&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
tcr
icr Regulations
« (WH-551)
O.C. 20460
February 1989
Water
Guidelines for the
Preparation of the 1990
State Water Quality
Assessment (305(b) Report)
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE .PREPARATION OF
1990 STATE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
(305(b) REPORTS)
February, 1989
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553)
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St. SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
J5^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB 17
OFFICE OF
WATS a
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: .^Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State
Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report)
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water (WH-556)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached are the final Guidelines for the Preparation of the
1990 State Water Quality Assessment required under Section 305(b)
of the Clean Water Act.
These Guidelines continue refining the basic assessment
framework developed in 1983 through a cooperative effort between
EPA, the States, and the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). In each successive
biennial reporting cycle, State water quality assessments have
improved significantly. In particular, reports submitted in the.
1988 cycle showed vast improvements in many areas. These 1990
Guidelines more fully integrate the improvements initiated in
1988 while maintaining a consistent baseline of water quality
reporting. Comments on the draft Guidelines from ASIWPCA, the
States, and the Regions have been incorporated to the extent
possible.
In 1988, EPA began the implementation of an automated data
management system to record the results of water quality assess-
ments of waterbodies and manage newly-required assessment
information under the Water Quality Act of 1987. EPA worked
with the States to implement this Section 305(b) Waterbody
System (WBS), and has thus far provided about half the States
with direct assistance such as on-site training, data entry, and
custom programming. A number of States used the system in
1988 and greatly improved the quality and utility of their 305(b)
reports. We expect this progress to continue in 1990. In these
Guidelines, we request that States use computerized information
transfer of their waterbody-specific information, either using
the WBS upload feature, transferring data from a State system, or
mailing WBS diskettes through their Regional Office. Direct
assistance as mentioned above will continue to be available to
help States use the WBS in preparing their 1990 305(b) reports.
-------
-2-
In addition to establishing the Waterbody System as a key
component of State reporting under Section 305(b), these
Guidelines have been refined in several areas to better reflect
the continuing goals of the water quality assessment program.
Among these goals are to increase coverage of the Nation's
waters and to continue reporting under the Water Quality Act
of 1987 (WQA). Significant progress has already been made in
both areas. We have begun to see a rise in the percentage of
the Nation's waters assessed, and are encouraging States to
continue this trend by tapping new data sources and adopting
new monitoring techniques as they become available. These
Guidelines also expand reporting on wetlands, estuaries, and
coastal waters in an attempt to build an information baseline
for these areas not addressed by traditional State/Federal
monitoring and reporting.
Under the January 12, 1989, proposal to amend the Water
Quality Management Regulation (40 CFR Part 130), the Section
305(b) reporting process will become the long-term vehicle for
WQA reporting on lakes, nonpoint source pollution, and toxics in
surface waters (Sections 314, 319, and 304(1 )/30-3{d) respectively).
These Guidelines are consistent with this long-term goal.
EPA remains committed to working with States and others in
the ground-water community to develop indicators that could be used
to measure trends in ground-water quality. Several States have
expressed interest in using indicators as part of Section 305(b)
reporting in place of, or in addition to, current ground-water
guidance. However, not all States have data readily available to
provide indicator trends for the 1990 Section 305(b) report.
Therefore, these Guidelines clarify that the proposed indicators
are voluntary for the 1990 reporting process. EPA will encourage
States to use one or two of the indicators, where data are avail-
able, as part of their 1990 reporting. We will provide assistance
to States who are interested in using indicators to help them
identify data sources and analysis techniques. EPA plans to move
toward inclusion of ground-water indicators in the 1992 Section
305(b) report, and will continue to work with State representatives
on the indicators used for this reporting.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has raised concerns
about the guidance for determining use support, particularly as it
relates to the requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the amended
Clean Water Act. In response, we have clarified the relationship
between this guidance and the requirements of Section 303. As
discussed in the Guidelines, EPA has begun an effort that will
lead to revised guidance for determining use support. We are
also working to further refine the reporting process by developing
guidance to improve consistency in methods of determining total
State waters and assessing trends. Future Guidelines will
incorporate the results of these efforts. We look forward to
working with you and the States in these and related activities.
-------
-3-
Please transmit these 1990 Guidelines to your States. If
you elect to develop supplemental Regional guidance, please be
sure to send a copy to Geoff Grubbs of the Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division (WH-553) for our records.
cc: Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I-X
-------
CONTENTS
Background
The 305(b).process 1
Goals for the 1990 Cycle
Introduction 3
Goals 3
Other considerations 4
1990 305(b) Submission Requirements and Contents 6
Part I: Executive Summary/Overview 6
Part II: Background. 7
Part III: Surface Water Assessment 9
Chapter One - Summary Data 9
Chapter Two - Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns 13
Chapter Three - Lake Water Quality Assessment 15
Chapter Four - Estuary and .Coastal Information -.....-. 18
Chapter Five - Wetlands Information 19
Part IV: Ground-Water Information .'... 21
Part V: Water Pollution Control Program 24
Chapter One - Point Source Control Program 24
Chapter Two - Nonpoint Source Control Program 24
Chapter Three - Cost/Benefit Assessment 24
Chapter Four - Surface Water Monitoring Program 25
Chapter Five - Special State Concerns and Recommendations ... 25
APPENDIX A: Waterbody-Specific Information
APPENDIX B: Key Terms and Definitions
APPENDIX C: Provisions of the Clean Water Act
-------
BACKGROUND
THE 305(b) PROCESS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean
Water Act) establishes a process for the developnent of information concerning
the quality of the Nation's water resources and the reporting of this information
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Congress. The
requirements for this process are found in Sections 106(e), 204(a), 305(b),
and 314 (a) of the Clean Water Act (see Appendix C). Each State, Territory,
and Interstate Commission must develop a program to monitor the quality of its
surface and ground waters and prepare a report every two years describing the
status of water quality. The EPA is required to transmit these reports to
Congress along with an analysis describing the status of water quality nationwide.
This process, referred to as the 305(b) process, is an essential aspect
of the water pollution control effort. It is the principal means by which the
EPA, Congress, and the public evaluate water quality, the progress made in
maintaining and restoring water quality, and the extent to which problems
remain. Many States rely on the 305(b) process for the information needed to
conduct program planning and to report to their legislatures on progress and
remaining problems in their pollution control programs. The 305(b) process is
an integral part of the State water quality management program requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 130. . .
In fact, to underscore the importance of reporting water quality information
and to extend implementation of several reporting provisions of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, EPA is developing revisions to 40 CFR Part 130 (the Water
Quality Management Regulation). The revisions concerning reporting are
included in these guidelines and were also required in the 1988. reporting cycle.
At the Federal level, the 305(b) process is becoming more important as a
result of increasing efforts to manage programs in a more cost-effective manner.
The management objective for the 305(b) information transfer process is
to provide the information needed to:
(1) determine the status of water quality;
(2) identify water quality problems and trends;
(3) evaluate the causes of poor water quality and the relative contri-
butions of pollution sources;
(4) report on the activities underway to assess and restore water quality;
(5) determine the effectiveness of control programs;
(6) ensure that pollution control programs are focused on achieving
environmental results in an efficient manner;
(7) determine the workload remaining in restoring waters with poor quality
and protecting threatened waters; and
(8) maintain and update statutorily-required lists of waters identified
under Sections 304(1), 314, and 319.
