Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of
the Clean Water Act
February 22, 2005
PUBLIC REVIEW
DRAFT
Watershed Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetland, Oceans and Watersheds
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Abbreviations and Acronyms v
Acknowledgments v
I Introduction 6
II Reporting requirements under the clean water act sections 303(d), 305(b), 314 and
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS 9
III Recommended Organization of an Integrated Report 13
Executive Summary 13
Part A Introduction 13
PartB Background Information 15
PartC Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment 17
Part D Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment 24
PartE Public Participation 24
IV Issues Concerning the Development and Use of an Assessment Methodology 26
V Five-Part Categorization of Waters 41
VI Reporting Results 58
Glossary 62
and documentation for defining and linking segments to the National Hydrography
Appendix
A C HECKLIST OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR THE ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
(ADB)
B D ATA ELEMENTS FOR 2006 INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT
AND DOCUMENTATION FOR DEFINING AND LINKING SEGMENTS TO THE NATIONAL HYDROGRAPH
Dataset
iii
-------
TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary of State Reporting Requirements Under CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b) and
314 and Corresponding Regulations 11
3-1 Atlas 16
3-2 Extent of Surface Waters Assigned to Reporting Categories 19
3-3 Reporting Format for the Attainment Results Calculated Using a Probabilistic
Monitoring Design 20
3-4 Waterbody/Pollutants Removed from State's Year 2002 Section 303(d) List 20
3-5 TMDL Development Status 20
3-6 Individual Designated Use Support Summary 22
3-7 Size of Waters Impaired by Causes 22
3-8 Size of Waters Impaired by Sources 23
3-9 Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes 23
3-10 Trends in Lake Water Quality 23
5-1 Recommended water quality indicators for general designated use categories .. 43
6-1 Summary of Water Quality Reporting Elements of an Integrated Report 59
FIGURES
Figure Page
4-1 Using multiple types of data to assess attainment 40
5-1 Integrated Report Categories Flowchart 43
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
3-1 Recommended Organization for Year 2006 Integrated Report Submittals 14
iv
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADB
Assessment Database
CALM
Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology
CCP
Continuing Planning Process
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CWA
Clean Water Act
DQO
Data Quality Objectives
DU
Designated Use
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
FGDC
Federal Geographic Data Committee
GPRA
Government Performance Report Act
IR
Integrated Report
NHD
National Hydrography Database
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSSP
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
ow
Office of Water
PPG
Performance Partnership Grant
PWS
Public Water Supply
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RIT
Reach Indexing Tool
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
STORET
STORage and RETrieval
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WQC
Water Quality Criteria
WQS
Water Quality Standard
Acknowledgments
v
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
I. Introduction
The Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act was developed specifically for the 2006 reporting cycle.
The objective of this document is to provide to States a recommended reporting format and a suggested
content to be used in developing a single document that integrates the reporting requirements of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) and Section 305(b). This guidance for developing the Integrated
Report (IR) reaffirms the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) vision for achieving a broad-scale,
national inventory of water quality conditions. Use of the IR format will serve to report on water quality
standards (WQS) attainment status of assessed waters, document availability of data and information for
each segment, track trends in water quality conditions, and provide information to managers in setting
priorities for future actions to protect and restore the health of our Nation's aquatic resources.
EPA has established as goal that all 56 States and Territories utilize the integrated reporting
format by 2008. EPA continues to promote this comprehensive assessment approach in order to enhance
the States' ability to track both programmatic and environmental goals of the CWA, and ideally, to
increase the pace of achieving these important environmental goals. This document includes
recommendations designed to allow States and other interested stakeholders to track the progress of
interim management actions by employing the multi-category reporting framework. By issuing this
guidance well in advance of the April 1, 2006 deadline for submission of CWA Section 303(d) lists and
Section 305(b) reports, EPA intends to encourage the broadest possible adoption of the Integrated
Reporting approach.
EPA continues to advocate the use of the five-part categorization format for sorting waters (see
box below for brief description of the five categories). While this document is more comprehensive than
previous Integrated Report guidance, there are clarifications to the previous (2004) Integrated Report
guidance. Specifically, this guidance provides:
more clarity on the recommended components of the Integrated Report (Section 305(b), Section
319, use of the Assessment Database [ADB]);
additional clarification on the option to report water quality status of individual segments in more
than one category;
increased emphasis on the use of, and data entry management requirements for ADB;
additional clarification on the reporting of alternatives for achieving water quality standards (i.e.,
Category 4b)
It is important to note that certain components of the recommended format and content for the
2006 IR document are based on requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations (e.g., the
submission of an approvable Section 303(d) list), whereas other components are based on Agency
recommendations. In Section II of this guidance, those components required by the CWA Sections
303(d), 305(b), 314, and the corresponding regulations are identified
In addition to identifying the required components in the 2006 IR submission, this guidance will
indicate the components of the 2006 IR document for which EPA recommends States provide an
opportunity for public review and comment (e.g., the list of impaired waters requiring Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) and the assessment methodology used by the State to develop their IR document).
The ability to sort data by segment, designated use, and water quality standards attainment status
February 2005
6
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
is fundamental to being able to report more detailed information concerning the State's progress toward
attaining their water quality objectives. As described in this guidance, the use of the five-category
approach in concert with the use of ADB should facilitate reporting State, regional, and national progress
in the attainment of water quality objectives. This guidance strongly encourages States to embrace the
use of the ADB and to routinely populate ADB. The ADB can perform key functions that allow the
depiction of status and changes in water quality by segment use and attainment determination. For
example, ADB allows for the:
management of key information about assessments for each defined segment; its designated uses;
the uses assessed, use support status, quality of data, and causes and sources of the impairment;
production of automated queries and reports that summarize data by reporting categories and;
generation of customized reporting queries.
Appendix A contains the data elements EPA recommends States report using the ADB, or an equivalent
relational database, and illustrates the data architecture of the ADB.
Five Reporting Categories
Category 1: All designated uses are met, no use is threatened, and the antidegradation policy is
supported;
Category 2 Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all, of the designated uses
are met;
Category 3: There is insufficient available data and/or information to assess whether a specific
designated use is being met or if the antidegradation policy is supported;
Category 4 Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not met or
is threatened and/or the antidegradation policy is not supported, but a TMDL is not
needed;
Category 5 Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not met or
is threatened and/or the antidegradation policy is not supported, and a TMDL is needed.
February 2005
7
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Integrated Monitoring and Assessment
The Clean Water Act requires states to provide every two years an assessment of the quality of all
their waters (Section 305(b)) and a list of those that are impaired (Section 303(d)). To efficiently
meet this charge, EPA recommends that States, Tribes, and other water quality monitoring
collaborators use a combination of monitoring and assessment techniques to:
1. increase the percentage and types of waters assessed;
2. reliably estimate the overall condition of all waters within a State; assess changes over
time; and measure progress toward the "fishable-swimmable" goal of the Clean Water Act
(Section 305(b));
3. comprehensively identify all impaired and threatened waters to support Section 303(d)
listing requirements; and
4. prioritize site-specific assessments needed to confirm the location of both high quality and
impaired waters, and support control, restoration, and prevention actions.
EPA has strongly encouraged states to use integrated monitoring and assessment techniques. These
include probability-based assessments and other predictive tools, as well as site-specific
assessments. The use of probability assessments can eliminate the risk of generating a biased
picture of water quality conditions statewide and provide a cost-effective bench mark of State water
quality program effectiveness. The probability-based assessment results can also help a State decide
if it should target certain waters for further assessment or if limited resources for water quality
assessment could be used more effectively in other ways. States currently using broad-scale
probability-based assessment to complement their site-specific assessment include VA, SC, KY,
and IN, among others.
February 2005
8
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
II Reporting requirements under the clean water act sections 303(d), 305(b),314 and
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS
EPA strongly encourages States, authorized Tribes, and Interstate Commissions (that prepare
Section 305(b) reports) to submit a single report (the Integrated Report) that satisfies the reporting
requirements of CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314. A summary of States' reporting requirements for
each of these Sections and corresponding regulations is provided below:
Section 303(d) - by April 1 of all even numbered years, a list of impaired and threatened' waters
still requiring TMDLs; identification of the impairing pollutants); and priority ranking of these
waters, including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years.
Section 305(b) - by April 1 of all even numbered years, a description of the water quality of all
waters of the State (including, rivers/stream, lakes, estuaries/oceans and wetlands). States may
also include in their Section 305(b) submittal a description of the nature and extent of
groundwater pollution and recommendations of State plans or programs needed to maintain or
improve groundwater quality.
Section 314 - in each Section 305(b) submittal, an assessment of status and trends of significant
publicly owned lakes including extent of point source and nonpoint source impacts due to toxics,
conventional pollutants, and acidification.
A more detailed description of States' reporting requirements under Sections 305(b), 303(d) and 314 and
corresponding regulations is provided in Table 2-1.
Integrated Reports that satisfy the reporting requirements of Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 also
satisfy the 305(b) reporting requirement for Section 106 grant funds. For States to be eligible for Section
106 grant fluids, Section 106(e)(1) requires that States must have the means to monitor water quality
(surface water and, to the extent practicable, groundwater) and annually update water quality data and
include it in their Section 305(b) submittals. Under Agency policy, EPA will not award any Section 106
funding under a Section 106 grantor a performance partnership grant (PPG) to any State that has not
annually updated its monitoring data and submitted the most recent report required under Section 305(b).
Annual updates to the STORage and RETrieval (STORET) national warehouse satisfy the conditions of
the Section 106(e)(1) annual update for the purposes of receiving Section 106 funds (FY 2001 Clean
Water Act Section 106 Guidance, February 16, 2001
http://www.epa.gov/owm/rmes/sectionl06priorities.pdn.
Integrated Reports that satisfy the reporting requirements of Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
may also be used to satisfy the water quality report requirement for Section 205(j) grant funds. CWA
Section 205(j) requires States to determine the nature, extent, and causes of water quality problems in
1 Threatened waters States may define "threatened waters" in their assessment and listing methodologies.
EPA recommends that States consider as threatened those waters that are currently attaining WQSs, but which are
expected to exceed WQSs by the next listing cycle (every two years). For example, segments should be listed if the
analysis demonstrates a declining trend in a specific water quality criteria (WQC), and the projected trend will result
in a failure to meet a criterion by the date of the next list (i.e., 2006 for purposes of the 2006 assessment cycle); or,
segments should be listed if there are proposed activities that will result in WQSs exceedances.
February 2005
9
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
various areas of the State and interstate region, and report on these annually. CWA regulations provide
that in the years in which it is prepared, the Section 305(b) report satisfies the requirement for the annual
water quality report under Section 205(j)- Furthermore, in years when the Section 305(b) report is not
required, the State may satisfy the annual Section 205(j) report requirement by certifying that the most
recently submitted Section 305(b) report is current or by supplying an update of the sections of the most
recently submitted Section 305(b) report which require updating (40 CFR Part 130.8(d)).
February 2005
10
-------
Table 2-1. Summary of State Reporting Requirements Under CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b) and
314 and Corresponding Regulations
Authority
State Reporting Requirement
CWA Section 303(d);
40 CFR Part 130.7
By April 1 of all even numbered years, States must submit to EPA the
following information:
A list of water quality-limited (impaired and threatened) waters still
requiring TMDL(s), pollutants causing the impairment and priority
ranking for TMDL development (including waters targeted for TMDL
development within the next two years).
A description of the methodology used to develop the list.
A description of the data and information used to identify waters,
including a description of the existing and readily available data and
information used.
A rationale for any decision to not use any existing and readily available
data and information.
Any other reasonable information requested by EPA, such as
demonstrating good cause for not including a water or waters on the list.
CWA Section 305(b);
40 CFR Part 130.8
By April 1 of all even numbered years, States must submit to EPA the
following information:
A description of the water quality of all waters in the state and the extent
to which the quality of waters provides for the protection and propagation
of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows
recreational activities in and on the water.
An estimate of the extent to which CWA control programs have
improved water quality or will improve water quality, and
recommendations for future actions necessary and identifications of
waters needing action.
An estimate of the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits
needed to achieve the objectives of the CWA and an estimate of the date
of such achievement.
A description of the nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution and
recommendations of programs needed to control each category of
nonpoint sources, including an estimate of implementation costs.
An assessment of the water quality of all publicly owned lakes, including
the status and trends of such water quality as specified in Section
314(a)(1) of the CWA fsee below for additional information!.
February 2005
11
-------
Table 2-1. Summary of State Reporting Requirements Under CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b) and
314 and Corresponding Regulations (Continued)
Authority
State Reporting Requirement
CWA Section 314
States must submit the following information in their Section 305(b) reports:
An identification and classification according to eutrophic condition of
all publicly owned lakes in such State.
A description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use
requirements), to control sources of pollution of such lakes.
A description of methods and procedures, in conjunction with
appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes.
Methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of high acidity,
including innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring buffering
capacity of lakes and methods of removing from lakes toxic metals and
other toxic substances mobilized by high acidity.
A list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such State for
which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes which are
known not to meet applicable water quality standards or which require
implementation of control programs to maintain compliance with
applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has
deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid
deposition.
An assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes in such
State, including but not limited to, the nature and extent of pollution
loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to which the use
of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly with respect
to toxic nollntion
February 2005
12
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
III. Recommended Organization of an Integrated Report
As States transition from reporting water quality results under separate documents (e.g., Section
305(b) reports and Section 303(d) lists) to reporting under a single Integrated Report, it would be helpful
to use a common organizational structure and method of reporting water quality results so that members
of the public can more easily review reports and lists from different States. EPA's recommended
organization for States' Integrated Report submittals is provided in Exhibit 3-1.
An annotated version of Exhibit 3-1 constitutes the remainder of Section III. The recommended
structure and content for an IR are based, in large part, on EPA's 1997 guidelines2 for CWA Section
305(b) reports. Hence, States should consult EPA's 1997 guidelines for further details when needed.
Please note, several subsections of the recommended organization ask States to report on the
extent, or size of waters (e.g., river/stream miles, lake acres, etc). EPA recommends the use of the
National Hydrography Database (NHD) for determining these measurements. Additional information on
the NHD is available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/geore&nhd.htm.
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary should highlight the report's major points of information, conclusions
and recommendation. States should include in this section a summary of the overall water quality
(surface water and groundwater) in the State, description of the causes and sources of water quality
impairments, summary of the plan showing how the State/Tribe will achieve comprehensive coverage of
its waters, discussion of the programs to correct impairments and discussion of the general changes or
trends in water quality.
In the summary of overall water quality status for surface waters, States may include the tables
requested in Section C3 (Assessment Results). States are also encouraged to include in this section
summary maps that depict water quality status information.
