DRAFT 02/27/90
OFFICE OF WATER
COASTAL WATER PROGRAMS
HANDBOOK
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
Washington, D.C.
-------
DRAFT 02/27/90
OFFICE OF WATER
COASTAL WATER PROGRAMS
HANDBOOK
Prepared as a manual for
Near Coastal Water Integrated
Training Workshops
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
Washington, B.C.
-------
02/27/90
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1. PURPOSES AND GOALS OF THE NEAR COASTAL WATER INTEGRATED
TRAINING WORKSHOP 1
Workshop Goal 1
Background 1
Workshop Purposes 3
2. EPA HEADQUARTERS AND REGION III WATER PROGRAMS 9
3. EPA'S COASTAL PROTECTION ACTIVITIES 13
Existing Geographically-Based Activities Relevant to Near Coastal Waters 14
New Initiatives and Implications for Near Coastal Waters 21
Technology Transfer 23
4. EPA'S CRITERIA AND STANDARDS ACTIVITIES 27
Current Activities Relevant to Near Coastal Waters 29
New Initiatives and Implications for Near Coastal Waters 32
Technology Transfer 34
5. EPA'S TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING
ACTIVITIES 37
Current Activities Relevant to Near Coastal Waters 39
New Initiatives and Implications for Near Coastal Waters 42
Technology Transfer 44
6. EPA'S WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMITTING ACTIVITIES FOR POINT
SOURCES 47
Current NPDES Activities Relevant to Near Coastal Waters 49
New Initiatives and Implications for Near Coastal Waters 56
Technology Transfer 61
7. EPA'S NONPOINT SOURCE ACTIVITIES 63
Current Activities Relevant to Near Coastal Waters 64
New Initiatives and Implications for Near Coastal Waters 65
Technology Transfer 67
8. EPA'S LIVING RESOURCES PROTECTION ACTIVITIES 71
-------
Page.
Current Activities Relevant to Near Coastal Waters 73
New Initiatives and Implications for Near Coastal Waters 76
Technology Transfer 81
9. NCW INTEGRATED TRAINING WORKSHOPS HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY 85
APPENDIX: LIST OF CASE EXAMPLES TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL
CASE STUDY 87
-------
02/27/90
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Summary: Reviesed Technical Support Doicument for Water Quaftiy-Bascd Toxics Control 58
2. Summary: Permit Writers Guide for Marine and Estuarine Dischargers 59
3. Summary: Guidance Manual for Assessing Human Health Issues form Chemical
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish 60
in
-------
IV
-------
02/27/90
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Traditional Regulatory Approach to Base Water Quality Programs
Basin-Wide Approach to Near Coastal Water Management
Organization of Program Areas with Primary Responsibility for the Management of Near
Coastal Waters within EPA/Headquarters Office of Water
Existing and Proposed Organization of Regions Ill's Environmental Services Division
Organization of Regions Ill's Water Management Division
EPA and State Water Quality Criteria and Standards Programs
Review/Approval Procedures for State TMDL/WLA/LA
Overview of Water Quality-Based Approach for Point Source Discharge to Near Coastal
Waters
EPA/State Nonpoint Source Control Program
EPA Wetland Initiatives
Eaga
5
6
10
11
12
27
38
48
63
72
-------
VI
-------
1. PURPOSES AND GOALS OF
THE NEAR COASTAL WATER
INTEGRATED TRAINING
WORKSHOP
WORKSHOP GOAL
The overall goal of the Near Coastal Water Integrated Training
Workshop is to promote the effective use and integration of a broad
range of programs.information, and tools available to the Regions and
States for protecting near coastal waters. These include 404 permit-
ting, wetlands protection, technology and water quality-based permit-
ting, criteria and standards development, waste load allocation
modelling, effluent guidelines development, permit derivation proce-
dures, enforcement, and nonpoint source programs. A hypothetical
case study is presented to provide workshop participants the oppor-
tunity to develop an example approach to near coastal water integrated
management using the programs, information and tools presented
during the workshop.
In 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Near
Coastal Waters Strategic Options Paper identified several administra-
tive problems and insufficiencies related to managing near coastal
waters and preventing their degradation. The problems and insuf-
ficiencies identified included lack of interagency coordination, con-
flicting or overlapping agency programs and responsibilities,
single-purpose and reactive programs with few integrated goals for
managing the near coastal water environmental, and lack of a national
policy for protecting or improving near coastal waters. In September
1988, representatives of EPA's Office of Water (OW) reaffirmed the
need for a geographical approach to environmental management of
near coastal waters and increased cross-program interaction and coor-
dination. These representatives also recommended that coastal
managers receive integrated cross program training to better under-
stand "base" water programs in a more process oriented framework.
Based on this recommendation, the Offices of Water Regulations and
Standards, Water Enforcement and Permits, Wetlands Protection, and
Marine and Estuarine Protection have jointly developed a generic
curriculum for presenting the Near Coastal Water Integrated Training
Workshop to coastal Regions and, where appropriate, States.
Through a series of presentations reviewing the tools and programs
BACKGROUND
-------
02/27/90
SHIFT TO GEOGRAPHIC
APPROACH TO WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
available to Regions and States to protect near coastal waters followed
by group participation in a case study of a problem estuary, EPA hopes
to make participants aware of programs that provide the most effective
tools for near coastal water management, the use of those programs
and tools, and how these programs can be targeted or strengthened to
provide increased and more effective near coastal water management.
Each workshop is intended to reflect the needs of a particular Region,
focusing on a selected geographic area and priority problem for that
area. The Workshop is also intended to provide States and Regions
with the opportunity to comment on specific near coastal water issues,
needs, and problems.
EPA Region III will host the Pilot Workshop in early summer of 1990.
Region III staff have provided input to this manual and will also
participate in the presentations for the Pilot Workshop.
The need for this new focus is consistent with the devolution of water
quality programs. This shift, occurring from 1972 to 1990 can be seen
in four major areas:
conventional to toxic pollutants
engineering focus to focus on science and biology,
delegation of responsibility changes, and
water quality to ecosystem protection
Historically, early water pollution control efforts focused on visible
conventional pollutants. The shifts in the late 1970's to toxics control
and in the mid-1980's to whole effluent limits highlighted the need to
deal more broadly with toxic and synergistic effects. There has also
been a major shift from the traditional focus on engineering techniques
(technology based controls) to the effects of pollutants on living or-
ganisms and biological methods (water quality based controls).
New responsibilities have emerged with resources being shifted from
EPA Headquarters to the Regions and statutory authority being
shifted from EPA to the States. For example, new responsibilities for
pretreatment, stormwater, and nonpoint sources, requires local
governments to become regulators.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 established uniform technology based
standards, regardless of water quality, and the nature of the job was
"pollution control." In the 1980's the trend to water quality based
permits led to site specific permit requirements based on water quality.
The watershed/estuary approach encourages a "mix of uniform/site
specific standards, and a mix of point and nonpoint source measures
to protect aquatic ecosystems."
These workshops will attempt to present water programs in a more
integrated approach which is now essential to assist in water quality
management, evidenced by this devolution of programs.
-------
The six major purposes of the Near Coastal Water Integrated Training
Workshop are to:
1) Sensitize Regional and State staff to the need for integrated coas-
tal/estuarine resource management;
2) Identify programs that affect the management of near coastal
waters;
3) Demonstrate the existing and proposed interrelationships between
program areas;
4) Identify the difficulties in integrating programs;
5) Promote awareness of new regulations, enforcement authorities,
technical guidance, and other existing information affecting marine
and estuarine pollution control; and
6) Present a near coastal water management case study.
02/27/90
WORKSHOP PURPOSES
Near coastal waters are subject to multiple and overlapping sources of
pollution and their resultant impacts. Not only are coastal and es-
tuarine areas subject to direct pollution discharges from point and
nonpoint sources, but they are also the ultimate recipient of pollutants
discharged into upstream fresh water rivers and streams that eventually
empty into near coastal waters. Because of the unique physical and
chemical characteristics of estuarine areas, pollutants are often
retained in estuarine sediments where they may become available for
biological uptake or eventual resuspension into the water column. In
addition, the value of coastal and estuarine waters to commercial,
recreational, and ecologically important species of finfish and shellfish
makes proper management of these areas critical from an economic
standpoint. Estuarine and near coastal waters serve as nursery and/or
spawning areas for some of the most economically important offshore
species of finfish and shellfish, as well as for other aquatic species that
serve as vital links in the ecology of economically important species.
Many near coastal areas also support significant commercial and
recreational fisheries which provide human health as well as economic
incentives for the proper management of these areas. The Near Coas-
tal Water Integrated Training Workshop is designed to assist Regional
water program staff in understanding the ecological and economic
significance of near coastal waters and of the variety of sources of
pollution and types of impacts affecting these waters and their implica-
tions for ecological integrity and human health.
SENSITIZE REGIONAL AND
STATE STAFF TO THE NEED FOR
INTEGRATED
COASTAIVESTUARINE
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
-------
02/27/90
IDENTIFY PROGRAMS THAT
AFFECT THE MANAGEMENT OF
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
DEMONSTRATE EXISTING AND
PROPOSED
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN PROGRAM AREAS
IDENTIFY DIFFICULTIES IN
INTEGRATING PROGRAMS
Several water program areas have a significant interest and impact on
the management of near coastal waters. Experts from each of the
relevant program areas from both Headquarters and the Regions will
be available at each workshop to assist participants in understanding
the use of their program "tools" in managing and protecting the quality
of near coastal waters.
During their presentations, representatives from each water program
area will focus on the opportunities for integration of their program
area activities in near coastal waters with the activities of other water
programs. These presentations will be designed to encourage
Regional and State staff to think in terms of a basin-wide approach to
near coastal water management rather than a permit-by-permit ap-
proach. Conceptual representations of the traditional regulatory ap-
proach to base water quality programs and the potential areas for
integration of water program activities under a basin-wide approach
to near coastal water management are presented in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1 shows the traditional approach. Figure 2 illustrates the many
potential opportunities for integration of program activities by using
existing and developing management tools. These tools and their
potential use in the integrated, basin-wide approach to near coastal
water management will be discussed by the workshop speakers.
The potential for integrating program activities in near coastal water
management and obstacles preventing full implementation of an in-
tegrated management approach are both apparent. In some cases,
these obstacles may be socio-political, legal or economic constraints.
In other cases, the problems may arise due to a lack of scientific
knowledge or technical guidance. Speakers from each of the program
areas will discuss the obstacles to a fully integrated, basin-wide ap-
proach to near coastal water management from their program area
perspective and the steps the agency is taking to remove some of these
obstacles. When appropriate, speakers will also discuss approaches
Regional and State environmental managers can take to work around
these obstacles until such time as new management tools become
available for use.
-------
2/22/90
CWA 305(b)
Status Report
Other Programs
Effluent Guidelines (ITD)
Office of Pesticides
Office of Research & Development
Figure 1. TRADITIONAL REGULATORY APPROACH TO BASE WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
-------
2/22/90
Basin-Wide Assessment/Screening
Dumplng.Discharge
of Dredged or
Fill Material
Wat»r Quality Criteria and Standard*
Nonllquld Watt*
Sludge Dlsposa
Point Source Discharge*
ubleet to CWA 301
wetland Activities
Nonpolnt Sources
Discharges
Federal Program
Non-404 Wetland
Activities
Effluent Characterization
319 A«ses»m»nt»
Approval/Review
Exposure Asaeaament and
Watteload Allocation
CWA404(b)(1)
Guidelines
Permit Derivation
Permit Review/
Implementation
Monitoring Wetland Loss/
Habitat Quality and Quantity
Compliance Monitoring
Ambient Monitoring
(dredge material
for Water Quality
testing) Proceta
NOW Program
NEP Program
Chesapeake Bay Program
NEAR COASTAL WATER
INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT
Other Programs
Effluent Guidelines (ITD)
Of flee of Pesticides
Office of Research & Development
CWA 305(b)
Statua Report
Figure 2. BASIN-WIDE APPROACH TO NEAR COASTAL WATER MANAGEMENT
-------
02/27/90
As scientific knowledge of the natural processes and human activities
affecting marine and estuarine environments increases, regulations
and technical guidance reflecting this increased knowledge are revised
by EPA to enable the Regions and States to better manage their
environmental resources. Each of the workshop presenters will iden-
tify the new initiatives within the program area that have been or are
being developed by the Agency that will provide Regional and State
managers with additional information and tools for managing their
near coastal waters. Presenters will also discuss training opportunities
related to near coastal issues that are or will be offered by EPA to
Regional and State environmental managers and planners.
Following the program area presentations in which workshop par-
ticipants are introduced to the management tools available for the
integrated management of near coastal waters, participants will be
given the opportunity to apply the knowledge gained during the presen-
tations in a case study exercise. Participants will be presented with the
description of a water body, its environmental conditions, living resour-
ces, land uses, monitoring and enforcement authorities, and sources of
pollution discharges. Maps will also be provided that will identify
resources of concern, potential sources of pollution, and areas within
the water body with potential environmental quality problems.
Workshop participants will be organized into working groups, and
each group will be asked to apply what has been learned in the earlier
presentations to define the integrated approach they would use to
manage the water body. The working groups will focus on three main
areas: problem assessment, tool identification, and strategy develop-
ment.
The first step for each of the working groups will be to conduct an
assessment of the problems confronting the hypothetical water body
and the likely causes of those problems. Next, the working groups will
identify the management tools they would use in addressing the iden-
tified problems and causes. Finally, the working groups will develop a
strategy for implementing an overall management plan for the water
body. This will involve identifying the persons responsible for each
step in the management process as well as an approach for integrating
the available tools into a coherent management program for the water
body. Between each of these steps in the case study evaluation, the
working groups will present the results of their analyses to the entire
workshop, at which time the results of each group's deliberations will
be discussed and ideas will be exchanged.
PROMOTE AWARENESS OF
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN
REGULATIONS AND TECHNICAL
GUIDANCE AFFECTING MARINE
AND ESTUARINE POLLUTION
CONTROL
PRESENT A NEAR COASTAL
WATER MANAGEMENT CASE
STUDY
-------
02/27/90
-------
02/27/90
2. EPA HEADQUARTERS AND
REGION III WATER PROGRAMS
Figure 3 presents the organization of the program areas within EPA
Headquarters' Office of Water that have primary responsibility for the
management of near coastal waters. Figures 4 and 5 present the
organizational structure of Region Ill's Environmental Services
Division and Water Management Division, the two program areas
within the Regional Office with primary responsibility for near coastal
water management.
-------
1
Office of Water
Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection
Marine Operations
Division
Technical Support
Division
Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits
Office of Wetland
Protection
Enforcement
Division
Permits
Division
Wetland Strategies &
State Program Division
Regulatory
Activities Division
Office of Water
Regulation and Standards
Criteria and
Standards Division
Industrial Technology
Division
Assessment & Watershed
Protection Division
Monitoring
Branch
Water Quality
Assessment Branch
NonPoInt Source
Control Branch
Figure 3. Organization of Program Areas With Primary Responsibility for the Management of Near Coastal Waters
Within EPA Headquarters' Office of Water
-------
02/27/90
Existing Organization
Director
1
Environmental Central Regi<
Management Branch Laborator
Environmental Impact and
Marine Policy Branch
NEPA Compliance Federal Facilities V
Section Unit
Proposed Organization
Director
Environmental Environmental Planning
Monitoring Branch And Ecology Branch
1
NEPA Compliance Federal Facilities Environmental
Section Unit Planning Section
anal Wheeling Field
y' Office
Vetlands And Marine
Policy Section
Central Regional
Laboratory
Wetlands & Marine
Policy Section
Figure 4. Existing and Proposed Organization of Region Ill's Environmental Services Division
11
-------
o
s
Director
Regional Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay Program - Annapolis, MD
Construction
Grants Branch
SRF Program
Manager
Program
Support Branch
Drinking Water/
Ground Water
Protection Branch
Permits
Enforcement
Branch
Construction
Grants
Program
Coordinator
Ground
Water
Prot.
Section
UIC
Section
PA
Enforcement
Section
General
Enforcement
Section
PA/DC
Permit*
Section
General
Permit*
Section
Program
Management
Section
Figure 5. Organization of Region Ill's Water Management Division
-------
02/27/90
3. EPA'S COASTAL
PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
In 1984, EPA centralized the major Agency programs dealing with
coastal and marine resources within the newly created Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). OMEP has the focused respon-
sibility of addressing growing coastal and ocean problems through
pollution prevention efforts, geographic-based approaches, and en-
forcement. OMEP's central mission is to protect, restore, and maintain
the Nation's coastal and marine waters to protect human health and
sustain living resources.
In January 1989, the Agency released an interim version of its National
Coastal and Marine Policy (NCMP), which states the Agency's and
OMEP's goals for coastal and marine protection. They include:
recover full use of shores, beaches, and water,
restore the nation's shellfisheries and salt-water fisheries,
minimize the use of coastal and marine water waste disposal,
improve and expand coastal science, and
» support international efforts to protect coastal and marine
resources.
EPA's programs to protect ocean and coastal waters and the Great
Lakes from nutrient and toxic pollutants emanating from point and
nonpoint sources are implemented under two major laws -- the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) as well as the Marine Plastic Pollution
Research and Control Act (MPPRCA), the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
(which includes the Shore Protection Act), and the Medical Waste
Tracking Act. Major OMEP programs include the Near Coastal
Waters (NCW) Program, National Estuary Program (NEP), Point
Source Controls (the 301(h) and 403(c) programs), and the Ocean
Dumping Program.
EPA also oversees several important international program initiatives,
including Annex V of the MARPOL Convention Protocol on marine
debris, the London Dumping Convention provisions which addresses
ocean dumping, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement be-
tween the United States and Canada.
13
-------
02/27/90
EXISTING
GEOGRAPHICALLY-BASED
ACTIVITIES RELEVANT TO
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
PROGRAM
NCW Assessment
The Near Coastal Waters Initiative arose out of EPA's first strategic
planning process in 1986. Through the process, OMEP formulated a
10-15 year blueprint for improving the Agency's near coastal water
environmental management, and for raising the level of coordination
among Federal, State and local NCW program managers.