-------
Recent rulemaking activity has addressed the issue of water quality planning
and management among Indian Tribes of the U.S. Tribes are not required to produce
water quality reports under Section 305(b), but whenever a project performed
by a Tribe provides updated data on the quality of Tribal waters, the Tribe
will be required to provide a summary of such information to EPA.
-------
GOALS FOR THE 1990 CYCLE
INTRODUCTION
In order to coordinate reporting efforts among the States, Territories,
and Interstate Commissions, goals or themes have been established for each
305(b) reporting cycle. In 1990, these goals are as follows:
GOALS
1. Increasing Coverage of the Nation's Waters
In the 1986 305(b) reports, only about one fifth of the Nation's river miles
and one third of its lake acres were assessed by the States for designated use
support. Clearly, continued effort is needed to increase the number of waters
assessed by the States. It is expected that States will strive to increase
the number of waters they assess by tapping new data sources, including
"evaluated" waters in their assessments, and adopting new monitoring techniques
as they become available.
Traditionally, rivers and lakes have been the major focus of State water
monitoring and State/Federal reporting activities. Pollution assessment efforts
have only recently begun to provide information on estuarine, coastal, and wetland
water quality. In view of the critical role 'these types of waterbodies play in
the water cycle and in patterns of water use, this document includes new reporting
measures designed to provide data on conditions in these waters and of efforts
to prevent their degradation.
2. Improving Data Quality and Utility
Information from the 305(b) process is becoming critically important as
pollution control efforts shift from technology-based to water quality-based
approaches. Waterbody-specific information is needed to comply with requirements
under Sections 319, 314, 304(1), and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and to
answer key programmatic questions. To improve data consistency and usefulness,
simplify preparation of State reports, and provide a management tool for States,
a computerized data system has been developed to manage the waterbody-specific
portion of the 305(b) information.
In 1988, several States used the data system, called the Section 305(b)
Waterbody System (WBS), for 305(b) reporting. States that did not use the system
but that provided WBS-compatible data were coded into the system by EPA. Both
mainframe and PC components of the WBS are available for State use. EPA has
been providing technical support to States to implement the WBS. This assistance
includes coding and entering data, on-site training, consultation, indexing
waterbody designations to the River Reach System, custom programming, and
programming to enable data transfer from a State system to the WBS. This
assistance will continue in 1989 and 1990. Most States are using or are in the
-------
process of implementing the WBS or their own compatible system. Therefore, EPA
expects States to transfer their waterbody-specific data to the WBS either
using the WBS or transferring data from a State system (data entry assistance
will be available from EPA prior to the April 1 submission deadline).
3. Continue Water Quality Act Reporting
The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1987, requires States to identify specific
waters (along with other requirements), generally as follows:
o Under §304(1) and §303(d), all waters threatened or impaired, waters
with toxic pollution problems and those for which additional controls
are needed on point source discharges of toxic pollutants.
o Under §314, lakes identified by trophic status, lakes which are impaired,
and lakes with acidity problems.
o Under §319, waters which, without additional action to control nonpoint
sources, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain water quality
standards or the goals of the Act.
The State 305(b) reporting process has been designated as the mechanism for
reporting these lists, and EPA's proposed rule to amend the Water Quality Management
Regulation (40 C.F.R. Parts 122, 123, and 130) continues the requirement on an ongoing
basis. Therefore, this 305(b) guidelines document continues the reporting for 1990.
The identification of these waters should be submitted as part of the
waterbody-specific information discussed in Appendix A of these Guidelines.
States should use the WBS to maintain their lists of waters as well as to identify
specific sources requiring additional control.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Trends
Assessing and reporting trends in water quality is an important aspect of
managing water quality. Trends assessment has been a deficiency in national
reporting and in the majority of State reporting. EPA has been working on a
consistent framework and methodology for assessing trends. However, this
work is not yet complete and EPA is not prepared to make trends assessment a
major emphasis for the 1990 reporting cycle.
We encourage States that are planning to include assessments of trends in
their 1990 reports to do so on an optional basis. EPA will continue its efforts
to work toward a consistent framework based on State experiences. We are also
evaluating the concept of a major project conducted jointly with other Federal
agencies and the States to assess trends in time for the 1992 report and the
20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.
-------
Improving Consistency of Reported Information
Over the years, substantial progress has been made in increasing the consistency
of water quality reporting. However, further progress is needed to increase the
usefulness of water quality measures reported by the States and summarized in the
National water quality report to Congress. As a result of the recent National
Symposium on Water Quality Assessment, two major "consistency" issues were
identified by the States and EPA as requiring resolution. These issues are:
a) establishing scientifically-based, equitable criteria for determining designated
use support, and b) establishing a consistent basis for determining total State
waters.
EPA has begun work to develop protocols to address these issues. As a first
step, varying State methodologies described in the 1988 305(b) reports have been
assembled and reviewed to provide a baseline for further development. The
development of criteria for these determinations is difficult because of the
complex technical aspects associated with them. Consequently, it is uncertain
when final guidance will be available. If available in time for the preparation
of the 1990 State reports, States may utilize the guidance on a voluntary
basis.
-------
1990 305(b) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS
The Clean Water Act.requires that the States transmit their water quality
assessments (Section 305(b) reports) to the EPA Administrator by April 1, 1990.
States should provide draft reports to their EPA Regional Office for review and
comment prior to the final deadline of April 1, 1990. EPA requests that the
States submit five (5) copies of their final reports to the National 305(b)
Coordinator, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553), U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Additional copies may be requested by the EPA Regional •
Office.
These Guidelines describe the types of water quality information that provide
a comprehensive description of statewide water quality (both surface and ground
water), and that in turn may be compared among States, Regions, and/or nationally.
These guidelines should be considered as the baseline of water quality information
required for the Section 305(b) report; however, each State may expand on this
baseline where it sees fit or as agreed upon between the State and EPA Region.
In cases where a State has no information on a given measure or topic, it should
say so clearly in the text of its report. Appendices may be used to supplement
the report with information considered too detailed for general reading.
Each State's assessment should be based on the most recent water quality data
available. However, coverage should not be restricted to only those waters
assessed in the 1988-1989 reporting period. In order to produce a comprehensive
portrayal of the State's water quality, all waters for which the State has
information should be included. States should collect and evaluate data from all
available sources, including'State fish and game agencies, health departments,' dis-
chargers and Federal agencies. Where a. State has worked with a Tribal authority to
collect and evaluate water quality data, it should ensure Tribal review of that data.
A data management system, the Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS), has been
developed and included as part of these Guidelines to manage much of the waterbody-
specific; quantitative information concerning surface water quality and sources of
pollution. States should submit their waterbody-specific information by computerized
data transfer to the National Computer Center by using the WBS upload feature,
transferring data from State systems, or mailing data diskettes through their EPA
Regional Office. Data entry and programming assistance will be available from EPA
prior to the April 1 submission deadline. A discussion of the WBS is included in
Appendix A.
In the years in which it is prepared, the biennial water quality assessment
(Section 305(b) report) satisfies the requirement for the annual water quality
report under Section 205(j). In years when the assessment is not required, the
State may satisfy the annual 205(j) report requirement either by certifying that
the most recently submitted water quality assessement is current or by supplying
an update of those sections of the assessment that require it (see 40 CFR Part 130).
In order to ensure comparability of information developed by many States,
it is necessary to use consistent measures, terms, and definitions. Key terms, with
a discussion of their definitions and uses, are included in Appendix B.
The text of the State Section 305(b) report should be organized into five
sections. The contents of each section are described below under the section headings,
Some organizational changes have been made compared to the 1988 Guidelines.
