United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, D.C. 20460
August 1991
&EPA
Guidelines for the
Preparation of the 1992
State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports)
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE
1992 STATE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
(305(b) REPORTS)
August 1991
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553)
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
WJ6 6 1991
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM WATER
SUBJECT: Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1992 State Water
Quality Assessments (3£5(b) Reports).
FROM: Robert H. Wayland,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions i-X
Attached are the final Guidelines for the Preparation of the
1992 LState Water Quality Assessments f3Q5fbl Reports). These
Guidelines reflect continuing efforts by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the States to refine the water
quality assessment and reporting process under Section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act.
The State Section 305(b) assessments are becoming
increasingly important tools in , water pollution control
decisionmaking.' in particular, they are valuable in identifying
problems in assessed waterbodies and in helping the States and
EPA develop an understanding of the type, severity, and extent of
remaining water pollution concerns. These 1992 Guidelines do not
change this essential aspect of the Section 305(b) reporting
process. They do, however, introduce several significant new
reporting elements.
EPA is pleased to note that the State water quality
assessments are improving significantly with each biennial
reporting cycle. These Guidelines build on this trend by
introducing increased specificity in reporting formats,
definitions, and methodologies.
Two of the more significant changes in these Guidelines were
developed by a 305(b) Consistency Workgroup made up of
representatives from six States, one Interstate Commission, the
EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters. We established this
Consistency Workgroup to explore ways of improving the accuracy,
coverage, and consistency of State and Federal water quality
reporting.
The two issues on which the Consistency Workgroup reached
agreement are: establishing an improved method for States to
estimate their total waters, and improving how States make and
report use support decisions. These Guidelines reflect the
Printed onRecycled Paper
-------
recommendations of the Consistency Workgroup, as refined by State
comments during the Guidelines review process.
EPA expects that these new approaches will significantly
affect the water quality measures reported by States in 1992 and
beyond. States should take care to fully explain the reason for
these changes in their water quality assessments; EPA will do the
same in its 1992 national summary of these assessments.
A third significant improvement to these 1992 Guidelines
affects reporting on wetlands. The Guidelines ask States to
report on the extent of wetland resources, the integrity of those
resources, the development of wetland water quality standards,
and additional wetland protection activities. In an attempt to
encourage increased consistency and comprehensiveness, the
Guidance specifies a tabular format for the reporting of much of
this information.
These Guidelines also seek to place new emphasis on the
reporting of two critical water quality measures: incidents of
sediment contamination, and fishing/shellfishing restrictions.
EPA's Contaminated Sediments and Fish Task Force has recognized
the Section 305(b) reporting process as a valuable resource in
meeting new needs for information on these measures. Definitions
developed by this Task Force have been incorporated into the 1992
Guidelines.
As in previous reporting cycles, these Guidelines establish
EPA's Waterbody System as the mechanism to record the results.of
water quality assessments and manage that assessment data. We
have developed enhancements to the Waterbody System to streamline
its use and reflect the changes found in these Guidelines. .EPA
will continue to provide States with assistance in using the
Waterbody System.
In addition, I would like to stress that EPA's Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds is committed to working with
other Federal agencies, the States, and other EPA programs in
developing a consistent basis for long-term reporting and trend
assessment beyond the current scope of the Section 305(b)
reports. We will be involving you in these efforts as they
develop.
Please transmit these 1992 Guidelines to your States. If
you elect to develop supplemental Regional guidance, please be
sure to send an information copy to Geoff Grubbs of the
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553) for our
records.
cc: Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I-X
Regional Monitoring Coordinators, Regions I-X
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND l
The 305(b) Process l
GOALS FOR THE 1992 CYCLE 2
Improving Consistency of Reported Information 2
Improving Data Quality and Utility 2
Improving Reporting on Sediments and Fishing/Shellfishing Advisories 3
1992 305(b) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS 4
PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW 5
PART H: BACKGROUND 5
PART ffl: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT 7
Chapter One: Summary Data 7
Chapter Two: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns 11
Chapter Three: Lake Water Quality Assessment 13
Chapter Four: Estuary and Coastal Information (coastal States) 15
Chapter Five: Wetlands Information 16
PART IV: GROUND-WATER QUALITY 19
Overview 19
Ground-water Quality 19
Ground-water Indicators 21
PART V: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM 22
Chapter One: Point Source Control Program 22
Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source Control Program 22
Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment 22
Chapter Four: Surface Water Monitoring Program 23
Chapter Five: Special State Concerns and Recommendations 23
APPENDIX A KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS A-l
APPENDIX B MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS B-l
APPENDIX C PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT C-l
-------
BACKGROUND
THE 305(b) PROCESS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) establishes a
process for the development of information concerning the quality of the Nation's water resources and the
reporting of this information to the U.Sl 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 GFR
130.
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 3,05(b)
information transfer process is to provide the information needed 19:
(1) determine the status of water quality;
(2) identify water quality problems;
(3) evaluate the causes of poor water quality in assessed waters and the relative contributions
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 ace focused on achieving environmental results in an
efficient manner;
(7) help determine the workload remaining in restoring waters with poor quality and begin to
assess the extent of threatened waters; and
(8) maintain and update statutorily-required lists of waters identified under Sections 303(d), 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 1992 CYCLE
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 1992, these goals are as follows:
Improving Consistency of Reported Information
In recent years, substantial progress has been made in increasing the consistency of water quality
reporting. However, further progress must be made to increase the usefulness of water quality measures
reported by the States and summarized in the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
A workgroup consisting of representatives from seven States, the EPA Regions and Headquarters
met in April, 1990 and January, 1991 to find ways to increase consistency between States and to improve
the accuracy and coverage of State assessments. This 305(b) Consistency Workgroup made
recommendations for eight distinct projects that would result in improved guidance to the States.
Two of these projects were determined to be of the most urgency: developing a consistent
methodology for estimating total State waters, .and improving guidance on assessing and reporting
designated use support. Guidance developed as a result of these projects has been incorporated into Part
II (Background), Part III (Water Quality Summary) and Appendix B (Making Use Support Decisions) of
these guidelines, and reflects the consensus opinion of the State/EPA workgroup.
