987/88) Assessment involves identifying impaired waters. The objectiv~s of this step are to: . Identify impaired waterbodies to use as the basis for pollution prevention 'and control actions; . . Identify threatened waterbodies in need of protection; Identify gaps in infonnation on water quality to use as the basis for determining where to focus ongoing and future data collection efforts. . In conducting assessments, States should consider combining the similar WQA requirements under several provisions of the WQA: ~316 nonpoint sources; ~315 Clean Lakes; ~317 estuary programs; and the second phase of work under ~308 surface water toxics controls. Appendix 1 contains a brief description of the assessments required under each of these provisions. The advantages of combining these assessments are to: help States identify geographical problems and crossmedia "hot spots"; make data gaps more apparent; encourage non-traditional, multi-agency coordination and cooperation; and form the basis for comprehensive pollution control efforts. An assessment consists of three activities: 1. Obtain Existing Data: Given the time constraints imposed by the WQA statutory deadlines, States will have to reply largely on existing and readily obtainable data and information to meet their near-term WQA obligations. The largest source. of State water quality data is likely to be in-house. However, States should expand their traditional efforts to obtain data, and should seek out other existing and readily obtainable data that are available from outside sources. The goal is to collect existing data on aquatic resources and habitat, which goes beyond the infonnation on me in the Agency. The intent is to capture quickly as much existing data as practicable. Appendix 2 contains a list of potential sources of data. 2. Evaluate Data Quality and Identify Gaps in Information: Once the State has assembled its data and infonnation, the next step is to analyze and evaluate the data. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the quality and reliability of the data, identify gaps and inconsistencies, and draw conclusions on the accuracy and confidence of the data. In addition, this will help determine what additional data and information will be needed to support longer-term activities and decisions. 3. Identify Waterbodies: The next task is to pull together the information in a meaningful form to serve as a basis for priority-setting a.Qd decision-making. The data should be arrayed in a manner that indicates the degree of impairment for various waterbodies, and described the basis for that decision. At a minimum, the assessment should distinguish between two levels of data: monitored and evaluated. The first level or "monitored waters" applies to waters where conclusions are based on current, site-specific ambient data. The second level or I ------- -5- "evaluated waters" applies to waters where conclusions are based on earlier ambient data, information on sources of pollution, predictive modeling, fishery surveys, citizen surveys, and other anecdotal data. Based on this preliminary waterbody assessment, States should also draw initial conclusions on the need for future water sampling, analysis, and related data gathering. The assessment process should be completed by April 1988, and will be submined as part of the State's FY 1988 ~"305(b) repon. To accomplish this work, a State agency could work through its traditional channels. However, EP A actively encourages States to expand their horizons, and to seek input from all informed parties during all three steps outlined above. Opening the process can lead to new data, information and ideas, and can also generate a broad-based coalition of suppon for the assessment itself. EP A is not mandating a particular forum or format for promoting this expanded involvement, but urges States to make every effon to involve their informed public. In addition, because the ~305(b) process is being used to meet severalWQA mandated assessments that EP A must review and approve, EP A will offer technical assistance and will be available for an active, cooperative role in this process. EPA is required by various provisions of the WQA to review and approve State assessments with anendant public participation requirements. Where a State uses an open, collaborative approach to the assessment, with broad participation by water quality experts and the informed public, EP A will likely be required to exercise much less review of the resultant assessment than where a State chooses to rely on a more closed approach to information gathering. In either case, the assessments will have to meet minimum statutory requirements, which include: . A description of the process the State used to complete the assessment; A summary of all information collected, analyzed, and used, including outside sources of data; . . A discussion of the nature, extent and results of public and expen participation, especially any new forms/forums used to involve the informed public; A description of the State's findings in terms of data gaps; . . A summary of the overall dimensions of the State's water quality problems; and An explanation of how the State prepared its assessment of the waterbodies. . Step 2: Water Resource Targeting (Summer 1988) This step is the heart of the sews process, and involves identifying the sequence for protecting resources. The objectives are to: . Arrange priorities in order to