-------
PART I; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Each State should provide a concise executive summary/overview that is compre-
hensive and clear enough to stand alone. For both surface and ground water, it should:
o describe overall State water quality (for surface water, include a summary
of the degree of designated use support for the different waterbody types);
o describe the major factors affecting use support;
o discuss the general trends in water quality;
o briefly recap the highlights of each section of the report, particu-
larly the objectives of the State water management program and
issues of special concern to the State.
PART II; BACKGROUND
To put the report into perspective for the reader, a brief State overview
should be provided, as follows:
Atlas
State population
State surface area
No. of water basins
(according to State subdivisions)
Total no. of river miles*
No. of border miles (subset)
No. of lakes/reservoirs/ponds*
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds*
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays*
No. of ocean coastal miles*
No. of Great Lakes shore miles*
Acres of freshwater wetlands*
Acres of tidal wetlands*
Names of border rivers:
*Until EPA issues guidance on determining total waters, States should use whatever
method they used in previous reporting cycles. States should identify the
method used.
-------
NOTE: Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic
behavior, either as stream channel miles under rivers, or as total surface
acreage under lakes/ponds, but not under both categories.
Summary of classified uses
Type of
Water
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (square
miles)
Other (specify)
Use Classification Category
Total Waters
Classified
Waters Classified for
Uses Consistent with
CWA Goals
Fishable*
T
Swimmable*
I
Total Waters
Unclassified
*The fishable CWA goal is defined as protection and propagation of fish, shellfish
and wildlife. • •
*The swimmable CWA goal is defined as providing for recreation in and on the water
Total waters classified and total waters unclassified should add up to
the total number of waters in the State, as identified in the atlas on p.6.
Waters classified for uses consistent with CWA goals are a subset of total
waters classified. States may provide a narrative explanation of these numbers
(e.g., the size of waters for which equivalent protection is provided even
though the classified use is not consistent with a CWA goal).
In addition to providing this table, the State should also explain what
kinds of waters are unclassified and how the State determines which waters
should be classified. Lastly, changes in water quality classification that
have occurred since the last 305(b) report should be briefly discussed.
-------
PART III: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter One: Summary Data
Methodology
•
States should provide information on the methods they have used to collect
and analyze monitoring data for determining use support status. Classification
categories and criteria for determining the status of waters are presented in
Figure 1 of Appendix B. However, because the use of an alternate system to
determine use support (such as a water quality index) is acceptable as long as
it generally corresponds to the guidelines contained in Figure 1, the State
should describe any alternate system it has used.
In this section, States are encouraged to briefly discuss the findings depicted
in the tables below. Some issues that might be addressed include what the State is
doing to increase its number of assessed waters; and what sorts of monitoring and
evaluation activities the State used to gather its information.
Water Quality Summary
State submissions should include summary statistics on designated use support
and attainment of Clean Water Act goals. A standard reporting format is provided
below. These tables can be automatically generated from waterbody-specific
information through use of the Waterbody System (WBS).
Data should be re'ported by type of waterbody, as follows: rivers (reported
in miles)7 lakes (reported in acres); estuaries (reported in square miles);
coastal waters and Great Lakes (reported in linear shore miles). In addition,
States should report on freshwater and tidal wetlands where possible. Since
States are in many cases just beginning to assess wetlands and may not have
developed criteria for interpreting water quality information in relation to
State water quality standards, reporting on use support in wetlands is optional.
DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT
Type of Waterbody: .
Degree of
Use Support
Assessment Basis
Evaluated
Monitored
Total
Assessed
Size fully supporting
Size fully supporting
but threatened*
Size partially supporting
Size not supporting
TOTAL
*Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size
fully supporting uses. It should be added into the totals entered in the last line.
-------
10
Some States may wish to report lake designated use information in the lakes
section of their reports rather than in this water quality summary section (see
Chapter 3: Lake Water Quality Assessment). If so, please cite in this section
the pages on which summary tables can be found.
•
ATTAINMENT OF CWA GOALS*
• Type of waterbody:
Goal Attainment Fishable Goal Swimmable Goal
Size meeting
Size partially meeting
Size not meeting
Size not attainable2
For a discussion of CWA goal attainment, see Appendix B.
1 For this measure to.be most useful. States should report on each goal
independently. If reporting.on a combined" basis, repeat the same number of
miles/acres/square miles for both goals.
2 A goal is not attainable if State standards are less stringent than the CWA
goal, based on an EPA-approved use attainability analysis.
Maps (optional)
Maps displaying designated use support information for rivers, lakes,
estuaries, oceans, Great Lakes and wetlands are very useful in interpreting
information on a geographic basis. Using the analysis conducted when deriving
the previous summary of support of designated use(s), display waterbodies
according to one of the three use support categories. Maps on a basin scale
are most appropriate.
Causes and sources of nonsupport of designated uses
For those waters assessed that are not fully supporting their designated
uses (i.e., partially and not supporting uses), provide the following information
to illustrate the causes and sources of use impairment statewide. States may
also wish to prepare similar tabular information for waters that fully support
uses but are threatened. States may wish to report lake cause/source information
in the lakes section of their reports rather than in this section (see Chapter
3: Lake Water Quality Assessment). If so, please cite the pages on which
summary tables can be found.
-------
11
Relative assessment of causes -
For each of the waterbody types (e.g./ rivers, lakes, etc.) provide the
total size of waters affected by each category of cause. A water may be
affected by several different causes and its size should be counted in each
relevant cause category. If the magnitude of the cause is listed in the waterbody-
specific information as High, the size with less than full support should be
included as a major impact below; if listed as Moderate or Slight, the size
should be included as a moderate/minor impact. See Appendix B for a discussion
of the terms major/moderate/minor. This table can be automatically generated
from waterbody-specific information through use of the WBS.
TOTAL SIZES OF WATERS NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
AFFECTED BY VARIOUS CAUSE CATEGORIES
Type of waterbody:
CAUSE CATEGORIES MAJOR IMPACT1 MODERATE/MINOR IMPACT1
Unknown
Unknown toxicity
Pesticides
Priority organics .
Nonpriority organics
Metals ' ' • -
Ammonia
Chlorine
Other inorganics
Nutrients
pH
Siltation
Organic enrichment/DO
Salinity/TDS/chlorides
Thermal modification
Flow alteration
Other habitat alterations-
Pathogen indicators
Radiation
Oil and grease
Taste and odor
Suspended solids
Noxious aquatic plants
Filling and draining
•*-in total size (rivers must be reported in miles, lakes in acres, estuaries in
square miles, coastal waters and Great Lakes in shore miles, wetlands in acres)
-------
12
Relative Assessment of Sources -
For each of the waterbody types (i.e., rivers, lakes, etc.) provide the
total size of waters affected by each category of source, including the size
with overall point and nonpoint source impacts. A water may be affected
by several sources of pollution and the appropriate size should be counted in .
each relevant source category. If the magnitude of the source is listed in the
waterbody-specific information as High, the size with less than full support
should be included as a major impact below; if it is listed as Moderate or
Slight, the size should be included as a moderate/minor impact. See Appendix B
for a discussion of the terms major/moderate/minor. This table can be automatically
generated from waterbody-specific information through use of the WBS.
TOTAL SIZES OF WATERS NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
AFFECTED BY VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES
Type of Waterbody:
SOURCE CATEGORY1 MAJOR IMPACT2 MODERATE/MINOR IMPACT2
Point Sources
Industrial
Municipal
Municipal pretreatment
CSO (end of pipe) . .• .