The strategic plan recognized that the multiple threats to the nation's
near coastal waters come from varied sources and require management
from a water-body perspective. Ever increasing coastal development
imposes more and more of society's wastes on a natural aquatic system
decreasingly able to accommodate such wastes. The NCW Program
focuses on a waterbody approach that parallels that of the National
Estuary Program (NEP), but it moves beyond the selected estuary
orientation to protect all endangered near coastal waters. These may
include bays, lagoons, coves, the 1,600 mile long freshwater Great
Lakes, and other coastal water bodies. The program consists of a
limited number of demonstration projects and the development of
Regional Strategies to protect near coastal waters. The NCW Program
builds upon insights gained in the NEP, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes
and other programs; develops new techniques; and offers flexibility to
apply this knowledge as needed across the nation's vast coastline. The
program has no specific legislative basis and is carried out under the
general authority of the Clean Water Act.
Since its inception, the NCW Program has worked to promote in-
tegrated management and to improve coordination among Federal,
State, and local organizations involved in coastal water management.
In addition, efforts have been undertaken to assess the condition of
near coastal waters to help identify those in greatest jeopardy.
OMEP's approach for implementing its strategic plan is to identify
coastal areas requiring additional management attention, encourage
Federal and State managers to use their existing regulatory tools and
resources to solve problems more efficiently, and help Federal, State,
and local officials implement new management tactics that will achieve
measurable environmental improvements in coastal areas. During the
development of the plan, however, a striking absence of data about
near coastal waters was discovered. Consequently, OMEP undertook
a national assessment of the environmental status and trends of all near
coastal waters to identify those in need of management attention.
Using existing data from Federal, State (such as 305(b) biennial State
water quality reports), local agencies and academia, OMEP has been
working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to address the lack of near coastal water data. Efforts to date
14
-------
02727/90
have included: compiling data on coastal waters in Region 1 (North-
east Case Study) and preparation of susceptibility analyses to screen
coastal waters and identify threatened waters. Summary reports on the
susceptibility of coastal waters to nutrient discharges have been com-
pleted for the Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Coast, and Northeast Coast.
NOAA also prepared data atlases of coastal wetlands in the New
England Region, and public recreational facilities in coastal areas.
OMEP is also working with EPA Regional Offices and States to
"segment" near coastal waters to encourage collection/reporting of
environmental information in geographical units to assess environmen-
tal conditions and promote understanding of these waters.
In 1988 and 1989, OMEP funded projects to test management ap-
proaches for protecting and enhancing NCWs. Projects were selected
based upon criteria that required an action focus, applicability to other
areas, innovation, and timely completion. A total of seven projects are
currently underway around the country that focus on issues including
managing nonpotnt sources of pathogens responsible for shellfish bed
closures in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; implementing comprehen-
sive waterbody management plans for the Oregon coast; controlling
stormwater runoff responsible for algal blooms in Peconic Bay, NY;
and utilizing citizen monitoring teams and multi-state management to
protect the NCWs of Perdido Bay, FL/AL.
This initiative presents a major example of the NCW approach in
practice. It promotes the development and implementation of a com-
prehensive management strategy for protecting resources in the Gulf
ecosystem, balancing human needs with marine life preservation and
enhancement. The initiative supports enhanced communication
among all interested Federal and State agencies and public and private
institutions to establish an action framework involving regulatory con-
trols, public and private participation, and research operations.
Regions IV and VI and the Gulf Program Office jointly manage the
Gulf of Mexico Initiative.
OMEP oversees the Great Lakes Program which is located in EPA
Region V (Chicago) at the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO). The objectives of this program are spelled out in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, signed initially in 1972 by the United
States and Canada and renegotiated most recently in 1987. This
program monitors United States participation with the International
Joint Commission, conducts extensive surveillance of the lakes,
promotes inter-and intra-agency coordination, participates in the
development of a 5-year lake management plan, and implements a
number of demonstration projects.
NCW Pilot Projects
Gulf of Mexico Program
GREATLAKES PROGRAM
15
-------
02/27/90
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
Authorized by Congress in 1985, and formally established in 1987 by
amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Estuary
Program (NEP) builds upon the lessons of the Chesapeake Bay, Great
Lakes, and other earlier programs in a geographic, basin-wide ap-
proach to environmental management. The EPA Administrator
selects estuaries for NEP participation through State governor's
nominations. Chosen estuaries must demonstrate a likelihood of suc-
cess and evidence of institutional, financial, and political commitment
to solve their problems.
In maintaining the environmental integrity of its participants, this
national demonstration program also aims to communicate its lessons
to the more than 150 estuaries located along our coasts. Among the
environmental problems addressed in the NEP estuaries are the loss
of aquatic habitats, toxic contamination of cstuarine sediments, in-
creases in nutrient levels, bacterial contamination, and hypoxia.
Twelve estuaries are currently part of the National Estuary Program.
They are: Buzzards Bay, MA; Narragansett Bay, RI; Long Island
Sound, CT/NY; New York/New Jersey Harbor; Delaware Bay, DE,
NJ, and PA; Delaware Inland Bays, DE: Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds,
NC; Sarasota Bay, FL; Galveston Bay, TX; Santa Monica Bay, CA; San
Francisco Bay, CA; and Puget Sound, WA.
For approved estuaries, the Administrator convenes Management
Conferences, a grouping of interested Federal, Regional, State, and
local governments, affected industries, scientific and academic institu-
tions, and citizen organizations. Management Conferences strive for
an open, consensus-building approach to defining program goals and
objectives, identifying problems to address, and designing pollution
prevention/control and resource management strategies to meet each
objective. Management Conferences are required to create and begin
implementation of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) designed to protect and restore the estuary.
To encourage and test early management actions, OMEP has funded
Action Plan Demonstration Projects in each of the NEP Management
Conferences. With the projects, Management Conferences (MCs) can
test on a smaller scale those actions intended to be included in the
CCMP for long-term protection of the estuary. The Demonstration
Projects allow the MC to take early action rather than waiting until the
CCMP is completed, identify potential problems in implementing
action plans on a larger scale, build support of the action, and define
more specifically the likely cost of the action. Twenty-six projects are
currently underway.
In addition, OMEP works with NOAA and State coastal zone manage-
ment agencies to implement the provision of the Federal Coastal Zone
Managment Act (CZMA) of 1972 and Amendments. Under this law,
NOAA awards grants to States to develop and administer management
programs for coastal zones. In September of 1988, EPA and NOAA
signed an agreement integrating the Coastal Zone Management and
National Estuary Programs. The agreement serves as guidance to
16
-------
02/27/90
program managers in both agencies as they carry out their respective
responsibilities under the CZMA and NEP. Specific areas of coor-
dination are identified, including establishment of mechanisms at the
national level to facilitate coordination and/oversight of both
programs.
Point source discharges to the nation's waters are controlled under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), through
issuance and enforcement of permits. The permits set limitations on
effluents and define monitoring and reporting requirements. The
NPDES program is the responsibility of EPA's Office of Water Enfor-
cement and Permits (OWEP), which is presented in greater detail in
another section of this Manual (see Chapter 6). OMEP, however,
shares responsibility with OWEP for implementing two programs
relating to the control of point source discharges to marine waters.
This program provides for waivers from secondary treatment require-
ments for publicly owned treatment works discharging to marine
waters (including unstressed saline waters of estuaries) if the applicant
can demonstrate that the discharge will not degrade water quality from
levels that assure protection of public water supplies and protection
and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish
and wildlife, and allows recreational activities in and on the water. The
applicant must also conduct a rigorous monitoring program to monitor
the impact of the discharge.
To maintain and analyze the required reporting data, OMEP
developed the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES). In adiditon to
environmental data analysis tools, this system provides for mapping
and three-dimensional graphics to be used in analyzing data concern-
ing point source discharges, ambient water conditions, and biological
monitoring results. ODES is presently being modified to accept data
from OMEP's other programs, such as Ocean Dumping and the NEPs.
OMEP is responsible for reviewing waiver applications and maintain-
ing ODES. Once all waiver decisions are made, OMEP will be respon-
sible for monitoring compliance waivers granted as well as enforcing
against unauthorized discharges where a waiver has been denied. The
deadline for 301(h) waiver applications has passed. Of 208 applica-
tions, 48 POTWS have been granted waivers and 15 decisions are
pending. The remainder were declined or withdrew from the program.
The 301(h) program is currently evaluating the remaining application
for secondary treatment waivers and is also evaluating applications for
renewals. OMEP is also developing new regulations to respond to the
amendments in the Water Quality Act of 1987.
REGULATORY PROGRAMS FOR
CONTROL OF POINT SOURCE
DISCHARGES TO NCVVs: 301(h)
AND 403 (c)
301(h) Program
17
-------
02/27/90
403(c) Program
OCEAN DUMPING
Section 403(c) requires that all NPDES permitted discharges from
point sources into certain waters (the territorial seas, the contiguous
zone, and the oceans) must cause no unreasonable degradation to the
marine environment. A conclusion of "no unreasonable degradation"
can only be made after consideration of the effects of pollutant disposal
on human health and welfare, marine life, and aesthetic, recreational,
and commercial values; the persistence and permanence of these
effects; the effects of varying disposal rates; the alternative disposal or
recycling options available; and the effect on alternate uses of the
oceans.
The 403(c) program is a fundamentally different decision-making
process of pollution controls than required under other provisions of
the Clean Water Act, as it allows more stringent control of pollutants
known to be persistent and harmful to the marine environment and
public health. It is not restricted by engineering attainability, and has
no rigorous cost or economic restrictions. It also includes considera-
tion of sediment as well as water column effects, and is intended not
only to protect most aquatic species but places special emphasis on
unique, sensitive, or ecologically critical species.
OMEP currently is identifying and characterizing dischargers subject
to 403(c) criteria and preparing guidance to implement the program.
Compliance monitoring and enforcement of 403(c) requirements will
also be emphasized.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA) regulates the ocean dumping of all types of materials. Titles
I and II of the Act place responsibility for administering MPRSA
permitting programs on EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE); for monitoring the effects of ocean dumping on the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and for surveil-
lance on the U.S. Coast Guard. Title III gives the Secretary of Com-
merce the authority to establish marine sanctuaries. OMEP carries
out all of EPA's responsibilities under MPRSA. The MPRSA applies
to waters lying seaward of the territorial sea baseline, and thus does
not apply to estuarine waters. Disposal of dredged material in es-
tuarine and inland waters is government by Section 404 of the CWA.
To implement MPRSA and to control dumping in ocean waters, Title
I of the Act authorizes EPA to establish a permit program for all
materials except dredged material (that is permitted by COE).
MPRSA authorizes EPA to designate sites for the dumping of material
into the ocean. MPRSA specifies nine factors to be considered in
developing the permit review criteria: 1) the effect of the dumping on
human health and welfare; 2) its effect on fisheries resources and
beaches; 3) its effects on marine ecosystems; 4) the permanence of the
effect of dumping; 5) the effect of volumes and concentrations; 6) the
appropriate locations and methods of disposal; 7) the effect on alter-
nate uses of the ocean; 8) the need for proposed dumping; and 9) the
location of the site beyond the continental shelf.
18
-------
02/27/90
OMEP plays a significant role internationally in efforts to restrict or
control ocean dumping. The MPRSA is also the domestic legislation
that implements the provisions of the "Convention on the Prevention
of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter," often
referred to as the London Dumping Convention. This is the only global
agreement concerned solely with the dumping of wastes into the
marine environment.
In 1988, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) to
amend the MPRSA. The primary purpose of this legislation is to end
the ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste. The last
dumper of industrial waste ceased dumping hi September 1988. With
regard to sewage sludge, as required by ODBA, EPA has entered into
enforcement agreements with the dumpers to require the phase-out of
sewage sludge dumping.
Under the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, OMEP is also responsible for
regulating garbage barge operations under the Shore Protection Act,
which requires vessels to install handling systems and obtain permits
for transportation (i.e. loading, transport, off-loading, and receiving)
of municipal or other non-hazardous commercial waste. EPA and the
U.S. Coast Guard jointly manage this permitting and enforcement
program.
Other provisions make it illegal to dispose of medical waste into the
navigable waters of the United States, as well as in coastal waters.
Based on public reaction to medical wastes washing ashore during the
summer of 1988, Congress enacted the Medical Waste Tracking Act
in an effort to further restrict the release of medical waste into the
environment.
EPA also has authority to designate sites for the dumping of dredged
material, but the Corps is responsible for issuing permits to dump at
those sites (using EPA's permit review criteria, and subject to EPA
review). A large number of ocean dumping sites existed in 1972 before
the MPRSA was enacted. Based on their historical use, EPA desig-
nated a few of these sites for disposal of non-dredged material (for
sewage sludge, woodburning, fish waste, and acid waste), and a larger
number for disposal of dredged material. Designations were made on
an interim basis until environmental evaluations could be completed.
In 1977, a program was initiated to permanently designate sites pend-
ing completion of environmental impact statements or site designation
studies. In 1986, OMEP delegated responsibility for designations of
dredged material ocean dumping sites to the seven coastal EPA
Regional Offices. Regional delegation has enhanced local coordina-
tion and expedited decisions about site designation.
To further enhance coordination and cooperation between EPA, the
Corps, and permits applicants, OMEP negotiated a national umbrella
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1987 with the Corps of
Engineers. This MOU serves as the basis for all MOU's between the
EPA Regional Offices and the Corps District Offices that will cover
work and funding for final EIS preparation and designation of the
remaining sites and for site management. This Agreement makes 1991
the deadline for final action on all existing ocean disposal sites, and
19
-------
02/27/90
MARINE DEBRIS
establishes priorities for designating sites at the regional level. EPA
also works closely with NOAA to promote coordination between
CZMA program activities and EPA's site designation process.
The site designation process (which requires amendment of existing
ocean dumping regulation and preparation of an EIS) may take up to
2.5 years, and is designed to minimize adverse environmental effects
and to ensure that dumping interferes as little as possible with other
activities in the marine environment. OMEP has now completed final
designation for approximately 64 sites, of which 50 are for dredged
material. Another 49 sites have been given interim designation, all but
one for dredged material. Consequently the number of both interim
and final dumping sites is approximately 113.
Currently, OMEP and the Office of Wetlands Protection are jointly
developing a strategy for risk based management harmonizing the
evaluation/disposal of dredged material under MPRSA Section 103
and CWA Section 404.
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)
of 1987 requires that the effects of plastic pollution on the marine
environment be identified and the release of plastic material be
reduced. Under this law, EPA is studying ways to abate plastic pollu-
tion, and OMEP is preparing a Report to Congress that addresses the
following:
a listing of improper disposal practices and specific plastic
materials that may injure fish and wildlife, degrade or cause
economic loss to coastal waterfront areas, or cause other im-
pacts;
a description of EPA's authority and ongoing reduction
measures to reduce plastics in the marine environment; and
an evaluation of substitutes for some plastic materials, recycling
incentives, and use of degradable materials.
OMEP is working on developing this Report to Congress with other
EPA offices. OMEP's primary input relates to solid waste that enters
the marine environment. OMEP is also sponsoring several studies to
document the types of debris in the marine environment and the
sources of this debris, as well as education efforts to bring marine
debris to the attention of the general public and show the public what
they can do to help reduce marine debris pollution.
The NPPRCA also required the U.S. Coast Guard to develop regula-
tions banning the release of plastics from vessels. These regulations
were promulgated in 1989.
In 1988, Congress passed another law dealing with plastic pollution.
Commonly called the Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act, this legis-
lation directed EPA to require by regulation that plastic ring carriers
be made of naturally degradable material that, when discarded, will
decompose within a reasonable time.
20
-------
02/27/90
In addition, the MPPRCA implements Annex V of the Protocol of 1978
Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu-
tion from Ships or "MARPOL." This international agreement
prohibits discharge into the sea of all plastics, including (but not limited
to) synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and plastic garbage bags. It
also prohibits discharge of food wastes and other floating materials
within specified distances from land.
In an effort to leverage the EPA Office of Water base programs,
OMEP joined with other OW offices to identify how existing programs,
including standards, permits and enforcement, nonpoint source
management and others, could work together to improve NCW quality.
This workshop and manual are two outcomes of this effort.
During FY1989, OMEP initiated the development of Regional NCW
management strategies. The purpose of the strategies is to identify
regional needs for NCW management, develop long-term (5 to 10 year)
plans for addressing regional NCW problems, and define and imple-
ment specific action programs for NCW management. The strategies
are intended to promote comprehensive and coordinated management
of near coastal waters within a Region and its States. Regions I and X
initiated strategies in FY1989 that are scheduled for completion early
in 1990. Other Regional Strategies are planned for FY1990.
OMEP is involved b a number of activities in support of the National
Estuary Program. For example, additional Management Conferences
will be convened during FY1990. NEP is implementing innovative
actions as a national coastal demonstration program.
OMEP will renew their efforts to work with the Regional Offices and
States to improve federal consistency in interpreting the NEP
guidance, through workshops and other outreach efforts. To support
implementation of the CZM/NEP Agreement between EPA and
NOAA, during FY1990 OMEP will develop case studies, write fact
sheets on State coastal zone management programs, and write a new
chapter on coordination with State CZM programs for the NEP
Primer.
The Office continues its efforts to bring the electronic bulletin board
"COASTNET" on-line to promote information sharing and dissemina-
tion among EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices, State agencies,
NEW INITIATIVES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
PROGRAM
OW NCW Workgroup
Regional NCW Management
Strategies
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
21
-------
02/27/90
CONTROL OF POINT SOURCES
TO NCWS: 301 (h) and 403(c)
301(h) Program
403(c) Program
OCEAN DUMPING
MARINE DEBRIS
local officials, and others interested in the NEP. CO ASTNET includes
information on upcoming meetings, announcements of general inter-
est, and program documents which can be uploaded and downloaded
by system users.
New guidance is being developed in support of new regulations to
address the amendments to Section 301(h) in the Water Quality Act
of 1987. The guidance will assist permit writers in evaluating com-
pliance with new tones removal requirements equivalent to that
achieved with secondary treatment.
A national conference on 403(c) that will address both program and
technical issues will be convened during FY1990. Also the revision to
regulations for ocean discharge criteria will begin in FY1990. In
addition, OMEP is assessing Section 403(c)'s potential as a pollution
prevention tool and as an enforcement tool against illegal discharges.
EPA is currently responding to a request from Congress concerning
the potential implementation of section 403(c) in estuarine waters. In
response to this request, the Agency is investigating the potential
benefits, problems, and costs that would be associated with implement-
ing section 403(c) in estuarine waters.
