&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. ------- |