Storm sewers '
Other dischargers ' • .
Nonpoint Sources
Agriculture
Silviculture • •
Construction
Urban runoff
Resource extract.
Land disposal
Hydro/habitat mod.
Other NPS
Unknown
^States may further separate sources into subcategories as needed. See WBS
User's Guide for a detailed list of subcategories. Because a waterbody may be
affected by several subcategories, sizes in subcategories may overlap and are
non-additive. Therefore, States are asked to determine a size affected by
overall point and nonpoint source impacts, and by the general categories
displayed above. For example, if in a waterbody 10 miles are affected by
feedlots, 15 by pastureland, and 15 by irrigated agriculture, the size affected
by Agriculture will be between 15 and 40 miles, depending on the overlaps.
The summary table is then simply the sum of the individual waterbody figures.
The WBS user's guide will discuss this problem for the 1990 305(b) cycle.
For more information, contact the EPA Regional or HQ WBS coordinator.
2In total size (river miles, lake acres, estuary mi2, coastal/Great Lakes miles, etc.)
-------
13
Chapter 2: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Size of Waters Affected by Toxics
Toxic pollutants are of growing concern throughout the country; however,
in many cases there is Mttle definitive information available on their extent
and impact on the environment. In the table below, report on the extent of
toxics-caused problems. This table can be automatically generated from waterbody-
specific information through use of the WBS.
TOTAL SIZE AFFECTED BY TOXICS
WATERBODY
SIZE MONITORED
FOR TOXICS
SIZE WITH ELEVATED
LEVELS OF TOXICS
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (miles2)
Coastal waters (miles)
Great.Lakes.(miles)
Freshwater wetlands (acres)
Tidal wetlands (acres)
Elevated levels are defined as exceedances of numeric State water quality
standards, 304(a) criteria, and/or FDA action levels, or levels of concern
(where numeric criteria do not exist). As a means of providing perspective,
discuss which toxic pollutants have been monitored for and include a list of
those toxic pollutants for which the State has adopted numeric criteria.
Public Health/Aquatic Life Impacts
To the extent possible, provide information on the following public health
and aquatic life impacts of toxics and non-toxic contamination:
o Fishing advisories and bans currently in effect;
o Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities (occurred during this cycle only);
o Sites of known sediment contamination;
o Shellfish restrictions/closures currently in effect;
o Closure of surface drinking water supplies during this reporting cycle;
o Closure of bathing areas during this reporting cycle; and
o Incidents of waterborne disease during this reporting cycle.
-------
14
States should use tables such as the one below to summarize key statistics regarding
toxic and non-toxic impacts, but should supplement the tables with narrative as
appropriate. For example, States are encouraged to discuss the nature/limits of
the monitoring effort from which these data are derived, and to place these
impacts in perspective as compared to other water quality problems in the State.
States are reminded to consider estuaries and wetlands in the waters listed
below, as appropriate.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION/PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
Category of Impact: (e.g., fishing bans)
Name of
Waterbody
Pollutant (s)
of Concern
Source(s) of
Pollutant (s)
Size
Affected
Comments (# fish
killed,, species affected,
duration of impact, etc. )
Category of Impact:
.1 = Fish tissue contamination above Ft)A/NAS/levels of concern
2 = Fishing advisory in effect
3 = Fishing ban in effect
4 = Pollution-related, fish abnormality observed during reporting period
5.= Shellfish restrictions due to pathogens, currently in effect
6 = Pollution-caused fish kill occurred during reporting period
7 = Sediment contamination
8 = Surface drinking water supply closed during reporting period
9 = Bathing area closed during reporting period
10 = Waterborne disease incident during reporting period
Some States may wish to present one overall table listing all instances of toxic
contamination/public health impacts for the reporting period. If so, they should
add a column to identify the category of impact (e.g., fishing ban, shellfish
restriction) and be certain to relate relevant causes and sources to each impact.
Although the WBS may be useful in generating sections of these tables, the WBS
cannot: 1) generate accurate size estimates if the size affected is less than the
total waterbody size, or 2) relate specific causes and sources to specific impacts.
States may wish to record this information in the WBS comment field.
Section 304(1) Waters
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the WQA of 1987,
requires States to identify waters adversely affected by toxic, conventional, and
non-conventional pollutants and to develop individual control strategies to
control point source discharges of toxic pollutants by February 1989. However,
-------
15
because EPA believes that it is desirable to continue the efforts begun under
Section 304(1) and that not all presently unknown problems will be identified
by February 1989, amendments to the Water Quality Management Regulation (40 CFR
130), are being proposed to continue the Section 304(1) process under the
authority of Section 303(d).
The proposed amendments will require water quality-limited waters to be
identified every two years in the State 305(b) report, beginning with the 1990
report. The regulation includes a proposal to simplify the three lists
required under Section 304(1) into two lists. After public review and comment
on the proposed amendments, EPA will decide whether to require that water
quality-limited segments be reported in three lists or two.
The proposed amendments are scheduled to become final by mid-1989. The
lists to be reported in the 1990 305(b) reports should be the lists submitted
in February 1989 by the States to fulfill their statutory obligations under
Section 304(1), updated since February 1989 to reflect any new data collection
and analysis, any revisions to State water quality standards and any waterbodies
added to the list through EPA promulgation.
The WBS should be used to report these lists. EPA will enhance the WBS1
capability to maintain and report these lists. In addition, the State may wish
to provide hard copy lists of these waters; if so, it should do so in this
section or in a clearly identified Appendix, in a format compatible with the
WBS. Guidance on 305(b) reporting of these lists, including a reporting format,
will be distributed to the States as. soon as the proposed regulation becomes
final. . .
Chapter 3: Lake Water Quality Assessment
Section 314(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the WQA of 1987,
requires the States to submit a biennial assessment of their lake water quality
as part of their 305(b) report. The specific elements of the assessment, as
outlined in Section 314(a)(1)(A)-(F), constitute the minimal requirements for
approval and for subsequent grant assistance as required by Section 314(a)(4).
The discussion below is a clarification and tabulation of the information
requested in the previous Guidelines.
This chapter and its related appendix should constitute each State's Lake
Water Quality Assessment Report and should reflect the status of lake water quality
in the State, restoration/protection efforts, and trends in lake water quality.
The text of this chapter should include narrative discussions and summary
information which should be supported by specific information on each lake. If
summary lake information is presented elsewhere in the State report, page and table
citations should be given in this chapter. Lake-specific information may
be submitted by computer disk or a hard copy appendix to the State report.
The EPA is currently incorporating minor revisions to the Waterbody System
(WBS) to accommodate the input of this lake-specific information. Any reference
to using the Waterbody System to report information also applies to any compatible
systems used by the States.
-------
16
The State Lake Water Quality Assessment should be limited to publicly-
owned lakes and may focus on those lakes the State considers significant
(as defined by the State). Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter, the
term "lake" will refer to "significant publicly-owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds."
Any lake information presented elsewhere in the report should be referenced
in this section. Each State shall submit:
Background
o The State's definition of "significant" as it relates to the purposes of this
assessment. The definition must consider public interest and use.
o Total number of lakes and number of lake acres in the State.
o Any other background information the State considers relevant to this discussion.
Trophic Status [314(a)(D(A)]
o The total number of lakes in each trophic class.
o A discussion of how trophic status was determined and why the approach was
selected.