target water resources for immediate control action; and Identify the most important water resources for further study, as necessary (for example, intensive surveys, new water quality monitoring, and data/information collection activities, etc.) . ------- 1 -6- This guidance does not provide a prescriptive ranking and targeting procedure that States must follow. Rather it provides a'general framew~rk and a set of targeting criteria that States should consider during the targeting stage of the process. A national workshop involving participants representing Federal, State, local and environmental groups will be held in Spring 1988 to discuss various approaches to targeting and the results of the workshop will be shared with all States. The waterbodyassessment conducted in Step 1 provides information on the entire range of a State's water quality problems. It is likely that this process will result in a fairly long list of problem areas that represent a substantial workload. As a practical matter, therefore, States will probably fInd it both useful and necessary to carve out a subset of work for the concerted action within the multi-year time frame of the sews. This will be especially necessary for nonpoint source programs, where the current level of base activity is very low. EP A is recommending that this be accomplished based on a comparative evaluation of the State's waters. The guiding principle for this step is to maximize environmental benefIt by devoting resources and efforts to water problems in a priority order that recognizes the values of the waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized from various control actions (including evidence of local public interest and support), and the controllability of the problem(s). Since different governmental agencies, groups, and individuals place a different value on water resources for a number of reasons, the objective of the ranking and targeting process is to foster a balanced approach that results in the targeting of water bodies that reflects an evaluation of relative value and benefIt. In order to achieve that level of confIdence, the following criteria should be considered: . 1. What waterbodies are most valuable from various perspectives -- aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply for example? 2. What waterbodies are subject to adverse effects from both pollution and aquatic habitat destruction (wetlands), and can be impacted by water programs? 3. What tools are available to address the waterbodies identified? 4. What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental action? 5. Which problems are most amenable to the available tools and controls? 6. What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to protect a particular aquatic resource? 7. How willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to use their tools and resources to help address the problem? 8. Where would "combined actions" offer the greatest benefIt relative to the value of the aquatic resource? Water resource-based targeting is an effort that may be carried out as follows: 1. Group waterbodies based on the most serious problems: While this is not an exact science, there are quantitative and surrogate indicators of use and/or use impairment that the State can use to make meaningful and defensible groupings of waterbodies in something as simple as high/medium/low categories; and ~ ------- 2. Select areas for immediate control action and identify the most important areas for further study: This involves looking at various combinations of short- and long-tenn actions, controls, and management plans that offer the greatest potential for achieving environmental benefits and meeting overall water program goals. The State may choose to approach this process nan-owly on a program-by-program basis, or may opt to focus more broadly across programs and adopt a watershed or geographic-based plan that combines the tools and resources of several water programs. The process is not one with "scientific validity." Rather it is one that relies on using both quantitative data and surrogate indicators of use and/or use impairment, as well as expert judgement, to make meaningful, defensible groupings of waterbodies. While State environmental agencies are responsible for determining priorities, the overall goal of this step is to end up with a meaningful targeting of waterbodies that helps the State direct its activities. Consequently, public participation is vital to the success of the targeting phase to generate the necessary consensus and support for future implementation and funding. EP A urges States to expand their existing public involvement activities, and to consider using public interactive workshops and invited public experts. To support States that choose to follow this approach, EPA will provide training and technical assistance, as well as financial assistance to help States develop meaningful public participation programs. . Step 3: State Management Plans (Fall 1988) At the end of the first two steps, the State should have a sense of strategic direction. The last step involves converting these concepts into a management plan to guide its actions over a multi-year period. This plan should identify an approach, set out a general schedule for accomplishing the overall mission (including some broad interim milestones for accomplishment), and explain how resources and efforts will be directed to protecting and/or