New ocean dumping guidance that will respond to the ODB A, and new
regulations that will respond to several lawsuits concerning dredged
material, are being developed by OMEP. The new regulations will
continue to protect the oceans by requiring an assessment of the effects
of ocean dumping on public health and the ocean environment 1)
before disposal sites can be selected, 2) before permits to use the site
are issued, and 3} while the site is in use. In addition, the ODBA will
increase enforcement activity against discharges that are no longer
legal. A marine and estuarine enforcement strategy and action plan is
being developed by OMEP to: prioritize enforcement actions, im-
prove enforcement training for marine/coastal protection activities,
and develop public education and awareness programs.
OMEP is developing a program plan to encompass activities that are
mandated by all Acts related to marine debris abatement and control.
Of key importance will be planning for problem assessment and con-
trol, with emphasis on combined sewer overflows and storm drains and
the impacts of debris on harbors and coastlines.
This program includes a public awareness campaign to involve the
public in citizen pollution patrols and community action. Such ac-
22
-------
02/27/90
tivities will heighten compliance and enforcement activity in marine
ecosystems.
The following information is presented to identify OMEP guidance
and other reference documents, training opportunities, and agency
contacts that can be utilized for NCW management.
NCW
Near Coastal Waters Strategic Options Paper (8/86)
NCW Pilot Project Program Fact Sheet (2/88)
NCW Program Fact Sheet (1/89)
NCW Pilot Project Selection Criteria/Process (10/88)
NCW Regional Reports (10/88)
Northeast Case Study Nutrient Chapter (10/88)
Draft Permit Writers' Guide for Discharges to Estuarine
Marine Waters (joint OMEP/OWEP initiative) (3/89)
NCW Strategy for Office of Water (1989)
NEP
Program Policy Governing Award of Federal Financial Assis-
tance Agreement Under the National Estuary Program (3/86)
National Estuary Program Primer
NOAA/EPA Guidance on Integration of the National Estuary
Program and Coastal Zone Management Program (8/88)
The National Estuary Program and Final Guidance on the
Contents of the Governor's Nomination (draft) (1989)
Draft Estuary Program Grants Regulation (4/89)
Policy for Tracking EPA/State Conference Agreements (1989)
Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and NOAA relat-
ing to NEP/CZM Activities (9/88)
Delegation of grant authority (1989)
NEP Report to Congress (draft) (1989)
NCMP
National Coastal and Marine Policy (1989)
OMEP
The OMEP Briefing Book (1/89)
EPA's Marine and Estuarine Protection Programs and Ac-
tivities (2/89)
New Case Studies for Management Handbook: Rhode Island
Salt Ponds, Elliott Bay Toxics Action Team, Compensatory
Mitigation in Puget Sound
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GUIDANCE/POLICY/REFERENCE
DOCUMENTS
23
-------
02/27/90
301(h)
Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (1982)
Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal Was-
tewater Discharges to Marine Water (1982)
Ecological Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Coral Reef Com-
munities (1983)
Summary of U.S. EPA-Approved Methods, Standard Methods,
and Other Guidance for 301(h) Monitoring Variables (1985)
Recommended Biological Indices for 301(h) Monitoring
Programs (1985)
Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance including:
Estimating the Potential for Bioaccumulation for Priority
Pollutants and Pesticides (1985)
Selection of Target Species and Review of Available
Bioaccumulation Data (1985)
Recommended Analytical Detection Limits (1985)
Analytical Methods for EPA Priority Pollutants and Pes-
ticides in Tissues from Estuarine and Marine Organisms
(1986)
* Strategies for Sample Replication and Compositioning
(1987)
Evaluation of Coastal Survey Positioning Methods for 301(h)
Monitoring Programs (1986)
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h)
Monitoring Programs (1986)
Guidance for Conducting Fish Liver Histopathology Studies
During 3Ql(h) Monitoring (1987)
ODES - Ocean Data Evaluation System (1987)
ODES User's Guidance (1986)
ODES Data Submission Manual (1985)
ODES User's Guide: Supplement A - Description and Use of
ODES Tools (1986)
Technical Support Document for ODES Statistical Power
Analysis (1987)
ODES Data Brief - Reference Information (1987)
Guidance for Evaluation Effectiveness of 301(h) Monitoring
Programs (1987)
Guidance for Coastal Navigation (1987)
DECAL Report (1987)
403 (c)
Ocean Discharge Criteria Regulations (Vol. 45 No. 194) FR
October 3,1980, pp. 65953
OCEAN DUMPING
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, January 11,1987
Medical Waste Anti-Dumping Guidance
24
-------
02/27/90
Bioassay Procedures for the Ocean Disposal Permit Program
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material into Ocean Waters
Memorandums of Understanding between the Department of
the Army Corps of Engineers (various Divisions) and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency (various Regions) (on designa-
tion of ocean dumping sites)
Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation Handbook for
Dredged Material
Draft Issues Related to the Assessment and Resolution of
Problems Associated with Contaminated Sediment
Draft Decision Document for Managing Contaminated Sedi-
ments
Guidance Document for Ocean Dumping Permit Writers
Dredged Material Disposal Strategy Document (working draft)
Report to Congress on Ocean Disposal Monitoring in
Response to the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (in press)
Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA, USCG, and
NOAA on Implementation of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
MARINE DEBRIS
Report to Congress on the New York Bight Plastics Study,
March 1989
Report to Congress, Methods to Manage and Control Plastic
Waste (draft)
Marine Debris Bibliography, October 1989
Coastal Connection Summer 1989
ENFORCEMENT
OMEP Enforcement Strategy
OMEP Compliance and Enforcmeent Training Materials
Citizen Monitoring Workshop and Demo Project Manual
(FY90-FY91)
- National Coastal Programs Information Transfer Conference
- New Estuary Program Workshop
- ODES User Training
- Annual Joint EPA/COE Ocean Dumping Coordinators Meet-
ing
- Marine Debris Roundtable
- "Green Book" Training Sessions (upcoming)
TRAINING WORKSHOPS AND
CONFERENCES
AGENCY CONTACTS
NCW
Kathy Minsch
Mary Lou Soscia
(202) 475-9552
(202) 475-7109
25
-------
02/27/90
NEP
Michelle Hiller (202) 475-7102
NCMP
Michelle Hiller (202) 475-7102
301(h)
Virginia Fox-Norse (202) 475-7129
Bob King (ODES) (202) 475-7119
403 (c)
Susan MacMullin (202) 475-7133
Point Source Discharge
Mary Lou Soscia 475-7102
Mark Curran
Nonpoint Source Discharges
Kathy Minsch 475-9552
COASTNET Bulletin Board
Joe Hall475-7182
Federal Consistency
Carin Chitterling-Bisland 475-71112
Gulf of Mexico Program
LoreHanske 475-7112
Great Lakes Program
Mary Lou Soscia 475-7109
Ocean Dumping
JohnLishman 475-7177
Darrell Brown 475-8448
London Dumping Convention/MARPOL/Int'l Agreements
Darrell Brown 475-7180
John Lishman 475-7177
Marine Debris
DaveRedford 475-7179
Enforcement
Rosanna Ciupek 475-8897
26
-------
02/27/90
4. EPA's CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS ACTIVITIES
Water quality standards are State rules or laws that are adopted to
protect public health or welfare, to enhance the quality of water and
to serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act). To serve
the purposes of the Act, water quality standards provide for, wherever
attainable, the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and recreation in and on the water. In setting standards, States
designate uses for the water body and adopt water quality criteria to
protect the designated uses. In addition to uses and criteria, State
water quality standards must contain an antidegradation policy that, at
a minimum, ensures that the State maintains and protects existing uses
and water quality necessary to protect those uses. States set standards
taking into consideration the use and value of the water body for public
water supply; propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and recrea-
tional, agricultural, industrial and navigational purposes. Figure 6
presents an illustration of EPA and State responsibilities for the
development of water quality criteria and standards.
EPA Water Quality Criteria
nd Standard* Activities
(Criteria and Standards Plvl«lon)
StaU Program*
Standard! Branch
Develop water quality
itandardi regulation!
Provide Guidance on
development of water
quality atandarda
Provide technical aialitance
Water Quality
Monitoring
308
-------
02/27/90
Water quality standards are adopted for all waters of the United States
(including wetlands). At least once every three years, States are to hold
public hearings for the purpose of reviewing water quality standards
and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards.
EPA develops regulations, policies, and guidance to facilitate the
implementation of the water quality standards program and reviews,
approves or disapproves State water quality standards. When the
Agency disapproves State standards and States do not revise the
standards to meet the requirements of the Act or when the Ad-
ministrator determines that a new or revised standard is necessary to
meet the requirements of the Act, EPA promulgates Federal stand-
ards.
The Criteria and Standards Division (CSD) of the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, EPA Headquarters is responsible for the
water quality standards program and for developing water quality
criteria. The Standards Branch of CSD is responsible for regulations,
guidance, and assistance for implementing provisions of the CWA on
water quality standards. The Criteria Branch is responsible for
developing criteria under Section 304(a) of the CWA. Two Sections
within the Criteria Branch are responsible for carrying out the criteria
development process: The Water Quality Criteria Section and the
Multi-Media Criteria Section.
EPA publishes chemical-specific water quality criteria that provide the
basis on which States adopt numerical criteria into their water quality
standards. Rigorous requirements for the development of water
quality criteria (45 FR 7934 for human health criteria development
guidelines; 50 FR 30784 for aquatic life criteria development
guidelines) ensure that data support the published values. EPA has
published 109 human health criteria, 30 fresh water aquatic life criteria,
and 25 salt water aquatic life criteria. States are also required to have
narrative criteria that prohibit toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
Priorities for developing water quality criteria are established based
on risk assessments using a quantitative ranking system that addresses
a range of factors including exposure, toxicity, bioconcentration, bioac-
cumulation and persistence in water.
State water quality standards play a critical role in the Nation's water
quality improvement programs. By establishing the goals for the water
body, water quality standards provide the regulatory and legal basis for
water quality-based controls beyond those required by the technologi-
cal requirements of the Act (i.e., best available technology, pretreat-
ment, and new source performance standards). Water quality
standards are enforced through State or EPA issued water quality-
based permits and through State nonpoint source control programs.
28
-------
Designing control programs based on water quality standards is a
multi-step process that starts with monitoring water quality and assess-
ing water quality problems. Water quality monitoring and assessment
programs include a broad range of activities that may include periodic
grab samples of ambient water, sampling of sediments and fish tissue,
intensive surveys, and special studies that focus on a particular pol-
lutant or water body. State 305(b) Reports on the status of water
quality in a State summarize information on river segments, lakes, and
estuaries not meeting water quality standards, on the pollutants con-
tributing to the water quality problems, and on the source of pollutants,
i.e., industrial and .municipal discharges or runoff from urban, con-
struction, mining, agricultural, and forestry activities, etc.
States identify the additions or revisions necessary to existing standards
based on their 305(b) Reports, other available water quality monitoring
data, previous water quality standards reviews, or requests from in-
dustry, environmental groups, or the public. Water quality standard
reviews and revisions may take many forms, including additions to and
modifications in uses, in criteria, in the antidegradation policy, or
implementation procedures or other general policies.
In designating uses for a water body, States may conduct use at-
tainability analyses to examine the suitability of a water body for a use
and must conduct one if attempting to justify a use less than "fish-
able/swimmable." Suitability depends on the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the water body, its geographical setting
and scenic qualities, and the socio-economic and cultural charac-
teristics of the surrounding area. Economic considerations may also
be included in a use attainability analysis.
Whenever States designate uses for a water body that do not include
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
recreation in and on the water (the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act),
States must re-examine the water body every three years to determine
if one or more of these uses has been attained. If a use that meets the
goals of the Act has been attained, States must revise their water quality
standards to reflect the attained use.
If a State designates a use for a water body that has not been attained,
the State may examine the appropriateness of the use. If the use is
appropriate, no further standards action is taken. However, the State
must develop more stringent permit limits or other control programs
in order for the water body to meet the water quality standards.
If a State determines that the water body is not suitable for the
particular use that is designated but not attained, EPA encourages the
State to first subdivide a use into categories that can be attained, such
02/27/90
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
RELEVANT TO NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
DESIGNATED USES
29
-------
02/27/90
ADOPTING CRITERIA
as a warm water fishery in lieu of a cold water fishery or to designate a
seasonal fishery. The Water Quality Standards regulation (40 CFR
131.10(g) allows States to remove a non-existing, designated use if:
naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attain-
ment of the use; or
natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions prevent
the attainment of the use; or
human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the
attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause
more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place;
or
hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use,
and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate the modification in a way that would
result in the attainment of the use; or
physical conditions related to the natural features of the water
body preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
water quality-based controls would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
In adopting criteria to protect the designated uses, States may: (1)
adopt the criteria that EPA publishes under Section 304(a) of the Act;
(2) modify the 304(a) guidance to reflect site-specific conditions; or (3)
use other scientifically defensible methods. Both human health and
aquatic life criteria are needed for the protection and propagation of
fish and shellfish and for public water supply. As part of their water
quality standards review, States may adopt human health or aquatic
life criteria, if one of the numbers was not previously adopted, or may
adopt criteria for additional pollutants where data indicate that these
pollutants may be interfering with attainment of the designated uses or
to revise previously adopted criteria to reflect more recent scientific
information.
Criteria can be chemical specific numeric limits, or, in the absence of
specific numeric criteria for a chemical or biological parameter, can
be based on the general narrative criteria (i.e., no toxics in toxic
amounts).
When an effluent's constituents are not completely known or where a
complex mixture of potentially additive, antagonistic, or synergistic
toxic pollutants are discharged, a whole effluent toxicity limitation can
be implemented. The whole effluent toxicity approach may also be
appropriate when more than one discharger is located in a specific area
and the potential exists for effluent mixing and additive toxic effects,
and where a chemical specific evaluation is impractical due to a lack
of information about the toxic effects of a chemical.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt criteria for all Section
307(a) toxic pollutants for which the Agency has published criteria
under Section 304(a), if the discharge or presence of the pollutant
could reasonably be expected to interfere with the designated uses of
30
-------
02/27/90
the water body, as necessary to support designated uses. The section
307(a) list contains 65 compounds and families of compounds, which
the Agency has interpreted to include 126 "priority" toxic pollutants for
regulatory purposes. If data indicate that it is reasonable to expect that
one or more of the Section 307(a) toxic pollutants will interfere with
the attainment of the designated use, or is actually interfering with the
designated use, then the State must adopt a numeric limit for the
specific pollutant.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) also provides that where EPA-recommended
numeric criteria are not available, States shall adopt criteria based on
biological monitoring or assessment methods. At a minimum, all point
sources thought to be discharging the Section 307(a) pollutants must
conduct whole effluent toxicity tests.
Revisions to water quality standards may include revisions to the
State's antidegradation policy or in the procedures through which the
State plans to implement the antidegradation policy. Antidegradation
policies and procedures must provide that the State maintains and
protects existing uses and the quality of water necessary to protect
those uses.
Antidegradation policies also must ensure the protection of water
quality above that necessary to maintain fish and recreation, unless,
after fulfilling public participation requirements, States can
demonstrate that lower water quality is necessary for important
economic and social development in the vicinity of the water body.
However, in no case may a State allow water quality to deteriorate
below that necessary to protect existing uses. Finally, antidegradation
policies must maintain and protect water quality for any outstanding
national resource waters that the State designates. Antidegradation
implementation procedures must address how States will ensure that
the permits and control programs meet water quality standards and
antidegradation requirements. States must provide an opportunity for
the public to review and comment on all aspects of water quality
standards revisions. Any changes to water quality standards are sub-
ject to EPA review and approval.
To determine the reduction in point and nonpoint source pollutant
loadings that must occur to meet water quality standards, states
develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) which consist of was-
teload allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load allocations
(LAs) for nonpoint sources (See Chapter 5). Both steady-state and
dynamic models are used in the waste load allocation process to
determine the total maximum daily load of a pollutant or toxicity that
may be discharged into a water body without exceeding the standard
or criterion. The standard or criterion used in the TMDL process
includes one or more of the following: a chemical-specific numeric
criteria or whole effluent toxicity. The TMDL process gives States the
ANTIDEGRADATION
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
(WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATION/LOAD
ALLOCATION)
31
-------
02/27/90
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL
WETLANDS AND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
NEW INITIATIVES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
Contaminated Sediments
flexibility to allocate pollutant loads among various point and nonpoint
sources on an affected water body in order to maximize environmentaJ
benefits while keeping control costs to a minimum.
States design control programs to achieve water quality standards by
reducing the discharge of the pollutants consistent with the waste load
allocation. The control programs are implemented through water
quality-based permits or through nonpoint source control programs.
Nonpoint source control programs may be designed to control pol-
lutants entering a particular water body such as a river, wetland, lake
or estuary or to control particular types of activities such as those
associated with agriculture, silviculture, construction, mining, etc. In
some cases, States impose regulatory nonpoint source control
programs; in other cases, States rely on the voluntary cooperation of
land owners or operators to implement best management practices.
Water quality standards are used to regulate the many activities that
impact surface waters, including wetlands. These activities include
municipal and industrial point source discharges, nonpoint source
discharges, RCRA and CERCLA actions, as well as dredge and fill
activities under Section 404 of the CWA. An emerging new tool in the
control of Federal activities impacting wetlands is Section 401 certifica-
tion.
With the assistance of the Criteria and Standards Division, the Office
of Wetlands Protection has developed a document entitled, "Wetlands
and 401 Certification." State certification under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act gives the States the authority to review and approve,
modify, or deny any permit or license issued by Federal government.
Activities include for example, Section 404 permits (dredge and fill
activities in "waters of the U.S.," including wetlands) issued by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licenses (dam construction for hydropower). State water quality
standards can play an important role in the 401 certification process
by providing the basis for State involvement in Federal activities that
impact surface waters, including wetlands. The document describes
several examples where the States have used their water quality stand-
ards in conjunction with then- 401 certification authority to modify or
deny these Federal actions.
EPA has been working on the development of methods for assessing
risks associated with toxic substances in the sediments of the nations
32
-------
02/27/90
waters. This includes the development of methods for deriving nation-
ally applicable sediment criteria and establishing standardized bioas-
says to assess chronic effects and bioaccumulation. Several of the more
developed and promising methods for developing sediment criteria
have been submitted to the EPA Science Advisory Board for review.
In addition, interim sediment criteria values exist for 12 contaminants
and fact sheets containing pertinent information on the physical and
toxicity characteristics of 50 compounds commonly found in sediments
are being produced in cooperation with the Superfund program.