To improve water quality assessments and increase reporting consistency between States and over
time, in 1992 States should implement the methodologies described for estimating total waters and making
use support decisions. Any deviation from these approaches should be discussed with the EPA Region
before implementation and should be explained in detail in the text of the State report.
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 Section 319, 314, 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 1990, 40 States either used this Section 305(b) Waterbody System (WBS) or provided WBS-
compatible data. Enhancements to the WBS are currently being made in response to recommendations of
the State/EPA WBS User's Group, a poll of State needs, and the changes to 305(b) reporting reflected in
this guidance. These enhancements will be complete in time for State use for the 1992 reporting cycle.
States are expected to fully implement the WBS or WBS-compatible system for 1992. EPA has
provided WBS users with extensive technical assistance since 1987 and will continue to do so in 1991-92.
-------
Improving Reporting on Sediments and Fishing/Shellfishing Advisories
The need for improved information on incidents of sediment contamination and fish/shellfish
advisories is becoming increasingly evident. EPA's Contaminated Sediments and Fish Task Force has
identified the 305(b) reporting process as a valuable resource in meeting this information need. BJ
Since the middle 1980's, EPA haf become more aware that contaminated sediments may cause water
quality problems. In a number of locations, ecological damage has been documented. Human health and
wildlife may also be at risk in areas where persistent, bioaccumulative pollutants have settled in sediments
and are moving'into and up the food chain.
EPA is now preparing an Agency-wide management strategy for contaminated sediments. This
strategy may include specific measures for preventing, controlling, and remediating problem sediments and
revised procedures for managing dredged materials.
To better define the extent and severity of the contaminated sediments problem, EPA needs specific
information on the sites where sediments are contaminated, the contaminants of concern and the probable
sources of these contaminants. To the extent States and EPA can use Section 305(b) reports to convey this
information, we may lessen or eliminate the need for additional reports. Thus, States are strongly urged
to report site-specific information on sediment contamination in Table 7 of this guidance '(Toxic
Contamination/Public 'Health Impacts).
Also through the Contaminated Sediments and Fish Task Force, EPA has been working to improve
the quality of reporting on fish advisories. Definitions of types of fish advisories have been substantively
refined and a comprehensive database of fish advisory information has been developed and will be made
available to the States for their use and information. States are encouraged to update the information in this
database every two years via the 305(b) reporting process; beginning in 1992 and using the format
described in Table 7 of these guidelines. This approach, should facilitate and streamline the technical
transfer of data on fish advisories among and within States and other agencies.
-------
1992 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, 1992. States should provide draft reports to their EPA
Regional Office for review and comment by no later than February 1,1992. 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 sav 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 1990-91 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, dischargers, 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. Design efforts with State and Regional users
for an enhanced version of the WBS began in October 1990 and will be complete by Fall 1991. A WBS
User's Guide is available to assist users in the operation of the WBS. 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. As in previous reporting cycles, EPA will continue to provide States with technical
assistance in implementing the WBS, as resources allow.
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 assessment 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 A.
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. No organizational changes have been made
compared to the 1990 Guidelines.
-------
PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Each State should provide a concise executive summary/overview that is comprehensive and clear
enough to stand alone. For both surface and ground water, it should:
describe overall State water quality (for surface water, include a summary of the degree of
designated use support for the different waterbody types);
describe the major factors affecting use support;
discuss the general trends in water quality;
briefly recap the highlights of each section of the report, particularly 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:
Table 1 - Atlas
State population
State surface area
Number of water basins
(according to State subdivisions)
Total number of river and stream miles*
- Number of perennial river miles (subset)*
- Number of intermittent stream miles (subset)*
- Number of ditches and canals (subset)*
- Number of border miles (subset)*
Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds*
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds*
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Number of ocean coastal miles*
Number of Great Lakes shore miles*
Acres of freshwater wetlands
Acres of tidal wetlands .
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.
* Available from USEPA RF3/DLG estimates.
The State/EPA Consistency Workgroup has agreed that the best currently available estimates of total
State waters can be obtained using the River Reach File 3 (RF3) and the database from which it is derived,
the Digital Line Graph traces. These computerized databases reflect hydrologic features found on
1:100,000 USGS hydrologic maps.
-------
To support use of the RF3/DLG database, EPA is developing estimates of total waters, by State, as
follows: total river miles, with breakdowns for perennial streams, intermittent streams, ditches and canals,
and border rivers; total lake acres; number of lakes; total ocean coastal miles; and total Great Lakes' shore
miles. These estimates will be made available to States in the summer of 1991; they will be provided in
an EPA discussion paper explaining their derivation and use. EPA will be citing the RF3/DLG estimates
of total waters (i.e., total river miles, lake acres, ocean coastal miles, and Great Lakes shore miles) in'its
1992 305(b) to Congress, and expects States to use them in their State water quality assessments. States
using higher resolution maps than those on which RF3 is based may continue to do so, with appropriate
explanation in the text of their report. Note that States may choose to use RF3 as their locational reference
for waters in the 305(b) Waterbody System, but are not required to do so.
EPA recognizes that some degree of variation in cartographic density exists among the USGS 7-1/2
minute quadangle maps used to estimate RF3/DLG total water numbers. A project is underway to identify
and quantify the extent of this variation. It is important to note that despite this variation, the use of the
RF3/DLG database represents a tremendous step forward in arriving at an accurate accounting of the
Nation's total waters. EPA expects to support this RF3/DLG approach for the foreseeable future.
EPA also recognizes that with the use of these RF3/DLG total river mile estimates, the percentage
of waters assessed in most States will decrease dramatically. States should fully explain this phenomenon
in their 1992 305(b) reports. EPA 'will do so as well in its 1992 Report to Congress. It is important to
note that EPA does not expect States to assess all of their total State waters.
Until improved approaches are available to determine total estuarine and wetlands waters, States
should continue to use best available methods, and should identify those methods. The National Wetlands
Inventory is recommended for State wetland acreage estimates.