Control Methods [314(a)(D(B)]
. o.-A description of procedures, processes, and methods, to control sources of
pollution to lakes, including: .
- point and nonpoint source controls
- land use ordinances and regulations designed to protect lake water 'quality
o A general description of relevant State pollution control programs as they
relate to the protection of lake water quality. In particular, discuss the
State lake management program including related activities under the nonpoint
source, point source, wetlands, and emissions control programs, and any
other relevant program activities. Also, describe the State's water
quality standards that are applicable to lakes.
Restoration Efforts [314(a)(l)(C)l
o A general description of the State's plans to restore and/or protect the
quality of its lakes. This is the State's management plan for its lakes
program and should focus on the cooperative working relationships among
Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies concerned with lake protection,
restoration, and management.
o A description of techniques to restore lake water quality.
o A description of Phase I and Phase II Clean Lakes Program projects that
have been undertaken and/or completed.
Impaired and Threatened Lakes [314(a)(l)(E)]
o If not provided previously in the water quality summary chapter, summary
tables on designated use support and causes and sources of nonsupport in
lakes as described on pages 9, 11, and 12 of these Guidelines. Include
-------
17
information on threatened lakes, if available.
o A discussion of State water quality standards as they apply to lakes. If
water quality standards have not been established for lakes, the measure
used to determine impairment or threatened status should be identified.
Acid Effects on Lakes [314(a)(l)(D); 314(a)(l)(E)]
o The number of lakes and lake acres that have been assessed for high acidity.
If information is available, discuss the nature and extent of toxic substances
mobilization as a result of high acidity.
o The number of lakes and lake acres affected by high acidity. Indicate the
measure (pH, ANC) used to determine acidic condition and the level at which
the State defines "affected."
o A discussion of the specific sources of acidity, with estimates of the number
of affected lake acres attributed to each source of acidity.
o A description of the methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects
of high acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring
the buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from lakes toxic
metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high acidity.
Toxic Effects on Lakes [314(a)(l)(E); 314(a)(l)(F)]
o Total number of lakes and lake-acres on each 304(l)/303(d) list.
o If not provided in Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns chapter (see p. 13
of these Guidelines), number of lakes and number of lake acres monitored for
toxics and those with elevated levels of toxic pollutants.
o A discussion of the sources of toxic pollutants in lakes, with estimates of
the number of affected lake acres attributed to each source of toxic pollutants.
Trends in Lake Water Quality [314(a)(1)(F)]
o A general discussion of lake water quality trends. Include the total number
of lakes and lake acres in each trend category (improved, degraded, stable or
unknown).
o A discussion of how trends were determined (e.g., changes in use support
status, statistical trend analysis of water quality parameters). Indicate
the time frame of analysis.
-------
18
Chapter 4; Estuary and Coastal Information (coastal States)
As part of the National initiative to increase understanding of estuarine
and near coastal waters and to better direct pollution control efforts in
these waters, the States are asked to provide information to EPA on five overall
topics: eutrophication, habitat modification, changes in living resources,
toxics contamination, and pathogen contamination.
EPA understands that this information may not be readily available in all
States. States should therefore identify those measures for which they currently
have no data, and should feel free to discuss the limitations of any data they
have provided.
In Chapter 2; Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns, the State should have
provided information on toxics contamination in estuaries (incidences of toxics
above FDA/NAS in fish/shellfish tissue; sediment contamination; fishing advisories
and bans) and pathogen contamination in estuaries (shellfish closures). Similarly,
fish kills that have occurred in estuarine or coastal waters should also have
been included in Chapter 2.
Further information on estuaries and coastal waters to be reported in
this Chapter should include the following:
o A case study from at least one estuary/coastal area. States are encour-
aged to describe problems and challenges, not just "success stories."
o Information on eutrophication including:
- occurrence, extent/ and severity of hypoxia and anoxia;
- occurrence, extent, and severity of algal blooms possibly related
to pollution; and
- estimated nutrient loadings broken out by point sources, combined
sewer overflows, and nonpoint sources.
o Information on habitat modification including the status and trends in
acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation, acreage of tidal wetlands,
miles of diked, bulkheaded, or stabilized shoreline, and dredging operations.
o Information on changes in living resources including discussion of
any increases or decreases in the abundance or distribution of species
dependent on near coastal waters; changes in species diversity over time;
and changes in the amount of catch in coastal areas. Wherever possible,
these changes should be discussed in terms of their causes (water quality
versus changes in fishing regulations, overexploitation of resources, etc.).
In addition, the State should discuss its activities, if any, under the
National Estuary Program, the Near Coastal Water Pilot Projects, the Chesapeake
Bay Program, the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, and Mid-Atlantic Bight and New York
Bight programs. Any additional State programs, research activities, or new
initiatives in estuarine or coastal waters should be discussed in this Chapter.
-------
19
Chapter 5; Wetlands Information
Protecting the Nation's wetland resources is an emerging priority in
State and Federal water pollution control programs. Recommendations issued
to EPA on November 15, 1988 by the National Wetlands Policy Forum — an
advisory group representing a broad range of perspectives including State and
local governments, agriculture and forestry interests, environmental groups,
developers and scientists — underscore the urgent need for additional
wetland protection efforts. However, in general little information exists
on patterns and trends in wetland loss, sources and causes of wetland degradation,
and State and local efforts to protect remaining wetlands.
Information on toxic contamination in wetlands should have been discussed in
Chapter 2; Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns. To the extent possible, please
provide the following information in this Chapter:
o Provide total historical and present wetland acreage and identify
the information source used (e.g., National Wetlands Inventory).
Discuss the different types of wetlands in the State and their
approximate acreages.
o Discuss trends in wetland loss. Trends in wetland quality should also
be discussed if^available. Case studies should be cited, if available,
in addition to quantitative data.
o Discuss wetland management programs (protection, restoration, and
management) to include the following questions:
- Describe how the State defines wetlands in their water quality
standards or elsewhere in State law. Are wetlands included as
"waters of the State?" Does the State have separate use
classifications and numeric or narrative criteria for different
wetland types? If so, discuss.
- Does the State have wetland protection legislation? If so,
cite and briefly summarize.
- How does the State use its antidegradation policy, particularly
Tier 3 Outstanding National Resource Waters, to protect critical
wetlands?
- Has the State been delegated 404 permit authority? If so,
briefly describe the environmental review criteria used by the
State in reviewing permit applications. Is the State considering
assumption of the 404 program?
- Does the State have a formal policy, regulation, or guideline for
401 certification? If so, please cite. Is it used to protect
wetland resources?
-------
20
Has the State developed a comprehensive planning mechanism
for identifying and protecting wetland resources? (e.g.,
advanced identification under Section 230.80 of the 404(b)(l)
Guidelines; the 1986 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act; the
Swampbuster provision of the Food Security Act of 1986; and the
1980 Coastal Zone Management Act.) If so, briefly describe.
In general, what has the State done to incorporate wetlands
protection into other water programs including nonpoint sources
(Section 319 assessments and management plans), ground^water
protection, Clean Lakes, water quality standards, and monitoring?
Does the State require/support wetland resource inventories by
local jurisdictions? If so, briefly describe.
Briefly describe how the wetland protection activities of the
State regulatory agency are coordinated with the activities of
the State wildlife/natural resource agency, State coastal agency,
and State agriculture/forestry agencies.