Part A. Introduction
The Introduction should include a narrative discussion which defines the purpose and contents of
the 2006 Integrated Report. The Introduction may include a rationale for why the State has chosen to
streamline their reporting of water quality status (i.e., the results of placing segments into the five
categories) and trends. The State may choose to explain why the use of this new reporting format will
serve as a better mechanism to integrate CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 efforts in the State. The
State may also choose to discuss how this Integrated Reporting format will clarify the complementary
roles of predictive tools (e.g., probability-based monitoring designs, models, and remote-sensing) and
site-specific monitoring to assess water quality conditions.
States may also describe in the Introduction how they are ensuring the development of an
integrated database of site-specific assessment findings that reflect the status of water quality standards
attainment. Specifically, the Introduction may discuss how the State may increase the amount of
2
Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water 'quality Assessments (305(b1 Reports') and
Electronic Updates: Report Contents: Office of Water, US EPA; EPA-841-B-97-002a, September 1997.
February 2005
13
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
assessment information that is geo-referenced and transmitted electronically through the ADB or a
compatible data exchange format
Exhibit 3-1
Recommended Organization for Year 2006 Integrated Report Submittals
Executive Summary
Part A.
Introduction
Part B.
Background
Bl. Total Waters
B2. Water Pollution Control Program
B3. Cost/Benefit Assessment
B4. Special State Concerns and Recommendations
Part C.
S urface Water Monitoring and Assessment
CI. Monitoring Program
C2. Assessment Methodology
C3. Assessment Results
C4. Wetlands Program
C5. Trends Analysis for Surface Waters
C6. Public Health Issues
Part D.
Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment
Part E.
Public Participation
February 2005
14
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Part B. Background Information
The Background section should include a description.of total waters in the State, a description of
the State's water pollution control program, a cost/benefit analysis of actions necessary to achieve the
objective of the CWA, and any special State concerns and recommendations.
B.l Total Waters
To put the report into perspective for the reader, the State should provide a brief water resource
overview, as shown in Table 3-1 (atlas). The atlas should include a reference for the water resource
information provided. States are also encouraged to include summary maps of water resource
information in this subsection.
B.2 Water Pollution Control Program
The State should provide a description of its approach to water quality management, including
overviews of any watershed-based programs; the WQSs program; the point source control program; the
nonpoint source control program; the TMDL program, and; program coordination with other State,
Tribal, and local agencies. States may also choose to highlight atmospheric deposition reduction
strategies in this subsection. As shown in Table 2-1, CWA Section 305(b) and EPA's implementing
regulations requires States to provide the following information about their water pollution control
programs:
An estimate of the extent to which CWA control programs have improved water quality or
will improve water quality, and recommendations for future actions necessary and
identifications of waters needing action.
A description of the nature and extent of nonpoint source pollution and recommendations of
programs needed to control each category of nonpoint sources, including an estimate of
implementation costs.
B.3 Cost/Benefit Assessment
As shown in Table 2-1, CWA Section 305(b) (and associated regulations) also requires
States to provide an estimate of the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits
needed to achieve the objectives of the CWA and an estimate of the date of such achievement.
EPA recognizes that this information may be difficult to obtain due to the complexities of the economic
analysis involved. Until such time as comparable procedures for evaluation costs and benefits are in
wider use, States should provide as much of the following information as possible.
For costs, EPA asks that States provide information on capital investments in municipal and
industrial facilities, investments in nonpoint source measures, annual operation and maintenance costs of
municipal and industrial facilities, total annual costs of municipal and industrial facilities, and annual
costs to States and local governments to administer water pollution control activities.
For benefits, EPA asks that States provide information on improvements in recreational and
commercial fishing; extent of stream miles, lakes acres, etc., improved from impaired to meeting WQSs;
reduced costs of drinking water treatment due to cleaner intake water; and increase in use of beaches and
recreational boating due to improved water quality.
February 2005
15
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Table 3-1. Atlas
Topic'
Value
Scale"
Source'
State Population
N/A
N/A
Total Miles of River and Streams
. Miles of perennial rivers/streams (subset)
. Miles of intermittent (nonperennial) streams
(subset)
. Miles of ditches and canals (subset)
. Border miles of shared rivers/streams (subset)
Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds'1
. Number of significant publicly owned
lakes/reservoirs/ponds (subset)
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds
. Acres of significant publicly owned
lakes/reservoir/ponds (subset)
Square Miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Miles of Ocean Coast
Acres of Freshwater Wetlands
Acres of Tidal Wetlands
Notes:
N/A Not applicable
ป State may add categories to the atlas table to reflect special areas of interest (such as, acres of
playas; acres of riparian areas outside of wetlands; and miles of streams and acres of lakes on
Tribal lands).
b State should specify the scale (e.g., 1:100,000; 1:24,000) in this column.
c States should specify the source (e.g., NHD, USGS quad maps, state inventory) in this column.
d Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic behavior, either as stream
channel miles under rivers or as total surface acreage under lakes/reservoirs/ponds, but not under
both categories. In general, impoundments should be reported as lakes/reservoirs/ponds unless
they are run-of-river impoundments with very short retention times.
February 2005
16
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
B.4 Special State Concerns and Recommendations
In this subsection, States should (1) discuss special concerns that are significant issues within the
State and that affect its water quality programs and (2) provide recommendations for actions that are
necessary to achieve the objectives of the CWA.
Part C. Surface water monitoring and assessment
The Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment section should include a description of the
State's monitoring program, a description of the assessment methodology for classifying all surface
waters, assessment results, a description of the State's wetlands program, an analysis of surface water
quality trends, and information on public health issues.
C.l Monitoring Program
This subsection should include a description (or reference relevant documents) of the following
elements of the State's monitoring program:
Monitoring Program Strategy
Monitoring Objectives
Monitoring Design
Core and Supplemental Indicators
Quality Assurance
Data Management
Data Analysis/Assessment
Reporting
Programmatic Evaluation
General Support and Infrastructure Planning
EPA expects that States will develop, over time, a monitoring program that addresses the 10 elements
listed above. The first of these elements (monitoring program strategy) is currently under development
by States and will include a timeline to complete implementation of all 10 elements by 2014. Additional,
guidance on these elements is available in EPA's Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program (US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; EPA 841-B-03-003; March 2003).
As shown in Table 2-1, CWA Section 305(b) and EPA's implementing regulations require
States to provide a description of the water quality of all waters of the United States and the extent to
which the quality of waters provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water. As a result, EPA and
the States have established a long-term goal of comprehensively characterizing surface waters of each
State using a variety of techniques. These techniques may include traditional targeted monitoring,
probability-based monitoring surveys, targeted site-specific monitoring, landscape and water quality
models, and remote sensing. States should include a description of their approach to comprehensive
assessment in this subsection.
States should also include in this subsection a schedule that identifies the waters that will be
monitored and assessed during the next two-year reporting cycle. EPA does not expect that all waters
will be scheduled for monitoring during the next two-year reporting cycle. This short-term monitoring
February 2005
17
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
schedule should be consistent with the State's monitoring priorities. The short-term monitoring schedule
may present upcoming monitoring activities planned under the long-term strategy, including the use of
probability-based monitoring, landscape and water quality models, and targeted monitoring to predict and
verify water quality conditions. EPA intends that the monitoring schedule will inform stakeholders and
EPA of a State's upcoming monitoring activities and will help promote collaboration and coordination
among monitoring organizations.
C.2 Assessment Methodology
This subsection should include a description (or reference applicable document) of the State's
methodology for assessing the water quality attainment status of all waters in the State. The assessment
methodology should be consistent with the State's WQSs and include a description of the following as
part of their Section 303(d) list submissions:
What data and information was used to make attainment determinations (e.g., results from site-
specific and probabilistic monitoring and other predictive tools);
How the data and information were used to make attainment determinations and place waters in
EPA's five reporting categories;
Rationales for any decision to not use any existing and readily available data and information;
Changes in the assessment methodology since the last reporting cycle.
As shown in Table 2-1, assessment methodologies that include the information listed above also
satisfy the State's requirements under CWA Section 303(d) (and associated regulations) to provide the
following information: (1) a description of the methodology used to develop the Section 303(d) list
(Category 5 of EPA's five reporting categories), (2) a description of the data and information used to
identify [impaired and threatened] waters, including a description of the existing and readily available
data and information used, and (3) a rationale for any decision to not use any existing and readily
available data and information.
Additional information on development/use of an assessment methodology and EPA's five
reporting categories is provided in Sections IV and V of this guidance, respectively.
C.3 Assessment Results
This subsection should present the results of the State's surface water assessments, including the
five-part categorization of all surface waters, probability-based survey results, the Section 303(d) list, and
State-level summaries of designated use support and causes/sources of water quality impairments. In
addition, States should satisfy CWA Section 314 (Lakes Program) reporting requirements in this
subsection.
Additional information on these reporting elements is provided below. How States organize the
presentation of their assessment results in hard-copy format is left to their discretion. For example,
States could present their assessment results by waterbody type (rivers/streams, lakes/ponds,
estuaries/oceans, and wetlands).
Five-Part Categorization of Surface Waters
States should assign all of their surface waters to one or more of the five reporting categories
February 2005
18
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
presented in Section V of this guidance. States should also include a summary of the extent of surface
waters assigned to each reporting category as shown in the Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Extent* of Surface Waters Assigned to Reporting Categories
Waterbody Type
Category
Total Waters
in State
Total Waters
Assessed
1
2
3
4
5
River/stream miles
Lake/pond acres
Estuarine square miles
Ocean coast miles
Freshwater wetland acres
Tidal wetland acres
Note:
> For States that are placing surface waters in more than one reporting category, the addition of the
extent of surface waters assigned to the five reporting categories will not likely equal the total extent
of waters for each waterbody type. In such cases, EPA recommends that States provide a statement
in the IR that clarifies the discrepancy.
Results of Probability-based Surveys
States should report the results of probability-based surveys as shown in Table 3-3 and described in
Appendix B. EPA is working on a supplemental module to the ADB for transmitting the results of
probability surveys. Reporting the results is particularly important because probability-based surveys
allow States to report on the condition of the entire population of waters (e.g., coastal waters, rivers and
streams, estuaries, etc.) included in the design. Site-specific assessment results will not result in an
assessment of all waters, unless the State is able to implement a census.
Section 303(d) List
As shown in Table 2-1, EPA regulations require States to submit the following information as
part of their Section 303(d) list submission:
A list of water quality-limited (impaired and threatened) waters still requiring TMDL(s) [waters
assigned to Category 5], pollutants causing the impairment and priority ranking for TMDL
development (including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years).
Any other reasonable information requested by EPA, such as demonstrating good cause for not
including a water or waters on the list
States should also highlight in this subsection those waterbody/pollutant combinations that have
been either added or removed since the last reporting cycle and "good cause" for each delisting.
Although States are not required to provide "good cause" for each delisting prior to receiving a formal
request from EPA, States are encouraged to do so. Table 3-4 provides a recommended format for
summarizing this information. Detailed justifications for removing waters from previous Section 303(d)
list should be provided in the record of decision for the listing cycle the water is proposed for removal.
States may also report on the status of their TMDL development providing information such as
that found in Table 3-5 in this subsection or in the discussion of their Water Pollution Control Program
(Section B.2).
February 2005
19
-------
Table 3-3. Reporting Format for the Attainment Results Calculated Using a Probabilistic
Project ID
STX 1
Project Name
Downstate Sample Survey
Target Population
All streams ordered 4 or
greater in basins C and D
Type
River
Size
100
Units
Miles
Designated use
Aquatic life
Percent attaining
75%
Percent not__attaining
25%
Indicator
Biological
Assmt date
20000201
Precision
90%
Confidence
ฑ15%
Table 3-4. Water body/Pollutants Removed from State's Year 2002 Section 303(d) List
Segment/
Pollutant
Combination
on Year 2002
Section 303(d)
List
Segment
(Waterbody
) ID
Summary* Justification for
Delisting of Water/Pollutant
{identify number of reason)
1. State determines water quality standard is being
met
2. Flaws in original listing.
3. Other point source or nonpoint source controls
4. Impairment due to non-pollutant.
5. EPA approval of TMDL
6. Waterbody not in state's jurisdiction
7. Other
Note:
* Detailed justifications for removing waters from previous Section 303(d) list should be
provided in the record of decision for the listing cycle the water is proposed for removal.
Table 3-5. TMDL Development Status
Segment/Pollutant
Combination
Segment ID
Project Status
Projected TMDL
Submittal Date
February 2005
20
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
State Summaries of Designated Use Support
The State should provide designated use support summaries for each waterbody type, as shown
in Table 3-6. EPA recognizes that States may have site-specific results, as well as, results of
probability-based survey. When both types of data are available, the State should provide separate
designated use summaries for each data type. States should include in Table 3-6 values for designated
use categories (e.g., aquatic life, fish consumption, shellfishing, swimming, secondary contact, drinking
water, agricultural, cultural ceremonial, etc.). States should also include State-level summaries of causes
and sources (when possible) of impaired waters as shown in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, respectively.
CWA Section 314 (Qean Lakes Program)
As shown in Table 2-1, States are required to submit the following information about the status
of publicly owned lakes:
1. An identification and classification according to eutrophic condition of all publicly owned
lakes in such State.
2. A description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use requirements), to
control sources ofpollution of such lakes
3. A description of methods and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate Federal
agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes
4. Methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of high acidity, including
innovative methods of neutralizing and restoring buffering capacity of lakes and methods of
removing from lakes toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilted by high acidity
5. A list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such State for which uses are known
to be impaired, including those lakes which are known not to meet applicable water quality
standards or which require implementation of control programs to maintain compliance
with applicable standards and those lakes in which water quality has deteriorated as a
result of high acidity that may reasonably be due to acid deposition
6. An assessment of the status and trends of water quality in lakes in such State, including but
not limited to, the nature and extent ofpollution loading from point and nonpoint sources
and the extent to which the use of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution,
particularly with respect to toxic pollution.
Table 3-9 provides a recommended format for reporting on the trophic status of significant
publicly owned lakes. States satisfy the requirement to provide a list of publicly owned lakes that are
known to be impaired by placing such waters in Category 5 and including them on the Section 303(d)
list. Table 3-10 provides a recommended format for reporting on trends in Lake Water quality. States
may satisfy the requirement to provide a trend analysis of water quality in lakes in this subsection or in
Trend Analysis for Surface Waters (Section C.5).
February 2005
21
-------
Table 3-6. Individual Designated Use Support Summary (One Table for Each Waterbody Type)
Clean Water
Act Goals
Designated use
size"
Total
Waters in
State
size
Assessed
Size
Fully Supporting
- Attaining WQ
Standards
Size
Not Supporting
- Not Attaining
WQ Standards
size
Insufficient
Data and
Information
Protect &
Enhance
Ecosystems
Aquatic Life
State Defined
1.
2.
Protect &
Enhance
Public Health
Fish Consumption
Shell fishing
Swimming
Secondary Contact
Drinking Water
State Defined
1.
2.
Social &
Economic
Agricultural Industrial
Cultural or Ceremonial
State Defined
1.
2.