During FY1989, the Criteria Branch developed preliminary program
and technical guidance documents for biological criteria based on
State and EPA Region experience. A national conference is tentative-
ly scheduled for May 1990 to review both draft documents. The
national conference will also serve as a forum for planning future
program development and research activities.
The Criteria Branch co-chaired a workshop sponsored by the Environ-
mental Research Laboratory-Corvallis in November, 1988 titled:
Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wildlife Resources. Results of the
workshop include recommendations to incorporate a wildlife values
within current aquatic life water quality criteria.
To follow up on workshop recommendations, the Criteria Branch, in
conjunction with the Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth,
conducted a preliminary screening of priority pollutants to flag chemi-
cals likely to be a problem for wildlife species. Further evaluation
appears warranted.
The Criteria Branch is working with the Office of Wetlands Protection
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a cooperative agree-
ment for evaluating the need for and nature of wildlife criteria.
Prompted by the amendments to the Clean Water Act, which deal with
State adoption of numeric criteria for toxic pollutants (Section
303(c)(2)(B)), CSD is starting to draft revisions to the standards
regulation. The proposal is to develop and consider changes to codify
the statutory requirement to adopt numeric criteria for toxics, and to
clarify certain other requirements. This is scheduled for publication
in the Federal Register in early summer of 1990.
The Water Quality Standards Framework is a long-term strategy for
the water quality standards program that defines the objectives, estab-
Biological Criteria
Wildlife Criteria
REGULATORY INITIATIVES
WQS Regulation to Be Revised
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Water Quality Standards Framework
33
-------
02/27/90
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
WQS Handbook to be Revised
Ecological Risk Assessment
Guidelines
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
lishes the priorities, identifies the products, outlines the timeframes
and provides resource estimates. At this time the Framework is un-
dergoing internal Agency review.
The goal of the Framework is to strengthen the scientific, technical,
legal, and programmatic foundation of the water quality standards
program. The Framework will be used for the operating guidance,
budget requests, research priorities and EPA and State water quality
standards commitments.
The WQS Handbook, which contains guidance to support the regula-
tion, is being revised to reflect various policy and legal interpretations
and additional guidance that were developed since its issuance in 1983.
The two major additions to the Handbook will be guidance in im-
plementing antidegradation and on conducting economic analyses
related to standards. Another noticeable change will be to update all
the references to applicable guidance from related EPA programs.
The format will also change so that the guidance tracks with the
regulation. The Handbook is scheduled to be completed in conjunc-
tion with the WQS regulation revisions in early summer of 1990.
The Ecotoxicity Subcommittee Aquatic Population Workgroup,
chaired by CSD, held a workshop July 18-20, 1989 to develop an
annotated outline for ecological risk assessment guidelines at the
aquatic population level of organization. A preliminary document,
produced by the writing committee in August, is out for review by the
workgroup.
The following information is presented to identify guidance docu-
ments, training opportunities; and agency contacts that can be utilized
by State and Regional managers in developing and implementing water
quality criteria and standards.
Biological Criteria Diagnosis and Remediation Strategies
Revised Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based
Toxics Control
Permit Writers Guide for Marine and Estuarine Discharges
Wetlands and 401 Certification
Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents for Numerous
Substances (EPA/OWRS)
Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the
Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to Generating Sediment
Quality Criteria (EPA/OWRS)
34
-------
02/27/90
Evaluation of Sediment Normalizaiotn Theory for Organic
Contaminants (EPA/OWRS)
Guidance for Sampling of and Analyzing for Organic Con-
taminants in Sediments (EPA/OWRS)
Protocol for Sediment Toxicity Testing for Nonpolar Organic
Compound (EPA/OWRS)
Final Reprot - Recalculation of Screening Level Concentra-
tions for Nonpolar Organic Contaminants in Marine Sediments
(EPA/OWRS)
Regulatory Applications of Sediment Criteria (EPA/OWRS)
Sediment Quality Criteria Methodology Validation: Uncer-
tainty Analysis of Sediment Normalizaiton Theory for Nonpolar
Organic Contaminants (EPA/OWRS)
Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals: II. Review of Methods
for Quantiative Determination of Important Absorbents and
Sorbed Metals in Sediments (EPA/OWRS)
Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals: III. Review of Data on
Complexation of Trace Metal by Paniculate Organic Carbon
(EPA/OWRS)
Sediment Quality Criteria for Metals: IV. Optimization of
Extraction Methods for Determining the Quantity of Sorbents
and Adsorbic Metals in Sediments (EPA/OWRS)
Quality Criteria for Water 1986. (Gold Book) (EPA/OWRS)
Questions and Answers on Antidegradation (EPA/OWRS)
Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards
(EPA/OWRS)
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century (EPA/OWRS)
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess-
ments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses
(EPA/OWRS)
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess-
ment for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II:
Estuarine Systems (EPA/OWRS)
Introduction to Water Quality Standards (EPA/OWRS)
State Adoption/Proposal of Numeric Criteria for Priority Pol-
lutants as of August 1988 (EPA/OWRS)
Transmittal of Final "Guidance for State Implementation of
Water Quality Standards for CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B),"
December 12,1988 (EPA/OWRS)
Outreach workshops to discuss standards policies and require-
ments
Human health workshops
Water Quality standards workshops
Toxics workshops
TRAINING/INFORMATION
TRANSFER
35
-------
02/27/90
AGENCY CONTACTS
- National quarterly newsletter to convey program information to
States and other interested parties
Standards Branch
BobShippen 475-7329
Kathy Barylski 475-7327
Kent Ballentine 475-7323
David Moon 475-7304
Criteria Branch
Warren Banks 382-7893
Chris Zarba 475-7326
Suzanne Marcy 382-7144
Frank Gostomski 475-7321
36
-------
02/27/90
5. EPA'S TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOADS AND
SURFACE WATER
MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with state and
local governments and other Federal agencies, is responsible for res-
toring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters, including near coastal waters (NCWs). Two
key tools for management are the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) process and monitoring. The former is specified in Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division (AWPD) is responsible for developing guidance and techni-
cal support for TMDL development and monitoring. Although this
section focuses on TMDL development and monitoring (Monitoring
Branch), the AWPD is also responsible for exposure assessments (e.g.,
National Bioaccumulation Study), information services (e.g.,
databases), and special studies through the Water Quality Analysis
Branch and the clean lakes program and nonpoint source control
through the Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
A TMDL is a quantitative estimate of the waterbody's assimilative
capacity. Historically, this evaluation has applied to a waterbody
segment such as a river segment, although it is equally applicable to
near coastal waters. The assimilative capacity should account for all
pollution sources to a water body as well as background inputs. The
capacity is then allocated between point (wasteload allocations or
WLAs) and nonpoint (load allocations or LAs) sources, allowing for
a margin of safety "...which takes into account any lack of knowledge
concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water
quality." The TMDL process includes six basic components which can
be applied to near coastal waters:
identification and prioridzation of waterbodies,
monitoring to evaluate water quality,
development of quantitative loadings,
water quality management plan preparation,
NPDES permit issuance and nonpoint source (NPS) best
management practice (BMP) implementation, and
monitoring to evaluate effectiveness.
37
-------
02/27/90
Currently, States are required to develop TMDLs for waterbodies that
do not meet water quality standards when using technology-based
treatments alone. These waterbodies should be listed in the 303(d) list.
TMDL development is a State mandated process. The EPA is respon-
sible for developing TMDLs when States do not exercise their
authority. An illustration of the TMDL processes is presented in
Figure 7.
EPA (in a monitoring policy) established five overall monitoring goals.
They are to:
meet the full range of current and future Agency needs for
environmental data,
ensure monitoring is technically and scientifically sound,
ensure environmental monitoring data are managed to facilitate
both access and appropriate use in Agency decision making,
ensure effective and coordinated Agency-wide processes for
planning and execution of monitoring activities, and
ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear in regard to
monitoring management and implementation by EPA and State
officials.
State/EPA Agreement
on Technical Procedures
EPA Approved
List of Waters,
By Priority,
Still Needing TMDLs
State Develop*
TMDLs/WLAs
Where Needed
Region May Assist
State In Developing
TMDL»/WLAe/LAs
State Issues Public Notice I
on TMDLs/WLAs; Holds Hearing \
If Warranted. Submits
to EPA tor Approval
TMDL/WLA
Acceptable
Jo EPA? .
EPA Approves TMDL
as Being Developed In
Accordance with
Section 303(d)
EPA Develops TMDL/WLA/LA
and Issues Public Notice
Seeking Comments. EPA
Makes Revisions as Needed
and Sends to State
State Includes Approved
TMDL/WLA/LA In:
WQM Plan Update
NPDES Permits
Construction Grants
Figure 7. Review/Approval Procedure for State TMDL/WLA/LA
38
-------
02/27/90
In effect, the monitoring goals are far more bvolved than simple data
collection. The goals imply the need for water quality monitoring to
be an information system, directly tying the data collected to the
management decisions (objectives) that must be made. In general, the
water-quality monitoring objectives have been categorized into four
groups:
to develop baseline information,
to generate data sufficient for trend analysis,
to develop and/or verify models, and
to investigate single incidents or events.
The success of the monitoring plan will generally dictate the success of
subsequent processes and the overall project outcome. It is important
to recognize that the type of monitoring is different for different types
of pollutants, pollutant sources, and water bodies. For example, non-
point sources are typically intermittent and may require a different
monitoring strategy than monitoring the effluent from a POTW.
TMDLs and monitoring are two key tools for NCW management. As
described earlier, TMDL development is a tool which can be used for
allocating assimilative capacity of NCWs. Monitoring supports a large
range of activities including TMDL development. The following is a
brief discussion of TMDL development and monitoring. The relation-
ship between TMDL development and monitoring (Figure 7) is also
discussed.
The type of TMDL, WLA, or LA needed in a near coastal water
situation will depend on the nature of the water quality concern(s),
whether the concern is localized or basin-wide, and characteristics of
the receiving water (i.e., complexity of natural circulation and mixing
processes, existence of multiple overlapping discharges, influences
from nonpoint sources). A TMDL provides a quantitative relationship
between the wasteload and the instream concentrations or effects of
concern. The reliability of this relationship depends on the accuracy
and completeness of the data, certain characteristics of the model, and
the skill and judgment of the modeler. During the development of a
TMDL, the user combines the data and model first to describe present
conditions and then to extrapolate to possible future conditions. The
process is iterative: observed data are used to refine model input (or
even model equations) and modeling results are used to guide monitor-
ing efforts.
In many or most cases, conventional water quality concerns in coastal
and estuarine waters (i.e., DO depletion, eutrophication, turbidity,
elevated bacterial levels) occur over relatively large spatial scales and
over long periods of time (seasonal). Thus, it is likely that a basin-wide
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
RELEVANT TO NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
TMDL DEVELOPMENT
39
-------
02/27/90
approach, including large-scale (far-field) modeling, will be necessary
to properly account for many major pollutant sources.
In order to determine an effluent composition that will protect aquatic
organisms, the exposure of the aquatic community to the effluent must
be determined. Exposure assessments involve predictions of how
much of a waterbody is subject to concentrations exceeding water
quality criteria, for how long, and how frequently. The spatial and
temporal extent of aquatic life exposure to toxicants will vary depend-
ing on variations in the assimilative capacity of the receiving water and
variations hi effluent composition and quantity. Models are used to
predict exposure and to calculate the effluent quality required to meet
the criteria and protect the beneficial uses of the receiving water. The
"Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Con-
trol" (TSD) describes the types of modeling types that can be per-
formed during this assessment.
The TSD also discusses EPA's mixing zone policy and explains how
this policy affects the allowable toxic load that can be discharged from
a treatment plant. In the recent past, most studies have not included
mixing zone analyses since they concentrated on conventional pol-
lutants that have their greatest impact downstream (far-field) from the
point of complete mixing. Mixing zone modeling has generally been
performed only for discharges to large rivers, lakes, or estuaries where
water quality problems are confined to the mixing (near-field) area.
Now that studies are being widely conducted for toxicants, mixing zone
analyses will be needed in more situations since many of these pol-
lutants exert their maximum toxicity close to the point of discharge.
The TSD describes the tracer studies and mixing zone models that can
be used to: 1) ensure that the discharge conforms to the State's
allowable mixing zone dimensions; 2) prevent the mixing area from
extending into critical resource areas; and 3) provide boundary condi-
tions for completely mixed models.
Depending on the assumptions being made in the assessment, either
steady-state or dynamic models can be used to predict the effect of
wastewater discharges on toxicant concentrations in receiving waters.
Steady-state models work on the assumption that the effluent con-
centration is steady and that the duration and frequency with which
criteria are exceeded can be reflected entirely by selecting a critical
condition in the receiving water of appropriate duration and frequen-
cy. For steady state modeling, critical design conditions have been
recommended in the TSD for protection of human health as well as
aquatic life.
Another means of modeling exposure is to use computer models that
incorporate the variability of the individual inputs (such as effluent flow
and concentration, receiving water flow, temperature, background
concentration, etc.). These models are termed dynamic models and
are more accurate than steady-state models in reflecting or predicting
exposure provided adequate data exist. The acceptable effluent con-
dition derived using these models is expressed as the effluent long-term
average (LTA) and variance, which greatly simplifies derivation of
permit limits. Three dynamic modeling approaches are described in
the TSD along with instructions for their use.
40
-------
02/27/90
The amount of data needed for a given problem is hard to completely
specify a priori and in most instances past experience is crucial. As a
general rule, the more complicated the model, the more data is needed
to properly calibrate and verify the model. The same rule is equally
applicable to the increased complexity of the waterbody or pollutant
source. Due to the complex loadings commonly associated with
NCWs, one would generally expect that more data would be necessary
to model these waterbodies. The data need is intensified for water-
bodies with major NFS pollution loads.
Recent advances in environmental toxicology may allow the calculation
or simulation of bioaccumulation and toxicity for some classes of
chemicals. These procedures are still in the developmental stage and
are not recommended for most situations without a careful evaluation
of site specific conditions. To simulate bioaccumulation by individual
fish (or a local species of fish), the user must specify an exposure
scenario plus a few physiological parameters. Although literature
values for the parameters are available, monitoring data should be used
for site-specific calibration. Direct toxicity to neutral hydrophobic
organic chemicals by narcosis can be predicted. To simulate food
chain bioaccumulation, the user must define the main components of
the local food web (who eats whom), and calibrate the physiological
parameters for each.
Monitoring is an information gathering tool tor almost all water quality
analyses. Monitoring can be used to help identify NCWs needing
TMDLs, quantify loads, verify models, and evaluate overall water
quality management (including BMP) implementation and effective-
ness. Once TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs have been developed for a given
waterbody it is critical to follow-up with monitoring to document
improvement. Again, due to the complex nature of NCWs, one cannot
expect improvements immediately. According to the Rural Clean
Water Program, it took nearly ten years before improvements were
detected in watersheds (not NCWs) which were primarily associated
with nonpoint source pollution. Since TMDL development is iterative,
monitoring data can provide a means for updating and revising current
TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs.
In addition to providing information for allocation of assimilative
capacities, monitoring can be used for setting permit conditions, com-
pliance, enforcement, detecting new problems and trends, etc. In
general, the design of a monitoring network is a function of pollutant
type, source, and extent as well as the management decisions which will
be made. Monitoring efforts must be designed to account for the
spatial and temporal variability of the water quality random variable.
In concert with answering key questions such as what, when, where,
and how often to sample, appropriate quality assurance/quality con-
trol, data handling and management, data analysis, and information
reporting must be integrated into monitoring strategies.
Biological indices are an excellent integrator of time and space. As a
result, biological monitoring has been included in more recent studies
to identify water quality limited segments. This is probably even more
appropriate for NCWs due to the wide variety of finfish and shellfish
MONITORING ACTIVITIES
41
-------
02/27/90
NEW INITIATIVES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
REVISED TMDL POLICY
GUIDANCE
present. These indices are perhaps the more useful (than chemical
surrogates) in determining absolute use attainment (e.g., fishable and
swimable). The information gained here concerning use attainment is
a key step to identifying and prioritizing waterbodies. Strong support
for biological monitoring is not to say that chemical and physical data
are not useful -- they are critical for quantifying load estimations and
verifying/calibrating transport models.
Other advances in monitoring include ecoregion approaches.
Ecoregions may provide a logical basis for characterizing ranges of
ecosystem conditions or water qualities realistically attainable. Several
states, for example, have used ecoregion classifications to find refer-
ence sites, which are then used to help adjust local water quality
standards to realistic levels for disturbed water bodies. Nonpoint
source BMPs may also be more easily evaluated by comparing two
watersheds in the same ecoregion (as long as anthropogenic factors
were similar).
There are two primary mechanisms for reporting monitoring results in
addition to the 303(d) list. These are the304(1) lists and 305(b) reports.
The 304(1) lists identify waters that are not meeting their designated
uses. There are three parts to the 304(1) lists.
* "Long" list - State waters impaired by any pollutant due
to either point or nonpoint sources.
"Short" list -State waters which do not meet either
numeric or narrative water quality standards for the 126
priority toxic pollutants primarily due to point sources.
This list has been a high priority.
"Mini" list - State waters which do not meet a numeric
water quality standards (adopted since the Water Quality
Act of 1987) for a priority pollutant due to cither point or
nonpoint sources.
These lists would be particularly helpful in identifying waters which
need TMDLs. The 305(b) reports are a convenient place for States to
report the ambient environmental status of their waterbodies. These
reports can provide an important mechanism for States to disseminate
information to managers and the public concerning the current status
and improvements of NCW programs.
The TMDL process is currently under revision, reflecting the similar
reasoning which is being incorporated into the NCW program. The
current revised program guidance (under development) is headed by
a policy statement which proposes to broaden the definition of the
TMDL process to include policy-based TMDLs and to use water body
approaches for their development. The revised policy guidance is a
42
-------
02/27/90
recognition of common data and technical limitations for near coastal
waters. In some instances, there is not adequate data to support
numerical TMDL development. In effect, timely management of im-
paired water bodies is hampered. This is not uncommon since
monitoring activities in the past have often focused on permitted
discharges and evaluating the controls placed on point sources. In
addition, the monitoring requirements may, in some instances, be too
intensive. This may be a common problem for near coastal waters that
are largely impacted by nonpoint sources. In some instances, the
technical tools (i.e., nonpoint source models) were not designed to deal
with the complex technical aspects of NCWs.
The revised policy guidance is headed by a policy statement which
includes some key points for NCWs.