restoring aquatic resources and habitat. In short, a management plan or a set of interrelated action plans provides the connection between the strategic direction and the State's annual work plans for carrying out the work over a multi-year period. The SCWS addresses the following: 1. Scope of Coverage: The scope of a management plan depends upon whether the State elected to use a comprehensive, integrated approach or a more traditional programmatic approach. So long as WQA requirements for specific management plans (nonpoint source, Clean Lakes, estuaries) are met, the State may submit either one comprehensive management plan or one that consists of multiple plans covering each of its program areas. In either case, the submission should pull together the results and conclusions from Steps 1 and 2 (assessment/targeting), explain how the data and information were translated into the management plan and recognize the interconnections of water programs. . 2. Sequence of Actions: The management plan should address problems through a sequence of activities and control efforts, and should describe how the State plans to address relative priority problems in the appropriate order. Since the SCWS is multi-year, it should discuss a proposed schedule in general terms, set out a challenging but realistic timetable, and establish some interim milestones for accomplishment. Where a State plans to shift its base level water program to a geographic or watershed approach in order to deal more effectively with cross-medial cross program problems. it should explain how this will be caITied out without undermining the integrity of its base level program. ------- Format -8- States are encouraged to use innovative approaches to pull together their information and decisions. For example, a management plan may be a separate introductory chapter to the State's annual program plan or may be incorporated into a State WQM plan, so long as it is multi-year and recognizes the interconnections among water programs. On the other hand, it may be a separate document that forms the basis for annual work plans in the future. EP A would look favorably on other models or formats, and encourages States to use their ingenuity in displaying the materials and the sequencing of actions. The sews should be completed by the beginning of FY 1989 (October 1, 1988). It should: . Describe the process the State followed in developing its sews by updating the description from Step 1 (assessment) to reflect what happened in Step 2 (targeting); Discuss the nature, extent and results of public and expert participation, as well as any plans to involve the informed public on a continuing basis; . . Identify the waters that have been targeted for immediate control action, and explain the means to reduce the pollutant loads and aquatic habitat destruction, including. management plans/programs, individual controls on point and nonpoint sources, and methods/procedures; . Describe the most important data gaps and areas for further study, and highlight any plans to generate the additional data and information necessary to make future decisions on the nature and extent of the problem and the appropriate control solution, including assistance most appropriately provided by EP A (research, technical assistance, training); . . Outline a multi-year schedule for addressing problems in a sequential fashion based on appropriate priorities. This schedule should address four or more years of strategic planning activity; Discuss the current legal and regulatory authorities available to suppon planned activities, as well as potential sources of funding and personnel to support implementation activities; and . . Describe future plans for establishing longer-term working relationships with other State programs and/or agencies to assist with the implementation of activities in a coordinated manner. Developing and Updating Management Plans in Future Years In FY 1989, States that developed multi-year management plans may need to update these documents to complete integration of key longer-term activities that will be necessary to fully implement the surface water toxics provisions of the WQA. These changes may include expanding and/or setting priorities for new water quality monitoring for toxics, as necessary. States may also choose to update other aspects of their sewSs as a result of new information. In addition, FY 1988 is the first year States will have an opponunity to develop sewSs, and not all States will choose to participate. In addition, there may be States that begin the process in FY 1988, but are unable to complete the entire exercise in the recommended timeframes set forth in this ---- ------- -9- guidance. In FY 1989, therefore, some new States may choose to develop sewSs through a targeting and ranking exercise, and some States may complete the work commenced in FY 1988. To assist in these efforts, EPA headquarters will promote transfer of information and ideas generated by States thin successfully completed the sews exercise in FY 1988. ------- APPENDIX 1 ------- APPENDIX 1 The Water Quality Act of 1987 (wQA) represents a comprehensive revision of the Clean Water Act, and maI).dates a number of new State water pollution control initiatives to be carried out in addition to ongoing water pollution control responsibilities. Several of these new WQA provisions require Sates to use a similar approach of information collection, assessment, and