-------
21
PART IV; GROUND-WATER QUALITY
Section 106(e)(l) of the Clean Water Act states that ground-water
quality information should be reported by the States in the Section 305(b)
reports. The State agency responsible for the development or implementation
of the State's ground-water protection strategy should prepare this part
of the report.
These guidelines contain three sections. The first two describe the
reporting elements which have been included in the 305(b) report in prior
years and should be regarded as the baseline of ground-water reporting to
be provided. The third section describes an optional set of indicators that
can be used to track progress and trends in ground-water protection
efforts.
Overview
Provide a brief narrative summary describing the general quality of
the State's ground water, including findings of major studies, issues of
concern now and for the future, and progress in developing ground-water
.protection programs. This will serve as an introduction to the State's
ground-water conditions and special issues.
Ground-water quality
Provide the following information on ground-water quality in narrative
or quantitative form.
1. Major sources of contamination -
Using the table provided, check the major sources of ground-water
contamination and provide the relative priority of the top five (1 = most
serious, 2 = next most serious and so forth). The ranking can include
many factors, including the findings of the State's ground-water protection
strategy, a related study, population at risk from contaminated drinking
water, the number of sources, location relative to ground water used
as drinking water, risk posed to human health and/or the environment from
released substances, and suitability of existing controls.
-------
22
TABLE 1 - MAJOR SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
RELATIVE
SOURCE CHECK PRIORITY
Septic tanks
Municipal landfills
On-site industrial landfills
(excluding pits, lagoons,
surface impoundments)
Other landfills
Surface impoundments
(exluding oil and gas brine
pits)
Oil and gas brine pits
Underground storage tanks
Injection wells (inc. Class V)
Abandoned hazardous waste sites
Regulated hazardous waste sites
Salt water intrusion
Land applicat ion/treatment
Agricultural activities
Road salting
Other (specify)1
1. Include other factors that are critical to your State.
2. Contaminating substances -
Using the following table, check those substances contaminating ground-
water in the State due to the sources listed above. Specific contaminants
or contaminant groups can be listed separately if clarification is needed. •
The State should indicate those substances for which it is considering developing
ground-water standards.
TABLE 2 - SUBSTANCES CONTAMINATING GROUND WATER
Organic chemicals: Metals-*-
Volatile Radioactive material
Synthetic Pesticides1
Inorganic chemicals: Other agricultural chemicals1
Nitrates Petroleum products1
Fluorides Other (specify)2
Arsenic
Brine/salinity
Other (specify)2
1. These substances should be checked in preference to the organic or
inorganic category in which they are found.
2. Include other factors that are critical to your State.
-------
23
Optional Ground-Water Indicators
The importance of being able to measure trends in ground-water quality
was one of the key recommendations of EPA's Ground-Water Monitoring Strategy,
which was published in 1986. EPA has been working with States and others
"in the ground-water community to develop indicators that could be used to
measure trends.
Several States have expressed interest in using indicators as part of
305(b) reporting in place of, or in addition to, the current ground-water
guidance. However, not all States have data readily available to provide
indicator trends for the 1990 305(b) report. Therefore, the use of indicators
as part of the 1990 reporting process is voluntary and not a requirement for
the State 305(b) report. EPA plans to move toward inclusion of ground-water
indicators in the 1992 305(b) report, and will work with State representatives
on the indicators used for this reporting.
EPA encourages States to use one or two of the indicators, where data
are available, as part of their 305(b) reporting. EPA is willing to provide
assistance to States interested in using indicators to help them identify
data sources and analysis techniques.
Optional indicators that have been developed to track progress and trends
in ground-water protection.efforts at the State and national levels are-
listed below. A report describing the methodology for1 obtaining data for
these indicators and testing their measurement in three States and at the
national level has been completed by EPA. This report' will be sent to the
States for their information.
Public Ground-Water Supplies
Compliance with MCLs and population at risk
Compliance with MCLs by contaminant
Point Sources of Contamination
Population at risk from RCRA Subtitle C and D facilities
Population at risk from CERCLA sites
Detection of VOCs in ground water
Nonpoint Sources of Contamination
Nitrates in ground water
Leachable pesticide usage
-------
24
PART V: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Chapter One: Point Source Control Program
Within the context of both technology-based and water quality-based controls,
provide a general overview of the point source control program. Focus on program
actions, their relationship to water quality, and their effectiveness in improving
water quality. Discuss, in particular, State programs to assess and control the
discharge of toxic pollutants.
EPA will use information available through the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
to summarize national progress. We encourage the States to provide additional
quantitative information if they desire.
Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source Control Program
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act
of 1987, requires States to conduct an assessment of their nonpoint source
pollution problems and submit that assessment to EPA. In this chapter, the
State should update its Section 319(a) assessment report and discuss highlights
of its nonpoint source management programs. Updated waterbody-specific
information on Section 319 waters should be included in the WBS. In addition,
if a State wishes to provide a hard copy list of its 319 waters, it should do
so here or in a clearly identified Appendix.
Program highlights to be reported in this chapter should include both.
activities funded under Section 319 and activities funded from other federal,
State, or local sources. Highlights may include, but are not limited to, results
of special nonpoint source projects, new State legislation for nonpoint source
control, and innovative activities begun since the last 305(b) reporting cycle.
Annual reporting for the Section 319 Management Program is described in the
Nonpoint Source Guidance (December 1987) and is.not included in the 305(b)
reporting process.
Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment
Section 305 requires the States to report on the economic and social costs
and benefits of actions necessary to achieve the objective of the Clean Water
Act. It is recognized that this information may not be readily available due to
the complexities of the economic analysis involved. However, until such time
that procedures for evaluating costs and benefits are in wider use and have
become available, States should provide as much of the following information as
possible.
As a measure of the costs of pollution control activities, States should
discuss capital investments in municipal and industrial facilities, and the costs
of operating these facilities. In addition, include the costs of administering
water pollution control activities through State and local government offices.
States should also provide, if possible, information on the beneficial
-------
25
outcomes resulting from actions taken to maintain or improve water quality conditions
in the State. Some examples might include increasing demand for water-based
recreational activities, improvements in commercial fisheries, recovery of damaged
aquatic environments, and reduced costs of water treatment undertaken at municipal
and industrial facilities.
States should discuss the costs and benefits of water quality achievements
for programs or specific sites documented elsewhere in the report. Examples of
such projects include Clean Lakes restorations and nonpoint source control projects.
Chapter Four; Surface Water Monitoring Program
In order to provide a perspective on State activities to evaluate water
quality conditions, States should include a general discussion of their monitoring
program and briefly discuss any changes in program emphasis that are planned or
have taken place since the last report.
States should also briefly describe the different aspects of the State's
monitoring program, such as its program to identify and characterize toxic pollutant
problems in water/fish/sediment; its fixed station network; its intensive survey
program; and its biological sampling program.
Chapter Five; Special State Concerns and Recommendations
This chapter should"consist of two. parts.. First, States should discuss
special concerns that are significant issues within the State and affect its
water quality program. List and discuss any special concerns that are not
specifically addressed elsewhere in this guidance, or, if they are addressed,
are not identified as special State concerns. This section is a key part of
the assessment, describing the forces driving specific State programs and
illustrating the complex and varying nature of water quality problems throughout
the country.
Include, if possible, the strategies which are being planned or implemented
to alleviate these problems, and give site-specific examples.