The revised policy recommends developing numerical as-
similative capacities whenever feasible. For waterbodies
in which it is not feasible to develop numerical capacities,
basin-wide BMPs could be appropriate alternatives, as
could be focused monitoring of toxic "hot spots" for
source identification.
Basin wide TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs should be used.
This expectation is allowed some variance according to
pollutant type, source, and water quality impairment.
TMDLs must address nonpoint sources. The revised
policy encourages proactive TMDL development (e.g.,
this is a mechanism for addressing threatened good
quality waters).
TMDLs are not meant for all pollutants (e.g., TMDLs
may not be appropriate for bioaccumulative pollutants).
TMDLs should be reviewed on a regular schedule (e.g.,
another mechanism for institutionalizing a regular review
of NCW management plans).
"Book III: Estuaries" of the technical guidance manual for
TMDLs/WLAs is under development. It consists of four parts. Part
1 describes estuaries and related TMDL/WLA models, Part 2
describes use of models to perform TMDLs/WLAs/LAs with a number
of examples, Part 3 includes critical reviews of estuarine modeling work
done in the past, and Part 4 describes mixing zone models. Parts 1 and
2 are currently available in draft final form, and Parts 3 and 4 are
available in initial draft form.
AWPD, with the cooperation and assistance of other Office of Water
programs and the States, is currently developing guidance for the
States to help them define an appropriate surface water monitoring
program. The purpose of the guidance is to improve the use of ambient
data (physical, chemical, biological) by program managers, and to
TMDLAVLA GUIDANCE MANUAL
FOR ESTUARIES
SURFACE WATER MONITORING
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
43
-------
02/27/90
CITIZEN MONITORING
DATA BASES
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GUIDANCE/POLICY DOCUMENTS
improve reporting to the public. One section of the guidance docu-
ment will discuss a monitoring framework for estuaries.
EPA's Office of Water is currently encouraging State, Regional, and
local program managers to recruit citizens to assist in the monitoring
of significant water conditions and biota in inland, cstuarine, and
marine waters. Several States have used citizen volunteers in environ-
mental monitoring since the early 1970s. Experience with citizen
monitoring programs has demonstrated that volunteers can success-
fully undertake formal, technical monitoring as well as non-technical
projects to assist the States in this effort, EPA is developing a citizen
monitoring strategy and guidance to aid the States with forming citizen
monitoring programs.
AWPD now maintains several data bases capable of accessing various
water quality and environmental data and producing reports and
graphics from these data. These data bases include:
STORET
Mapping and Data Display Manager (MDDM)
Environmental Data Display Manager (EDDM)
Water Quality Analysis Interactive Procedures (available to
users of EPA's IBM 3090 mainframe computer)
These data bases provide access to information on municipal and
industrial facilities, stream flow, water quality, reach, biological
parameters, drinking water supplies, monitoring sites, and other infor-
mation.
The following information is presented to identify guidance docu-
ments, training opportunities, and agency contacts that can be utilized
by State managers in implementing their near coastal water programs.
- Program Guidance for development of TMDLs/WLAs/LAs
(EPA/AWPD, In Preparation)
. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Alloca-
tions, Book III: Estuaries (EPA/AWPD, In Preparation)
- Monitoring Framework (EPA/AWPD, In Preparation)
- Water Quality Analysis Interactive Procedures
- Mapping and Data Display Manger (MDDM) User's Guide
- Environmental Data Display Manager (EDDM) User's Guide
- STORET - Water Quality Analysis System
44
-------
02/27/90
TRAINING
Waste Load Allocation, Modeling and Permitting Workshop
(2-3/year)
Waste Load Allocation and TOXTWASP Modeling Workshop
(2/year)
OWRS/ERL Athens Water Quality Standards and Waste Load
Allocation Modeling/Mixing Zones Analyses for Complex Es-
tuarine Discharge Situations (2/year)
Mixing Zone Modeling Workshop (under development)
Citizens Monitoring Workshop (I/year)
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
WLA modeling
Hiranmay Biswas 382-7012
Monitoring management
Mary Belefski 382-7056
Monitoring analyses
Bruce Newton 382-7060
AGENCY CONTACTS
45
-------
02/27/90
46
-------
02/27/90
6. EPA'S WATER
QUALITY-BASED PERMITTING
ACTIVITIES
FOR POINT SOURCES
(AND CSOs/STORM DRAINS)
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implementing
regulations established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) for permits issued to point source discharges into
waters of the United States. The regulatory framework provides a
two-pronged approach for controlling point source discharges. The
first, reliance on "technology-based" standards, consists of developing
national minimum treatment requirements based on an assessment of
the achievability of control technologies by individual categories of
dischargers. The second, a "water quality-based" approach, stresses
water quality criteria, water quality standards, and the setting of pol-
lutant effluent limitations that are intended to maintain receiving
surface water quality at a level sufficient to protect the classified
designated uses. Figure 8 provides an overview of EPA's water quality-
based approach for the control of point source discharges to near
coastal waters. The approach shown is essentially the same as that
utilized by EPA and the States to develop permits for discharges to
fresh waters.
Under the water quality-based permitting, pollution control is
achieved through an integrated approach of chemical specific and
whole effluent controls. The chemical specific approach limits specific
pollutants (including conventional and toxic pollutants) based on ap-
plicable water quality (numeric) criteria and standards. The whole
effluent approach is especially applicable when specific pollutants in
complex wastes have not or can not be identified or their interactions
assessed. In this case the determination of effluent limitations or
controls is based on toxicity of the whole effluent in addition to that of
a specific chemical, in order to address numeric or narrative State
standards such as the "no toxics in toxic amounts" standard common to
all State water quality standards.
Overall coordination of EPA's implementation of the NPDES water
quality-based permitting program is carried out primarily by two of-
fices within the Headquarter's Office of Water - the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (OWEP), and the Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards (O WRS). These activities are supported by Water
Management Division staff in the ten Regional Offices. OWEP is
primarily responsible for the overall NPDES permit program im-
47
-------
02/27/90
EPA HO Training «nd
Guidance
OWRS
(CSD)
(ITD)
Water Quality Objective*,
Criteria, Limitation*, and Standard!
(for conventional, toxic and noneonventional
pollutant*)
t
EFFLUENT CHARCTERIZATION
OWEP
owns i
(CSD)
Conventional*
BOD, Nutrients,
Suapended Solid*,
Flow Volume
Chemical Specific and Whole
Effluent Toxlelty Screen
for Aquatic Life Impact*
Effluent Toxicity
Screen for
Human Health
Rlik A*s***ment
(ba*ln-wlde)
(localized or basin-wide)
OWEP
OWRS
(AWPD)
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
(critical flow, fate modeling,
Mixing zone requirement*)
and
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
(requirements for singular and/or
multiple dlicharge*, basin-wide
aaaimllatlve capacity, nonpoint
aource influence)
OWEP
PERMIT DERIVATION
(limit* and condition*)
OWEP
FINAL PERMIT
With
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
and
ENFORCEMENT
Figure 8. Overview of Water Quality-Based Approach for Point Source Discharge
to Near Coastal Waters
plementation, including the development of permit limitations, permit
tracking and monitoring, performance of toxicity reduction evaluations
(TREs), and permit enforcement. OWRS supports the NPDES ac-
tivities through three divisions - Criteria and Standards Division
(CSD), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD), and
Industrial Technology Division (ITD). CSD is responsible for the
development and review of national water quality criteria, and sup-
ports and oversees the process of setting water quality standards by the
States. A more detailed description of CSD's program is provided in
Chapter 4 of this manual. AWPD (Monitoring Branch) provides
policy and technical guidance for implementing CWA Sections 303(d)
48
-------
02/27/90
(wasteload allocation program) and CWA Section 304(1) (impaired
waters listings), both important elements to the NPDES program. In
addition, the Monitoring Branch provides directions for monitoring to
States. More detailed descriptions of the waste load allocation proces-
ses and monitoring requirements are provided in Chapter 5 of this
manual. AWPD also includes the Nonpoint Source Control Branch,
whose program is described more fully in Chapter 7 of this manual.
ITD is responsible for development and promulgation of technology-
based effluent guidelines and standards for industrial dischargers.
The issuance and enforcement of discharge permits under the NPDES
program is one of EPA's most important activities affecting the water
quality and living resource conditions in the nation's near coastal
waters. Estuaries are of particular concern because they represent
highly productive ecosystems at risk, and because these waters tend to
act as natural "sinks" for both point and nonpoint source discharges
coming from land, rivers, and streams.
The water quality-based approach is designed to address a wide variety
of potential water quality concerns in near coastal waters. These may
include:
toxics
pathogens
dissolved oxygen depletion
nutrient enrichment and overproduction and
bioaccumulation and exposure to humans.
Addressing each of these concerns may require a somewhat different
approach depending on applicable water quality criteria and stand-
ards, pollutant source location(s) and characteristics, characteristics
of the receiving waters, and interaction with other sources (e.g., non-
point sources). For example, if dissolved oxygen depletion and
eutrophication are of concern, the problems most likely involve both
point and nonpoint source influences on a relatively large spatial scale.
Developing controls would require a basin-wide assessment and
management approach including wasteload allocation modeling for
either the entire estuary or a large portion thereof. If impacts from
toxic substances including whole effluent toxicity are of concern on a
larger scale (i.e, multiple industrial discharges, urban runoff), it will be
necessary to perform a wasteload allocation through a more sophisti-
cated modeling exercise which incorporates the potential overlapping,
cumulative influences of all discharges on water quality/sediment
toxicity, bioaccumulation, and resultant human health risk.
Substantial policy and technical guidance have been developed to
assist the Regions and States (for those States that are authorized to
implement the NPDES program) in writing permits under the water
CURRENT NPDES
ACTIVITIES IN NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
49
-------
02/27/90
MARINE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
(CHAPTER 2 OF TSD)
quality-based approach. Central to this strategy are two guidance
documents: "Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control" (EPA 440/4-85-032, September 1985) and the "Permit
Writer's Guide to Water Quality-Based Permitting for Toxic Pol-
lutants" (EPA 440/4-87-005, July 1987). The Technical Support Docu-
ment (TSD) provides technical recommendations for each step in the
water qulaity-based toxics control process. The Permit Writer's Guide
gives State and Federal NPDES permit writers a methodology for
deriving water quality-based effluent limits. The TSD is presently
being revised and updated (in part) for developing permits for dis-
chargers to marine waters. In addition, a "Permit Writer's Guide for
Marine and Estuarine Discharges" is being developed. A summary of
the proposed changes to the Technical Support Document relevant to
near coastal water issues and a summary of the draft Permit Writers
Guide for Marine and Estuarine Discharges are presented in separate
sections of this manual. The major chapters of the current TSD are
summarized in the following sections, which serves to highlight the
approach currently used for marine discharges.
State water quality criteria and standards are the basis for NPDES
permits. A State's standards are made up of a specific chemical criteria
and a waterbody"s designated use. For both the chemical specific and
whole effluent approaches, limitations are developed which specify
allowable concentrations of pollutants within and at the edge of the
mixing zone in the receiving water. This section provides a summary of
the criteria and standards development process. A more complete
discussion of the development of criteria and standards is presented in
Chapter 4 of this manual.
Individual pollutants are regulated on a chemical-specific basis, i.e.,
criteria are developed for individual chemicals. Where specific
numerical criteria for a chemical are absent, compliance with the
standards must be based on the general narrative criteria (i.e., no toxics
in toxic amounts) and on protection of the designated use. If a State
lacks a specific chemical criteria, EPA criteria may be used.
The whole effluent approach to toxics control involves the use of
ambient criteria for the parameter toxicity and the use of toxicity tests
to determine the toxicity of wastewater discharges to various test
organisms. The measure of whole effluent toxicity can be used to assess
the toxicity of effluents, based on the concentration of the effluent that
is determined not to cause a specified effect, either a LC50 (effluent
concentration at which 50% of test organisms are killed) or a NOEC
(highest effluent concentration at which no unacceptable effect will
occur, even at continuous exposure).
Aquatic impacts are a function of magnitude, and duration and fre-
quency with which criteria are exceeded. EPA's recommended
criteria for both individual toxicants and whole-effluent toxicity are
specified as two numbers: the criteria continuous concentration
(CCC), applied as a four-day average concentration for chronic ef-
50
-------
02/27/90
fects; and the criteria maximum concentration (CMC) for acute ef-
fects, applied as a one-hour average concentration.
The water quality standard and criteria specify water quality limits that
are not to be violated as a result of any and all discharges to a water
body. This means that the standards apply to nonpoint as well as point
source discharges. Therefore, consideration of water quality stand-
ards and criteria should be included in the States' nonpoint source
(Section 319) management plans, as described in the nonpoint source
section of this manual (see Chapter 7).
In addition to setting criteria and standards for what have traditionally
been considered water bodies, EPA is also developing a plan for the
development of water quality criteria for wetlands. EPA is also en-
couraging States to make use of the various components of water
quality standards (use classification, antidegradation, and narrative
criteria) as a means of protecting wetlands from point source dischar-
ges. These EPA activities are discussed in more detail in the wetland
section of this manual (see Chapter 8).
The purpose of effluent characterization is to provide the data needed
to determine whether or not a discharge has the potential to cause an
adverse impact to the biota of the receiving water system, and/or
creates potential conditions for adverse human health hazards. Al-
though the TSD focuses on testing procedures for toxic pollutants,
assessments of conventional pollutants (i.e., BOD, nutrients, total
suspended solids, coliform bacteria) should also be conducted. The
permitting authority can then develop wasteload allocations for one or
more discharges into waters exhibiting the potential for localized or
basin-wide dissolved oxygen deficits or eutrophication conditions hi
conjunction with the background influences of nonpoint sources and
in-place sediment fluxes. Detailed discussions of the recommended
approaches for controlling the discharge of conventional pollutants in
estuaries will be presented in EPA's soon to be released technical
guidance manual on performing wasteload allocations in estuaries.
The TSD presents a screening system to identify potential problem
dischargers for toxicity impacts. The screening system is based on
either chemical-specific or whole-effluent toxicity tests (or both) using
the projected receiving water concentration as the decision criteria.
It is noted that for many discharges, EPA expects that the recom-
mended screening methods will allow permit limitations to be
developed on a site-specific basis, using simple water quality models.
However, conditions most conducive to creating overlapping and ad-
ditive toxic effects from multiple discharges are expected to occur in
estuarine systems. In such cases, exposure and wasteload allocation
modeling is recommended for toxic pollutants and toxicity similar to
the procedure for conventional pollutants.
Some sources of pollution that have traditionally been considered as
nonpoint sources will now require NPDES permits. These sources
include storm sewers and combined sewer overflows. The effluents
EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION
(CHAPTER 3 OF TSD)
51
-------
02/27/90
EXPOSURE AND WASTELOAD
ALLOCATION
(CHAPTER 5 OF TSD)
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
(CHAPTER 6 IN TSD)
from these sources will now need to be characterized and controlled
in a similar manner to more traditional point source discharges.
Ingestion of fish that have accumulated toxic chemicals in the tissue
(e.g., bioaccunmlation) is the primary concern for human health risk
related to effluent discharges. Chemicals that bioaccumulate include
metals, organic compounds, and organometallic compounds. Some of
these chemicals can accumulate to hazardous levels in fish even when
the concentration in the water is below a toxic level (i.e., below numeric
water quality criteria for aquatic life protection). Therefore, effluents
that have an acceptable level of toxicity may still contain hazardous
concentrations of bioaccumulative pollutants. The current TSD does
not provide quantitative screening methods for determining the bioac-
cumulation potential for human health risk, making it difficult to
address this aspect of pollution control. However, EPA will soon
release the "Permit Writer's Guide to Identification and Control of
Bioconcentratable Pollutants in Complex Effluents," currently in draft
form. This guide contains procedures to evaluate the bioconccntration
potential of complex effluents, identify and quantify individual biocon-
centratable pollutants, and develop criteria, wasteload allocations, and
effluent limitations for these pollutants. (This informaiion will also be
excerpted in the revised TSD.) Guidance addressing toxic fish tissue
residues and procedures for performing health risk assessments for
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish is also presented in
EPA's recently released "Guidance Manual for Assessing Human
Health Issues from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish."
Section 3Q3(d) of the CWA requires that States shall establish Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waterbodies where tech-
nology-based treatment is insufficient to allow compliance with water
quality standards. Point sources, nonpoint sources, and natural back-
ground sources all contribute to the total load of a pollutant in a
waterbody. Allocation of the TMDL, otherwise known as a wasteload
allocation (WLA), is the process of using models to allocate the
available assimilative capacity of the waterbody among all the point
and nonpoint sources in consideration of technical, socioeconomic,
institutional, and political constraints. Chapter 5 presents a more
detailed description of the process of developing WLAs and of con-
ducting monitoring activities to help identify near coastal waters need-
ing TMDLs, quantify loads, verify WLA models, and evaluate overall
water quality management, (including best management practices for
control of nonpoint sources) implementation, and effectiveness.
The requirements of a WLA must be incorporated in the NPDES
permit. In many cases, permit limits will be different than the WLA to
reflect different assumptions and means of expressing effluent quality.
Three types of WLA outputs are identified in the TSD, and recommen-
dations are provided for deriving permit limits to properly enforce each
52
-------
02/27/90
type of WLA. Other permit-related issuessuch as data collection, limit
expression, and compliance schedules are also discussed.
For important parameters, at least once per week monitoring is recom-
mended. A phased monitoring approach is discussed in the TSD in
which monitoring frequency is reduced after continuing compliance is
demonstrated. Unique considerations for enforcement of water
quality-based permits are discussed.
EPA's water enforcement program is designed to identify instances of
noncompliance, return the violator to compliance, recover any
economic advantage obtained by the violator's noncompliance, and
deter other regulated facilities from noncompliance. The enforcement
tools available to the agency include an extensive network of com-
pliance monitoring techniques and protocols to screen compliance
information, a permit compliance management system, and enforce-
ment response strategies.
Permit violators are generally detected through the monitoring re-
quirements of the NPDES permitting program. Two forms of monitor-
ing are generally conducted, self monitoring by the permittee and
compliance inspection by the State or EPA. Public complaints can also
trigger follow-up actions by the enforcement authority to see whether
a violation has occurred. The general types of violations considered as
noncompliance by NPDES permittees includes permit effluent limits,
compliance or construction schedules, permit required reporting, en-
forcement order requirements, and other permit requirement viola-
tions.