development and implementation of control mechanisms or management plans. Although each of these mandates might be carried out independently under its separate program authority, it makes more sense to combine these activities wherever possible, leading to comprehensive, integrated solutions to water pollution. There are four principal provisions of the WQA that involve information collection, assessment, and control solutions: ~316: Management of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution: By August 1988, each State must prepare an assessment and management program for nonpoint source pollution. The assessment stage must: . Identify affected waters: a list of navigable waters which, without additional action to . control NPS, cannot be expected to attain or maintain water quality standards (WQS) or. beneficial uses; . Identify sources 01 pollution: categories and subcategories, or where appropriate particular nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to each portion of the identified waters in amounts which contribute to not meeting WQS or meeting beneficial uses; . Describe cOnJrols: Process, including intergovernmental coordination and public participation for identifying best management practices (BMPs) and measures to controVreduce pollution from each category/subcategory/particular NPS; and . State and local programs for controlling NPS pollution and improving water quality, including programs receiving Federal assistance under WQA provisions for grants for NPS and groundwater protection. The WQA also sets forth specific requirements for the contents of State management programs, and provides that, to the maximum extent practicable, States must develop and implement their management program on a watershed-by-watershed basis within the State. ~308: Individual Control Strategies for Toxic Pollutants: This provision of the WQA requires States to undertake a progressive program of toxics reduction. By February 1989, each State must: . Identify affected waters: A list of all waters for which, after application of required technology-based controls, cannot be expected to attain or maintain WQS due to toxic pollutants, or attain or maintain that water quality necessary to protect beneficial uses due to point source or NPS discharge 01 toxics, conventional or nonconventional pollutants (this is the so called "long list" of waters); ------- -2- As a subset of above, a list of all waters which, after application of required technology-based controls cannot reasonably be anticipated to attain or maintain WQS for 9307( a) toxic pollutants due to either point or nonpoim source pollution; '-A list of all waters for which applicable WQS cannot be achieved after technology-based controls due entirely or substantially to point source discharges of 9307(a) toxics (this is the so called "shon list" of waters). . Identify the Sources of Pollution: for each segment identified on the "shon list," determine the specific point sources discharging any toxic pollutant that is preventing use or impairing water quality, and the amount of each toxic pollutant discharged by each source. Implement Controls: for each segment on the "shon list," develop an individual control strategy to reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants (through permits in combination with existing point and nonpoint source controls) sufficient to achieve WQS within three years. As a matter of policy, EP A is also requiring individual control strategies (through permits) to be developed to address all known toxicity problems, including chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity. . In a related provision (~308(d», States are directed to develop toxic chemical WQS and narrative criteria based on biological assessment methods. . ~31S: Clean Lakes: This provision of the WQA reaffIrms that lakes are a vital national resource, and establishes a demonstration program. By April 1988 (and every two years thereafter) each State is required to submit a repon on lake water quality that must: . Identify affected waters: List and classify by eutrophic condition all publicly owned lakes; List arid describe all publicly owned lakes for which uses are known to be impaired (including lakes not meeting WQS or requiring control programs to maintain WQS) and lakes where water quality has deteriorated as a result of acid deposition; Describe status and trends of lake water quality, including nature/extent of pointlNPS loading and extent of impairment, particularly with respect to toxic pollution. . Identify sources: N/A Describe controls: . Procedures, processes, and methods (including land use provisions) to control sources of pollution; Methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore lake quality; Methods and procedures to mitigate the effects of harmful acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high acidity. ------- -3- In order to be eligible for grant assistance, States must submit the required reports that cover these elements. ~317: National Estuary Program: Under these new provisions, Congress declares that it is national policy to maintain and enhance the water quality in estuaries and provide for the biological integrity of these waters. The Governor of a State or the EPA Administrator may nominate an estuary of national significance, and convene a management conference to: . In selected waters, identify: Trends in water quality, natural