Table 3-7. Size of Waters Impaired by Causes (One Table for Each Waterbody Type)
Cause/Impairment Type (Examples) from ADB
Size of Waters Impaired
Phosphorus
Pesticides
Priority Organics
Nonpriority Organics
PCBs
Dioxins
Metals
-
Ammonia
Temperature
PH
Cause/Stressor Unknown
Etc.
February 2005
22
-------
Table 3-8. Size of Waters Impaired by Sources (One Table for Each Waterbody Type)
Source Category (Examples) from ADB
Size Impaired
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Combined Sewer Overflows
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Hydromodification
Atmospheric Deposition
Unknown Source
Natural - Wildlife?
Etc.
Table 3-9. Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes
Description
Number of Lakes
Acres of Lakes
Total in state
Assessed
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Dystrophic
I Inlcnown
Table 3-10. Trends in Lake Water Quality
Description
Number of Lakes
Acres of Lakes
Assessed For Trends
Improving
Stable
Degrading
Fluctuating
Trend unknown
February 2005
23
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
C.4 Wetlands Program
States may dedicate a section of their Integrated Report to providing a description of their
wetlands program if not already covered in another section of the Report. This section could include
information on development of wetland water quality standards, extent of wetland resources, integrity of
wetlands resources, and wetland protection activities.
C.5 Trend Analysis for Surface Waters
As discussed in Section C.3, States are required under CWA Section 314 to report on lake water
quality trends. In addition to lake trends, States may also report on water quality trends for other surface
waters in this section of the Integrated Report. To enhance States' and EPA's capability to perform
water quality trend analyses, States should routinely and comprehensively update STORET and ADB.
C.6 Public Health Issues
In this subsection, States should provide information on public health issues, including
information on their programs related to drinking water supplies, beach use, and fish/shellfish advisories.
For drinking water programs, States should highlight the following information:
1. Total miles of rivers/streams and acres of lakes/reservoirs designated for drinking water use.
2. For waters designated for drinking water use, miles of rivers/streams and acres of
lakes/reservoirs assigned to each of the five reporting categories.
3. Summary of the methodologies used to perform drinking water use assessments under the
Clean Water Act, including the contaminants chosen for assessment and the rationale for
their selection. Note, states may reference their assessment methodology for this
information.
4. Identification and extent of impaired miles of rivers/streams and impaired acres of
lakes/reservoirs that overlap source water areas of community water systems as delineated by
States under SDWA Section 1453.
Part D. Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment
As discussed in Section II of this guidance, for States to be eligible for Section 106 grant funds,
Section 106(e)(1) requires that States must have the means to monitor water quality (surface water and,
to the extent practicable, groundwater) and annually update water quality data and include it in their
Section 305(b) submittals. In this section, States should include a summary of their ground water
monitoring and protection programs, groundwater quality, groundwater contaminations sources, and
groundwater-surface water interactions.
Part E. Public Participation
EPA regulations require States to describe in their Continuing Planning Processes the process for
involving the public and other stakeholders in the development of the Section 303(d) list. 40 CFR
130.7(a). While EPA recognizes that a formal EPA approval or disapproval action is made only for
waters placed in Category 5, EPA encourages the State to provide opportunities for public participation
February 2005
24
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
in the development of the Integrated Report and demonstrate how it considered public comments in its
final decisions. EPA also encourages States to make the assessment methodology available to the public
during the public comment period.
States should respond to commenters by either sending a response letter and/or by sending a copy
of the responsiveness summary. States should submit to EPA at the time of the Integrated Report
submittal a copy of all comment letters, e-mail, etc., received from the public and a responsiveness
summary addressing all comments. The responses should provide enough detail to clearly explain how
the State considered the comment and whether and how the placement of waters in the five categories
changed in response to the comment.
If the State received comments on a particular issue that opposes or questions the State's
decisions, the Regions should determine whether those comments are adequately addressed in the State's
comment response document. If the Region agrees with the State's substantive decision, but believes that
the State's comment response is inadequate, the Region can work with the State to supplement its
response even after the formal submission is made (but prior to the Region's approval or disapproval
action). If the State is unwilling or unable to supplement the State's responses, the Region should address
the issue in its decision document or elsewhere in the administrative record. Where the recommended
language indicates that the Region needs to provide a case-specific explanation or rationale, the Region's
explanation or rationale will become particularly important where public comments have been received.
February 2005
25
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
IV. Issues Concerning the Development and Use of an Assessment Methodology
A. What constitutes an assessment methodology?
EPA's regulations (40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(i)) require States to submit a description of the
methodology used to develop the Section 303(d) list of waters. EPA also requests that States provide,
with their IR submission to EPA, a copy of the methodology itself.
The assessment methodology constitutes the decision process (including principles of science,
statistics and logic used in interpreting data and information relevant to waterbody conditions) that a
State employs to determine to which of the five Integrated Report categories a water belongs.
Methodologies must be consistent with applicable WQSs (including designated uses, narrative and
numeric criteria, and antidegradation requirements). They should also be consistent with sound science
and statistics.
The methodology should: 1) explain how the State identifies, considers (evaluates) all existing
and readily available data and information; 2) articulate the basics of the quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) criteria used to screen data submitted by outside entities to determine what is valid; and
(3) explain the analytical approaches, including statistical analyses, used to infer true waterbody
conditions from all valid existing and readily available information. EPA believes that the methodology
is the key to improving the scientific validity of State categorizations of water quality. The decision
processes the States describe in the methodology should provide all stakeholders with the opportunity to
understand exactly how assessment decisions are made. Prior to submission of its Integrated Report,
each State should provide the public with the opportunity to review and comment on the methodology,
consistent with their continuing planning process (CPP), public participation policies, and monitoring
strategies.
B. What will EPA do with the methodology?
Unless a State adopts a methodology as part of its WQSs, EPA will consider, but not necessarily
employ, the methodology as part of EPA's review and approval or disapproval of the Section 303(d) list
(Category 5 waters in a State's Integrated Report). The primary consideration for the methodology
should be ensuring that it is developed and will be applied in a manner that is consistent with the State's
WQSs. If the methodology is not part of the State's WQS, EPA will base its decision approving the list
on the underlying WQS, applying only those parts of the State's methodology that EPA believes are
consistent with the State's WQSs, as well as scientifically sound and practicable. If EPA believes a
State's application of its methodology resulted in some waters that fail to meet applicable WQSs not
being included on the Section 303(d) list (Category 5 ofIRs), EPA may disapprove the State's
submission for failure to include such waters on the list. Failure by a State to provide a reasonable and
scientifically defensible rationale for a listing methodology, or for a decision not to use particular data or
information, may result in partial disapproval of the list for failure to include waters in Category 5, and
potential additions of waters to the Section 303(d) list by EPA.
EPA strongly encourages States to submit their draft and final methodologies to EPA for review
and comment (but not formal approval), well in advance of any deadline the State sets for submission of
data and information by parties or persons other than the State water quality agency. EPA's comments on
the methodology will focus on how decisions to place a water in a particular category are consistent with
the State's WQSs, as well as the reasonableness of the selected analytical approaches. EPA believes that
February 2005
26
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
understanding, in advance of EPA review of the Section 303(d) list, how the methodology was
employed to categorize all waters will assist EPA in making an informed decision as to whether
Category 5 properly identifies impaired waters. Also, the comments EPA provides regarding a State's
draft methodology could be useful in shaping the State's final methodology, and EPA's comments on the
final methodology could affect how the State employs the methodology.
As discussed in Part E of Section 111, EPA also encourages States to make the assessment
methodology available to the public during the public comment period for the report. EPA will give
greater deference to States with such reviewed methodologies. Specifically, including the assessment
methodology with the report during the public comment period should reduce the number of public
comments on the State's assessment determinations and thus facilitate EPA's review and approval of the
State's submittal.
C. Data Assembly
40 CFR Section 130.7(b)(5) states that "Each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and
readily available water quality related data and information to develop the list."
States should solicit data and information including, but not limited to, the types listed below:
observed effects (see glossary)
closures, restrictions anchor advisories applicable to swimming, fish consumption, and
drinking water
violations of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards
waterbody-specific ambient monitoring-chemical, physical, and/or biological
large-scale probabilistic monitoring designs
simple dilution calculations
predictive (simulation) modeling,
landscape analysis
remote sensing
complaints and comments from the public
To the extent practicable, such types of data and information should be drawn from existing
compilations of information regarding water quality, including, but not limited to:
publicly-available databases (e.g., STORET)
source water assessments per the Safe Drinking Water Act
monitoring information from pesticides registrations
watershed plans and other kinds of water quality or natural resource management plans
Superfund Records of Decision
reports prepared pursuant to Sections 305(b), 303(d), 314, and 319 of the CWA
Such types of data and information should also be solicited from a wide variety of organizations and
individuals, such as:
other State agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Agriculture Departments
Federal agencies, including EPA, USGS, NOAA, USDA, and USFWS
local governments
February 2005
27
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
drinking water utilities and state agencies responsible for SDWA implementation
universities and other research institutions
environmental consulting firms
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees
conservation/environmental organizations
outdoor recreation organizations
citizen monitoring groups
EPA regulations provide that States "actively solicit" organizations and individuals such as those
listed above. See 40 CFR 130.7(b)(5)(iii). EPA considers active solicitation as notifying local, State,
and Federal agencies, members of the public, and academic institutions that the State is seeking water
quality related data and information for the purpose of developing the Integrated Report, through notices
in the State Register, notices or announcements in appropriate local or trade papers, direct mailings to
members of the public that have previously submitted public comments or other interested parties on the
state's mailing list, or announcements and requests for data at appropriate public meetings or
informational meetings. EPA recommends that States also request such data and information via letters
sent to other State agencies, Federal agencies and academic institutions that may have data/information.
If the State has specifications for data and information, these specifications should be included in
any requests for information. Such solicitations also should include any State cut-off date for receiving
data and any other State requirements for the data and information.
To facilitate the timely completion of a draft list that can be distributed for public review and
comment, States may set a reasonable "cut-off date after which no additional data or information will be
considered in the preparation of the Section 303(d) submission. If a State institutes a cutoff date for data
submission, prior to establishing a draft list, there should be a separate data solicitation step prior to list
compilation that is widely advertised, is clearly established in the State's procedures and is otherwise
consistent with data solicitation guidance in this document.
EPA recommends that States provide a draft list for comment at the same time as the solicitation
for additional data with the cutoff date for any submission of additional data at the end of the comment
period. Under this scenario, the State would compile the preliminary list using all information it has at
hand based on identified data sources. Additional data submissions during the public comment period
would then be reviewed for acceptance criteria and appropriate changes to the draft list would be made
based on these new data or information. The data that is not considered for this submission because it is
not available as of the cutoff date should be considered in developing the next Section 303(d)
submission.
If the State intends to limit its assessment to data and information available prior to a certain
cutoff date the State should clearly explain that this is the only opportunity for the public to provide data
and information for the current assessment cycle, and that data submitted after that cutoff date would be
considered during the next listing cycle. States should provide a mechanism for an exception to the limit
for the submission of data if the submitter can demonstrate that the data were readily available prior to
the data cutoff date and should have been included in any reasonably diligent state review of data. EPA
will generally limit its review of a State listing submission to the data and information assembled by the
State prior to the data cutoff date if the State was reasonably diligent in assembling available data and
information and soliciting data and information from the public. Also, the date itself should not be
unreasonably early, taking into account the list development schedule.
February 2005
28
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
EPA is aware that many States have turned to the rotating basin strategy as an alternative but
technically sound approach for making assessment determinations of the State's waters. In this approach,
the available monitoring resources are concentrated or targeted in one portion of the State for a specified
period of time, thus allowing for data to be collected and assessed in a spatially and temporally
"focused" manner. Over time, every portion of the state is targeted for this "higher" resolution
monitoring and assessment effort (often over a five-year period).
While EPA endorses the rotating basin approach, States are expected to actively solicit data and
information on a State-wide basis for all waters within their jurisdiction. Additionally, EPA expects that
the State will consider all existing and readily available data and information during the development of
its 2006 Integrated Report, regardless of where in the State the data and information were generated.
The State should make reasonable efforts to obtain and consider sources of data and information
not provided by commenters. If particular data/information referenced in the public comments are not
provided, EPA expects States to make a reasonable effort to secure the data. Solicitation requests should
note that at a minimum commenters should provide as much information as possible in order for the State
to be able to obtain the data or information, and again emphasize any State criteria for considering and
prioritizing data sets.
D. How should the methodology describe data and information expectations?
1. Data Quality Considerations
All existing and readily available data and information must be considered but, not necessarily
used, to make an assessment decision during the reporting process. A State must evaluate all existing
and readily available data and information, to establish whether it should be used in attempting to make a
WQS attainment status determinations. A State may carry out this analysis by applying reasonable and
scientifically sound data screening requirements. Such screening protocols should strike a balance
between: (1) meeting the very highest possible levels of data quality, and (2) obtaining useful
information about the condition of as many waterbodies as possible. These protocols should recognize
both the limitations of current data collection and analytic techniques and the limited amounts of
resources available for waterbody monitoring and other forms of assessment.
Such protocols/screening criteria would include typical elements of a quality assurance project
plan (QAPP). Examples of such elements include a description of the methods used to collect the data in
the field, a description of the methods to assure proper handling and "chain of custody" of the samples
during transport to the laboratory, documentation of the laboratory methods used to perform the analysis
of samples, and a description of any independent audits to verify the consistency of the data.
In their articulation of QA/QC expectations for data and information submitted by others, States
should describe the types and amount of metadata that should be provided along with specific sets of data
and information. If an outside entity fails to provide necessary metadata along with submitted data and
information, the State should attempt to obtain the metadata from the data-submitting organization
before concluding that the data and information should not be used in making a WQS attainment status
determination, simply due to lack of metadata.
February 2005
29
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Data quality criteria should be published along with any solicitations of data and information.
Ideally, such QA/QC protocols should be made available to the public well in advance of any such
solicitation for any given IR reporting cycle.
In addition to articulating their data screening criteria, EPA recommends that States work with
data-generating organizations not only during the period of time just before the Integrated Report
development, but on a more continual basis, to help ensure their data are collected and stored in such a
way that the data will be meet the State's QA/QC specifications. States may wish to encourage such
organizations to develop QAPPs and submit them to the State for review and comment, and even perhaps
formal approval by the State. A State may elect to employ a rebuttable presumption that data and
information submitted by organizations with a state-approved QAPP meets the State's QA/QC standards.
Lack of a State-approved QAPP should not, however, be used as the basis for summarily rejecting data
and information submitted by such organizations, regardless of the actual QA/QC protocols employed
during the gathering, storage, and analysis of these data.
2. Data Representativeness Considerations
The representativeness of data and information should be considered.by States as they attempt to
characterize the temporal and spatial variability of conditions of any water. The degree of accuracy of
any WQS attainment status determination generally increases as the amount of data and information
grows. However, due to current limitations in resources available for assessing water quality, WQS
attainment status determinations must usually be made based upon a limited number of "snapshots" of
information - samples, collected from a small number of locations within a water on relatively few
occasions.