Discharge Monitoring Reports, or DMRs, which compile effluent
data, are completed by NPDES permittees, and data from the DMRs
are entered into EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), a database
management system that tracks individual facility permit compliance
and the status of enforcement activity against violations. PCS enables
the States and Regions to automatically list major facilities not in
compliance with their NPDES permits or enforcement action require-
ments. Violations and enforcement activity are reported in the
Quarterly Noncompliance Report. Permit violations are prioritized to
determine which violations should be acted upon first (usually those
violations considered to be Significant Noncompliance (SNC)).
In response to violations, the States or Regions can take either ad-
ministrative or judicial action depending upon the severity of the
violation and the violation history of the facility. Administrative ac-
tions can be either in the form of a notice of violation or an Administra-
tive Order. A notice of violation is issued to a permittee to inform the
permittee that a violation was detected and that it should be corrected.
An Administrative Order requires a permittee to take specific actions
which must include at least meeting compliance schedule milestones,
ceasing and desisting from a particular activity, and/or showing cause
for a particular violation and how the permittee intends on correcting
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
(CHAPTER 7 IN TSD)
NPDES ENFORCEMENT
53
-------
02/27/90
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATIONS
it. Administrative penalties can also be assessed by a Region. Class I
violations can be assessed at $10,000 per day of violation, up to $25,000.
Class II violations can be assessed at $10,000 per day of violation, up
to $125,000. The other form of enforcement action, judicial action, can
be either civil or criminal. These cases are typically forwarded to
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring and O WEP
to review. The case is then referred to the Justice Department which
actually files the action in the District Court where the violation
occurred. Civil actions can assess up to $25,000 per day. Criminal
actions can assess $25,000 per day for the first violation or $50,000 per
day for a second violation for negligence. Any person who knowingly
violates a permit condition is subject to $50,000 or $100,000 per day. If
a discharger knowlingly endangers the environment as a result of a
discharge violation, the discharger is subject to a fine of $250,000 (for
an individual) to SIM (for an organization).
OWEP's major responsibilities related to enforcement include provid-
ing enforcement case review and support, developing and overseeing
implementation of penalty policies, reviewing citizen suits, managing
the NPDES enforcement program and State oversight, and developing
enforcement criteria and enforcing pretreatment requirements against
POTWs.
The Clean Water Act and NPDES regulations require that point
source permits include toxicity limits designed to achieve designated
state water quality standards. EPA has identified toxicity reduction
evaluations (TREs) as an effective means of ensuring that permitted
dischargers meet these toxicity requirements.
When toxicity testing of an effluent demonstrates that a discharge
contains toxicity at unacceptable levels, the permitting agency should
require the permittee to reduce toxicity to prevent harmful effects to
living resources and human health impacts. It is solely the permittee's
responsibility to reduce effluent toxicity to acceptable levels. One
method is by conducting a TRE.
ATRE is a step-wise process that combines toxicity testing and analysis
of physical and chemical characteristics of the effluent to isolate the
causative toxicants or manufacturing processes that produce the
chemicals of concern, identify control options and determine the
effectiveness of each option, and identify a compliance monitoring
indicator and demonstrate its effectiveness. A TRE may entail a series
of simple tests that identify simple remedial actions, such as
"housekeeping," or it may involve an extensive investigation to identify
toxicants of concern and/or cost-effective treatment or source reduc-
tion options. In all cases, a TRE should not be considered complete
until the permittee has attained compliance with the effluent toxicity
limitation of the permit.
Because of differences in the operations of discharging facilities, the
characteristics and variability of their effluents, and existing was-
tewater treatment systems, approaches to conducting TREs are facility
specific. However, to assist in developing proven, cost-effective TRE
54
-------
02/27/90
methodologies, EPA is sponsoring research to determine the effective-
ness of various treatment options and to develop some of the tools that
will be useful to permitting agencies and permittees during the conduct
ofTREs.
EPA publishes effluent guidelines and standards for industrial dis-
chargers. These are uniform technology-based limitations for in-
dustrial facilities discharging directly into the nation's waters and
pretreatment for those who discharge into POTWs.
During the effluent guideline promulgation process, EPA develops a
profile of the industry to determine pollutant loadings of untreated
wastewater for which effluent limitations guidelines are being
developed. Pollutants of concern and technologies for treating them
are then identified. EPA prepares estimates of total investment and
operation and maintenance costs of complying with each technology
option, and evaluates the regulatory options, both technically and
economically, to select a technology as the basis of the guidelines.
Effluent limitations, standards and guidelines are established for three
types of industrial pollutants: conventional, toxic, and nonconvention-
al. Effluent guidelines generally limit the pollutants that can be dis-
charged at an individual facility. The numerical limits of the guidelines
are determined using the treatability data for the selected technology.
CWA Section 304(m) mandates EPA to develop a biennial plan to
review and revise effluent guidelines, identify industrial categories for
effluent guidelines development, and establish a schedule for promul-
gation of new guidelines. In January 1990, EPA's OWRS Industrial
Technology Division published a schedule for the next round of ef-
fluent guidelines development, revision, and review. (55 FR 80-103).
New guidelines will be developed for five industrial categories: Pes-
ticide Chemicals Manufacturing subcategory (1992), Offshore Oil and
Gas Extraction (1992), Pesticide Chemicals formulating/packaging
subcategory (1993), Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase I (1995),
Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding (1995), and Coastal Oil and
Gas Extraction (1995). Other listed categories/subcategories will un-
dergo revisions or review, and others will be studied for possible future
action.
Under the General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution, EPA established general prohibitions to prevent
the release of any pollutant from anynon-domestic source into Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) which interfere with, passed
through untreated, or are otherwise incompatible with the POTW, and
specific prohibitions against the introduction of pollutants from any
non-domestic source into a POTW which could cause fire/explosion
hazards, corrosive (pH) damage, interference that obstructs flow, or
interference due to heat damage.
OTHER PROGRAMS
Effluent Guidelines
Pretreatment
55
-------
02/27/90
NEW INITIATIVES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
In addition, EPA established national categorical pretreatment stand-
ards applicable to specific industrial subcategories, and required
POTWs to develop specific local limits to implement the general
prohibitions on interference and pass through. The local limits
developed are deemed to be Federal standards for the purposes of the
prohibition under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act against violating
pretreatment standards, and thus are considered to be Federally en-
forceable.
The categorical pretreatment standards developed by EPA regulate
pollutants commonly discharged by a specific industrial category.
These categorical industries must comply with technology-based ef-
fluent limitations, operate and maintain the appropriate control tech-
nology to achieve compliance, and monitor discharges to achieve and
maintain compliance with the standards. Federal categorical stand-
ards therefore provide a minimum, uniform level of pollution control
of all dischargers in similar industrial categories.
Under the General Pretreatment Regulations, any POTW with a
design flow of more than 5 MGD, and smaller POTWs receiving
industrial discharges causing pass through or interference, must estab-
lish an approved local pretreatment program. POTWs administering
local pretreatment programs must develop and enforce site-specific
local limits to implement the earlier noted general and specific prohibi-
tions. Local discharge limits may be set by industrial category, by
specific pollutants, or by individual industrial facility once industrial
discharges are identified which: contain toxic priority pollutants or
prohibited discharges (i.e., heat, explosive/fire hazards, corrosive
agents), interfere with POTW operations, pass through the POTW
treatment system and adversely affect receiving water quality, con-
taminate POTW sludge, or create a health/safety hazards for workers
in the POTW.
Therefore, for categorical industries, pretreatment standards maycon-
sist of a combination of prohibited discharge standards, Federal
categorical pretreatment standards, and local pretreatment limits.
Upon promulgation of the Federal categorical standards, the more
stringent of the two discharge limits (local or Federal) apply. All
categorical industries must comply with categorical standards even if
they discharge to a POTW without a federally approved local pretreat-
ment program. For non-categorical industries, pretreatment stand-
ards may consist of prohibited discharge standards and local discharge
Emits. POTWs must ensure that their pretreatment programs are
effectively implemented and enforced so as to prevent violations of
theur NPDES permit conditions.
As a result of new and better scientific knowledge concerning the
impacts of pollution in aquatic environments and new legislative man-
dates required under the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, EPA has developed new policies
and guidance for the management of the nation's waters. Some of these
56
-------
02/27/90
new initiatives will have a direct impact on the way near coastal waters
are managed under the NPDES permitting program. The most
relevant of these initiatives to near coastal water issues are presented
below. New initiatives related primarily to criteria and standards
development and wasteload allocation and monitoring procedures are
presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this manual.
EPA recently developed a national strategy for controlling combined
sewer overflows (CSOs). The strategy requires that all CSOs be
identified and categorized according to their status of compliance with
technology and water quality-based regulations. The strategy objec-
tives are to ensure that all CSO discharges occur only as a result of wet
weather, to bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into com-
pliance with the technology-based requirements of the CWA and
applicable State water quality standards, and to minimize water
quality, aquatic biota, and human health impacts from wet weather
overflows that do occur. A guidance document to implement the
strategy is currently being developed.
EPA is currently revising the "Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxic Control" (TSD) that was originally issued by the
Agency in 1985. The purpose of the TSD is to provide the States and
Regions with an encyclopedia of procedures and guidance to be used
in water quality-based control of toxic pollutants. The revised TSD
provides additional explanations and rationales based on accumulated
experience and data for the various recommendations made in the
original document. A number of important substantive changes have
also been made in the revised TSD, which are summarized in Table 1.
This document is currently being developed by EPA. It is designed to
provide State and Regional NPDES permit writers with guidance for
deriving water quality-based effluent limits for marine and estuarine
waters. The Permit Writer's Guide also identifies models that can be
applied to waste load allocation in marine waters and includes
guidance on assessing bioconcentration. A summary of the major
topics included in the Permit Writer's Guide is presented in Table 2.
The Agency has released a draft of the "Permit Writer's Guide to
Identification and Control of Bioconcentratable Pollutants in Complex
Effluents." This guidance will include procedures to evaluate the
bioconcentration potential of complex effluents, identify and quan-
STRATEGY INITIATIVES
Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy
GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES
Revised Technical Support Document
Permit Writers Guide for Marine and
Estuarine Discharges
Bioconcentratable Pollutants
57
-------
02/27/90
Table 1.
Summary: Revised Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-Based Toxics Control
PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
Provide States and Regions with reference of procedures and guidance to be used in water quality-based
control of toxic pollutants
Provide additional explanations and rationales based on accumulated experience and data for the various
recommendations made in the original TSD
Incorporate important substantive changes to the original TSD based on new approaches and methods
to be used in controlling toxic pollutants
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS
Discussion of the approach to water quality-based toxics control, supported by new documentation and
explanations based on experience gained over the last 5 years
Presentation of equations for developing acceptable ambient concentrations (AACs) and discussion of
legal basis for establishing AACs in terms of reliance on both numerical and narrative State water quality
standards
Streamlined procedures for predicting likely impact of toxic effluents on aquatic life
Revised effluent characterization procedures for assessing potential human health impacts focus on
control of bioconcentratable chemicals
More discussion of mixing zones and their calculation
Ambient criteria to control acute toxicity to aquatic life now allowable for any type of outfall for which
monitoring data indicate that the criteria maximum concentration (CMC) is met within the short distances
specified by the TSD
Suggest that allowing mixing zones for bioaccumulative pollutants may be inappropriate in certain
circumstances
Presents additional explanations and discussions of material related to permit requirements and com-
pliance monitoring
SCHEDULE
First draft completed in September 1989
* Second draft by December 1989
Final draft by the end of the second quarter of FY1990 following review by "blue ribbon panel"
58
-------
02/27/90
Table 2.
Summary: Permit Writers Guide for Marine and Estuarine Dischargers
PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
Assist State & Regional NPDES permit writers in issuance of water quality-based permits for coastal
dischargers
Supplement the Basic Permit Writer's Guide and the Technical Support Document. Document assumes
reader has basic understanding of NPDES program and toxics control for freshwater discharges
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Description of appropriate toxicity testing methods for various discharge scenarios (i.e., fresh v. saline
effluent entering bay, absolute v. relative toxicity) and test organisms for given salinity and temperature
ranges one each coast
Description of physical characteristics of coastal environments that affect mixing (including worst case
examples) and summary of estuarine classification systems
Introduction to models of varying levels of complexity available for exposure assessment leading to
wasteload allocations, and a discussion of which types of numeric models are best suited for different
classes of estuaries
Description of steps in the permitting process applicable to coastal discharges, but not freshwater
discharges, specifically reviews by a State Coastal Zone Management Program for consistency with CZM
policies, and ocean discharge criteria evaluations under Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act
Appendices contain list of pollutants of concern, State Numeric and Narrative Standards and Mixing Zone
Standards for marine and estuarine waters, index of pollution susceptibility for estuaries (developed by
NOAA), and sample calculations using various models.
SCHEDULE
Currently have workgroup draft
Draft for Regional comments expected 12/89
Final document expected publication date 6/90
59
-------
02/27/90
Human Health and Fish Tissue
Contamination
titate individual bioconcentratable pollutants, and develop criteria,
wasteload allocations, and effluent limitations for these pollutants.
EPA recently released the "Guidance Manual for Assessing Human
Health Issues from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish." This
document provides guidance for addressing the issue of toxic fish tissue
residues and procedures for performing health risk assessments for
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish. A summary of the
manual is presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Summary: Guidance Manual for Assessing Human Health Issues from Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
September 1989
PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
Provide guidance for health risk assessment related primarily to chemically contaminated recreational
fisheries.
Describe the steps of a health risk assessment procedure for consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish
The conceptual basis for standard toxicological variables (e.g., Carcinogenic Potency Factors or Refer-
ence Doses (RfD) for chemicals) and criteria (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Adminsitraiton (FDA) action
levels) related to risk assessment, and information sources for updating these values
* Provide guidance on presentaiton of fish assessment results
Summarize assumptions and uncertainties of the recommended procedures for risk assessment.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Overview of risk assessment and risk management
Hazard identification
» Dose-response assessment
Exposure assessment
» Risk characterization
Presentation and interpretation of results
60
-------
In June of 1989, EPA issued final regulations for the control of surface
water toxics under provisions of CWA NPDES permits. The regula-
tions clarify EPA's surface water toxics control program and incor-
porate Section 308(a) of the 1987 Water Quality Act. Section 308(a)
of the Water Quality Act added Section 304(1) to the CWA. The
purpose of the proposed regulations are to amend and clarify EPA's
existing surface water toxics control program, describe the require-
ments for identifying and listing water bodies under Section 304(1),
discuss the requirements for preparing and reviewing Individual Con-
trol Strategies (ICSs) and discuss the procedures for reviewing and
approving or disapproving the lists and ICSs.
EPA will soon be coming out with new regulations for the control of
storm water discharges.
The following information is presented to identify guidance docu-
ments, training opportunities, and agency contacts that can be utilized
by State and Regional permit writers and resource managers. The
technology transfer activities of the Criteria and Standards Division
and Assessment and Watershed Protection Division are presented in
Chapters 4 and 5 of this manual.
- Revised Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control (EPA/OWEP - in preparation)
- Permit Writer's Guide for Marine and Estuarine Discharges
(EPA/OWEP - in preparation)
- Permit Writer's Guide to Identification and Control of Biocon-
centratable Pollutants in Complex Effluents (EPA/OWEP - in
preparation)
- Guidance Manual for Assessing Human Health Issues from
Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish (EPA/OMEP in
preparation)
- Effluent Guidelines Development Manual (EPA/ITD - in
preparation)
- Generalized Methodology for conducting Industrial Toxicity
Reduction Evaluations (EPA/Risk Reduction Engineer-
ing/Laboratory)
- Pretreatment Implementation Policy (EPA/OWEP)
- Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Guidance (EPA/OWEP)
- Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program Develop-
ment (EPA/OWEP)
02/27/90
REGULATORY INITIATIVES
Control of Surface Water Toxics
Upcoming Regulations
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GUIDANCE/POLICY DOCUMENTS
61
-------
02/27/90
TRAINING
AGENCY CONTACTS
Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-Based Permitting for
Toxic Pollutants (EPA/OW)
Quarterly Non-Compliance Reports (QNCR)(EPA/OWEP)
QNCR Guidance Manual (EPA/OWEP)
QNCR QA Manual and Analyst Guide (EPA/OWEP)
Managers Guide to Automated QNCR (EPA/OWEP)
Managers Guide to the Permit Compliance System
(PCS)(EPA/OWEP)
PCS Near Coastal Water Designation of Facilities
Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) required
data elements for PCS
Definitions of SNC/RNC for Pretreatment Violations
Definitions of SNC/RNC for Whole Eflfuent Violations
Administrative Penalty Policy (EPA/OWEP)
Basic Permit Writing (four times/year)
Water Quality-Based Permitting (six-eight times/year)
TRE Workshops (10 times/year)
OWEP/OWRS/OMEP Joint Estuarine Modeling, WLA, and
Permitting Workshops
Industrial Technology Division
Mark Luttner: Effluent Guidelines
382-5397
Eric Strassler: Effluent Guidelines
382-7120
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Jim Taft: Permits
475-9536
Hap Thron: Permit Writers Training
475-9537
Jeff Lape: Pretreatment
475-9525
Margaret Heber: Enforcement
475-8299
Mary Gain Enforcement
475-8557
62
-------
02/27/90
7. EPA's NONPOINT
SOURCE ACTIVITIES
The major Federal tool for protecting surface waters from NFS pollu-
tion is Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires each
State to identify and assess waters impaired due to nonpoint source
pollution and to develop a management program for these waters.
Figure 9 illustrates the process implemented by EPA and the States to
manage nonpoint source pollution.
The 319 Assessment Report identifies those waters in the State which,
without additional action to control nonpoint sources, cannot
reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality
standards or the goals and requirements of the Act. The report also
identifies the categories, subcategories, and particular nonpoint sour-
ces of pollution which contribute to this impairment. This report is a
Statewide inventory, and is updated biannually in conjunction with the
State's Water Quality Assessment Report required under Section
305(b)oftheAct.
EPA Assistance
Section 319
Assessments
T
State Management
Plan Development'
EPA Review
i
State Management :
Plan Review and Approval!