resources and uses of estuaries; Data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources to identify causes of environmental problems; In selected waters, identify: the relationship between inplace loads and point/NPS pollutant loadings, and potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural resources. . . . Develop plan: Comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends priority corrective actions and compliance schedules for point/NPS sources of pollution; Coordinated implementation by the States as well as Federal and local agencies. The WQA provides for grants to assist in work necessary to develop a conservation and management plan. While each of these four provisions addresses a specific problem and sets forth specific requirements, there are some common denominators among the various sections: collecting data and information, identifying affected waters, identifying the sources of pollution, and developing controls (individual control strategies, management programs or plans, or methods/procedures). I I Although these common themes lend themselves to an integrated, strategic approach to carrying out the various WQA initiatives, it is important to recognize that other mandates under the WQA place constraints on the degree to which activities can be merged. These are discussed in the text of the SCWS guidance. ------- APPENDIX 2 ------- DATA SOURCES APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT AND TARGETING OF WATER BODIES I. EPA -Data Sources ,- A. ComputArized Data SY8t888 EPA maintains the followinq water quality-related data bases, containinq state and EPA data. Most of this information is linked toqether for access usinq the reach file codinq structure under STORET. Permit Compliance System (PCS) data is available directly throuqh PCS coordinators (located in reqions and states) or throuqh Reach File Systems in related pilot project reqions (Reqions I, II, III, IV, and V). These data bases, individually and through linkaqes that have been and are beinq developed, can be very useful in assessinq water quality. For instance, ambient water quality data in the STORET system's Water Body File can be compared with state water. quality standards or EPA water quality criteria quickly to \ identify those water bodies where standards have been exceeded. Reach File a Nation'. major water bodies divided into some 70,000 individual seqments (reaches). Reaches assiqned numbers/name. Locational data includes latitude/lonqitude, state and county codes . Associated Reach Characteristics File,contains physical characteristics for seqments in Reach File--slope, elevations, width, depth, velocity, etc. Associated Gauqe File contains annual mean and low flow monthly mean flow estimates Linked to Drinking Water Supply File, qivinq location of water supply sources/intake. and o a o o o Contact: Bob Horn, OWlS, Criteria and Standard. Division EPA Headquarters Phone: FTS 382-7103/ (202) 382-7103 Water ~litv File o o Water qualitY'data from about 200,000 stations Locational data for each station-- ID No., reach assiqnment, latitude/longitude, state/county Data on hundreds of parameters, .ost common of which include pH, temperature, DO, solids, nitroqen, .etals Info on use impairment from ASWIPCA State's Evaluation of Proqress (STEP) and NPS reports National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study data a o o (listinq continued on next paqe) ------- Contact: 2 ~TORET CUstomer Support Office of Information Resources EPA Headquarters FTS 382-7220 ~ (800) 424-9067 (Note: Until recently, STORET and the Water Quality File were synonYmous, but STORET is now becoming a much broader system linking a number of EPA data bases.) Management Industrial Facilities Discharae File (IFD) o o o Data on 60,000 industrial and municipal discharges Industrial SIC codes, reach assiqnments, effluent data Information on indirect discharges to POTWs Contact: Phil Taylor OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support EPA Headquarters FTS 382-7046/ (202) 382-7046 Division Permit ComDliance System o o Records on 65,000 NPDES permits Locational data on permitted facilities, including link to Reach File POllutant-specific discharge limits Data from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DKRs) Automatic detection of violations of effluent limits Special feature of link to STORET provides estimates of effluent dilution ratios (average or low stream flow) o o o o o o Contact: ~ ~ Larry Reed OWEP, Enforcement Division EPA Headquarters FrS 475-8373/ (202) 475-8373 Phil Taylor (PCS/STORET link) --see IFD File listing for phone number Data on the distribution, abundance, and condition of aquatic organisms, including fish tissue analysis Descriptions of habitat at sampled sites--substrate type, streambank stability, canopy type Generates diversity indices/community structure analyses Will incorporate CETIS (aee below) o o Contact: Barbara Lamborne Office of Information Resources EPA Headquarters FTS 382-7220/ (202) 382-7220 Management ------- 3 ComclexEtfluent Toxicity Information System (CETIS) o Data ~rom whole effluent toxicity tests David Eng OWEP, Permits Division EPA Headquarters FTS 475-9522/ (202) 475-9522 Water BodY File (under development) Contact: Computerized system of recording information needed to prepare 305(b) reports Correlated with Reach File segments. To contain assessment data, including type(s) and magnitude of impairment, categories of point and nonpoint sources o o o Contact: Bruce Newton OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support Division EPA Headquarters FTS 382-7074/ (202) 382-7074 STORET Noncoint Source Stream Station File data on 700 stations from 22 states estimated to be primarily impacted by NPS STORET number, river reach number, state, county relative contribution of NPS in wet and low flow conditions of nine general pollutant types o o o Contact: Steve Dressing OWRS, Criteria and Standards Nonpoint Sources Branch EPA Headquarters FTS 382-7110/ (202) 382-7110 Division FederalR8cortina Data System lFRDS) Inv8ft~ory of public water supply systems in the u.S. Li.