Summary of Classified Uses
States should provide a brief narrative discussion of the extent to which their rivers, lakes, and
estuarine/coastal waters are classified for uses consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act. States
should also explain what kinds of waters are unclassified and how they determine which waters should be
classified. Lastly, changes in water quality classification that have occurred since the last 305(b) report
should be briefly discussed.
-------
PARTHI: SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Chapter One; Summary Data
Methodology
States should provide information on the methods they used to collect and analyze monitoring data
for determining use support status. Use support categories and revised criteria for determining the status
of waters are presented in Appendix B. States are strongly encouraged to use this approach in making use
support decisions. They should, however, clearly explain the impact of this revised approach and, where
possible, quantify this impact in terms of mileage, acreage, etc. affected. Alternate approaches such as
chemical indices are no longer recommended. Because they aggregate and reduce large amounts of data
to a single value, chemical indices have generally been found to be more useful in trend analysis and in
establishing priority rankings than in making use support decisions.
Water Quality Summary
State submissions should include summary statistics on designated use support. For 1992 and
beyond, a State/EPA 305(b) consistency workgroup has worked to develop an improved approach to
designated use support assessment and reporting. That approach consists of the two tables, one combining
uses into an overall assessment and one listing individual designated uses.
Data in these tables should be reported by Type of Waterbody, as follows: streams (reported in
miles); 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.
Table 2: To retain summary information on overall use support and the size of waters that are
monitored and evaluated, States should continue to report the following for each waterbody type. This
table is unchanged from the 1990 305(b) reporting cycle. The Waterbody System (WBS) generates this
table automatically.
Table 2. Overall Use Support Summary
Type of Waterbody: (e.g., river, lake)
Degree of Use
Support
Size Fully Supporting
Size F/S but Threatened *
Size Partially Supporting
Size Not Supporting
TOTAL
Assessment Basis
Evaluated
Monitored
Total
Assessed
*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.
-------
Previously established guidelines for multiple use waterbodies apply in the determination of overall
use support (see Appendix B, page B-7).
Table 3 lists specific designated uses and combines Clean Water Act Goal reporting and designated
use reporting into one table. In doing so, it clarifies definitions of Clean Water Act goals. Hie fishable
goal of the Clean Water Act is now reported under the Fish Consumption and Aquatic Life Support Uses,
and the swimmable goal is now reported under the Swimming and Secondary Contact Uses. This method
was developed through a consensus approach and was designed to reduce inconsistencies in how States
combine information on support of individual uses in their overall determinations of use support. This
approach should also result in a clearer picture of actual water quality conditions. The Section 305(b)
Waterbody System is being revised to generate this table automatically.
Table 3. Individual Use Support Summary
Type of Waterbody: (e.g., river, lake)
Use
Fish Consumption
Shellfishing
Aquatic Life Support
Swimming
Secondary Contact
Drinking Water
Supply
Agriculture
State Defined: 1
2
3
4
5
6
Supporting
Supporting
but
threatened*
Partially
supporting
Not
Supporting
Not
attainable
Unassessed
"Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size fully supporting uses. See Appendix A.
Note: User defined codes should be established by the State for any important uses that are not included above.
Examples of such uses could include Outstanding Resource Waters, Aesthetics, and Industry. To the extent possible,
States should attempt to group waters into the seven general categories of use. Where waterbodies have multiple uses,
the appropriate waterbody length/area should be entered in each applicable category.
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.
8
-------
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 mav 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 Three: Lake Water Quality Assessment). If so, please cite
the pages on which summary tables can be found.
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 (Table 4). A water mav be affected by several different causes and its size
should be counted in each relevant cause category. If the relative contribution 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
contribution below; if listed as Moderate or Slight, the size should be included as a moderate/minor
contribution. See Appendix A for a discussion of the terms major/moderate/minor. Table 4 can be
automatically generated from waterbody-specific information through use of the WBS.
Table 4. TOTAL SIZES OF WATERS NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES AFFECTED
BY VARIOUS CAUSE CATEGORIES
Type of waterbody:
CONTRIBUTION TO IMPAIRMENT
CAUSE CATEGORY MAJOR1 MODERATE/MINOR1
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)
-------
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 (Table 5).
A water may be affected by several sources of pollution and the appropriate size should be counted in
each relevant source category. If the relative contribution 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 contribution; if it
is listed as Moderate or Slight, the size should be included as a moderate/minor contribution. See
Appendix A for a discussion of the terms major/moderate/minor. Table 5 can be automatically generated
from waterbody-specific information through use of the WBS.
Table 5. TOTAL SIZES OF WATERS NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
AFFECTED BY VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES
Type of Waterbody:
CONTRIBUTION TO IMPAIRMENT
SOURCE CATEGORY1 MAJOR7 MODERATE/MINOR2
Industrial point sources
Municipal point sources
Combined sewer overflow
Agriculture
Silviculture
Construction
Urban runoff/storm sewers
Resource extraction
Land disposal
Hydro/habitat modification
Other
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. For example, if in a waterbody 10 miles are affected
by feedlots, IS 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.
'In total size (river miles, lake acres, estuary mi1, coastal/Great Lakes miles, etc.)
10
-------
Chapter Two; Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
Size of Waters Affected by Toxicants
Toxic pollutants are of growing concern throughout the country; however, in many cases there is
little definitive information available on their extent and impact on the environment. In Table 6 below,
report on the extent of toxicant-caused problems. This table can be automatically generated from
waterbody-specific information through use of the WBS.
Table 6. Total Size Affected by Toxicants
Waterbody
Rivers (miles)
Lakes (acres)
Estuaries (miles2)
Coastal waters (miles)
Great Lakes (miles)
Freshwater wetlands (acres)
Tidal wetlands (acres)
Size Monitored
For Toxicants
Size With Elevated
Levels of Toxicants
"Elevated levels of toxicants" are defined by the State and can include 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). Elevated levels of toxicants may occur in the water column, in fish tissue, or in
sediments. 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 toxicants and non-toxic contamination:
Fishing advisories currently in effect;
Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities (occurred during this cycle only);
Sites of known sediment contamination;
Shellfish restrictions/closures currently in effect;
Restrictions on surface drinking water supplies during this reporting cycle;
11
-------
Restrictions on bathing areas during this reporting cycle; and
Incidents of waterborne disease during this reporting cycle.