Second, provide recommendations as to additional general actions which are
necessary to achieve the objective of the Clean Water Act: providing for the
protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allowing recreation
in and on the water. Examples of recommendations provided in prior cycles
include: developing more FDA action levels, improving training of municipal
treatment facility operators, correcting combined sewer overflows, placing more
emphasis on the identification and control of nonpoint sources, etc.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A: WATERBODY-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Waterbody-specific information submitted to EPA via the Section 305(b)
Waterbody System (WBS) is a critical component of the 305(b) reporting process.
Waterbody-specific information should be provided for all assessed waters,
either through direct use of the WBS or through data transfer from a compatible
State data system.
States should use the WBS or a compatible data system to report on waters
identified under Sections 304(1), 314, and 319 of the CWA as amended. States
may choose to provide hard copies of these lists of waters in their 305(b)
reports; if so, these lists should be included in the appropriate section of
the report or in a clearly identified Appendix, as noted earlier in these Guidelines.
States may elect to include a WBS printout of the segment-specific data
in their submission, but are not required to do so. States may simply upload
WBS information to the EPA mainframe system. Assistance will be available
to facilitate these initial uploads. It is recommended that any WBS printout
be included as an Appendix to the State report.
The WBS includes several features designed to ease data entry, including
reduced information levels for waters fully supporting uses (see asterisked
items in list of WBS data elements below). State-specific data elements can be
added to the system to enhance utility. Design efforts with State and Regional
users for an enhanced version of the WBS will begin in January 1989. A WBS
User's Guide is currently available to assist users in the operation of the
WBS. For further information on the WBS arid its use, or to obtain a User's
Guide, contact your Regional WBS coordinator. .
For each assessed waterbody, provide the following:
o Waterbody ID Number*
o Waterbody Name*
o Waterbody type and size*
o Waterbody description*
o Assessment date*
o Assessment category*
o Monitored for toxics*
o Designated and impaired uses*
o Use support status*
o CWA goal status*
o Water quality-limited status*
o Trophic status and trend* (lakes]
o Nonattainment causes
o Nonattainment sources
o Cause magnitude
o Source magnitude
o CWA 304(1) status
o Aquatic contamination
"Data elements that should be reported for waters fully supporting uses.
-------
A-2
EPA has provided substantial resources in 1987 and 1988 to assist States
in implementing the WBS. This assistance will continue in 1989. EPA will
continue to provide assistance as resources allow beyond 1989. The types of
assistance available include on-site training, designation of waterbodies,
coding of State information, reach indexing waterbodies/ data entry, and custom
programming.
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Assessed waters -
Assessed waters refers to those waterbodies for which the State is able
to make a judgment about the degree to which the designated use is supported.
Such waters are not limited to waters that have been directly monitored — it
is appropriate in many cases to make judgments based on other information.
"Assessed waters" should also include waters assessed prior to the current
reporting period if the State believes that the assessment conclusions are
still valid.
States are encouraged to report on all waters for which a reasonable
judgment can be made. There are many waters in most States for which ambient
monitoring is done infrequently or not at all. In the past, many States have
not reported on those waters. Such waters should be included in the 305(b)
process if the State has any reasonable basis for evaluation. To encourage
reporting on more waters, and to distinguish between assessment bases, "total
assessed waters" is subdivided into two categories.
o "Evaluated waters" are those waterbodies for which the use suport
decision is based on information other than current site-specific
ambient data, such as data on land use, location of sources, predictive
modelling using estimated input variables, surveys of .fisheries personnel,
and citizen complaints. As a general guide, if an assessment is based
on older ambient data (e.g., older than five years) the State should
also consider it "evaluated."
o "Monitored waters" are those waterbodies for which the use support decision
is principally based on current site-specific ambient data believed to
accurately portray water quality conditions. Waters with data from
intensive or special surveys and/or biological surveys and assessments
should be included in this category, along with waters monitored by
long-term fixed station networks.
States may use some flexibility in applying these guidelines. For example,
if older ambient data exist for high quality waters located in remote areas with
no known sources, and if those data are believed to accurately portray water
quality conditions, those waters could be considered monitored. Similarly, if
both monitoring and evaluative data are used in making a use support decision,
the State may cite whichever assessment category it feels is most defensible.
In its methodology section, the State should discuss its use of these assessment
categories.
2. Monitored for toxics -
Significant public concern centers on contamination of water resources by
toxic constituents. Although contamination may not be likely for many waters, it
is important to report on the extent that potential.contamination is being examined.
-------
B-2
Waters are "monitored for toxics" if ambient monitoring information is
collected that is capable of indicating the presence of toxic substances. This
measure includes waters so monitored but for which no toxics were found. The
actual data required will vary according to potential exposure routes. For ex-
ample, where a water is not used as a drinking water but is fished, a bioassessment
or ambient toxicity with tissue residue analysis is considered sufficient to
detect toxics contamination. For reporting, waters monitored for toxics is a
subset of waters monitored (i.e., those waters are counted in both categories).
3. Degree of support -
In past reporting cycles, some States have not expressed water quality
status in terms of the degree of use support, instead either providing raw
monitoring data or providing the results of a procedure for ranking relative
water quality. One of the principal purposes of collecting monitoring data,
however, is to enable judgments about whether water quality standards are
being attained. Also, national assessments of water quality depend on a common
framework of evaluation. It is essential that States develop their .information
in terms of the degree of use support.
The degree to which water quality supports the designated uses specified
in State water quality standards is divided into three categories as follows:
fully supporting uses, partially supporting uses, and not supporting uses.
General guidelines that may be useful in defining these terms are presented in
Figure 1. It should be noted that the terms refer to all uses designated for
a waterbody. Classification -rules for waterbodies with multiple designated
uses are included in Figure 1.
The criteria in Figure 1 are general guidelines. States may use other
indices provided they are documented and generally analogous to these criteria.
In Part 3, Chapter 1, States should describe the data analysis protocols they
used to determine the degree of use support. . .
An effort to revise the guidelines depicted in Figure 1 is underway at this
time. The revision will focus on establishing an equitable, scientifically sound
and realistic method to evaluate water quality based on the support of uses.
Guidelines on this issue are expected later in the reporting cycle; adoption of
these guidelines by the States will not be required for the 1990 reports
but may become a requirement for future cycles. Development of these guidelines
and State adherence to them is viewed as a critical step toward ensuring consistent
National water quality reporting.
The guidelines in Figure 1 should not be considered as a formal definition
of attainment of water quality criteria or a determinant of whether new criteria
are required under Section 303(c)(2)(B). Further, as explained earlier, EPA has
begun work to develop new scientifically-based protocols for determining designated
use support which will serve as a basis for these determinations in the 1992
Section 305(b) reporting cycle.
4. Threatened waters -
"Threatened waters" refers to those waters that fully support their designated
uses but that may not fully support uses in the future (unless pollution control
-------
Figure 1. Criteria for designated use support classification
Assessment
Basis
Assessment
Description
Support of designated use
Fully supporting
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
Evaluated
Monitored
(Chemistry)
Monitored
(Biology)
No site-specific ambient
data. Assessment is
based on land use, loc-
ation of sources, citi-
zen complaints, etc.
Predictive models use
estimated inputs; are
not calibrated/verified.
Fixed station sampling
or survey sampling.
Chemical analysis of
water, sediment, or
biota
Site visit by qualif-
ied biological person-
nel. Rapid bioassess-
ment protocols may be
used.
No sources (point
or nonpoint) are
present that could
interfere with the
use, o£ sources pre-
sent but information
indicates uses fully
attained. Criteria
attainment predicted.
For all pollutants,
criteria exceeded in £10%
of measurements and mean
of measurements is less
than criteria. Pollutants
not found at levels of
concern, where criteria
not available.