State methodologies should spell out the decision process which will be used to determine the
temporal and spatial extent a grab sample can be construed to represent In order to make credible
assessment determinations, States should use approaches that strike a balance between the extremes of:
(1) considering every grab sample to be representative of merely the instant in which, and the cubic foot
of water from which, each was taken; and (2) assuming each such sample is representative of conditions
over several years, and covering hundreds of stream miles or thousands of lake acres. For example, some
States have decided, based on available data about the variance in concentrations of a certain pollutant,
or category of pollutants, in one or more types of waterbody, that it would be reasonable to assume that,
if during any given 4-day period, only one grab sample had been collected, the concentration found in
that sample was representative of the average concentration over the 4-day period. Of course, if more
than one grab sample had been collected, all valid data points would be used to calculate the 4-day
average concentration.
States are encouraged to make "contextual" decisions about the meaning of data, using
knowledge of variations in relevant factors over space and time. For example, in a watershed in which
the dominant land use remains largely homogenous over large areas, a State might assume that sampling
results from one spot in a stream are reasonably representative of water quality at sites several miles
upstream and downstream. However, if land uses vary considerably from one river mile to another, the
State could conclude that sampling results from one spot are representative of no more than a few
hundred meters.
In determining whether or not certain monitoring data are representative of all relevant
conditions in a water, States should consider, among other factors, the type of sources of the pollutant of
February 2005
30
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
concern. For example, it would generally not be appropriate to conclude that samples collected during
dry weather periods showing no water quality criteria (WQC) exceedances are representative for
pollutants delivered primarily during wet weather conditions. On the other hand, if there is only one
source of a pollutant and it discharges at a fairly stable level over time, then failure to detect WQC
exceedances during design low flow periods (e.g., 1Q3) may be sufficient to conclude that WQC are
being met.
A State should consider all data and information in making listing decisions. Data should not be
excluded solely on the basis of age without supporting information showing that these data are no longer
representative of current patterns in water quality conditions. The State's methodology should discuss
the principles and decision rules the State will employ when considering the relevance of particular data
points or sets. In this consideration, a State may conclude that certain data are no longer representative
of current conditions (e.g., land management practices have been modified significantly, point source
discharges have changed significantly, and/or the hydrology of the water has been modified), and
therefore may decide not to use those data (older data indicating water quality problems should not be
discarded if changes in conditions are typical of those associated with deterioration of water quality).
States should be cautious about employing assessment methodologies that exclude data from
further consideration based on a finding that it is "unrepresentative" because the data seem to reflect
unusual circumstances. In assessing potential adverse effects on humans or other life forms, it is just as
important to be cognizant of short term events as it is to reflect longer term "average" conditions. Short
term (even a matter of minutes) exposure to very high levels of pollutants (or low level of necessary
elements like oxygen) can be extremely harmful, even lethal.
This point is emphasized in EPA's Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods
for Data Analysis (QA/G-9) (EPA/600/R-96/084) published in July 2000, available at
http://www.epa.gov/aualitv/qa docs.htmll:
"One should never discard an outlier based solely on a statistical test. Instead, the decision to
discard an outlier should be based on some scientific or quality assurance basis. Discarding an
outlier from a data set should be done with extreme caution, particularly for environmental data
sets, which often contain legitimate extreme values. If an outlier is discarded from the data set,
all statistical analysis of the data should be applied to both the full and truncated data set so that
the effect of discarding observations may be assessed. If scientific reasoning does not explain
the outlier, it should not be discarded from the data set." (EPA/600/R-96/084, pp. 4-26).
Additional guidance about "outliers" can be found in the discussion of trimmed means on page 35 of
Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Survey Design and Statistical Evaluation of Biosurvey Data
(EPA/822/B/97/002).
However, exclusion of data gathered during extreme conditions (e.g., significant droughts or
floods) can be appropriate if applicable State's WQS include a provision specifying that some or all
WQC do not apply during such rare events, such a 7Q10 low (or high) stream flow. Also, data collected
at certain times of years could legitimately be disregarded when making use support status
determinations based on seasonal WQC - ones that apply only to times of year other than that when these
particular data were collected.
February 2005
31
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
3. Data Quantity Considerations
EPA has not established, required, or even encouraged the establishment of rigid minimum
sample set size requirements in the WQS attainment status determination process. EPA is particularly
concerned with application of such thresholds statewide, without regard to key factors like the manner in
which applicable WQC are expressed, variability in waterbody-specific conditions, and fluctuations in
rates of pollutant loading. Rather, EPA believes that, if employed, target sample set sizes should not be
applied in an assessment methodology as absolute exclusionary rules, and even the smallest data sets
should be evaluated and, in appropriate circumstances, used. While it may be appropriate to identify
target sample sizes as a methodology is developed, States should not exclude from further consideration
data sets that do not meet a target sample size. A methodology may provide for an initial sample size
screen, but should also provide for a further assessment of sample sets that do not meet the target sample
size.
Assessments based on larger sample sets are, of course, in most instances, more likely to
yield accurate conclusions than assessments based on smaller sample sets. For example, smaller sample
sets are more prone to lead to erroneously concluding that at a WQC has not been exceeded, because
they result in a lower probability of detecting WQSs exceedances that have actually occurred. (EPA,
Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of Best Practices (CALM)
July 2002, pp. 4-9).
Ideally, all WQS attainment status determinations would be made with the benefit of very large
amounts of data, spread throughout a segment and collected at high rates of frequency, if not
continuously. Unfortunately, current monitoring technologies and limited amounts of resources
available to States and others involved in water quality assessments result in the availability only of small
data sets in most situations. This reality needs to be taken into account when determining what might be
considered an adequate number of samples, for purposes placing waters in the IR categories. For
instance, if a State sets a high data quantity target, this may result in having to place a large majority of
waters for which some, but not much, data are available in IR Category 3.
Any target sample set size thresholds must be consistent with the State's EPA-approved water
quality standards. Larger data sets are, of course, preferable when dealing with WQC with a fairly long
duration factor (e.g., averaging period of 30 days, 90 days, a year, or even longer). Hence, when making
an determination based on comparison of ambient data and other information to a numeric WQC
expressed as an "average" concentration over a substantial period of time, a statement of a desired
number of samples may be appropriate. Still, the methodology should provide decision rules for
concluding nonattainment in cases where the target data quantity expectations are not met, but the
available data and information indicate a reasonable likelihood of a WQC exceedance (e.g., available
samples with major digressions from the criterion concentration, corroborating evidence from
independent lines of evidence such as biosurveys or incidence of waterborne disease).
Even a very small set of samples may be sufficient to indicate impairment, particularly when the
duration/averaging periods of relevant WQC are quite short (an hour or less). For example, just one
single valid grab sample with a concentration higher than the criterion concentration for a toxic
compound would be grounds for declaring a waterbody in non-support of a designated use, if the WQC
applicable to that pollutant for that designated use (DU) was expressed as a concentration not be
surpassed at any time. In fact, as explained in the draft statistical appendixes to EPA's Consolidated
Assessment and Listing Methodology, detection of a pollutant concentration in just one grab sample out
February 2005
32
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
of several - say a dozen - provides strong evidence that if many more samples had been collected over
the same time period, numerous samples would have had concentrations higher than specified by the
WQC.
4. Providing Excluded Data (considered and evaluated, but not used) to EPA
EPA regulations require States to provide as part of their Section 303(d) list submission a
rationale for not using any existing and readily available water quality-related data and information in
developing the list EPA recommends that States provide such a rationale on a waterbody-specific basis
to assist EPA in reviewing the State's listing decisions. EPA may also request that States provide any
data or information they decided not to use to develop their list and a case-specific rationale for that
decision to not use the data in a particular WQS attainment status determinatioa EPA may review the
data and rationale, disapprove Section 303(d) listing decisions if appropriate, and make changes in the
Section 303(d) list based on of data and information that was improperly excluded. Failure by a State to
provide a reasonable technical rationale for a specific determination or for a decision not to use particular
data or information may result in partial disapproval of the list for failure to include waters in Category 5,
and potential additions of waters to the Section 303(d) list by EPA.
E. Should a State use information other than site-specific ambient monitoring data?
Yes, as appropriate. Categorization decisions should not be based only on site specific ambient
monitored data, and what was directly observed in the limited set of samples available to the water
quality assessor. For example, EPA regulations require that "reports from dilution calculations and
predictive modeling" be included in the data and information that a State considers in its assessment
process for Section 303(d) listing (Category 5) purposes (40 CFR 130.7(b)(5)(ii)). Likewise, it may be
appropriate to place a water in any of the five categories based on assessments resulting from the
consideration of assessment tools such as predictive modeling, remote sensing data, land use analysis,
knowledge about pollutant sources and loadings, observed effects, etc. (see longer listing of types of data
and information in Sec. IV, PartC).
EPA believes that a valid assessment of a water's condition should involve drawing conclusions
beyond those which would be arrived at by taking into account nothing more that what was directly
observed in the tiny fraction of all possible waterbody conditions over a given span of time and volume
of space represented by a typical set of ambient data. Simple dilution calculations, for example, can be
used to estimate what concentration of a pollutant might be present under conditions (e.g., streamflow,
pollutant loads) different from those extant at the times sampling was performed.
F. How should States use results of probability-based monitoring?
States should report the results of probability-based assessments as a component of their
Integrated Report. A probability-based monitoring design is a type of sample survey design that ensures
monitoring at a representative set of sample sites from which inferences can be made about the larger
population or resource under investigation (e.g., rivers and streams throughout a State or watershed). It
is similar to an opinion poll in which a sample of people are selected at random to represent a larger
population. Probability-based designs are used in a wide range of disciplines when conducting a census
(e.g., sampling every stream mile) is not economically feasible or is not necessary.
States are encouraged to use probability-based monitoring designs for developing probabilistic
February 2005
33
-------
Draft 20061R Guidance
statements about waterbody conditions over broad scales (basins, the entire State). EPA believes that a
probability-based monitoring design applied over large areas, such as an entire State or a large watershed,
is a cost-effective approach to producing a statistical statement, of known confidence, describing the
aggregate condition of water resources. For instance, based on such a study, a State might be able to
state, with 75% confidence, that 37% of lakes of 50 acres or less fail to meet WQC for total phosphorus.
In addition, sampling performed undo- probability-based surveys provides site-specific data
about each sample location. These data should be considered along with any other site-specific data that
might be available, to determine if they should be used to make WQS attainment status determinations,
leading to placing waters in the five categories.
The results of probability-based monitoring provide a useful benchmark for the extent that waters
are likely to be healthy or degraded. This may help States refine their understanding of how much
additional targeted monitoring is needed to complete identification of waters needing restoration, as well
as high quality waters needing extra protection.
Though probability-based monitoring programs usually result only in a statistical statement, of
known confidence, about aggregate waterbody conditions across a large area, in some instances, results
may be compelling enough to support site-specific decisions about water quality in segments besides
those from which ambient data were collected. For example, if a probability-based survey of fish tissue
from a random sample of lakes across a State found, with a reasonably high level of confidence, that a
very high percentage of lakes contain fish with tissue contaminant concentrations exceeding advisory
levels, decision makers might decide to list all of the State's lakes as impaired for fish consumption use.
For more information on the design and implementation of probability-based sample surveys, visit EPA's
Aquatic Resource Monitoring web page at http://www.epa.oov/nheerl/aiTn/index-htiin.
G. How should statistical approaches be used in attainment determinations?
The State's methodology should provide a rationale for any statistical interpretation of data for
the purpose of making an assessment determination.
1. Description of statistical methods to be employed in various circumstances
The methodology should provide a clear explanation of which analytic tools the State intends to
use and under which circumstances. EPA recommends that the methodology explain issues such as the
selection of key sample statistics (arithmetic mean concentration, median concentration, or a percentile),
null and alternative hypotheses, confidence intervals, and Type I and Type II error thresholds. The
choice of a statistic tool should be based on the known or expected distribution of the concentration of
the pollutant in the water (e.g., normal or log normal) in both time and space.
Statistical methods to be employed in interpreting data and information should also be consistent
with the manner in which the relevant WQC is expressed. A common example of a mis-application of a
descriptive statistic concerns use of a "10 percent of samples exceed" rule when use of such a rule leads
to the conclusion that waterbody conditions are better (or worse) than those described by the applicable
WQC. (NOTE: The word "exceed" as used above should not be confused with an "exceedance" of a
WQC. Rather, as used in the ten percent rule, "exceed" actually refers to what is called a "digression" in
this Guidance - an individual sample has a concentration higher than the concentration specified in the
WQC - hereinafter referred to as the criterion-concentration (see the glossary for the definitions of
February 2005
34
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
"digression", "excursion", and "exceedance" used in this guidance document).
Past EPA guidance (1997 305(b) and 2000 CALM) recommended making non attainment
decisions, for "conventional pollutants" TSS, pH, BOD, fecal coliform bacteria, and oil and grease
only when more than "10% of samples exceed the water quality criterion." Use of this rule when
addressing conventional pollutants, is appropriate if its application is consistent with the manner in
which applicable WQC are expressed. An example of a WQC for which an assessment based on the ten
percent rule would be appropriate is the EPA acute WQC for fecal coliform bacteria, applicable to
protection of water contact recreational use. This 1976-issued WQC was expressed as, "...no more than
ten percent of the samples exceeding 400 CFU per 100 ml, during a 30-day period." Here, the
assessment methodology is clearly reflective of the WQC.
On the other hand, use of the ten percent rule for interpreting water quality data is usually not
consistent with WQC expressed either as: 1) instantaneous maxima not to be surpassed, or 2) average
concentrations over specified times. In the case of "instantaneous maxima (or minima) never to occur
criteria", use of the ten pa-cent rule typically leads to the belief that waterbody conditions are equal or
better than specified by the WQC, when they in fact are considerably worse. Conversely, use of this
decision rule in concert with WQC expressed as average concentrations over specific times can lead to
concluding that waterbody conditions are worse than WQC, when in fact they are not. Further discussion
of this issue can be found in Section H.2 of the 2004 IR guidance. Also, EPA intends to elaborate further
in the planned statistical techniques appendix to the 2006 IR guidance.
If the State applies different decision rules for different types of pollutants (e.g., toxic,
conventional, and non-conventional pollutants) and types of standards (e.g., acute and chronic standards
for aquatic life or to protect human health), the State should provide a reasonable rationale supporting the
choice of different approaches for different standards.
2. Elucidation of Policy Choices Embedded in Selection of Particular Statistical Approaches and
Use of Certain Assumptions
States should highlight policy decisions implicit in the statistical analysis they have chosen to
employ in various circumstances. For example, if hypothesis testing is used, the State should explain
why it chose either "meeting WQS" or "not meeting WQS" as the null hypothesis (rebuttable
presumption) as a general rule for all waters, a category of waters, or an individual segment. Starting
with the assumption that a water is "healthy" when employing hypothesis testing means that a water will
be identified as impaired, and placed in Category 4 or 5, only if substantial amounts of credible evidence
exist to refute that presumption.