States should use tables such as Table 7 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. It is recommended
that separate tables be prepared for each type of impact (e.g., fishing advisories, fish kills, etc.)
Although the WBS may be useful in developing sections of these tables, the WBS cannot
automatically generate complete tables. Specifically, 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.
Table 7. Toxic Contamination/Public Health Impacts
Category of Impact: (e.g.. fish advisories!
Name of Waterbody
and WBID or Reach #
Pollutant(s)
of Concern
Source(s) of
Pollutants)
Size
Affected
Comments (# fish killed,
species affected, duration of
impact, etc.)
Category of Impact:
1 = Fish tissue contamination above FDA/NAS/levels of concern
2 = Fish advisory in effect (see Appendix A, No. 5)
2a Restricted consumption advisory for subpopulation
2b Restricted consumption advisory, general population
2c "No consumption" advisory for a subpopulation
2d "No consumption" advisory or ban, general population
2e Commercial fishing ban
3 = Bathing area closure, occurred during reporting period
4 = Pollution-related fish abnormality observed during reporting period
5 = Shellfish advisory due to pathogens, currently in effect
6 = Pollution-caused fish kill, occurred during reporting period
7 = Sediment contamination
8 = Surface drinking water supply closure, occurred during reporting period
12
-------
9 = Surface drinking water supply advisory, occurred during reporting period
10 = Waterborne disease incident, occurred during reporting period
EPA will provide States with a National Fish Advisory Matrix for their use in preparing information
on fish advisories. This Matrix, originally developed in August 1990 for the Contaminated Sediments and
Fish Task Force, will be made available to State departments of health, fish and game, and water pollution
control to encourage information exchange between (and within) States. States should update this matrix
in the 1992 reporting cycle and in future 305(b) reports.
Section 3Q3fd) Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify, establish a priority ranking, and
develop total maximum daily loads for their waters that do not achieve or are not expected to achieve water
quality standards.
The EPA Agency Operating Guidance for 1992 requests that States submit information pursuant to
section 303(d) by April 1, 1992. The actual submission can be part of the 305(b) report or a separate
document. Amendments to the relevant regulations were proposed in January 1989 and are scheduled to
be issued in the Fall of 1991. Detailed program guidance describing State and EPA responsibilities and
obligations pursuant to section 303(d) were published in April 1991. When compiling the 303(d) list,
States should consider information collected from the section 3040) and section 319 processes.
States should provide the requested information in hard copy and use the Waterbody Identification
Numbers to identify the waters included on the lists. The WBS can maintain and report this information.
Chapter Three; 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)(l)(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 has incorporated 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.
-The State Lake Water Quality Assessment should be limited to publicly-owned public access lakes
and may focus on those lakes the State considers significant (as defined by the State). Only significant
publicly-owned lakes are eligible for funding under Section 314 of the CWA; therefore, this number is
needed to establish eligibility for the Clean Lakes Program. Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter,
13
-------
the term "lake" will refer to "significant publicly-owned lakes/reservoirs/ponds." If the State is reporting
on lakes in addition to significant publicly-owned lakes, it should distinguish those lakes in its assessment.
Any lake information presented elsewhere in the report should be referenced in this section. Each
State shall submit:
Background
The State's definition of "significant" as it relates to the purposes of this assessment. The
definition must consider public interest and use.
Total number of significant publicly-owned lakes and number of acres of significant publicly-
owned lakes in the State.
Any other background information the State considers relevant to this discussion.
Trophic Status [314(a)(l)(A)]
The total number of lakes and lake acres in each trophic class.
A discussion of how trophic status was determined and why the approach was selected.
Control Methods [314(a)(l)(B)]
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
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)(Q]
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.
A description of techniques to restore lake water quality.
A description of Phase I and Phase II Clean Lakes Program projects that have been undertaken
and/or completed.
14
-------
Impaired and Threatened Lakes [314(a)(l)(E)J
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 8 through 11
of these Guidelines. Include information on threatened lakes, if available.
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)]
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.
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 die State defines "affected."
A discussion of the specific sources of acidity, with estimates of the number of affected lake
acres attributed to each source of acidity.
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)]
If not provided in Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns chapter (see page 12 of these
Guidelines), the number of lakes and number of lake acres monitored for toxicants and those
with elevated levels of toxic pollutants.
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)(l)(F)J
A general discussion of apparent lake water quality trends. Include the total number of lakes
and lake acres in each trend category (improved, degraded, stable or unknown).
A discussion of how apparent trends were determined (e.g., changes in use support status,
statistical trend analysis of water quality parameters). Indicate the time frame of analysis.
Chapter Four! 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, toxic
contamination, and pathogen contamination.
15
-------
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 Two: Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns, the State should have provided information
on toxic contamination in estuaries (incidences of toxicants 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 Two.
Further information on estuaries and coastal waters to be reported in this Chapter should include the
following:
A case study from at least one estuary/coastal area. States are encouraged to describe problems
and challenges, not just "success stories."
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.
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.
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 Program, 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. Information on coastal (tidal
or estuarine) wetlands should be reported in Chapter 5 (Wetlands Information).
Chapter Five; Wetlands Information
Protecting the Nation's wetland resources (including riparian areas) is a high priority at EPA, other
Federal agencies, and in most States. In an effort to gain more comprehensive information on State efforts
to protect wetlands, information on State wetland resources and protection activities is requested in the State
305(b) reports. This information is vital to efforts to integrate wetlands protection into traditional base
water programs.
16
-------
Although EPA recognizes that information on wetland quality and extent is not generally available,
States are encouraged to report existing information for their wetlands. Previously reported information
should be updated where applicable. States should report on coastal (i.e., tidal or estuarine) wetlands in
this wetlands section of their report, rather than in Chapter 4 (Estuary and Coastal Information).
Extent of Wetland Resources
Please provide information on wetland types in your State, and their historical and existing acreages.
Table 8 is provided as a guide for formatting information. Define wetland types where these vary from
the Cowardin classification system currently used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also list sources
of information and discuss reasons for acreage change where known.