State Management
Plan Implementation
BMPs
Figure 9. EPA/State Nonpoint Source Control Program
63
-------
02/27/90
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
RELEVANT TO NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
The State NPS Management Programs are based on the Assessment
Reports, and cover NPS management and pollution control actions
that the State intends to undertake over the succeeding four fiscal
years. Management Programs may be reviewed annually in conjunc-
tion with the submittal of Grant Applications. Specifically, the State
NPS Management Programs should contain and result in:
the identification of the best management practices (BMPs) for
the control and reduction of specifically identified nonpoint
sources of pollution and the improvement of water quality,
the achievement and maintenance of State water quality stand-
ards, the measure of success of NPS Management Programs,
« the setting of action priorities as among categories of NPS
pollution and watersheds,
the utilization of a variety of programmatic actions to achieve
the implementation of Management Programs,
a schedule containing annual implementation milestones and
provisions for implementing BMPs at the earliest possible date,
and
the option of identifying those Federal programs and projects
that the State wants to review for their consistency with the
State's Management Program.
As states begin implementing their State NPS Management Programs,
they will have to assist, encourage, or require individuals and entities
to adopt specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measures
to prevent or control NPS pollution. A major EPA role will be to
encourage the sharing of information on new BMPs with demonstrated
effectiveness. Additionally, EPA will maintain a special interest in: 1)
use of wetlands to provide an NPS control function, and (2) land
conservancy as a NPS BMP.
EPA's NPS activities are carried out by the Nonpoint Source Control
Branch (NPSCB) in EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD).
Field activities and State program approval are carried out by staff in
EPA's ten regional offices.
Near Coastal Waters (NCWs) are the recipients of large quantities of
nonpoint source pollution, particularly from runoff containing pes-
ticides, herbicides, metals, and nutrients flowing from agricultural and
urban sources. NCWs are also the final repository of large nutrient
and toxic loads from major river systems. Since pollution from non-
point sources is a major problem for NCWs, strategies and tools to
control and prevent NPS pollution will be an integral part of any
strategy to protect NCWs from pollution. The NPS Management
Program developed by each State should address the NFS-related
problems of NCWs, and thus should be an important part of the
Agency's overall strategy to protect NCWs.
64
-------
In January 1989, EPA's Office of Water issued its "Nonpoint Sources:
Agenda for the Future," which sets forth EPA's commitment to a
national NPS program during the next five years and outlines the
actions the Agency deems necessary to solve the problem of NFS
pollution of the nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. Most of the initia-
tives presented below were identified in the draft NPS strategy that is
being developed by EPA to address the issues identified in Nonpoint
Sources Agenda.
NPSCB is developing a strategy for implementing the Nonpoint Sour-
ces Agenda. Each program in the Agency with an interest in control-
ling NPS pollution will submit an action plan for implementing the
Agenda in their particular program. The NPS Strategy will be a
compendium of these action plans. Components of the strategy will
include: public awareness, successful solution, economic forces and
incentives, regulatory program, and good science. Potential par-
ticipants include: the Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP),
the Office of Water Regulations and Standard (OWRS), the Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP), the Office of Wetlands
Protection (OWP), the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
(OWEP), the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE), the
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC), and the Office of
Drinking water (ODW). The NPS Strategy is currently in draft form
and is undergoing Agency review.
General permit authority is available to NPDES States. The program
is an administrative tool to simplify and reduce the burden of regulating
certain types of similar discharges (e.g., stormwater). General NPDES
permits may be a formidable tool to manage coastal nonpoint source
pollution, and may include structural or non-structural BMPs, but
should include requirements for monitoring. While they have not been
widely used in the U.S., some States have incorporated the concept of
general nonpoint source permits into the State regulatory structure.
Examples include: South Florida Water Management District (to
control surface water storage and attendant runoff problems); the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (for earth dis-
turbance permits over 25 acres in size a permit is necessary, while some
activities may be exempt with a sediment control plan); and Maryland's
erosion sediment control plan, which weaves the erosion and sediment
control plan into the permitting process for a variety of operating
permits.
In February, 1988, the Permits Division of OWEP issued the General
Permits Program Guidance to facilitate State program approval. EPA
02/27/90
NEW INITIATIVES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
PLANNING INITIATIVES
Nonpoint Source Strategy:
General Noncraditional NPDES
Permits:
65
-------
02/27/90
INITIATIVES TO INCREASE
STATE/LOCAL ROLE IN
CONTROL OF NFS POLLUTION
Implement Cooperative State 402/319
Programs
Incorporate BMPs into other Permits
INITIATIVES FOR INTER-AND
INTRA-AGENCY COOPERATION
Intra-Agency Cooperation
Inter-Agency Cooperation
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
INITIATIVES
Brochures and Handbooks
is now issuing this document, which is intended to outline the Federal
general permits program requirements and necessary submissions for
state program approvals.
The draft NFS Strategy proposes developing an approach to network
requirements established under Section 319 and 402(p) to address
urban stormwater runoff.
The draft NFS Strategy proposes the issuance of guidance on urban
Best Management Practices (BMPs), including planning and design,
pollutant removal, stormwater management for new development,
feasibility, maintenance, and cost and benefits.
The draft NFS Strategy proposes cooperation with other EPA Offices
to improve the NPS program. An example of such a cooperation is a
proposed joint agenda between OGWP and OWRS on program
linkages regarding NPS and ground-water activities which require
close coordination. The purpose of this joint agenda would be to study
surface and ground water interrelationships and to assess the effects
of surface water BMPs on ground water.
The draft NPS Strategy proposes cooperation with other Federal
agencies to improve the NPS program. Such cooperation includes full
involvement in the 1990 Farm Bill Reauthorization and Agency AG
Policy Committee, and working with the Conservation Reserve Pro-
gram and Small Watershed Program in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The draft NPS Strategy calls for disseminating information about NPS
pollution to the general public. Tools proposed include: brochures on
NPS pollution, a National public awareness campaign (including writ-
ten and audiovisual materials), and advisories on NPS solutions. The
purpose of these items is to describe the NPS problems to laymen and
illustrate what they can do to prevent and solve NPS problems.
66
-------
02/27/90
The draft NFS Strategy also calls for the establishment of clearin-
ghouses and/or catalogs through public/private cooperation arrange-
ments to provide information to the public and to other organizations
in need of NFS information. Proposed Clearinghouses include: Es-
tablished Lakes Clearinghouse; NFS Clearinghouse; a Solutions
Clearinghouse; and a Clearinghouse on NFS financing and regulatory
solutions.
The following information is presented to identify guidance docu-
ments, training opportunities, and agency contacts that can be utilized
by state NPS managers in developing and implementing NFS manage-
ment programs.
State Clean Water Strategies: Meeting the Challenges of the Future,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, December, 1987.
Nonpoint Source Guidance, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, December,
1987.
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assess-
ment (305(b) report), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, February, 1989.
Memorandum: Regional Review and Approval of State Nonpoint
Source Management Program, From Rebecca Hanmer, Acting Assis-
tant Administrator Office of Water, October 17,1988.
Memorandum: Approval of Section 319 State Assessment Reports
and Management Programs, From Martha G. Prothro, Director,
OWRS, June 20,1989,.
Memorandum: Use of 2050) (5) Funds to Implement NPS Manage-
ment Programs, From Martha G, Prothro, Director, OWRS, February
17,1989.
Transmittal Note Conveying a Copy of the OWRS Paper on CWA
Funding Sources for the Implementation of State Nonpoint Source
Management Programs, From Jim Meek, Chief, NPS Branch, January
25,1989.
Memorandum: Guidance on Nonpoint Source Grants Management
Issues, From Martha G. Prothro, Director, OPWRS, July 12,1988.
Memorandum: Additional Guidance Regarding NPS Grants Under
Section 319, From Carl F. Myers, Chief, NPS Branch, September 8,
1988.
Memorandum: Section 205(j)(5) Funding for NPS Development and
Implementation, From Martha G. Prothro, Director, OWRS, 1988
(NPS:FY-88-56)
Information Clearinghouses
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GUIDANCE/POLICY/REFERENCE
DOCUMENTS
67
-------
02/27/90
TRAINING: WORKSHOPS AND
CONFERENCES
AGENCY CONTACTS
Memorandum: Use of Nonpoint Funds for Development and Im-
plementation, From Martha (3. Prothro, Director, OWRS, September
25,1989.
Memorandum: Using FY87 201 (g)(l)(B) finds for NFS-Region VIII,
From Carl F. Myers, Chief, NPS Branch, September 9, 1988.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, EPA, Washington, DC, Decem-
ber 1983.
Creating Successful Nonpoint Source Programs: The Innovative
Touch, EPA, Washington, DC, August, 1988.
Section 305(b) Waterbody System User's Guide, Second Edition,
EPA, Washington, DC, September 1988.
Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control, EPA,
Washington, DC, July 1987.
Water Quality Planning and Management, 40 CFR Part 130, January
11,1985.
Water Quality Standards and Regulations, 40 CFR Part 131, Novem-
ber 8,1983.
» Annual multi-Region workshops on NPS (e.g., Lake Manage-
ment Workshops)
AWPD has held the following conferences:
"Making NPS Pollution Control Programs Work" (St.
Louis, MO) April 23-26,1989
National Symposium on Lake and Reservoir Manage-
ment (St. Louis, MO - Nov. 15-19,1989, and Austin, TX -
Nov. 7-11,1989)
National Conference on Wetlands and Lake Manage-
ment (sponsored jointly with QWP), May 3-5,1989
National Conference on Low Input Agriculture (Omaha,
NE), planned for later in 1990
National Conference on Stormwater and Lake Manage-
ment (sponsored jointly with OWEP)
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Steve Dressing:Water Quality Monitoring;Report to Congress
382-7110
Lynne Kolze: Information and Education
382-7104
Ed Richards: Grants
475-7314
StuTuller: General Permits; Stormwater
382-7108
68
-------
02/27/90
Ann Beier: Stormwater; Reports to Congress
382-7107
Hal Wise: Nonpoint Source Control
382-7109
69
-------
02/27/90
70
-------
02/27/90
8. EPA's LIVING RESOURCES
PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
Many of the program areas within EPA's Office of Water are con-
cerned with the impacts of pollution on living resources. Water quality,
sediment, and biological criteria and standards are designed, in part,
to protect aquatic organisms from the adverse impacts of contaminant
discharges. Permitting decisions are based, in part, on a determination
of whether or not a discharge will violate aquatic life criteria and
standards. Ecological assessments are conducted, in part, to estimate
the potential impacts to aquatic life resulting from industrial and
municipal dischargers and non-point sources of pollution, and to
estimate the potential benefit to aquatic life resulting from additional
controls on discharges and better management practices.
However, of all the Headquarters' Office of Water programs, only the
Office of Wetlands Protection is mandated to solely address the issues
related to living resources, specifically wetlands. Many of the living
resource-related activities of the other program areas have been dis-
cussed in the previous chapters of this manual. Therefore, this chapter
focuses primarily on the NCW-related activities of the Office of Wet-
lands Protection.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with state and
local governments and other Federal agencies, is responsible for res-
toring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the nation's waters. These agencies are also responsible for protect-
ing the nation's wetland resources which are an integral part of those
waters. The major Federal regulatory tool for protecting wetlands is
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which establishes a permitting
program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
waters of the United States, including most wetlands. However, many
activities that adversely affect wetlands are not adequately regulated
under Section 404. Therefore, EPA's Office of Wetland Protection is
supplementing its regulatory activities under Section 404 with impor-
tant efforts in other areas, such as working with state and local govern-
ments to encourage the implementation of other wetland protection
methods, enhancing public awareness of wetland values, and conduct-
ing wetland research in key scientific areas where current knowledge
is lacking. In addition, EPA is exploring and working with other laws,
regulations, and other nonregulatory approaches to enhance their
implementation to protect wetlands, as well as investigating innovative
ways to make the traditional Section 404 program more efficient,
predictable, consistently applied across the country, and environmen-
tally effective. Figure 10 presents an overview of EPA's current wet-
land-related activities.
71
-------
02/27/90
Program*
Guidance/ Technical Assistance
Water Quality Standard*
for Wetland* and 40 1
Certification
U«e of Constructed Wetlands
for Wastewater Treatment
and Nonpolnt Source Control
State Assumption of Section
404 Program and Development
of Comprehensive State
Wetland Protection Programs
Incorporation of Wetlands
Issues In 319 Assessments
and Management Plans and
30S(b) Reports
>" ^
^"'
\
^
i ;
i EPA Legislative <
| Initiatives
EPA Research and '
Federal/State 4O4 ;
Permitting Programs | ^ ^
Federal Program '-^'
Overview j
State Program
Approval/Review j
State Water Quality :
Pfoqrarns,
Water Quality Standards
Point Source Control
Nonpolnt Source Control
Monitoring
^^ EPA Section 404 Authority i
». 1 \
awl Regulations and Guidance |
404CBX1)
* Geographic Jurisdiction
-"" » 404(F) Exemptions
Permit Review/veto
. Advanced Identification
Enforcement
Some Unpermltted
Violations I
Figure 10. EPA Wetland Initiatives
EPA's wetland protection activities are carried out primarily by two
divisions of the Headquarters' Office of WetJand Protection (OWP)
and the wetlands staff in the ten Regional Offices. OWP's Regulatory
Activities Division manages all Section 404 activities except state pro-
gram assumption. The Wetlands Strategies and State Programs
Division of OWP manages state and local program development ac-
tivities and all other non-regulatory functions. Field activities are
carried out by wetlands staff in the ten Regional Offices. Each Region
has a designated "Wetlands Coordinator" who serves as the general
point of contact for wetland issues in the Region.
Other offices in EPA also play a key role in the Agency's wetlands
protection activities, including the Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection (OMEP) (also in the Office of Water), and the Office of
Environmental Processes and Effects Research (OEPER) under the
OfficeofResearchandDevelopment (ORD). OMEP cooperates with
OWP in its wetland protection activities by, among other things, iden-
tifying opportunities to test innovative and cooperative techniques for
protecting critical aquatic habitats and working with state and local
governments to build a commitment to identify and protect wetland
areas. OEPER administers EPA's Wetland Research Program, while
the actual wetland field work is managed by the Corvallis Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory in Oregon.
72
-------
02/27/90
EPA's regulatory authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
is the cornerstone of the Agency's efforts in wetlands protection. The
Section 404 program is jointly administered by EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). EPA has two major functions under
Section 404. The first is to develop guidelines, in cooperation with the
Corps, that serve as the environmental standards that the Corps must
apply when evaluating a permit application for a discharge of dredged
or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands.
These guidelines were first issued in September 1975 and were revised
in December 1980. All future programmatic guidance, interpretations,
and regulations will be developed by EPA with input from the Corps.
Secondly, EPA is authorized to prohibit (veto) or restrict a Corps
permit for a discharge of dredged or fill material in a wetland if it
determines that the proposed discharge will have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishing
areas, wildlife, or recreational areas. EPA is also authorized to identify
areas suitable and/or unsuitable for discharge in advance of any permit
application (advanced identification). Other EPA responsibilities
underSection 404 include determining what areas are wetlands subject
to protection under CWA (jurisdictional authority), defining activities
that may be exempt from permitting (404(0 exemptions), and approv-
ing and overseeing assumption by the states of responsibility for the
Section 404 program.
EPA also has enforcement authority for violations of wetland protec-
tion requirements by some persons who discharge fill material into
wetlands without the necessary permit. EPA has enforcement respon-
sibilities when an unpermitted discharge involves repeat violators or
flagrant violations, where EPA requests a class of cases or a particular
case, or when the Corps recommends that EPA administrative penalty
or action may be warranted.
EPA has recently undertaken new initiatives to provide protection of
wetlands through programs outside the purview of its Section 404
responsibilities. Through these initiatives, EPA is encouraging the
states to incorporate wetland protection measures into existing water
programs such as the NPDES permitting program (water quality
standards and 401 certification), nonpoint source program, advanced
identification, and 305(b) water quality status reports.
EPA is encouraging states to develop a program that fully includes
wetlands in their water quality certification process. OWP, with the
CURRENT ACTIVITIES
RELEVANT TO NEAR
COASTAL WATERS
Section 404 Program
Section 404 Enforcement
NON-SECTION 404 ACTIVITIES
401 Certification and Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands
73
-------
02/27/90
Wetlands Use in Water Quality
Control
support of ORD and OWRS, is supporting several activities to assist
states in the establishment of such a program for wetlands.
Existing numeric water quality criteria which focus primarily on chemi-
cal contamination, are inadequate to address certain impacts to wet-
lands, such as biological and hydrological impacts. Therefore, EPA's
Office of Research and Development has developed a plan for the
development of criteria for wetlands over the next several years.
Development of such criteria will be a long-term effort, and therefore
EPA has encouraged states to make use of the other components of
water quality standards (use classification, antidegradation, and nar-
rative criteria) as a means of providing wetland protection.
A recent survey of state water quality standards revealed that nearly
half of the states did not mention wetlands in their definiiion of "waters
of the United States," and even fewer have developed a use classifica-
tion system for wetlands or designated wetlands for protection under
their antidegradation policy. EPA is encouraging states to include
wetlands in their definition of waters of the United States and is
providing direct assistance and guidance to the states in the application
of water quality standards and, specifically, use classification, narrative
criteria, and antidegradation policies for wetland protection. As part
of this process, the states are also encouraged to initiate or improve
upon existing inventories of wetland resources.
Strong water quality standards forwetlands can provide the states with
the basis for the review of Federal permits and licenses under their
CWA Section 401 certification authority. The potential for use of the
401 certification process for wetland protection and guidance to the
states in its use has been described in the EPA handbook, "Wetlands
and 401 Certification, Opportunities and Guidelines for States and
Eligible Indian Tribes." In this handbook, EPA identified key steps for
states to make 401 certification an effective tool for wetlands protec-
tion. EPA recommends that the states incorporate 401 certification
for wetlands into their water quality management planning process and
integrate wetland resource information with different water manage-
ment programs affecting wetlands (including, coastal zone manage-
ment, nonpoint source and wastewater programs).
OWRS and OWP are developing guidelines providinga framework for
states to incorporate wetlands into their water quality standards.
These guidelines will require states to include wetlands as "waters of
the United States," provide methods to designate wetland uses that
recognize differences in wetland types and function, address some
chemical-specific and narrative biological criteria for wetlands, and
discuss implementation of state antidegradation policies.