As EPA explained in draft Appendices C and D of CALM, which "null hypothesis" is selected
may create, among different interest groups, contrasting incentives regarding support for additional
ambient monitoring. If the null hypothesis is "meeting standards," there were no previous data on the
water, and no additional existing and readily available data and information are collected, then the "null
hypothesis" cannot be rejected, and the water would not be placed in Category 4 or 5. In this situation,
those concerned about possible adverse consequences of having a water declared "impaired" might have
little interest in collection of additional ambient data. On the other hand, if the null hypothesis is
changed to "water not meeting WQS," then those that would prefer that a particular water not be labeled
"impaired" would probably want more data collected, in hopes of proving that the null hypothesis is not
true.
February 2005
35
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
A second key policy issue in hypothesis testing is what significance level to use in deciding
whether to reject the null hypothesis. Picking a high level of significance for rejecting the null
hypothesis means that great emphasis is being placed on avoiding a Type I error (rejecting the null
hypothesis, when in fact, the null hypothesis is true). This means that if a 0.10 significance level is
chosen, the State wants to keep the chance of making a Type I error at or below ten percent. Hence, if
the chosen null hypothesis is "water meeting WQS," the State is trying to keep the chance of saying a
water is impaired - when in reality it is not - under ten percent.
Another key issue is the Type II errors (not rejecting the null hypothesis, when it should have
been). The probability of Type II errors depends on several factors. One key factor is which alternative
hypothesis is chosen Another key factor is the number of samples available. With a fixed number of
samples, as the probability of Type I error decreases, the probability of a Type II error increases. States
should ideally collect enough samples so the chances of making Type I and Type II errors are
simultaneously small. Unfortunately, resources needed to collect such numbers of samples are often not
available.
EPA recommends that, when picking the decision rules and statistical methods to be
utilized when interpreting data and information, States attempt to minimize the chances of making either
of the two following errors:
Concluding the water is impaired, when in fact it is not, and
Deciding not to declare a water impaired, when it is in fact impaired.
If it is not possible to collect sufficient data to make the chance of committing either of these
errors minimal if a certain statistical method is employed, efforts should be made to employ different
decision criteria and statistical approaches - ones more likely to result in roughly the same probability of
making one type of error versus the other.
States should specify in their methodology what significance level and what statistical power
(statistical power is equal to one minus the probability of Type II error) against the range of applicable
statistical alternatives they are requiring, as well as explaining the consequences of the choices made.
The methodology should describe in "plain English" the likelihood of not only: (1) deciding to list a
water that in reality is not impaired (Type I error if the null hypothesis is "waterbody not impaired"), but
also (2) the probability that a water that in fact is not meeting WQS has been left off the Category 4 and 5
(Type II error in this case).
H. How should States use community-level bioassessment data?
Many states use multi-metric, community-level biological assessments to report water resource
condition. Biological assessments provide direct measures of the cumulative response of the biological
community to all sources of stress. Therefore, a biocriteria/bioassessment represents a very useful
indicator of the use support status for aquatic life.
Credible assessments of biological condition can be accomplished with far fewer samples than
with parameter-specific monitoring. However, attention to proper quality assurance and control is
equally important in biological monitoring as it is in chemical and physical measurements. Threshold
values for water impairment determinations as well as quality assurance should be addressed in the
February 2005
36
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
State's methodology.
States should include biological assessments in the data and information they assemble and
evaluate in developing their Integrated Reports, and must provide a rationale for any decision not to use
the assessments in developing their Section 303(d) lists.
States using biological assessments to make reporting determinations should also consider other
types of data and information (i.e., chemical and physical). In instances in which the indication of
aquatic life use support provided by biosurvey data and that provided by chemical and/or physical data
differ, EPA continues to support the principle of independent applicability, as most recently articulated in
it's Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology guidance.
I. What information should the State provide regarding its interpretation of its WQS?
When deciding whether to put a water in Category 1,2,4 or 5, a State is trying to answer the
question, "What does available ambient monitoring data and other information tell us about whether or
not this water is meeting WQS?" In order to answer this question, it is necessary to be very clear about
the WQS that apply to the waterthe DUs assigned to the water, as well as the numeric water quality
criteria (WQC) applicable to each DU, along with narrative WQC and antidegradation policies.
Ideally, States' WQS regulations will clearly articulate each DU and all WQC applicable to that
DU. However, in some instances, there may be ambiguity in the way WQS are expressed. For example, a
WQC could refer to an "average" concentration. This could mean the median, the arithmetic mean, the
geometric mean, or something else describing a central tendency. Also, WQS regulations and guidance
sometimes do not clearly state a duration component of a WQC (criterion-duration) - particularly some
types of human health (HH) criteria. For reference purposes: EPA HH criteria for carcinogens are
presumed to have a duration of a year or more; whereas a duration of 30 days is employed in criteria for
most non-carcinogens. EPA's aquatic life WQC for toxic chemicals present, concentrations applicable to
exposure durations of (a) 1 hour and (b) 4 days, respectively.
If a State WQC is stated as merely a concentration, with no mention of a criterion-duration
(suitable period over which to average concentrations of the pollutant in question), EPA will assume that
this means that an excursion has occurred whenever it appears that waterbody concentrations have
surpassed the criterion-concentration.
A case may also arise in which a State has not included, for a particular criterion or set of
criteria, a criterion-frequency, which is a statement of the number of excursions (see glossary) that can
occur in a given period of time, and still support the designated use to which the WQC applies.
According to EPA guidance regarding WQC protecting aquatic life from adverse effects of toxic
chemicals, "the purpose of the average frequency of allowed excursions is to provide an appropriate
period of time during which the aquatic community can recover from the effect of an excursion and then
function normally before the next excursion. The average frequency is intended to ensure that the
community is not constantly recovering from effects caused by excursions of aquatic life criteria"
(Technical Support Document (TSD) for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, Appendix D-4, EPA,
1991).
For toxic ("priority" pollutants) and protection of freshwater aquatic life, EPA guidance
recommends use of a once in three year maximum allowable excursion recurrence frequency (Guidance
February 2005
37
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act, Section III (F), EPA, 2003) Such a frequency indicates the number of times in a given
period that conditions in a water worse than those specified by the criterion-concentration combined with
the criterion-duration component of a freshwater aquatic life criterion, can occur without having an
actual exceedance of the WQC, which would indicate failure to support the designated use. The key
basis for this recommendation was a literature survey done in 1989, looking at recovery rates of
freshwater ecosystems from various kinds of natural disturbances and anthropogenic stressors. This
survey indicated that biotic communities took between 6 months to over 20 years to recover. The 150
studies reviewed indicated that the vast majority (85% to 95%) of macroinvertebrate endpoints (death,
reproductive failure, etc.) recovered in one to two years, and fish metrics reflected similar levels of
recovery in two years or less. On the other hand, fish in large rivers and lakes might take 20 to 25 years
to recover adequately. Based on this information, EPA's Office of Research and Development
recommended adoption of a once in three year minimum recovery interval.
EPA believes, therefore, that where a State's WQC contains a specific once in three year (or
some similar) frequency, the waterbody should be listed in Category 5 if excursions occur at a rate
greater than that specified. If, on the other hand, a State's WQS regulations addressing protection of
aquatic life do not include a criterion-frequency, EPA may deem it appropriate for the State's assessment
methodology to use a default frequency factor allowing excursions to occur no more frequently than once
in three years.
If a State WQC applicable to one of the uses related to protection of human health (fish
consumption, body contact recreation, and drinking water) does not include an explicit criterion-
frequency, EPA will assume the State intends for the allowed rate of excursions to be zero. That is, any
occasion on which waterbody conditions become worse than specified by the combination of the
criterion-concentration and criterion-duration constitutes an exceedance of that WQC; thus the DU to
which that WQC applies is not being supported.
J. How should States handle shared waters?
States with shared waters should make every effort to coordinate with each other in the
development of their Integrated Reports. Coordination should occur early in the process. Where
possible, States should work together to collect, assemble, solicit, and assess all readily available data
and information relevant to the shared waters. Assessments for waters that are shared by neighboring
States should be as consistent as possible. This is particularly important for waters listed in Category 5.
However, differing State WQS can make consistent attainment decisions difficult. In such cases, EPA
Regional offices and Interstate Commissions, where applicable, should assist in resolving inconsistencies
when they arise. The Integrated Report should document the coordination that has occurred between
neighboring States and Interstate Commissions.
Some Interstate Commissions are required to prepare a Section 305(b) report, but the
responsibility of preparing Integrated Reports and Section 303(d) lists rests with the States. Data and
information in an Interstate Commission Section 305(b) report should be considered by the States as one
source of readily available data and information when they prepare their IR and make decisions on
waters to be placed in Category 5; however, data in a Section 305(b) Interstate Commission Report
should not be automatically entered in a State IR or Section 303(d) list without consideration by the State
whether such inclusion is appropriate. EPA has made the necessary modification to its ADB system to
ensure that Interstate Commission data stays segregated from State data.
February 2005
38
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
K. How does the State Make Attainment Decisions when Different Types of Data Indicate a
Different Attainment Status?3
To address the possibility of conflicting results among different types of data used to assess
attainment with WQS, EPA recommends that States, Territories, and authorized Tribes apply the policy
on independent applicability as appropriate for making WQS attainment decisions. This policy was
initially crafted to address development of NPDES permit discharge limits. Its use is slightly different in
the context of WQS attainment decisions.
The intent of this policy is to protect against dismissing valuable information when evaluating
aquatic life use attainment, particularly in detecting impairment. EPA's policy on independent
application is based on the premise that any valid, representative dataset indicating an actual or projected
water quality impairment should not be ignored when one is determining the appropriate action to be
taken. However, EPA recognizes that there are circumstances when conflicting results should be
investigated further before the attainment or nonattainment decision is made. For example, States may
obtain multiple datasets of varying quality, which may influence the reliability of the assessment results.
Figure 4-1 elaborates on the use of the independent application policy in reconciling conflicting
results among different datasets used to assess attainment with aquatic life-based WQS. The decision
process begins in the upper left of figure 4-1. When a State, Territory, or authorized Tribe has two or
more types of data that do not indicate consistent attainment status, it should determine whether
differences in assessment results can be attributed to differences in the quality of the datasets. For
example, this may involve consideration of analytical methods, review of sampling techniques, and
detailed assessment of datasets. When the differences are due to data quality issues, the independent
application policy allows for resolving the differences by cleaning the data or weighing the higher quality
dataset more favorably in the attainment decision.
When detailed data analysis fails to identify data quality issues that explain the discrepancies,
site-specific environmental conditions should be considered (e.g., effects of water chemistry, or the
ability of species to adapt over time). Site specific WQC may be explored via application of the water
effects ratio, resident species recalculations, or other appropriate methods.
3Part K. of Section IV has been adapted from pages 3-9 to 3-10 of EPA's Consolidated Assessment and
Lilting Methodologies (CALM), July 2002.
39
February 2005
-------
Ikซซ tx t-ซmtt ป*
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
V. Five-Part Categorization of Waters
Use of the Integrated Report format and the use of the five-part categorization scheme envisions
that each State provide a comprehensive description of the water quality attainment status of all segments
within a State. It should be noted that the term segment used in this guidance is synonymous with the
term Assessment Unit (AU) used in previous IR guidance. Fundamental to this accounting is the use of a
consistent and rational segmentation and geo-referencing approach for all segments including rivers,
streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters. There is no single approach to the development of
a segmentation scheme. However, it is important that the selected segmentation approach be consistent
with the State's water quality standards and be capable of providing a spatial scale that is adequate to
characterize the WQS attainment status of the segment. This guidance provides some recommendations
on how states may develop a segmentation scheme for monitoring, assessing and categorizing water
quality conditions. Additionally, this guidance provides recommendations for assigning individual
segments to the five-category system
A. Recommendations for Segmenting Waters
EPA recommends that States consider using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD),4 where
segments may comprise part of an NHD reach, an individual NHD reach, or a collection of NHD reaches
or parts of reaches. Alternatively, if a State has already developed a comparable Geographic Information
System (GIS) framework, EPA requests that States provide any relevant information necessary to allow
consistent georeferencing. Additionally, this information should be included in the State's ADB
submission. States generally partition waters to represent homogeneity in physical, biological or
chemical conditions. This segmentation may reflect an a priori knowledge of factors such as flow,
channel morphology, substrate, riparian condition, adjoining land uses, confluence with other water
bodies, and potential sources of pollutant loadings (both point and nonpoint). While there is no single
default dimension for a segment size, ideally States have utilized these or similar principles when they
defined the segments used in their water quality standards. Other factors may include the following:
The expected natural variability of the measured criteria associated with the WQSs.
The type of water (e.g., a small stream, a wide river, a tidal and stratified estuary, and coastal
shoreline).
Time of travel of a parcel of water in the water body or segment or the magnitude of any tidal
excursions.
The amount of and type of data and information necessary to provide a reasonably accurate
characterization of the criteria (or core indicators) associated with the designated uses in the
segment or water body.
Any expected changes in significant influences in the watershed (land use, point or nonpoint
sources of pollutants).
Any site-specific concerns such as patchy or unique habitat distribution patterns or biological
population distributions.
Using NHD or other comparable GIS framework, a State should assign a discrete "address" or
geo-location to each segment, and document the process used for defining water segments in their
4By making this recommendation, EPA is not equating availability of geographical information on a water
segment in the NHD with the legal definition of the U.S. under CWA.
February 2005
41
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
methodologies. The physical boundaries (beginning and end points) of a segment should be defined in
such a manner that a scientifically valid assessment of each and every can be made. The individual size
of a segment will vary based upon methodologies. Segments should, however, be larger than a sampling
station but small enough to represent a relatively homogenous parcel of water (with regard to hydrology,
land use influences, point and nonpoint source loadings, etc.).
B. How should Segments be assigned to EPA's Five Reporting Categories?
EPA continues to advocate the use of the five category approach for classifying the WQS
attainment status for each segment. To this end, EPA recommends that States determine the status of
each segment's designated use when making assessment determinations for the five categories. This
guidance acknowledges that to be consistent with the explicit requirements of 40 CFR 130.7 (b)(1) (i-iii)
it is necessary to consider each of the three regulatory components that define a segment's WQS.
Specifically, when placing a segment into one of the five reporting categories, the State must determine
the attainment status of the segment's designated use(s) by considering the available data and
information on all narrative and numeric criteria, and must also determine whether or not the anti-
degradation policy is being supported. For instance, if the consideration of the available data and
information demonstrates attainment for the narrative and numeric criteria, but the antidegradation policy
is not supported, the segment will be placed in Category 5. Likewise, a segment that meets all applicable
narrative and numeric criteria but for which there is data and /or information that indicates that a
designated use is not supported, the segment will be placed in Category 5. EPA believes that the
placement of segments into the five reporting categories focusing on designated uses allows States to
document cause/source information for attaining and non-attaining segments, and develop monitoring
strategies that effectively respond to the needs identified in the assessment.