Table 8. Extent of Wetlands, by Type
Wetland Type
Historical Extent
(acres)1
1990 305(b)
Acreage2
Most Recent
Acreage3
% Change
(2 to 3)
Source of Information
f
2
3
Integrity of Wetland Resources
States are encouraged to report on the attainment of designated uses in their wetland areas. To the
extent possible, Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 (designated use support, causes and sources of impairment) should
be completed for wetlands and presented in this chapter.
17
-------
In a brief narrative, discuss your wetland monitoring program. Include information on the scope
and comprehensiveness of the program (e.g., parametric and geographic coverage), types of monitoring,
and how use support decisions are made.
Development of Wetland Water Quality Standards
In July 1990, EPA published guidance on the level of achievement expected of States by the end of
FY 1993 in the development of wetland water quality standards. Water quality standards for wetlands are
necessary to ensure that, under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, wetlands be afforded the same level
of protection as other waters. Development of wetland water quality standards provides a regulatory basis
for a variety of water quality management activities including, but not limited to, monitoring and
assessment under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402 and 404, water quality certification under
Section 401, and control of nonpoint source pollution under Section 319.
In this section, use Table 9 (below) as a guide in presenting tabular information on development of
State wetland water quality standards.
Table 9. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
Use Classification
Narrative Biocriteria
Numeric Biocriteria
Antidegradation
Implementation
Method
In Place
Under Development
Proposed
To supplement the information in Table 9, list designated uses for wetlands in your State. In
addition:
Briefly describe State efforts to develop narrative (and numeric) biological criteria. Provide
examples where appropriate.
Briefly describe classification of wetlands in your State antidegradation policy. Provide an
example of how your State uses its antidegradation policy to protect critical wetlands.
Additional Wetland Protection Activities
This section is designed to update EPA on State wetland protection activities and provide States with
an opportunity to exchange information on achievements and obstacles in protecting their wetland
resources. Discussions need not be extensive or detailed.
Describe the mechanism used to apply Section 401 certification to protect wetland resources in
your State. Cite an example of a success and failure in this application, if possible.
18
-------
Provide an example of how your State integrates wetlands protection activities into existing base
water programs such as nonpoint source pollution control, water quality standards development,
stormwater management, and/or water quality monitoring.
Briefly discuss the effectiveness of Section 404 and the Section 401 water quality certification
process in protecting wetlands in your State. Provide any recommendations for improvement.
Briefly describe any particularly effective mechanism or innovative approach used by your State
in protecting wetlands.
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 State 305(b)
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 summary overview describing in narrative form 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.
Major Sources of Contamination -
Using Table 10 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.
19
-------
Table 10. Major Sources of Ground-water Contamination
SOURCE
Septic tanks
Municipal landfills
On-site industrial landfills
(excludes pits, lagoons,
surface impoundments)
Other landfills
Surface impoundments
(excluding oil and gas
brine pits)
Oil and gas brine pits
Underground storage tanks
Injection wells
Abandoned hazardous waste
sites
Regulated hazardous waste sites
Salt water intrusion
Land application/treatment
Agricultural activities
Road salting
Other (specify)1
CHECK
RELATIVE
PRIORITY
'Include other factors that are critical to your State.
Contaminating substances -
Using Table 11, check those substances contaminating ground-water in the State due to the above
sources.
20
-------
Table 11. SUBSTANCES CONTAMINATING GROUND WATER
Organic chemicals:
Volatile _
Synthetic _ Metals'
Radioactive material
Inorganic chemicals: Pesticides'
Nitrates Other agricultural chemicals'
Fluorides Petroleum products'
Arsenic Other (specify)'
Brine/salinity
Other, (specify)2 _
'These substances should be checked in preference to the organic or inorganic category in which they are
found.
Include other factors that are critical to your State.
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 1992 305(b) report. Though the use of indicators as part of the 1990
reporting process was.voluntary and not a requirement for the State 305(h) report, thirty-two states reported
on one or more ground-water indicators in the 1990 report. In 1992 EPA expects States to report on all
of the indicators, where data are available, as part of their 30S(b) reporting. EPA will provide technical
guidance to the States, by the end of 1991, based on the results of three State pilot studies completed in
early 1991.
Indicators that have been developed to track progress and trends in ground-water protection efforts
at the Stale and national levels are listed below.
Public ground-water supplies
Compliance with MCLs and population at risk
Compliance with MCLs by contaminant
21
-------
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
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,
319 groundwater-related activities, and innovative activities begun/completed since the Iast305(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
22
-------
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 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 describe different aspects of their water monitoring programs, to include:
The nature and extent of any program to identify and characterize toxic pollution problems in
water/fish/sediment;
The nature and extent of biological sampling programs including Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols, macroinvertebrate sampling, fish sampling, habitat assessments, and biological testing
procedures;
The scope of intensive surveys or other special studies;
The numbers and locations of fixed station monitoring sites, including parameters sampled and
frequency of sampling; and
The total number or sites samples for chemistry, biology, habitat, and toxicity since the last
305(b) report.
In addition, States should discuss their use of volunteer-collected data, if any.
Finally, States should discuss any plans to utilize data generated by the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP), and should identify any monitoring and/or data management tools
needed to improve their ability to assess the quality of their waters.
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
23
-------
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.
24
-------
APPENDIX A
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Assessed waters -
"Assessed waters" are those waterbodies for which the State is able to make use support decisions
based on actual information. 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. In
most States there are waters 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 a reasonable basis for evaluation. To encourage reporting on more waters, and to
distinguish between.assessment bases, the term "total assessed waters" is subdivided into two categories.
"Evaluated waters" are those waterbodies for which the use support decision is based on
information other than current site-specific ambient data, such as data on land use, location of
sources, predictive modeling using estimated input variables, and surveys of fish and game
biologists. 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."
"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 integrated intensive surveys and biological monitoring and
bio surveys should be included in this category, along with waters monitored by fixed station
chemical/physical monitoring. Waters with fixed station chemical/physical monitoring should
be monitored on a quarterly or more frequent basis to be considered "monitored."