Use fully supported; no
evidence of modification
of community (within
natural range of control/
ecoregion).
Sources are present
and information indi-
cates uses are par-
tially supported or
uncertainty about use
support. Complaints
on record.
For any one pollutant,
criteria exceeded 11-
25% and mean of measure-
ments is less than
criteria; or criteria
exceeded £10% & mean is
greater than criteria.
Pollutants not found at
levels of concern, where
criteria not available.
Some uncertainty
about use support;
some modification
of community noted.
Sources are present
and information
clearly indicates use
not supported.
Criteria exceedences
predicted.
For any one pollutant,
criteria exceeded >25%
or criteria exceeded
11-25% and mean of
measurements is
greater than criteria.
Pollutants found at
levels of concern, where
criteria not available.
Use clearly not sup-
ported; definite
modification of
connunity.
CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES FOR MULTIPLE USE WATERBODIES
Fully supporting = All uses are fully supported
Partially supporting = One or more uses partially supported and remaining uses are fully supported
Not supporting = One or more uses not supported
-------
B-3
action is taken) because of anticipated sources or adverse pollution trends.
These waters should be considered as a separate category from waters fully
supporting uses.
5. Major/moderate/minor impacts -
The determination of the relative impacts of causes and sources of pollution
is requested in two tables in Section III. As guidelines in determining relative
impacts, States may consider the following:
o Major impact: A cause/source has major impact if it is the only one responsible
for less than full support, or if it predominates over others.
o Moderate impact: A cause/source has moderate impact if it is one of multiple
causes/sources responsible for less than full support and none predominate.
o Minor impact: A cause/source has minor impact if is is one of multiple
causes/sources responsible for less than full support and others
predominate.
5. Fishable/swimmable -
Section 305 of the CWA requires the assessment of the degree to' which the
goals of the CWA have been attained." The goals are found in Section 101 and
include the achievement of fishable and swimmable waters. Support of CWA goals
is considered to be a separate and independent criterion from the degree of
designated use support in that it addresses only a portion of the potential
uses of a water and applies to all classified and unclassified waters of the
State. States should report on each goal independently. If they are reported
in a combined fashion, EPA will assume that both goals are equally supported or
not supported.
The following discussion of the fishable/swimmable goal of the Act is
intended to promote a level of consistency in how fishable/swimmable numbers
are reported in the State 305(b) assessments.
The Fishable Goal: Water Quality that provides for the protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife (CWA 101(a)(2))
EPA reads that it is the intent of the Act to define "protection" and
"propagation" to mean ensuring that fish, shellfish, and wildlife populations
are protected from man-made pollution that adversely affects their optimum
health and reproductive viability. Therefore:
o Waters are fishable if they are of such chemical and bacteriological
quality as to support fish, shellfish, and wildlife populations that
are well balanced and at their optimum health and reproductive viability.
Waters that naturally could support only a limited variety of fish/shellfish
-------
B-4
species are fishable if those species are healthy and viable. This
includes waters meeting a lower fishery use for which EPA has approved
the use.
o Waters are partially fishable if the fish/shellfish community suffers
some adverse effect (e.g., lowered species diversity) due to pollution
or habitat degradation yet is still generally viable.
o Waters are not fishable if they have fishing advisories or bans due to
toxics in fish/shellfish tissue or pathogens in water at level of concern,
or if the fish comminity is altered relative to the designated use due to
pollution or habitat degradation, and the health and reproductive viability
of the fish/shellfish has been adversely affected.
o Waters are not attainable if they are naturally unable to support any
fish/shellfish populations at any time, or suffer from irrevocable human-
induced impacts where the State has obtained approval, based on a use
attainability analysis, for standards that exclude aquatic life uses.
The Swimmable Goal: Water Quality that provides for recreation in and on the
water.
EPA reads that it is the intent of the Act to ensure that waters of the U.S.
are protected from man-made pollution that adversely affects primary and secondary
contact recreation activities such as swimming, wading, and water skiing.
Therefore: . •
o Waters are swimmable if they are of such chemical and bacteriological
quality as to safely and continously support primary contact recreation.
Waters that naturally support swimming only during a limited period of
use should be considered swimmable if, during that time, water quality is
good enough to permit primary contact recreation.
o Waters are partially swimmable if they are occasionally subject to short-
term restrictions on swimming due to pollution, yet support swimming
throughout most of their annual period of use.
o Waters are not swimmable if they are of such chemical and bacteriological
quality as to be unsafe or unsuitable for primary contact recreation.
Waters with frequent temporary or long-term swimming restrictions should
be considered not swimmable.
o Waters are not attainable if they could not naturally support swimming
or suffer from irrevocable impacts and where a State has obtained approval,
based on a use attainability analysis, for standards that exclude swimming
goals.
-------
APPENDIX C
Provisions of the Clean Water Act
SEC. 305. WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
(b)(l) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administratro
by April 1. 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and
biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters
in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate sup-
plemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account
seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of
water required by the objective of this Act (as identified by the
Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 304(a)
of this Act) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B)
of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters
of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which pro-
vides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population'
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in
and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the require-
ments of this Act, together with recommendations as to additional
action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters
such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of
this Act in such State, (iu) the economic and social benefits of
such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such
achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources
of poDutants, and recommendations as to the programs which
must be undertaken to control each category of such sources,
including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together
with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975,
and October 1,1976, and biennially thereafter. •
SEC. 106. GRANTS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
(e) ^Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make
any grant under this section to any State which has not provided or is
not carrying out as a part of its program—
(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to
compile and analyze data on (including classification according to
eutrophic condition), the quality of navigable waters and to the
extent practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring;
and provision for annually updating such data and including
it in the report required under section 305 of this Act;
-------
C-2
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (Continued)
SEC. 204. LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
(a) Before approving grants for any project for any
treatment works under section 201(g)(l) the Administrator shall
determine—
"(2) that (A) the State in which the project is to be located (i)
is implementing any required plan under section 303(e) of this
Act and the proposed treatment works are in conformity with
such plan, or (ii) is developing such a plan and the proposed
treatment works will be in conformity with such plan, and (B)
such State is in compliance with section 305(b) of this Act;".
SEC. 314. CLEAN LAKES
(a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to
the Administrator for his approval—
"(A) an identification and' classification according to
eutrophic condition of all publicly owned lakes in such
State;
"(B) a description of procedures, processes, and methods
(including land use requirements), to control sources of
pollution of such lakes;
"(C) a description of methods and procedures, in conjunc-
tion with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the qual-
ity of such lakes;
"(D) methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful
effects of high acidity, including innovative methods of
neutralizing and restoring buffering capacity of lakes and
methods of removing from lakes toxic metals and other
toxic substances mobilized by high acidity;
"(E) a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in
such State for which uses are known to be impaired, includ-
ing those lakes which are known not to meet applicable
water quality standards or which require implementation
of control programs to maintain compliance with applicable
standards and those lakes in which water quality has de-
teriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be
due to acid deposition; and
"(F) an assessment of the status and trends of water
quality in lakes in such State, including but not limited to,
the nature and extent of pollution loading from point and
nonpoint sources and the extent to which the use of lakes is
impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly with
respect to toxic pollution.
"(2) SUBMISSION AS PART or 305(bXl) REPORT.—The informa-
tion required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the
report required under section 305(bXl) of this Act, beginning
with the report required under such section by April 1, 1988.
------- |