~in9 of exceedences of national drinking water standards in ~r8a~.d water (not in raw water 8upply) Some information on location of raw water supplies for some systems . o o o Contact: Debbie Ross Data Management section Office of Drinking Water EPA Head~arters FTS 382--2804 / (202) 382-2804 ------- 4 Needs surv.v File D~~a trom ~he 1986 Needs Survey covering approximately 24,0~0 exis~ing and proposed POTWs in need of construction Approxima~ely 200 data elements including tacility characteristics and location, construction costs, population served, ettluen~ charac~eristics, and more o o o Linked to the Reach File, PCS Contact: Lee Pasarew, OMPC, Municipal Facilities Division EPA Headquarters Phone: FTS 382-7251/(202) 382-7251 Grants Intormation Control Svstem CGICS} Data on all EPA construction grants projects tor POTWs Con~ain. administra~ive, tinancial, ~echnical, and project s~atus intormation on each EPA gran~ o o o Linked ~o the Needs Survey and PCS Contact: Sylvia Bell, OMPC, MUnicipal Construction Division EPA Headquarters FTS 382-5837/ (202) 382-5837 B. other EPA Data Source. '. Reaional Prioritv We~lands Lis~s Lis~. ot .os~ valuable (productive, unique) and vulnerable wetlands in each EPA Region Prepared by EPA Regional Ottice. o o Con~act: ottica ot Watland. Protection SPA Headquarters PTS 382-7496 / (202) 382-7496 (al.o con~ac~ Reqional wetlands s~att) O~her Proaram-Soecitic Guidance Ce.a.. 304Cl}. 319. 3l4} o under 304(1), reach-by-reach lis~ing ot ~oxic pollutants and discharges Contact: Monitoring and Da~a Support Division ottice ot Water EPA Headquarter. FTS 382-7040 / (202) 382-7040 ------- II. 5 Deoartment of Interior Data Sources Water Data Storaae and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) o Manaqed by USGS o Water quality data for 5,000 samplinq stations o Data on peak and daily flows from some 8,000 stations o Incorporates data trom USGS's NASQAN system (Note: all water quality data from WATSTORE included in STORET) Contact: OWen Williams Water Resources Division U.S.G.S. Reston, VA (703) 648-5684 National Water Data Exchanae (NAWDEX) Manaqed by USGS Listinq ot all orqanizations nationwide collectinq water data Master Water Index provides intormation on about 400,000 data collection sites o o o Contact: OWen Williams Water Resources U.S.G.S. Reston, VA (703) 648-5684 Division '. National Wetlands Inventorv (partially completed) o o o o o Manaqed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Computerized mappinq scheme tor entire country Veqetation data--3500 wetlands species Ecological community types Cla..itication accordinq to wetlands types Contac1:: Bill Wilen/Tom Dahl Pishand Wildlife Service u.S. Department ot Interior Washinqton, D.C. 20240 (202) 653-8726 Nationwide Rivers Inventorv Developed by National Park Service List of over 1,500 river seqments (around 62,000 miles) thouqht to have sufficient natural or cultural attributes to qualify for National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; excludes rivers in System and official candidate rivers o o ------- 6 Nationwide Rivers Inventory (cont.) Contact:- Glen Euqster .- Division ot Park anc:l Resource .- National Parks Service Philac:lelphia, PA (215) 597-7386 Planninq Enc:lanaerec:l SDecies Intormation Svstem lESIS) o o o o o o o Covers species listed unc:ler tederal Enc:lanqerec:l Species Act Otticial status (endanqerec:l, threatenec:l) Factors contributinq to present status Habitat types with which species a.sociatec:l Present/past location by county/state Watershec:ls/subunits where tound Counties/states with desiqnated critical habitat Contact: Michael J. Rein Ottice ot Endanqerec:l Species Department ot Interior Washinqton, D.C. 20240 (703) 235-2760 Annual ReDort ot Lanc:ls Under Control ot the U.S. Fish anc:l Wilc:llife Service o List ot all National Wildlite Retuqes,and other lanc:ls unc:ler the control ot the Pish and wildlite Service Division ot Realty Fish and Wildlite Service U.S. Department ot Interior washinqton, D.C. 20240 (202) 653 7650 National Natural Lanc:lmarks Proaram (National Park Service) Contact: o A revister ot siqniticant natural areas which illustrate the diveraity ot the natural heritaqe ot the U.S. Map. ot area. Into on ecoloqical and geoloqical characteristics Into on thre.~s o o o Contact: Harc:ly Pearce National Register Division National Park Service Wash, D.C. 20240 (202) 343-9525. ------- 7 Land Use and Data Analvsis (USGS) Reports land use by 40 different land use types for entire USA - Most.