In addition, as general guidance, EPA recommends that data from a single monitoring station
not be used to generate a monitored assessment of an entire watershed. Rather, a monitoring
station can be considered representative of a waterbody for that distance upstream and/or
downstream in which there is no significant influence to the waterbody. A significant influence
can be a point or nonpoint source- of pollution, or a major change in watershed drainage
characteristics such as land use, tributary influences, or significant hydrological modifications
(such as channelization).
Table A-l provides specific assessment type categories for use by States that serve better to define
evaluated versus monitored assessments.
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.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. ASSESSMENT TYPE CODES
EVALUATED ASSESSMENTS
100 Qualitative (evaluated) assessmentunspecified
110 Information from local residents
120 Surveys of fish and game biologists/other professionals
130 Land use information and location of sources
140 Incidence of spills and /or fish kills
ISO Monitoring data that is more than 5 years old
160 Monitoring data collected by citizens
170 Best professional judgement
180 Screening models (desktop models; models are not calibrated or verified)
MONITORED ASSESSMENTS
200 Chemical/physical monitoring
210 Fixed station chemical/physical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
220 Non-fixed station chemical/physical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
230 Fixed station'chemical/ph'ysical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
240 Non-fixed station chemical physical monitoring, conventional plus toxics
2SO Chemical monitoring of sediments
260 Fish tissue analysis
300 Biological monitoring
310 Ecological/habitat surveys
320 Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys
330 Fish surveys
340 Primary producer surveys (phytoplankton, periphyton, and7or macrophyton)
350 Fixed station biological monitoring
400 Bacteriological monitoring
410 Shellfish surveys
420 Water column surveys (e.g., fecal coliform)
430 Sediment analysis
500 Toxicity testing
510 Effluent toxicity testing, acute
520 Effluent toxicity testing, chronic
530 Ambient toxicity testing, acute
540 Ambient toxicity testing, chronic
550 Toxicity testing of sediments
600 Modeling
610 Calibrated models (calibration data is less than 5 years old)
700 Integrated intensive survey (field work exceeds one 24-hour period and multiple
media are sampled)
710 Combined sampling of water column, sediment,and biota for chemical analysis
720 Biosurveys of multiple taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, invertebrates, algae)
A-2
-------
if rigorous quality assurance/quality control procedures have been applied to State-
managed or State-approved citizen volunteer monitoring programs, waters sampled
under these programs could be considered monitored (in Table A-l, and as a general
rule, those waters are considered evaluated).
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. Definitions for fish advisories and bans-
a. Restricted consumption fish advisory or ban for a subpopulation:
Advises restricted consumption (e.g., limited number of meals or size of meals per
unit time) of fish or shellfish species by a subpopulation that could be at potentially
greater risk (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, or children).
b. Restricted consumption fish advisory or ban, general population:
Advises restricted consumption (e.g., a limited number of meals or size of meals per
unit time) of fish or shellfish species by the general population.
c. No consumption fish advisory or ban for a sub-population:
Advises against consumption of fish or shellfish species by a subpopulation that could
be at potentially greater risk (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers or children).
d. "No consumption" fish advisory or ban, general population:
Advises against consumption of fish or shellfish species by the general population.
e. Commercial fishing ban:
Prohibits commercial fishing, commercial harvesting, and/or the sale of fish and
shellfish.
3. Monitored for toxicants -
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.
Waters are "monitored for toxicants" 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 toxicants were found. The actual data required will vary according to potential exposure routes. For
example, 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 contamination by toxicants. For reporting,
waters monitored for toxicants is a subset of waters monitored (i.e., those waters are counted in both
categories).
A-3
-------
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 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. States should use this category to describe waters for which actual monitoring or
evaluative data indicate an apparent declining water quality trend (i.e., water quality conditions have
deteriorated, compared to earlier assessments, but the waters still support uses). States may also choose
to include waters for which monitoring or evaluative data indicate potential water quality problems
requiring additional data or verification.
5. Major/moderate/minor contribution to impairment -
The determination of the relative contribution to impairment of causes and sources of pollution
is requested in two tables in Part III. As guidelines in determining relative contribution, States may
consider the following:
Major contribution: A cause/source makes a major contribution to impairment if it is the
only one responsible for less than full support, or if it predominates over others.
Moderate contribution: A cause/source makes a moderate contribution to impairment if
it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible for less than full support and none
predominate.
Minor contribution: A cause/source has minor contribution to impairment if it is one of
multiple causes/sources responsible for less than full support and others predominate.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The following guidance on making use support determinations includes revised recommendations
on the use of chemical monitoring data in making use support decisions and was developed by the
State/EPA 305(b) Consistency Workgroup, first convened in April 1990. This guidance replaces "Figure
1: Criteria for Designated Use Support Classification," found in previous 305(b) reporting guidelines.
Guidance for determining use support in the 305(b) reporting process was originally developed
in 1981 and has not been revised since that time. A review of State methodologies shows that some
States have developed their own approaches, others have adopted "Figure 1" with minor modifications,
and others simply have not specified how they made their use support decisions. As a result of this
inconsistency, the designated use support measure has lacked credibility and usefulness. This guidance
is an attempt to introduce a widely acceptable approach that can be used by all States in their 30S(b)
water quality assessments.
This guidance is organized into four sections:
1) Making Use Support Decisions Using Biological and Evaluative Data
2) Making Use Support Decisions Using Chemical Data and Other Indicators
3) Additional Considerations for Lakes, and
4) Guidelines for Multiple Use Waterbodies.
The guidance builds on some of the basic principles found in the original "Figure 1" but
incorporates more recent developments in water quality standards (specifically, the duration and frequency
components of criteria for toxic chemicals) as described in the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Control. Separate approaches are recommended for individual designated use categories
based on whether toxicants or conventional are being analyzed; specifics are included for determining
acceptable duration and frequency exceedances for toxicants; EPA criteria recommendations for E. coli,
enterococci, and fecal coliform bacteria are endorsed; and limited recommendations are made for
designated use support assessments in lakes. This guidance also supports previous 305(b) guidance on
the use of biological and evaluative data.
Since the use of this approach may significantly affect the State's final use support numbers compared
to previous years, it is strongly recommended that, in its 1992 305(b) report, each State clearly explain
the new methods and their impact. Where possible, the State should quantify in summary form the
number of miles, acres, etc. affected by this revised assessment approach.