EPA has issued guidance on the use of wetlands for municipal was-
tewater treatment and disposal. Numerous studies have indicated that
wetlands are able to provide a high level of wastewater treatment, and
in some areas of the country this has prompted support for wetland
preservation and creation. However, some concern has also been
raised concerning the harmful effects on wetlands of discharges of toxic
74
-------
02/27/90
materials and pathogens. Not all wetlands have a high capacity for
improving water quality and are clearly not appropriate for use in
wastewater treatment. Discharges in these wetlands could potentially
alter the natural chemical and biological properties of the wetland
resulting in the loss of some of the other valuable functions performed
by wetlands, such as their wildlife values and importance as nursery
areas for many commercially and recreationally important fisheries.
Even a wetland well suited for use in wastewater treatment has a limited
capacity to assimilate large volumes and certain types of discharges.
The EPA guidance document describes the requirements for use of
wetlands, both natural and created, for the treatment of municipal
wastewater. The intent of the guidance is to encourage the expansion
of wetland resources through the creation of engineered wetlands
while allowing the use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment
only under limited conditions.
Wetlands can serve an important function in water quality control for
nonpoint source pollution, as well as for point sources. However, the
same concerns regarding the impact of point source impacts on wet-
lands is true for nonpoint sources. Most states failed to address
wetlands in their 319 assessment reports and management plans for
nonpoint source control measures. EPA is, however, encouraging the
states to incorporate wetland issues in their assessment and planning
process. As a first step toward this goal, OWP is providing the Regions
and states with a list of total acreage of their wetlands to serve as a basis
for the states to address wetlands in their 319 assessment and planning
process, both in terms of potential impacts resulting from nonpoint
source pollution and for incorporation in best management practices
for controlling nonpoint sources. OWP is also interested in providing
technical guidance to the Regions and states for identifying those areas
where protection of wetlands can maintain and improve the quality and
quantity of groundwater.
While there is a need to continue monitoring and conducting research
to ensure that wetlands are not adversely affected when they are used
to buffer sources of pollution, it appears that the use of existing and
artificially created wetlands can be a cost-effective means of nonpoint
source control.
Historically, wetlands have been used as dumping sites tor Hazardous
materials and sewage sludge. These activities have had serious impacts
on the wetlands in which they have occurred and also have the potential
for causing impairment of water quality through leachate and storm
water runoff.
EPA is currently considering new initiatives to address the issue of
waste disposal in wetland areas. OWP is conducting a pilot project to
identify Superfund sites that are impacting wetlands. OWP will be
working with the Superfund program to develop a "Superfund Environ-
mental Evaluation Manual" as a technical guide for evaluating ecologi-
cal damage at Superfund sites.
Nonliquid Waste/Sludge Disposal in
Wetlands
75
-------
02/27/90
Advance Identification
305(b) Status Reports
NEW INITIATIVES AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR
NEAR COASTAL WATERS
The concept of advanced identification (ADID) was developed as a
mechanism for EPA to identify, in advance of a permit request, those
wetland areas that are generally suitable or unsuitable for disposal site
specification as well as possible future disposal sites under Section 404.
ADID is addressed in Section 230.80. of the 404(b)(l) guidelines.
ADID is a cooperative program that is conducted jointly by EPA and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the affected
State. Other Federal, State, local, tribal, and private agencies and
organizations are encouraged to participate in the ADID processes.
EPA is now encouraging states to use advanced identification in other
planning areas to assist in identification of wetland areas that serve
important water quality improvement functions (e.g., nonpoint source
control, groundwater recharge), as well as those of particular ecologi-
cal significance that could be identified as outstanding resource waters
requiring the maintenance of water quality according to EPA's regula-
tion on anti-degradation (no degradation for any purpose allowed
except for short-term changes which have no long-term consequen-
ces). The results of advanced identification could also be used by other
government agencies and private organizations as part of their wetland
protection activities. For example, wetlands of high value identified as
unsuitable for disposal of dredged and fill material can be further
protected by State and local authorities by the development of wetland
protection statutes and zoning. Private organizations can purchase
properties or easements to protect the most valuable wetland sites.
EPA encourages the Regional Offices to work with other Office of
Water programs to incorporate advanced identification into their
estuary protection planning and state nonpoint source pollution
management plans. An advanced identification guidance document
has been prepared by OWP and will be available in FY1990.
Most states historically have not reported on wetlands as part of their
305(b) water quality status reports. However, EPA is currently at-
tempting to persuade the states to include wetlands in their 1990
reports. To assist the states in this effort, EPA has included a section
in the 305(b) guidelines on reporting wetland status. The Agency is
asking the states to provide information on wetland acreage, trends in
wetland loss, and wetland management programs.
In January 1989, OWP issued its "Wetlands Action Plan" outlining
some major objectives and steps that EPA has underway or plans to
initiate to strengthen its wetlands protection program. This action plan
was developed in response to a report produced by the National
Wetlands Policy Forum. The forum was convened by the Conservation
Foundation at the request of EPA's Administrator, and was charged
with recommending specific actions that should be taken by all levels
of government and the private sector to protect the nation's wetlands.
76
-------
02/27/90
Most of the new initiatives presented below were identified in the
Wetlands Action Plan.
EPA will examine the following legislative areas and will work with
other agencies and Congress to see that needed changes are made:
Recommendations to improve the water quality and wetlands
protection benefits of farm programs (particularly
Swampbuster and Conservation Reserve programs) in the
reauthorization of the Farm Bill in 1990,
Important legislative issues associated with the Clean Water
Act including: expanding the activities covered by the permit
program; providing adequate incentives for the states to assume
the entire permit program; and providing a statutory framework
for the planning requirements suggested by the National Wet-
lands Policy Forum.
Expansion of the areas set aside under the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (CBRA) to include wetlands and other critical
aquatic habitats, and other undeveloped coastal areas.
As part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) reauthorization process, amendments to improve our
ability to protect wetlands and other waters of the United States
from ecological damages due to discharge of solid waste. EPA
will also explore amendments to the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to allow access to the Super-
fund for the purpose of restoring ecological damages to wet-
lands at Superfund sites.
Recommendations to improve EPA's ability to monitor and
control marine debris.
OWP and the Regional wetland offices are increasing their current
wetland resource planning efforts by providing technical support to the
states and by participating in the actual application of planning ap-
proaches to protect wetlands. These efforts include the following:
Increase the use of EPA Advance Identification; encourage
and, where possible, participate in other wetlands planning
actions across the country.
Provide seed money to test innovative planning approaches for
wetlands. The Administration has requested grant money for
states in FY1990 for state pilots.
Issue Advance Identification (ADID) guidance for EPA
regions and an ADID information "kit" for state and local
governments.
t Conduct case studies evaluating wetlands planning efforts.
Host workshops and training sessions in planning and negotia-
tion, and in river corridor management.
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
PLANNING INITIATIVES
77
-------
02/27/90
INITIATIVES TO INCREASE
STATE/LOCAL ROLE IN
WETLANDS PROTECTION
Initiatives to Improve the Section 404
Program
Use Section 404(c) in advance of individual permit applications
to protect significant aquatic resources which are identified
through the planning processes.
Develop criteria for the design and approval of State Wetlands
Conservation Plans. Provide models for incorporating wet-
lands into geographic specific state and local plans which im-
plement the goals of State Wetlands Conservation Plans.
EPA is working with states to improve application of Section
401 water quality certification to protect wetlands. EPA will
help states assess the impacts of certifying reissued or new
general permits.
The Administration has requested grant money for states in FY
1990 for program development (including studies to prepare for
assumption of Section 404) and program operation for Sections
404 and 401, and other state wetlands protection programs.
EPA will develop regulations and guidance for distributing
these grants.
OWP, along with the ORD and OWRS, will assess how well
current water quality criteria protect wetlands. EPA will
develop short term guidance for the states on developing wet-
land-specific water quality standards. ORD is developing a
long range plan to develop water quality criteria appropriate for
wetlands.
EPA will host regional workshops of EPA/state/local officials,
and increase assistance and information to help slate and local
governments protect their wetlands.
EPA has developed regulations to treat tribes as states under
the Section 404 program.
OMEP will develop an appendix to their National Estuary
Program Primer on protection of ecologically sensitive areas
which will focus on wetlands.
OWP will continue to work with other water programs and the
Office of Solid Waste to help ensure that wetlands are properly
protected in relevant regulatory and nonregulatory programs.
OWP has completed a Memorandum of Agrement with the
Army Corps of Engineers to clarify enforcement roles and
implementation of the new administrative penalty authority.
OWP will conduct enforcement training for our regional field
staffs.
EPA will aggressively enforce against violations of Section 404
by increasing the number of administrative enforcement ac-
tions, and civil and criminal judicial referrals.
EPA will encourage voluntary compliance with the Section 404
program through its public outreach and education efforts.
78
-------
02/27/90
EPA will work with the Corps to reduce gaps in the Section 404
regulatory program by:
Developing a joint definition of fill material;
Addressing the regulation of pilings and placement of
other structures that have the effect of fill;
Clarifying the appropriate application of the Section 404
permit program to discharges involving the removal or ex-
cavation of soil or the destruction of vegetation.
OWP will develop and conduct regulatory course for EPA
regional staff.
OWP will develop regulatory guidance on key provisions of the
Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines and other EPA Section 404
statutory responsibilities including:
Streamline Section 404(c) procedures to restrict or
prohibit the use of sites for the discharge of dredged or
fill material.
t Develop guidance on the application of Section 404(f) ex-
emptions.
OWP will, in conjunction with the Corps, develop guidance
under the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines for determining the
availability of alternatives to a proposed project.
OWP, the Corps, Fish & Wildlife Service, and Soil Conservation
Service recently agreed to a single method for identifying wet-
lands and determining wetland boundaries. The agencies will
issue the joint manual for the method.
These four agencies will develop a training program on the
application of the joint wetlands identification and delineation
methodology.
The interagency group will also work with the Society of Wet-
land Scientists to develop a certification program for applica-
tion of the methodology.
EPA and the Department of the Army signed a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) concerning the determination of mitiga-
tion under the CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines in November,
1989. This MOA is limited to the Section 404 Regulatory
Program and focuses on mitigation requirements for standard
dredge or fill permits. The MOA incorporates the decision
sequencing of avoiding the impact first, then designing ways to
minimize the impact, and finally compensating for unavoidable
impacts. The policy recognizes that there are certain cir-
cumstances where the impacts of the project are so significant
that even if alternatives are not available, the discharge may not
be permitted regardless of the compensatory mitigation
proposed.
In order to ensure a nationally consistent strategy for disposal
of dredged material, OMEP and OWP are developing a
Dredged Material Disposal Strategy Document. The docu-
ment will present the various alternatives and factors to be
considered for each alternative. It will also present a framework
MITIGATION INITIATIVES
79
-------
02/27/90
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
INITIATIVES
INITIATIVES TO ASSESS
CUMULATIVE AND LONG-TERM
IMPACTS
or matrix for reaching a disposal decision for upland and
aquatic (fresh and marine) sites.
OWP will work with the Office of Federal Activities to identify
potential approaches to pursue sound mitigation practices
through EPA's Section 309 Clean Air Act authority to review
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). EPA's EIS reviews
will specifically consider potential wetland impacts and state the
need to avoid, minimize, and finally compensate for un-
avoidable impacts in Section 309 review letters. The Office of
Federal Activities is drafting regional guidance on how to track
the progress of mitigation commitments made in Environmen-
tal Impact Statements.
OWP will work with the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evalua-
tion (OPPE) to both explore existing mitigation banking efforts
and determine acceptable conditions for their implementation.
OWP and OPPE will host a workshop on these issues next year.
The Office of Research and Development is developing a
"Mitigation Handbook" to provide guidelines lo evaluate the
likelihood that a proposed mitigation project will succeed; to
formulate permit conditions or goals for the project; and lo
determine if a project met the goals. OWP will coordinate with
ORD to provide training for EPA regional staff.
Planned projects of OWP and the Regional offices include:
slide shows; poster sessions; wetlands brochures; videos on
wetlands mitigation and creation, general wetlands values and
trends, and key wetland areas; citizen's guide to 404 program;
publishing cases of wetlands planning efforts.
EPA will begin preparations to sponsor a public awareness
effort, "Year of the Wetlands" for 1991 in coordination with
other federal, state, and local agencies and private organiza-
tions.
OWP has drafted Section 404 guidance for enhancing the
protection of bottomland hardwoods which have been severely
depleted through cumulative losses. OWP is addressing com-
ments from the Corps and plans to issue final guidance in 1989.
OWP has completed a pilot test of the cumulative impact
assessment procedure for bottomland hardwood wetlands in
theTensas River Basin in Louisiana. OWP, ORD and Regions
IV and VI have initiated an Advanced Identification effort in
the Pearl River Basin of Mississippi and Louisiana which will
apply this assessment method.
ORD is developing a general assessment method to anticipate
the cumulative ecological effects of wetland loss on landscape
functions and to consider these impacts in the permit process.
80
-------
02/27/90
A draft method is currently being tested and the final methodol-
ogy is scheduled to be completed by 1991.
Planning by ORD is currently underway to develop indicators
to monitor the environmental health of wetland ecosystems and
establish a program in coordination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to track changes over time. These efforts will
focus on the development of biological criteria for wetlands.
OWP is conducting a pilot project to identify Superfund sites
which are located in, or impact, wetlands. OWP will work with
the Superfund program to develop their "Superfund Environ-
mental Evaluation Manual" as technical guidance to evaluate
ecological damage at Superfund sites.
Through its participation in Advance Identification and other
advance planning processes, EPA will encourage and assist in
identifying potential sites for restoring wetlands. EPA will
consider the cumulative impacts of wetland losses within that
watershed when making these recommendations.
EPA will support demonstration projects creating wetlands for
wastewater treatment which could help offset past losses due to
the municipal wastewater construction program. EPA will also
evaluate the creation and restoration of wetlands as a strategy
for managing stormwater runoff in a manner which provides
other wetland functions as well. ORD has requested funding to
evaluate the effectiveness of wetlands constructed for was-
tewater treatment in 1990.
EPA will continue to provide technical support to the Des
Plaines River Wetlands Restoration project to restore wedands
along a stretch of the river. The sites will be used as an outdoor
laboratory to test the potential and limitations of wetlands to
moderate nonpoint and point source pollution.
ORD will conduct its third pilot study comparing created or
restored wetlands with naturally occurring wetlands. Techni-
ques for evaluating specific wetland components will be incor-
porated into a wetlands characterization manual.
The following information is presented to identify guidance docu-
ments, training opportunities, and agency contacts that can be utilized
by state wetland managers in implementing wetland protection
measures and developing a wetland protection/management program.
Wetlands and Water Quality: EPA's Research and Monitoring
Implementation Plan for the Years 1989-1993 (EPA/ORD)
WETLAND RESTORATION
INITIATIVES
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
GUIDANCE/POLICY
DOCUMENTS
81
-------
02/27/90
TRAINING
AGENCY CONTACTS
Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, the Final Report
of the National Wetlands Policy Forum (The Conservation Founda-
tion)
Wetland Evaluation Technique (U,S. Army Corps of Engineer and
U.S. Department of Transportation)
Wetlands: The Corps of Engineers' Administration of the Section 404
Program (United States General Accounting Office)
Advance Identification: Guidance to EPA Regional Offices on the
Use of Advanced Identification Authorities Under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (EPA/OW - in preparation)
Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for
States and Eligible Indian Tribes (EPA/OWP)
Coastal Wetland Management: Strengthening EPA's Role
(EPA/OW)
Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastcwater Treatment
and Disposal (EPA/OMPC)
OW Guidance to Supplement the October 1987 Burdick "Report on
the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal" (EPA/OW)
Wetlands Action Plan: EPA's Short-term Agenda in Response to
Recommendations of the National Wetlands Policy Forum
(EPA/OWP)
Wetlands Protection. EPA Bibliographic Series (EPA/Information
Management and Services Division)
Highlights of Section 404: Federal Regulatory Program to Protect
Waters of the U.S. (EPA/OWP)
Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assess-
ment (305(b) Report)
- Training for Regions and States on environmental plan-
ning/negotiation for protecting wetland resources
- Wetlands workshops for Federal land managers
- Training for state and local technical staff on wetland delinea-
tion
- Training on the Regulatory Program - Section 404 and Enfor-
cements
Wetland Strategies and State Programs Division
JohnMaxted 382-5407
Dianne Fish 382-7071
82
-------
02/27/90
Regulatory Activities Division
Greg Peck 475-8794
Cliff Rader 382-5087
83
-------
02/27/90
84
-------
02/27/90
9. NCW INTEGRATED TRAINING
WORKSHOPS HYPOTHETICAL
CASE STUDY
One purpose of the NCW Integrated Training Workshops is to intro-
duce Headquarters and Regional staff to the broad range of programs
and tools that are available to manage NCWs and to promote using
these tools in a more integrated way. A case study on an estuary is
being prepared to help workshop participants consider how to apply
the programs and tools.
As currently planned, a hypothetical case study will be developed using
information available from the Delaware River Estuary and other
Region III near coastal waters. Additional information and problems
will be added as needed to provide an exercise that encompasses many
of the programs and tools.
The case study will include brief descriptions of the waterbody and its
environmental conditions. Information on land use and discharges to
the waterbody will also be included. Maps will be included that identify
as much of the descriptive information as possible.
Workgroups would convene on the second day of the workshop to
discuss problem solving for the hypothetical case study. Each group
will include a cross-section of program perspectives (e,g., a person
from permits, from criteria and standards, from nonpoint sources, etc.)
led by a workgroup leader. A discussion guide will help direct the
discussion on the hypothetical case study. This will consist of a list of
questions which will be developed with the Region before the
workshop to ensure that the issues of most importance to the region
are discussed. There will be three sessions of the workgroups;
problem assessment
stool identification, and
strategy development.
BACKGROUND
CASE STUDY
Using the Case Study
85
-------
02/27/90
The workgroups will reconvene after each session to share results
midway through the process. The groups wil then be asked to provide
a report to the larger group on the result of their work.
86
-------
02/27/90
APPENDIX: LIST OF
CASE EXAMPLES TO BE
PROVIDED WITH THE
HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY
To complement the information provided during the workshop, brief
descriptions of near coastal water management programs conducted
around the country will be provided with the case study. Topics for
which descriptions are being prepared are listed below.
Puget Sound Contaminated Sediments
Nonpoint Source Best Management Practices in Chesapeake
Bay
Living Resource Criteria for Chesapeake Bay
Wetlands in Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and Chesapeake
Bay
Great Lakes Remediation Plan
Narragansett Bay Pretreatment
304(1) and 319 list development
Puget Sound Urban Bay Action Teams
87
-------
02/27/90
88
------- |