This guidance recommends that States use the following five reporting categories to classify
waters as meeting or not meeting applicable water quality standards (see Figure 5-1):
Category 1: All designated uses are met, no use is threatened, and the antidegradation policy is
supported;
Category 2: Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all, of the designated uses are
met;
Category 3: There is insufficient available data and/or information to assess whether a specific
designated use is being met or if the antidegradation policy is supported;
Category 4: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not met or is
threatened and/or the antidegradation policy is not supported, but a TMDL is not needed;
Category 5: Available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not met or is
threatened and/or the antidegradation policy is not supported, and a TMDL is needed.
EPA recommends that States place segments into more than one of the five categories when
appropriate. The placement of segments into more than one category will allow states to:
1. Demonstrate progress in the efforts to develop TMDLs,
2. Track progress as segments incrementally attain some, but not all water quality standards, and
3. Identify those segments where there is a need to obtain additional data and information for
some water quality standards.
February 2005
42
-------
Figure 5-1. Integrated Report Categories Flowchart.
February 2005
43
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
States still have the option to place each segment into only one category, and rely on the
reporting capability of ADB to provide detail on the attainment status of individual uses. More detailed
guidance for determining the appropriate categorization of segments is provided below. It is important
to note that States must consider all existing and readily available data and information in developing
their Section 303(d) lists, and may choose to assess a segment and assign the segment to a Category
using data and information other than monitored data (e.g., land use, pollutant loading coefficients,
remote sensing data, modeling, etc.).
C. May a State use subcategories or additional categories in its Integrated Report?
Yes, in order to refine their classifications, States may choose to establish new or additional
subcategories in addition to the proposed five categories. For example, a State may decide to divide
Category 3 into two subcategories in order to distinguish between those segments for which no data
and/or information exist from those segments for which some data and/or information exist, but the data
are insufficient to make a determination whether the segment is attaining applicable standards. A State
may also choose to use subcategories for Category 3 segments for determining monitoring priorities.
For example, the State may place its segments into different subcategories depending on whether the
segment is high, medium, or low priority for follow-up monitoring based on information from
probability-based monitoring, landscape or water quality models, land use data, or limited site-specific
monitoring. As another example, a State may choose to report segments impaired primarily by the
atmospheric deposition of a pollutant in a separate subcategory of Category 5.
D. Which segments should States include in Category 1?
Segments belong in Category 1 if all designated uses are met, and no use is threatened, and the
antidegradation policy is supported. When a segment meets the requirements for placement into
Category 1, it should not be listed in any other Category. When a segment meets the Category 1
requirements, the State has concluded, consistent with their water quality standards (and informed by
their assessment methodology) that sufficient data and information exist to determine that all applicable
water quality standards are being attained, thereby precluding the use of Category 2, (see Category 2
discussion below). By placing a segment into Category 1, the State is also concluding that there are
adequate data and there is sufficient information to make a determination for any water quality standard,
precluding the use of Category 3 (see Category 3 discussion below) and that there are no designated uses
being impaired in these segments that would require the development of a TMDL or any other action to
address the use impairment, thereby precluding the use of Categories 4 and 5 (see Category 4 and 5
discussion below).
1. In order to place a segment in Category 1, must States have specific data and information
regarding the status of each water quality standard?5
No. States may describe in either their assessment methodology or in their water quality
standards a subset or hierarchy of indicators (as described in the CALM guidance and Elements of a State
5 Part D( 1) of Section V has been adapted from Section 11 (Part D) of Elements of a State Water Monitoring
and Assessment Program; Office of Water, US EPA; EPA 84 l-B-03-003, March 2003.
February 2005
44
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Water Monitoring and Assessment Program) that serve to characterize whether conditions in a segment
are capable of meeting all applicable water quality standards.
Because limited resources affect the design of water quality monitoring programs, the State
should use a tiered approach to monitoring that includes a core set of baseline indicators selected to
represent each applicable designated use, plus supplemental indicators selected according to site-specific
or project-specific decision criteria. Using this tiered approach, the State should be able to make the best
use of its resources to meet water quality decision needs, including assessing water quality standards
attainment and designated use support, identifying needed changes to water quality standards, describing
causes and sources of impairments, developing water quality-based source controls, and assessing
whether physical, chemical, and biological integrity are supported. Such results for the indicators
applicable to every designated use assigned to a segment would result in that segment being placed in
Category 1.
The monitoring strategy should define a core set of indicators (e.g., water quality parameters) for
each water resource type that include physical/habitat, chemical/toxicological, and biological/ecological
endpoints as appropriate, that reflect designated uses, and that can be used routinely to assess attainment
with applicable water quality standards throughout the State. This core set of indicators is monitored to
provide Statewide or basin/watershed level information on the fundamental attributes of the aquatic
environment and to assess water quality standards attainment/impairment status. Previously, chemical
and physical indicators were emphasized; however, biological monitoring and assessment should assume
a more prominent role in State monitoring.
The strategy should also describe a process for identifying supplemental indicators to monitor
when there is a reasonable expectation that a specific pollutant may be present in a watershed, when core
indicators indicate impairment, or to support a special study such as screening for potential pollutants of
concern. Supplemental indicators are often key to identifying causes and sources of impairments and
targeting appropriate source controls. These supplemental indicators may include each water quality
criteria in the State's water quality standards, any pollutants controlled by the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and any other constituents or indicators of concern.
Table 5-1 presents examples of recommended core and supplemental water quality indicators.
The Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology provides additional information on
considerations for selection of supplemental indicators (see
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html, Chapter 11).
2. Should States have biosurvey data in order for a segment to be listed as in attainment for aquatic
life use support?
EPA recommends the use of biosurvey data for making an aquatic life use attainment
determination. Properly developed biosurvey data can provide direct evidence of aquatic life support.
CALM and the 2003 Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, recommend the
use of at least two assemblages (e.g., fish and macroinvertebrates) in such assessments (See Table 5-1
taken from Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program). EPA recommends States
use at least two assemblages to support placing waters in Category 1.
February 2005
45
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
3. What data should States have to determine that a segment is meeting a "fish consumption " use?
Assessment determinations regarding fish/shellfish consumption uses should be based on
parameter-specific data for two groups of pollutants: (1) human pathogens, or indicators thereof, and (2)
chemicals with high bioaccumulation potential. Among the bioaccumulative pollutants, EPA
recommends mercury, chlordane, Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) as core indicators.
February 2005
46
-------
Table 5-1. Recommended Water Quality Indicators for General Designated Use Categories
Aquatic Life &
Recreation
Drinking Water
Fish/Shellfish
Wildlife
Consumption
Recommended
ฆ"Condition of
~Pathogen
~Trace metals
~Pathogens
Core
biological
indicators
~Pathogens
~Mercury
Indicators
communities (EPA
(E. coli,
~Nitrates
~Chlordane
recommends the use
enterococci)
~Salinity
~DDT
of at least two
~Nuisance plant
~Sediments/TDS
~PCBs
assemblages)
Growth
~Flow
~Landscape
~Dissolved oxygen
~Flow
~Landscape
conditions (e.g.,
Temperature
~Nutrients
conditions (e.g.,
% cover of land
""Conductivity
~Chlorophyll
% cover of land
uses)
~pH
~Landscape
uses)
""Habitat assessment
conditions (e.g.,
~Flow
% cover of land
""Nutrients
uses)
""Landscape
conditions (e.g., %
Additional
cover of land uses)
indicators for
lakes:
Additional
~Secchi depth
indicators for lakes:
~Eutrophic
Additional
condition
indicators for
wetlands:
Additional
indicators for
~Wetland
wetlands:
hydrogeomorphic
~Wetland
settings and
hydrogeomorphic
functions
settings and
functions
Supplemental
~Ambient toxicity
~Other chemicals
~Volatile organic
~Other chemicals
Indicators
""Sediment toxicity
of concern in
compounds
of concern in
~Other chemicals of
water column or
(VOCs) (in
water column or
concern in water
sediment
reservoirs)
sediment
column or sediment
~Hazardous
~Hydrophyllic
~Health of
chemicals
pesticides
organisms
~Aesthetics
~Nutrients
~Other chemicals
of concern in
water column or
sediment
~Alpae
Source: Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program; Office of Water, US EPA; EPA
841-B-03-003, March 2003.
February 2005
47
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
ฃ. Which segments should States include in Category 2?
Segments should be placed in Category 2 if the State determines that, based on the consideration
of existing and readily available data and/or information that some, but not all, of the designated uses are
met. Simultaneously, the segment may not be attaining other applicable standards (Category 2), or
insufficient information may exist for other standards to make a determination whether the segment is in
attainment (Category 3). Thus, segments included in Category 2 should also be included in other
appropriate categories.
This category is intended to provide information regarding improvements in water quality. As
States implement TMDLs and other restoration activities over time, they should be able to report the
attainment status of individual designated uses in Category 2, assuming all other water quality standard
components are supported.
F. Which segments should States include in Category 3?
Category 3 is consistent with and responds to one of the recommendations in the National
Research Council's (NRC) report, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management (2001).
EPA and States should identify segments where there is insufficient available data and7or information to
assess whether a specific designated use is being met or if the antidegradation policy is supported. The
State should identify those segments that are higher and lower priority for followup monitoring, and may
do so using predicative tools such as probability surveys or landscape models, Category 3 provides States
with the flexibility to monitor these segments in a manner consistent with their overall monitoring
strategy and schedule.
G. Which segments should States include in Category 4?
Segments may be placed in Category 4 if available data and/or information demonstrate that at
least one designated use is not met or is threatened and/or the antidegradation policy is not supported, but
a TMDL is not needed. States may place segments that meet this definition in one of the following three
subcategories: a TMDL has been completed and approved for any segment-pollutant combination
(Category 4A), other required control measures are expected to result in the attainment of an applicable
water quality standard in a reasonable period of time (Category 4B); and the non-attainment of any
applicable water quality standard for the segment is the result of pollution and not caused by a pollutant
(Category 4Q.
1. Which segments should States include in Category 4A?
Segments should be placed in Category 4A when a TMDL to address a specific
segment/pollutant combination has been approved or established by EPA. Once the TMDL has been
approved or established, the State should implement the TMDL as soon as practicable. Additionally,
EPA encourages States to provide monitoring schedules for these segments to ensure that sufficient data
and information are obtained to document progress of the implementation actions towards meeting the
applicable water quality standards.
February 2005
48
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
2. Which segments should States include in Category 4B?
In certain circumstances, EPA regulations allow states to pursue alternative pathways for meeting
water quality standards other than the development of a TMDL.6 Waters are not required to be included
on the section 303(d) list if "[o]ther pollution control requirements (e.g., best management practices)
required by local, State or Federal authority" are stringent enough to meet water quality standards ("see 40
CFR 130.7(b)(l)(iii)) within a reasonable period of time. This guidance acknowledges that the most
effective method for achieving water quality standards for some water-quality impaired segments may be
through controls developed and implemented without TMDLs (referred to as a "4B alternative").
a. What demonstration must a State make to support a successful Category 4B proposal?
EPA will evaluate on a case-by-case basis a State's request to pursue a 4B alternative to TMDL
development and exclude certain segment/pollutant combinations from Category 5 (the Section 303(d)
list) based on the 4B alternative. States should provide in their submission the rationale which supports
their conclusion that there are "other pollution control" requirements sufficiently stringent to achieve
applicable water quality standards within a reasonable period of time.
Specifically, this rationale should include: (1) a statement of the problem causing the
impairment, (2) a description of the proposed implementation strategy and supporting pollution controls
necessary to achieve water quality standards, (3) an estimate or projection of the time when water quality
standards will be met, (4) a reasonable schedule for implementing the necessary pollution controls, (5) a
description of, and schedule for, monitoring milestones for tracking and reporting progress to EPA on the
implementation of the pollution controls, and (6) a commitment to revise as necessary the
implementation strategy and corresponding pollution controls if progress towards meeting water quality
standards is not being shown. EPA acknowledges that the level of rigor necessary to support the State's
rationale will vary depending on the complexity of the water impairments and corresponding
implementation strategies.
If the Agency determines that the controls are not, in fact, "requirements," or that they will not
result in attainment of applicable water quality standards within a reasonable time, then EPA may
disapprove the State's failure to include the segment at issue on the Section 303(d) list (i.e., Category 5)
and add the segment to the list. In subsequent list submissions, EPA may determine that a segment that
has been placed into Category 4B must go back into Category 5, if the circumstances have changed such
that the State can no longer support its original 4B demonstration.
b. What constitutes acceptable "pollution control requirements" to support Category 4B
alternatives?
In evaluating whether a particular set of pollution controls are in fact "requirements" as specified
'indeed, while EPA believes that TMDL development is essential for certain impaired waters, EPA has
stated that where other required pollution controls exist, "establishing
TMDLs would not contribute to the goals of the Act and could draw resources from areas where there are water
quality problems. Therefore, EPA believes it best serves the purposes of the Act to require States to establish
TMDLs and submit them to EPA for approval only where such TMDLs are needed to 'bridge the gap* between
existing effluent limitations, other pollution controls and WQS [water quality standards]." 50 Fed. Reg. 1774, 1775
(January, 11, 1985).
February 2005
49
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
in EPA's regulation, the Agency will consider a number of factors including: (1) authority (local, State,
Federal) under which the controls are required and will be implemented with respect to sources
contributing to the water quality impairment (examples may include: self-executing State or local
regulations, permits, and contracts and grant/funding agreements that require implementation of
necessary controls), (2) existing commitments made by the sources to implementation of the controls
(including an analysis of the amount of actual implementation that has already occurred), (3) the
availability of dedicated funding for the implementation of the controls, and (4) other relevant factors as
determined by EPA depending on case-specific circumstances.
Since the overriding objective of the 4B alternative is to promote implementation activities
designed to achieve water quality standards in a reasonable period of time, for all of the factors listed
above, EPA will evaluate each 4B alternative on a case-by-case basis, including in particular the
existence of identifiable consequences for the failure to implement the proposed pollution controls.
Depending on the specific situation, "other pollution control requirements" may be requirements other
than those based on statutory or regulatory provisions, as long as some combination of the factors listed
above are present and will lead to achievement of water quality standards within a reasonable period of
time. States may also choose to rely on controls that have already been implemented where there is
sufficient certainty that implementation will continue until WQS are achieved and will not be reversed.
Because the controls are already in place and achieving progress, EPA may consider such controls to be
requirements even if their implementation did not occur pursuant to binding legal authority.
c. What constitutes a reasonable period of time for purposes of 4B?
EPA expects that segments impaired by a pollutant but not listed under Section 303(d) based on
the implementation of existing control requirements will attain WQSs within a reasonable period of time.