In July 1991, EPA transmitted final national policy on the integration of biological, chemical, and
toxicological data in water quality assessments. According to this policy, if any one of the three types
of monitoring data (biological, chemical, or toxicological) indicates impairment of water quality
standards, this should be taken as conclusive evidence of impairment regardless of the findings of the
other types of data. (For more information, see Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria
in the Water Quality Program. May 1991, USEPA.) States should follow this policy of independent
application when making use support decisions.
B-l
-------
MAKING USE SUPPORT DECISIONS USING BIOLOGICAL AND EVALUATIVE DATA
The following guidance on the use of biological and evaluative data in making use support
decisions is essentially unchanged from-previous reporting cycles.
Biological assessments are evaluations of the biological condition of waterbodies using biological
surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters. They are characterized by site
visits by qualified professional staff trained in biological methods. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols may
be used. Evaluative assessments occur where there is no site-specific ambient data. Such assessments
are based on land use,, location of sources, citizen .complaints, volunteer-collected data, non-
calibrated/verified predictive models using estimated inputs, etc.
Aquatic Life Use
1.1 Biological Assessment
A. Fully Supporting: Uses clearly supported. No evidence of modification of
community (within natural range of control/ecoregion).
B. Partially Supporting: Some uncertainty about use support. Some modification
of community noted.
C. Not Supporting: Use clearly not supported. Definite modification of
community.
For further information on the development and implementation of biological criteria and
assessments, States should consult Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters.
All Uses
2.1 Evaluative Assessment
A. Fully Supporting: No point or nonpoint sources are present that could interfere
with the use, or sources are present but information indicates that uses are fully
attained. Criteria attainment predicted.
B. Partially Supporting: Sources are present and information indicates uses are
partially supported or there is uncertainty about use support.. Complaints on
record.
C. Not Supporting: Sources are present and information clearly indicates use not
supported. Criteria exceedances predicted.
B-2
-------
MAKING USE SUPPORT DECISIONS USING CHEMICAL DATA AND OTHER INDICATORS
This guidance is provided to encourage the best and most nationally consistent use of chemical
data. EPA does not intend to imply that States should use only chemical monitoring data in making use
support decisions.
EPA recognizes that many States may not always collect a broad spectrum of chemical data (and
data on additional indicators such as fishing restrictions) for every waterbody. Therefore, States are
expected to apply the following guidance to whatever data are available, and to use a "worst case"
approach where multiple types of data are available. (If, for example, pathogen conditions indicate
impairment of recreational use but no bathing area closures are in effect, the waterbody is still considered
impaired).
3. Aquatic Life Use
3.1. Toxicants (including chlorine and ammonia)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, no violations of acute toxicity criteria
(EPA's criteria maximum concentration or applicable State criteria) within a 3-
year period, based on grab or 1-day composite samples. If 4-day composite data
are available, no violations of chronic toxicity criteria within a 3-year period.
Exception to this rule is possible if the State has collected an abundant data set
(i.e., sampling on monthly or more frequent basis over a 3-year period). In that
case, one violation of acute or chronic toxicity criteria is allowable as a once-in-
three-years occurrence.
B. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, one or more violations of acute or
chronic toxicity criteria within a 3-year period (based on sampling type
mentioned above). Exception to this rule is possible if the State has collected an
abundant data set; in that case, two or more violations of acute or chronic criteria
are needed to show nonsupport, as a once-in-three-years violation is allowable.
The following considerations apply to this approach:
States should document their sampling frequency. Waters should have
at least quarterly data to be considered monitored; monthly or more
frequent data are considered abundant. More than 3 years of data may
be used, although the once-in-3-years consideration still applies (i.e., 2
violations are allowed in 6 years of abundant data).
The once-in-3-years goal is not intended to include spurious violations
resulting from lack of precision in analytical tests. Therefore, using
documented QA/QC assessments, States may consider the effect of
laboratory imprecision on the observed frequency of violations.
If the duration and frequency specifications of EPA criteria change in the
future, these recommendations should be changed accordingly.
B-3
-------
3.2. Conventional (DO, pH, temperature)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in < = 10% of
measurements. In the case of dissolved oxygen, national ambient water quality
criteria specify the acceptable daily average and seven day average minimums
and the acceptable seven day and 30 day averages. States should document the
DO criteria being used for die assessment, and should discuss any biases which
may be introduced by the sampling program (e.g., grab sampling in waterbodies
with considerable diurnal variation).
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 11-25% of
measurements. For dissolved oxygen, the above considerations apply.
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in >25% of
measurements. For dissolved oxygen, the above considerations apply.
4. Drinking Water Use
4.1 Toxicants (applies to ambient drinking water criteria established in State standards)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, mean or median < criterion (use mean
for data of normal distribution, median for non-normal distribution).
B. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, mean or median > = criteria (use mean
for data of normal distribution, median for non-normal distribution).
Note that for many toxicants, concentrations are below detection limits and are not included in
ambient monitoring programs. Pathogens are also not generally monitored in ambient water to determine
drinking water suitability because of the effectiveness of water treatment. Where ambient water must be
of potable quality, States should use guidelines for pathogens described in Section S.I.
4.2 Drinking Water Supply Data
A. Fully Supporting: No drinking water supply closures or advisories in effect
during reporting period; no treatment necessary beyond "reasonable levels."
B. Partially Supporting: One drinking water supply advisory lasting 30 days or less
per year; or problems not requiring closures or advisories but adversely affecting
treatment costs and the quality of polished water, such as taste and odor
problems, color, excessive turbidity, high dissolved solids, pollutants requiring
activated charcoal filters, etc.
C. Not Supporting: One or more drinking water supply advisories lasting more than
30 days per year, or one or more drinking water supply closures per year.
B-4
-------
§t Recreation Use
5.1. Pathogens
Use determinations should be based on EPA criteria for bacteria specified in Quality Criteria for
Water 1986. Criteria are recommended for enterococci and E. coli bacteria under freshwater and marine
conditions as a geometric mean of samples taken during the primary contact recreation season (referred
to as seasonal samples) and as single sample maximums based on recreational use definitions.