~data is from middle 1970 's Data-based on LANDSAT satellite imaqery o o o Contact: National Cartoqraphic USGS Reston, VA (703) 648-6045 Information Center Inventorv of Private Recreation Facilities o o Inventory of private recreation facilities Data reported by state, county and town Contact: Paul Solomon National Park Service Wash., D.C. 20240 (202) 272-3730 National Survev of Fishina. Huntina and Wildlife Associated. Recreation Includes fishinq and huntinq information on expenditures, times use, location and .ocio-economic characteristics Covers non-conaumptive wildlife recreation o o Contact: " Michael Hay U.S. Fish and Wildlife Washinqton, D.C. 20240 (202) 343-4902 Service III. Mational OCeanic and At80aoheric Adainistration National E.tuarine Inventorv Cover. 92 major e.tuarie. Da~:on e.tuary dimen.ion., drainaqe area, .tratification cl...itication, fre.hwater inflow rate., flow rations, and tidu ... Land u.. information for 25 cateqorie. of land use Computerized data ba.e o o o o Contact: Dan Ba8ta NOAA Washinqton, D.C. (202) 443-8843 ------- 8 National Coastal Wetlands Data Base o o Type and extent of coastal wetlands by estuary Based on statistical sample of 3000 National Wetland Contact: Dan Basta NOAA (202) 443-8843 National Shelltish Reaister o Classifies shellfish beds accordinq to water quality and productivity Historical data available for some areas o Contact: Dan Basta (See above) Shoreline Characterization o Characterizes estuarine shoreline accordinq to shoreline types; and dredqinq activities Shoreline type is reported on color coded NOAA charts eiqht nautical o Contact: Dan Basta (See above) National Coastal Pollutant Discharae Inventorv o Comprehensive data base ot pollutant aischarges enterinq estuarine waters Source cataqories include point sources, nonpoint sources, upstream sources, oil and qas operations, dredqinq operations and accidental spills. Computerized data base o o Contact: Dan Basta (See above) IV. ~8r Federal Data Source. National ...ources Inventory o o National survey based on 160 acre units Data on land use, conservation practices, soil type, erosion Contact: Jett Gable Soil Conservation Service U.S.D.A. Washinqton, D.C. 20013 (202) 447-4530 ------- 9 Land Areas ot the National Forest System (U.S. Forest Service) o o Orqanized by state and county Includes into on desiqnated wilderness areas, primitive areas, recreation areas, wildlite preserves Contact: Forest Service Department of Aqriculture Washinqton, D.C. 20013 (202) 235-8105 Recreation Intormation Manaaement System o o Recreational tacilities and areas in National Forest System Data on types ot recreation, visitor days, participation by activity Contact: Gene Welsch Recreation Manaqemant U.S. Forest Service Washinqton, D.C. 20250 (202) 447-2311 Division IV. Other Data Source. State Natural Heritaae Proarams o Desiqned to identity elements essential to preservation of bioloqical diversity Inventorie. on existence and location ot rare and endanqered plants and animal. Inventorie. on unique plant communities, aquatic systems OVer halt the stat.s have such proqrams, developed in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy o o o Contact.: state Natural Heritaqe proqram Ottice in your state Listinq ot state Heritaq. Larry Thomas The Nature Conservancy 1800 North Kent st. Arlinqton, VA 22209 (202) 841-5300 Priority Aauat~tes For Bioloaical Diversitv Conservation proqram contacts: o Listinq, by state, ot waters containinq key elements ot bioloqical diversity Developed with assistance ot state heritaqe proqrams o (listinq continued on next paqe) ------- 10 Priority Aauatic sites (cont.) Contact: Bob Chipley .. The Nature Conservancy .. 1800 North Kent st. 'Arlington, VA 22209 (202) 841-5300 Breedina Bird Survey o o Census of 200 species by county Historical data available Contact: Greq Butcher Cornell Lab of Ithica, N.Y. (607) 255-4999 Ornitholoqy Socio-Economic Environmental Demoarachic Info. System o Collection of socio-economic, environmental, demographic and health related data bases Covers geoqraphic reqions ranqinq from nation to minor civil divisions computerized data base updated annually o o Contact: Deane Herril Lawrence Berkeley Lab Department of Enerqy Berkeley, CA (415) 486-5063 '-. ------- SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON . STATE CLEAN WATER STRATEGIES: MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE The following discussion responds to the major comments received on the "Final Draft: State Clean Water Strategies (SCWSs)." It covers both responses to public comment that were incorporated into the final document, as well as responses to significant comments that did not lead to changes. General Comments One commenter felt the timeframes outlined in the SCWS would not allow the necessary time to adequately address the process, and suggested that development of a SCWS should occur over the next several years. In the final guidance, we have provided one additional quarter for completion of steps two and three (tar- geting and management plan development). We have also added a concluding section that indicates that some states may not complete the entire process in one year, and that some new States may decide to undertake a SCWS in FY 1988 and beyond. The SCWS is a multi-year exercise that. is designed to begin impacting annual work plans in FY 1989, so State managemerit plans must be reasonably complete by next Fall in order to impact FY 1989 work plans. Two commenters noted that there was a need to restore the concept of watershed or geographic-based approaches that had appeared in earlier versions. One commenter also wanted to see some mention of how SCWSs can be used to mesh current Clean Water Act (CWA) programs (such as wetlands protection) with new initiatives under the Water Quality Act (WQA). The final guidance has been modified to incorporate both of these concepts. One commenter noted that the multiplicity of conceptually related guidance documents was confusing and might result in regulatory requirements and deadlines getting lost. This commen- ter (and one other commenter) suggested attaching the other guidance documents as appendices. Because some of the related guidance documents will not be available at the same time the final SCWS is published, we have added a listing of the titles of the specific documents on the inside front cover of the SCWS, again noting that the requirements and deadlines in these specific documents (and the statutes) should be met. . ------- -2- Finally, there were several commenters that felt the guidance should be more directive about matters such as requiring States to produce outputs consistent with the guidance, adding a fourth section to address implementation, and using EPA authori- ties under S303(e) to review and approve the sews management plans. These recommendations were not included because the nature of these changes seemed inconsistent with the "voluntary" nature of the sews exercise. . Public Involvement A number of commenters addressed the subject of public partici- pation. Some advocated strengthening the public participation component of the sews, and others expressed concern about the potential burden caused by elaborate public participation requirements. EPA views the public participation element as a cornerstone of the sews exercise because of its value in generat- ing broad-based support for both action and funding. We have made no changes with respect to the public participation discus- sion in the final sews guidance. Data Three commenters noted concerns with the data and information requirements in the final draft sews. One cited over-reliance on existing data; another said EPA should actively discourage use of old, "evaluated" data; and the third noted that the guidance should place more emphasis on longer-term data collec- tion. We have made minor adjustments to the final guidance to clarify that the States' ability to meet near-term WQA require- ments and deadlines will depend largely on use of existing, readily available data, but that longer-term efforts will require new monitoring and data collection activities. Relationship Between sews and Grant Funding A number of commenters noted that there is no basis in law for awarding Federal funding to States based on the sews, particu- lary future 5319 funding (if any). EPA has responsibilities for awarding and managing Federal grants to ensure State consis- tency with Federal regulations, including ensuring that States adhere to statutory and regulatory requirements as well as annual program guidance published by EPA. EPA believes that the process outlined here will facilitate State efforts to meet statutory and regulatory requirements. The sews is a voluntary exercise. To the extent that a State has completed a sound sews that builds on the requirements and deadlines that must be met under S3l9 of the law, EPA will take this management plan into consideration at the time of annual S3l9 grant negotiations. Completion and approval of a sews would be a primary consider- ------- n -3- ation in awarding funds for priority NPS activities. Funds for basic NPS activities will be allocated by formula without consideration of sews completion. Targeting/Setting priorities Several commenters felt the concept of targeting was not possible and/or not desirable for a variety of reasons. EPA agrees that there are difficulties associated with targeting, and proposes to hold a national workshop to discuss various approaches to targeting. The purpose of this workshop is to familiarize States with available techniques in an effort to enhance the opportunities for successful outcomes. As in the case of public participation, however, targeting is a cornerstone of the sews concept and is essential to making sound decisions and for setting priorities for action over a muiti-year period. He have made no changes to the targeting discussion in the final guidance document. coverage of ~304(1) Requirements Two commenters felt that the sews should cover the initial phase of work under ~304(1). As noted in the guidance, however, the statutory requirements and deadlines for this particular provision do not allow States any discretion regarding either the timing or location of the control measures they are required to put in place under ~304(1). Since the concept of targeting involves setting priorities for action, and thereby implies that some work will get done now and that other work will be delayed until future years, there is an inherent conflict between the two. States should consolidate their assessment activities under ~304(1) with other assessments underway, but individual control strategies must be in place by the statutory deadline. . sews is Voluntary Two commenters noted that, while the sews is "voluntary" in nature, it is being viewed as mandatory in some Regions and that certainL_key clauses in the guidance implied it was manda- tor"y. We have made minor modifications to the guidance to clarify that it is voluntary, and we will continue working with the Regions to ensure that they are implementing the concept consistent with the spirit and intent of the guidance. ------- |