What constitutes a "reasonable time" will vary depending on factors such as the initial severity of the
impairment, the cause of the impairment (e.g., point source discharges, in place sediment fluxes,
atmospheric deposition, nonpoint source runoff), riparian condition, channel condition, the nature and
behavior of the specific pollutant (e.g., conservative, reactive), the size and complexity of the segment (a
simple first-order stream, a large thermally-stratified lake, a density-stratified estuary, and tidally-
influenced coastal segment), the nature of the control action, cost, public interest, etc. States should
consider such factors and provide, as stated in Section IV.G.2.A. above, a time estimate by which the
controls will result in WQS attainment, including an explanation of the basis for their conclusion. EPA
will evaluate on a case-specific basis whether the estimated time for WQS attainment is reasonable.
d. What are some examples to illustrate how the preceding guidance would be applied?
EPA will evaluate on a case-specific basis each set of controls a State uses to support a decision
to include a water in Category 4B. The following circumstances are examples of controls which may be
sufficient to support such a decision, depending on the facts of the specific case:
A waterbody is impaired solely by point sources. Each point source has an NPDES permit
containing limits sufficient to implement WQS in that waterbody by the end of the permit terms.
A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint source sediment input. The State has adopted regulations
requiring sources to implement certain best management practices (BMPs), and can enforce the
regulatory requirements under state law. The State demonstrates that implementation of BMPs
by these sources will result in meeting WQS in the waterbody in a reasonable time.
February 2005
50
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint sources and the State has entered into contracts for source
remediation. Implementation of the contract terms will result in attainment of WQS in the
waterbody in a reasonable time. While the State cannot obtain specific performance as a contract
remedy, it can file a claim for significant monetary damages if the terms are not met.
A waterbody is impaired by nonpoint sources which have already implemented some or all of
certain measures that will result in attainment of WQS in that waterbody in a reasonable time.
The controls are unlikely to be removed or reversed (e.g., trees have been planted).
6. Which segments should States include in Category 4C?
Segments should be placed in this subcategory when the basis for not meeting an applicable
water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but is attributed to other types of pollution. States
should schedule these segments for monitoring to confirm that there continues to be no pollutant
associated with the failure to meet the water quality standard and to support water quality management
actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment. Waters for which the State cannot
demonstrate that there is no pollutant causing or contributing to nonattainment of an applicable WQS
should be included in Category 5.
Pollution, as defined by the CWA is "the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water" (Section 502(19)). In some cases, the pollution
is caused by the presence of a pollutant and a TMDL is required. In other cases, pollution does not result
from a pollutant and a TMDL is not required.
The following are two examples of pollution caused by pollutants. The discharge of copper from
an NPDES regulated facility is the introduction of a pollutant into a segment. To the extent that this
pollutant alters the chemical or biological integrity of the segment, it is also an example of pollution.
(Copper is not likely to cause an alteration to the segment's physical integrity). Similarly, actions that
modify the landscape and may result in the introduction of sediment into a segment constitute pollution
when sediment (which is a pollutant) results in an alteration of the chemical, physical, biological or
radiological integrity of the segment. TMDLs would have to be established for each of these segments.
On the other hand, EPA does not believe that flow, or lack of flow, is a pollutant as defined by
CWA Section 502(6). Low flow can be an anthropogenic condition of a segment (i.e., a reduced volume
of water) which fits the definition of pollution. Another example of pollution occurs when stream habitat
is altered by channelization.
H. Which segments should States include in Category 5?
This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list that EPA will approve or disapprove under the
CWA. States must include on their Section 303(d) list those waters required to be listed by the Clean
Water Act and EPA's implementing regulations. EPA recommends that States include waters required to
be on the Section 303(d) list in Category 5. EPA will review and approve or disapprove the list pursuant
to 40 CFR 130.7.
Segments should be placed in Category 5 when available data and/or information demonstrate
February 2005
51
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
that at least one designated use is not met or is threatened and/or the antidegradation policy is not
supported, and a TMDL is needed. As indicated in 40 CFR 130.7, TMDLs shall be established for all
pollutants preventing or expected to prevent attainment of water quality standards for waters on the
Section 303(d) list.
A segment that is included in Category 5 may also be included in other categories where
appropriate. For example, the segment may be attaining some applicable standards, in which case it may
be included in Category 2. As the State develops and EPA approves TMDLs for the pollutants identified
as causing a Category 5 segment to exceed an applicable standard, the segment can be placed in Category
4A, but must also remain in Category 5 if it is exceeding any applicable standard and a TMDL needs to
be developed for the pollutant causing that exceedance.
1. Is Category 5 of the Integrated Report for 2006 a new Section 303(d) list, and must the State
account for all segments previously listed as needing a TMDL in the 2004 list?
The Section 303(d) list once approved (or, if necessary, established by EPA following
disapproval of a State's list) is a new list that replaces the previous list. The time frame for establishing
TMDLs should be 8 to 13 years from the date of the original listing. For example, a segment originally
included on the 1998 Section 303(d) list, and still identified on the 2006 submission as requiring a
TMDL, should be addressed by 2011.
The fact that a segment was previously included in Category 5 does not necessarily mean that it
must remain in Category 5 until a TMDL is established. In some cases, removing a segment from
Category 5 prior to TMDL development may be warranted. For example, the State may determine that
the conditions have changed such that the segment is no longer required to be on the Section 303(d) list
(e.g., if new data shows that the applicable standard is met). Alternatively, the State may determine that
other required control measures are sufficient to implement the applicable standard and may thus move
the segment to Category 4B. The State may also determine that pollutants do not cause or contribute to
the impairment of a segment and move the segment to Category 4C. Before deciding that a segment
should be moved from Category 5 to another category prior to TMDL development, States should
evaluate all existing and readily available data and information in deciding in which of the five categories
to place the water.
EPA may request, as discussed below, that the State demonstrate good cause for not including
individual segments (including previously listed segments) in Category 5 (40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iv)).
However, States are not required to demonstrate "good cause" for not including a previously listed
segment on the current submission. EPA may request this demonstration if the State does not develop a
reasonable record supporting the basis for the decision or does not specifically explain its decision to
move segments previously listed in part 4C to other categories.
2. What constitutes good cause for not including in Category 5 segments that were previously
included in that category (the Section 303(d) List)?
To provide interested stakeholders with a more complete understanding of the changes that may
have occurred from one IR to the next, and to help expedite EPA's review and approval/disapproval
action for those segments in Category 5, EPA recommends that states submit with their IR a table
documenting changes in segment placement or categorization from the 2004 IR and a brief summary of
the basis for those changes.
February 2005
52
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
In addition, EPA may request that States provide "good cause" for not including on the 2006
Section 303(d) list (Category 5) submission segments that were previously included on the list. If EPA
makes such a request, the State must explain its basis for not including the segment on the list.
Consistent with 40 CFR 130.7(b), "good cause" for not including segments in Category 5 may be based
on the following determinations:
The assessment and interpretation of more recent or more accurate data in the record demonstrate
that the applicable WQS(s) is being met.
The results of more sophisticated water quality modeling demonstrate that the applicable
WQS(s) is being met.
Flaws in the original analysis of data and information led to the segment being incorrectly listed.
A demonstration pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7(b)(l)(ii) that there are effluent limitations required
by State or local authorities that are more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations,
required by the CWA, and that these more stringent effluent limitations will result in the
attainment of WQSs for the pollutant causing the impairment.
A demonstration pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7(b)(l)(iii) that there are other pollution control
requirements required by State, local, or Federal authority that will result in attainment of WQSs
for a specific pollutants) within a reasonable time.
Documentation that the State included on a previous Section 303(d) list an impaired segment
that was not required to be listed by EPA regulations, e.g., segments where there is no pollutant
associated with the impairment.
Approval or establishment by EPA of a TMDL since the last Section 303(d) list.
A State inappropriately listed a segment that is within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
Section 1151.
Other relevant information that supports the decision not to include the segment on the Section
303(d) list.
EPA has the authority to disapprove a submission if EPA identifies existing and readily available
information that shows a segment is required by the CWA and EPA regulations be included in Category
5 (the Section 303(d) list). In that situation, EPA will partially disapprove the State's list and identify
additional segments for inclusion in Category 5.
3. Can previously listed segments (without new data or information) be delisted solely because they
have not yet been assessed with a new methodology?
No. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to delist previously listed segments (without
new data or information) solely because they have not yet been assessed with a new methodology.
However, there are some situations where a previously listed segment may be delisted without relying on
data and information collected after the date of the previous list. For example, if the State evaluates the
pre-existing data and information using a methodology that EPA has determined accurately reflect the
applicable WQS, and the results of that evaluation provide a "good cause" basis for not including the
segment on the 2006 Section 303(d) list, the segment would no longer need to be included in Category 5.
However, the delisting should only occur if it is determined by EPA that the basis for the decision is
consistent with the State's applicable WQSs and is reasonable.
4. Must Category 5 include threatened segments?
Yes, States must include threatened segments in Category 5 (40 CFR 130.7(b)). EPA
February 2005
53
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
recommends that States consider as threatened those segments that are currently attaining WQS, but are
projected as the result of applying a valid statistical methodology to exceed WQS by the next listing
cycle (every two years). For example, segments should be listed if the analysis demonstrates a declining
trend in a specific WQC, and the projected trend will result in a failure to meet a criterion by the date of
the next list (i.e., 2008 for purposes of the 2006 assessment cycle). The State assessment and listing
methodology should describe how the State identifies threatened segments.
5. Must Category 5 include an impaired segment if the specific pollutant causing the impairment
has not been identified?
States are required to identify the pollutant causing the impairment or threat for each segment in
Category 5 (40 CFR 130.7(b)(4)). States must include impaired and threatened segments in Category 5
when a segment is impaired or threatened even if the specific pollutant is not known. These segments
must be listed unless the State can demonstrate that no pollutants) causes or contribute to the
impairment
Prior to establishing a TMDL for such segments, the pollutant causing the impairment would
need to be identified. EPA has developed guidance to assist States in identifying the causes of a
biological impairment. This document, "Stressor Identification Guidance," was released in December
2000 (EPA 822-B-00-025). This document is also available on the Internet at:
httD://www.epa.gov/ost/waterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.pdf.
6. When should Category 5 include segments covered by fish consumption advisories?
EPA generally believes that fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain shellfish
growing area classifications based on segment specific information demonstrates impairment of CWA
Section 101(a) "fishable" uses. Furthermore, advisories based on the results from probability surveys or
other predictive tools having a high degree of confidence (i.e., 95%) may also form the basis of listing
waters as impaired. This applies to fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain shellfish area
classifications for all pollutants that constitute potential risks to human health.
For purposes of determining whether a segment is impaired by a pollutant and should be included
in Category 5, EPA considers a fish consumption advisory or shellfish consumption advisory, a National
Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) classification, and the supporting data to be existing and readily
available data and information that demonstrate non-attainment of a Section 101(a) "fishable" use when:
the advisory is based on fish and shellfish tissue data,
a lower than "Approved" NSSP classification is based on water column and/or shellfish data
(and this is not a precautionary "Prohibited" Classification or the State WQS does not
identify lower than "Approved" as attainment of the standard),
the data are collected from or are representative of the specific segment in question, and
the risk assessment parameters (e.g., toxicity, risk level, exposure duration and consumption
rate) of the advisory or classification are cumulatively equal to, or less protective than those
in the State's WQSs.
This applies to all pollutants that constitute potential risks to human health, regardless of the
source of the pollutant. However, for advisories for "dioxin and dioxin-like compounds," due to unique
risk characterization issues, listing decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
February 2005
54
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Where a State classifies shellfish growing areas "Prohibited" as a precautionary measure due to
the proximity of a wastewater treatment plant discharge, or where a required sanitary survey has not been
conducted, the segment is not required to be included in Category 5 unless there are segment specific
data (and the data were not considered during the development or review of a non-precautionary NSSP
classification), showing nonattainment of Section 101(a) uses.
Finally, some fish and shellfish consumption advisories and NSSP classifications are based on
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels as opposed to EPA's risk-based methodology for the
protection of human health. FDA action levels are established to protect consumers of interstate shipped,
commercially marketed fish and shellfish rather than fish and shellfish caught and consumed within a
State. FDA action levels also include non-risk-based factors (e.g., economic impacts) in their derivation,
while WQC must protect the designated uses without regard to economic impacts. EPA has therefore
concluded that FDA action levels do not provide a greater level of protection for consumers of fish and
shellfish caught and consumed within the State than do human health criteria. In such instances, or
where segments have a fish or shellfish consumption advisory, they are not required to be listed in
Category 5 or defined as impaired under Section 303(d) unless there are fish or shellfish data specific to
that segment (and the data were not considered during the development or review of a non-precautionary
NSSP classification), showing nonattainment of Section 101(a) uses.
7. How should Category 5 handle segments for which WQS are being revised or where temporary
variances are in place?
The attainment decision must be based on the applicable WQS. In the case of a standard that is
being revised, that standard is not applicable until it has been approved by EPA. 40 CFR 131.21.
Therefore States must include in Category 5 segments that do not meet an applicable WQS at the time of
listing, even if the new standard is in the process of being revised to be less stringent, until such time as
EPA approves the revised standard. However, these segments would not have to be considered a high
priority for TMDL scheduling. If EPA approves a revised standard in the future, the segment may be
removed from the Section 303(d) list at that time provided the segment does not meet the listing
requirements with respect to the new standard. With respect to variances, which are temporary and
usually apply to a particular discharge-, the applicable WQS is the underlying standard, therefore the
segment should be placed in category 5 if it does not support one or more of the designated uses in the
underlying standard. For waterbody variances, the State has chosen not to permanently change the use,
thus the state must base attainment decisions on the underlying use and criteria associated with that use.
8. Must Category J include a segment where the criterion has been exceeded, but the exceedance is
the result of background or natural conditions?
There are situations when the assessment results of certain segments may, in a natural condition,
exhibit water quality characteristics or chemical concentrations approaching or exceeding those levels
established as the water quality standards. These natural conditions or criterion exceedances may occur
where there is no discernible impact from anthropogenic point or nonpoint sources of the pollutant. If the
State's water quality standards include a specific "natural conditions" provision, these segments would
not be considered impaired (i.e., excluded from Categories 4 and 5). These segments can then be placed
into categories 1 through 3 as appropriate. For such segments, these background or natural conditions
can be defined by assessing the results of water quality monitoring efforts, by the use of predictive
models, or a characterization based on data from a watershed with similar hydrologic, land use, and
pollutant loading characteristics.
February 2005
55
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Where natural background levels do not exceed applicable standards, the addition of pollutants
from human activity and resulting point or nonpoint source discharges shall be limited such that, in total,
the natural background levels and the additions from human activity shall not exceed the standards.
When reasonable justification exists to preserve the higher natural quality of a water resource, a state
may use the natural background levels that are lower than the applicable site-specific standards to control
the addition of the same pollutants from human activity.
Where background levels exceed applicable standards, the background levels may be used as the
standards for controlling the addition of the same pollutants from point or nonpoint source discharges in
place of the standards.