If E. coli or enterococci data are not available, States may use data on fecal coliform bacteria.
For fecal coliforms, States should use the following approach in determining recreational use support:
EPA's criterion of 200 colonies per 100 ml should be used as a "not to be exceeded"
geometric mean of seasonal samples for both freshwater and marine water; and
Seasonal samples should be compared to the EPA recommended criterion of 400 colonies
per 100 ml as a single sample maximum, using the following frequency specifications:
A. Fully Supporting: Criteria exceeded in < = 10% of measurements.
B. Partially Supporting: Criteria exceeded 11-25% of measurements.
C. Not Supporting: Criteria exceeded in > 25% of measurements.
This guidance establishes' a minimum baseline approach; should States have more restrictive
criteria, these may be used in place of EPA's criteria.
5.2 Bathing Area Closure Data
A. Fully Supporting: No bathing area closures or restrictions in effect during
reporting period.
B. Partially Supporting: On average, one bathing area closure per year of less than
one week duration.
C. Not Supporting: On average, one bathing area closure per year of greater than
one week duration, or. more than one bathing area closure per year.
Fish Consumption Use
6.1 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Data
i
A. Fully Supporting: No fish/shellfish advisories or bans are in effect.
B. Partially Supporting: "Restricted consumption" fish advisory or ban in effect for
general population or a subpopulation that could be at potentially greater risk
(e.g., pregnant women, children). Restricted consumption is defined as limits
B-5
-------
on the number of meals or size of meals consumed per unit time for one or more
fish/shellfish species.
C. Not Supporting: "No consumption" fish/shellfish advisory or ban in effect for
general population, or a subpopulation that could be at potentially greater risk,
for one or more fish species; commercial fishing/shellfishing ban in effect.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAKES
Previous 305(b) reporting guidance made no distinction between use support assessments in lakes
and in rivers. Clearly, such a distinction needs to be made, since certain types of commonly-collected
chemical data may be of little value in making use support.determinations in lakes, and since States tend
not to conduct extensive chemical monitoring in lakes.
A broad array of parameters should be addressed by State lake managers in making lake use
support decisions. Many of these parameters may not have specific criteria (e.g., -algal blooms, growth
of nuisance weeds) but have important effects on lake uses. Many are also indicators of the level of lake
eutrophication.
Lake resources vary regionally, even within States, due to variations in geology, vegetation,
hydrology, and land use. Therefore, regional patterns of lake water quality, morphometry, and watershed
characteristics should ideally be defined based on comparison to natural conditions using an ecoregion
approach. Reasonable goals and criteria can then be set for a variety of parameters (see references for
further information). These regional patterns apply to natural lakes only.
TS Recreation Use - Lakes
7.1 Trophic Status
Trophic status is traditionally measured using data on total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and secchi
transparency. As mentioned above, comparison of trophic conditions to natural, ecoregion-specific
standards allows the best use of this measure.
In this context, user perception surveys are a useful adjunct to trophic status measures in defining
recreational use support. A statistically significant relationship has been shown between natural
limitations on trophic status indicators and user perceptions of acceptable conditions for recreation. See
references for additional information.
7.2 Pathogens
States should consider pathogen data in determining support of recreational uses. Guidelines
presented in the Rivers discussion in sections S.I and 5.2 also apply to lakes.
B-6
-------
7.3 Additional Parameters
In addition to trophic status and pathogens, States should consider the following parameters in
determining support of recreational uses:
Frequency/extent of algal blooms, surface scums and mats, or periphyton growth;
Turbidity (reduction of water clarity due to suspended solids);
Lake bottom siltation (reduction of water depth);
Extent of nuisance macrophyte growth (noxious aquatic plants).
Aesthetics
8. Aquatic Life Use - Lakes
8.1 Toxicants and Conventionals
If available, States should consider data on toxicants and conventionals in making aquatic life
use support determinations. Guidelines presented in the Rivers discussion in sections 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, and
3.2 also apply to lakes.
States should discuss their interpretation of dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature standards for
both epilimnetic and hypolimnetic waters.
8.2 Additional Parameters
In addition, States should consider the following parameters in determining support of aquatic life
uses:
Turbidity;
Lake bottom siltation;
Exotic species.
US'
For Drinking Water and Fish Consumption uses, States should follow guidelines presented in
Sections 4 and 6, respectively.
GUIDELINES FOR MULTIPLE USE WATERBODIES
In assessing waterbodies with multiple uses, States should follow previously established EPA
guidelines. Specifically:
Fully Supporting = All uses are fully supported.
B-7
-------
Partially Supporting = One or more uses are partially supported and remaining uses are fully
supported.
Not Supporting = One or more uses are not supported.
REFERENCES
Heiskary, Steven A. and Wilson, C. Bruce. "The Regional Nature of Lake Water Quality Across
Minnesota: An Analysis for Improving Resource Management," in Journal of die Minnesota
Academy of Science, volume 55, Number 1, 1989, pp. 72-77.
Smeltzer, Eric and Heiskary, Steven A. "Analysis and Applications of Lake User Survey Data," in
Lake and Reservoir. Management, 1990 6(1): pp. 109-118.
U.S. EPA. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA 440/5-90-004.
U.S. EPA. Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program.
Office of Water, May 1991.
U.S. EPA. Quality Criteria for Water. 1976.
U.S. EPA. Quality Criteria for Water. 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001.
U.S. .EPA. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Decisions. Office of Water,
'March 1991, EPA 505/2-90-001.
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Sec. 305. Water Quality Inventory
(b)(l) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator 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 supplemental 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 provides 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 requirements 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, (Hi) 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 pollutants, 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
C-l
-------
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;
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 conjunction with appropriate Federal
agencies, to restore the quality 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, including those lakes which are known not to meet applicable water
quality standards or which require implementation of control programs to maintain compliance
with applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has deteriorated as a result of
high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid deposition; 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.
C-2
-------
"(2) Submission as part of 305(b)(l) Report.--The information required under paragraph (1) shall be
included in the report required under section 305(b)(l) of this Act, beginning with the report required
under such section by April 1, 1988.
C-3
------- |