9. What additional information is needed for segments in Category 5?
Identification of Pollutants
Section 130.7(b)(4) requires States to identify, for each segment included on the Section 303(d)
list (Category 5), the "pollutants causing or expected to cause violations of the applicable water quality
standards." For the 2006 listing cycle, segments identified as impaired or threatened based on biological
criteria should be included in Category 5 unless the State demonstrates that a pollutant is not causing the
impairment States should identify all pollutants that are known to be causing the impairment of a
segment.
Prioritization and TMDL Schedule
Section 303(d)(1) requires States to "establish a priority ranking" for the segments it identifies
on the list, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such segments, and
to establish TMDLs "in accordance with the priority ranking." Each listed pollutant-segment
combination should receive a clear priority ranking, either in the form of a scheduled TMDL completion
date or a ranking such as high, medium, or low. States have considerable flexibility in deciding how best
to apply these factors in prioritizing their list of waters needing TMDLs. For example, a waterbody with
a severe water quality problem may be given a high priority for TMDL development in light of the
severity of the concern. Conversely, a severe water quality problem may require complex analysis before
developing a TMDL, and the State may therefore choose to give it a lower priority to allow time to
collect necessary information and complete the analysis. Thus, the most severe water quality problems
or the most toxic pollutants need not always be given the highest priority for TMDL development, if
circumstances warrant a lower priority.
Federal regulations provide that "schedules for submissions of TMDLs shall be determined by
the Regional Administrator and the State" (40 CFR 130.7(d)(1)). Factors such as the State's use of a
rotating basin approach or commitments specified in court orders or consent decrees may be considered
when States develop priorities and schedules. EPA recommends that States develop a schedule for
establishing TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable and that the schedule (1) identifies which TMDLs
will be established in each year of the upcoming Integrated Reporting cycle and (2) estimates the
approximate number of TMDLs to be established for each year thereafter. EPA encourages the States to
ensure that the schedule provides that all TMDLs for every pollutant-segment combination listed on
previous Section 303(d) lists be established in a time frame that is no longer than 8 to 13 years. The
pollutant-segment combination is first identified in Category 5. EPA will not take any action on the
February 2005
56
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
schedule. The schedule is intended to help the public and EPA to understand the State's priorities and
assist in work planning.
In developing their schedules, States will need to decide which TMDLs are higher priority than
others. States need not specifically identify each TMDL as high, medium or low priority. Instead, the
schedule itself can reflect the State's priority ranking. The CWA does not prescribe a particular method
of expressing a priority ranking, and EPA believes a TMDL schedule is a reasonable, efficient way to
demonstrate priority ranking. In some circumstances, the order in which TMDLs are established might
be subject to some modifications as the schedule is implemented, such as logistical efficiencies or data
availability.
February 2005
57
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
VI. Reporting Results
States are required to submit their water quality report (Integrated or separate Sections 303(d)
and 305(b)) to EPA by April 1,2006. Section III provides a recommended organization for Integrated
Reports. This section builds on Section in by providing guidance on the format (ADB and/or hard
copy/word processed) for transmitting information in the integrated report to EPA. Table 6-1
summarizes which components of an Integrated Report are required by the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations, versus which components EPA strongly encourages, and clarifies what format
states should use to transmit information in the integrated report to EPA. If a State elects to use a
different organization structure than recommended in this guidance, Table 6-1 may also serve a check list
to determine whether all necessary components of an Integrated Report have been provided.
The term "Required format" in the last column of Table 6-1 is used to indicate that the Section
303(d) list portion of the Integrated Report be submitted to EPA in a readable and reviewable word-
processed format. Submitting Section 303(d) lists in database formats, including the ADB, does not
ensure that all required components of the list are reviewable and fully accessible to EPA or the public.
In particular, EPA and the public cannot identify with accuracy the exact waterbody/pollutant
combinations that make up a State's list, if the list is submitted in a database format. Although EPA's
regulations do not require a particular format for the Section 303(d) submission, the Section 303(d) list
and accompanying methodology must be in a format that EPA can read and review, such as a hard copy
or electronic word-processed format, in order for the Agency to fulfill its obligation of reviewing and
approving or disapproving the list. It should also be noted that EPA may use its authority under 40 CFR
Part 130.7(b)(6)(iv) to request other reasonable information pertaining to a State's Section 303(d) list.
In lieu of submitting a detailed five category report to satisfy the requirements of Sections
305(b), 314, and 303(d), States may choose to put their georeferenced assessment results into ADB and
print out their Section 303(d) list. The Section 303(d) list must include an identification of impaired
waters still requiring TMDLs, the pollutants causing the impairments, a priority ranking, waters targeted
for TMDL completion in the next two years, and a description of the assessment methodology and other
elements required by 40 CFR 130.7(b). EPA recommends that a States submit a monitoring strategy or
schedule (which could be in 106 workplanning context). For waters not contained in ADB (e.g., wetlands
and groundwater) EPA would like to have a narrative description of the State's assessment results.
Assessment results entered into ADB can be sorted and reported in a variety of ways to satisfy
multiple requirements and needed reports. The data can be put into the Five Part Categorization of
waters, and will allow the placement of a waterbody/segment into more than one category. The data can
also be aggregated to provide EPA's responses needed under GPRA and the OW Strategic Plan.
February 2005
58
-------
Table 6-1. Summary of Water Quality Reporting Elements of an Integrated Report
Reporting Element
(What to submit)
Required (R) by
CWA
or
Strongly
Encouraged (E)
by EPA
Format
(How to Submit)
~ - Required format
0 - Preferred format
1 - Acceptable format
O- Not a generally preferred format
Assessment
Database
(ADB)*
Hard
Copy/Word
Processed File
Executive Summary
E
Part A. Introduction
E
Part B. Background Information
B.l Total Waters
E
B.2 Water Pollution Control Program
R
B.3 Cost/Benefit Analysis
R
B.4 Special State Concerns and
Recommendations
E
Part C. Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment
C.l Monitoring Program
E
C.2 Assessment Methodology
See below
See below
Description of data and information was
used to make attainment determinations
R
a
Description of how the data and
information was used to make attainment
determinations
R
~
Rationales for any decision to not use
any existing and readily available data
and information.
R
~
Description of changes in the assessment
methodology since the last reporting
cycle
E
C.3 Assessment Results
Requiredb
(See below)
See below
See below
Five-part categorization of waters
E
O
Results of Probability-based designs
E
-------
Reporting Element
(What to submit)
Required (R) by
CWA
or
Strongly
Encouraged (E)
by EPA
Format
(How to Submit)
~ - Required format
- Preferred format
1 - Acceptable format
O- Not a generally preferred format
Assessment
Database
(ADB)"
Hard
Copy/Word
Processed File
303(d) list: list of water quality-limited
(impaired and threatened) waters still
requiring TMDL(s) [waters assigned to
Category 5], pollutants causing the
impairment and priority ranking for
TMDL development (including waters
targeted for TMDL development within
the next 2 years).
R
~
Changes from previous 303(d) list (i.e.,
the water/pollutants that have been
added and the water/pollutants that have
been delisted along with the reason for
their delisting)
E
~
Status of TMDL development
E
~
State summaries of designated use
support
E
Eutrophic condition of all publicly
owned lakes in such State
R
1
A description of procedures used to
control pollution and restore water
quality
R
Methods used to mitigate high acidity
R
A list and description of those publicly
owned lakes in such State for which uses
are known to be impaired and those
lakes in which water quality has
deteriorated as a result of high acidity
that may reasonably be due to acid
deposition
R
~
An assessment of the status and trends of
water quality in lakes
R
I
C.4 Wetland Program
E
C.5 Trends Analysis
E
60
-------
Reporting Element
(What to submit)
Required (R) by
CWA
or
Strongly
Encouraged (E)
by EPA
Format
(How to Submit)
~ - Required format
# - Preferred format
1 - Acceptable format
O- Not a generally preferred format
Assessment
Database
(ADB)*
Hard
Copy/Word
Processed File
C.6 Public Health Issues
E
Part D. Groundwater Monitoring &
Assessment
E
Part E. Public Participation
See below
See below
Section 303(d) List (Category S)
R
Other portions of the Integrated
Report
E
Note:
" EPA strongly encourages all states to use the ADB. If the state is not using the ADB, this
assessment unit specific information should be submitted in a compatible electronic system.
The State should work with EPA to ensure that the electronic assessment information submitted
can be compiled by EPA for regional and national reporting and can be sorted into the five part
list as outlined in the IR guidance.
b CWA Section 305(b) requires to provide a description of the water quality of all waters in their
State. As a result, EPA and the States have established a long-term goal of comprehensively
characterizing surface waters of each State using a variety of techniques. These techniques may
include traditional targeted monitoring, probability-based monitoring surveys, targeted site-
specific monitoring, landscape and water quality models, and remote sensing.
61
-------
Draft 20061R Guidance
Glossary
Assemble ("data and information') Through solicitation and other means, gathering all existing and
readily available water quality-related data and information.
Attainment The condition of meeting one or more elements of applicable water quality standards (e.g.,
supporting a designated use, not exceeding a numeric water quality criterion (WQC), being consistent
with a narrative WQC, and comporting with antidegradation policy).
Assessment Making a decision, based on all valid ("accepted^ existing and readily available water quality
-related data and information, about the condition of a segment with regard to WQS (i.e., making a WQS
attainment status determination.)
Averaging period The period of time over which the receiving water concentration is averaged for
comparison with criteria concentrations (see also Criterion-Duration).
Categorization determination Deciding in which of EPA's five summary categories (or a State's
equivalent system) a particular segment-designated use combination or segment-pollutant combination
belongs.
Causefsl of Impairment The stressor(s), whose presence in a waterbody is/are, singly or in combination,
causing or contributing to failure to meet any applicable WQS. Impairment causes include, but are not
limited to, pollutants and other forms of pollution.
Characterization determination Making, based on all valid existing and readily available water quality-
related information, a WQS attainment status determination-, or, deciding that additional data collection
and analysis will be needed before attainment status can be determined. A characterization
determination can be made with regard to one or more, or all, of the WQS applicable to a segment.
Consider (data and information") Determining whether individual data points, data sets, or other forms of
information meet previously published quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) specifications (see
also evaluate (data and information)). Data and other information meeting such specifications is valid.
Criterion-Duration The period of time (averaging period) over which ambient data is averaged for
comparison with a criterion-magnitude. For example, certain EPA WQC for protection of aquatic life are
expressed, in part, as 4-day average concentrations of a particular pollutant (i.e., the criterion-duration is
4 days). WQC expressed as a "concentration not to surpass (supercede, exceed, etc.)" are often called
"instantaneous criteria", in that their duration/averaging period is just a second (instant).
Criterion-Frequency That element of a numeric WQC describing how often waterbody conditions can
surpass the combined magnitude and duration components (i.e., specifying the allowed number of
excursions that can occur within a certain period time (i.e., the acceptable rate of excursions). For
example, certain EPA aquatic life WQC are stated as "the 4-day average concentration of the pollutant
shall not supercede ug/L more often than once every 3 years, on average." Here, the criterion-
frequency is "once every 3 years, on average."
Criterion-Magnitude ("or Criterion-Concentration') That element of a numeric WQC specifying
acceptable ambient levels of a pollutant or other indicator. Most criterion magnitudes are expressed as
February 2005
62
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
concentrations (e.g., milligrams/liter), though magnitudes for some parameters are expressed differently
(e.g., pH and temperature).
Data Quality Objectives A specification of the quality of the data needed in order to meet the
monitoring project's goals.
Designated Uses (DLH Those uses specified in state or tribal water quality standards regulations for a
particular segment, whether or not they are being attained. (40 CFR 131.3.(g)) Uses so designated in
WQS are not meant to specify those activities or processes that the waterbody is currently able to fully
support. Rather, they are the uses/processes that the State or Tribe wishes the waterbody to be clean
enough to support, whether or not the waterbody can, in its current conditions, fully support them.
Digression ("Exception) A single grab sample, or set of spatially-composited samples, with a
concentration inconsistent with (higher than in most cases, but lower than for some parameters like
dissolved oxygen) the criterion-concentration in an applicable WQC. For example, if the criterion-
concentration for a pollutant is 13 ug/L, and one has 4 grab samples containing concentrations of 9 ug/1,
17 ug/L, 5 ug/L and 22 ug^, one would have observed two digressions" in this set of samples (see
excursion and exceedance, for comparison).
Evaluate (data and informationl Determining whether individual data points, data sets, or other forms of
information meet previously published quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) specifications (see
also consider (data and information)). Data and other information meeting such specifications is valid.
Exceedance A situation in which ambient conditions are inconsistent with those desired conditions
described by the combined three elements of a numeric WQC (magnitude, duration, and frequency). Put
another way, when the rate of excursions is higher than that specified by the criterion-frequency. For
example, an exceedance would have occurred if a WQC for a certain parameter says "the one-hour
average concentration shall not surpass 40 ug/L more often than once in 3 years, on average" and during
a given 3 year (1095 day) period there are two or more one hour periods in which the average
concentration was 41 ug/L or higher. Waters on which one or more exceedances are failing to meet
WQS, and therefore must be placed on the State's, Territory's or Tribes' Section 303(d) list. By contrast,
occurrence of a digression or an excursion does not, in and of itself, constitute a failure to meet
applicable WQS.
Excursion Having an average concentration in a set of samples, or in a waterbody itself, that is
inconsistent with the average concentration specified by the combination of the magnitude and duration
components of an applicable WQC. For example, if a WQC says the 30-day average concentration of
pollutant "x" should be no greater than 77 mg/L, and the results of monitoring, modeling or other studies
indicate there is a 30-day period with a concentration of 88 mg/L, then an excursion has occurred
(compare with digression and exceedance).
February 2005
63
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Existing and Readily Available Water Quality-Related Data and Information The definition of this term
includes, but is not limited to:
Information found in watershed plans and other types of water quality management plans;
Information contained in reports and databases developed pursuant to the CWA, including:
Integrated Reports, separate Section 305(b) report, a Section 303(d) list, a Section 314 lakes
assessment, a Section 319(a) nonpoint assessment, STORET, the ADB, etc.;
Information appearing in reports and databases developed pursuant to other federal statutes and
programs, including but not limited to SDWA Section 1453 source water assessments, Superfund
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act reports, the Toxic Release Inventory, USDA
programs, and USGS programs;
Restrictions and/or advisories regarding shellfish harvesting and water-based recreation;
Any observed effect (see definition below);
Results from site-specific biological, chemical, and physical monitoring and surveys;
Results of utilization of remote-sensing technology efforts; and
Results of use of predicative tools/ extrapolative tools (e.g., probabilistic surveys, landscape-
models, dilution calculations and models estimating pollutant loadings and ambient water
quality).
Impairment Failure to support a water quality standard (failure to support one or more the designated
uses, exceedance of one or more numeric criteria, conditions inconsistent with narrative criteria, or
antidegradation policies).
Observed effects') Direct manifestations of an undesirable effect on waterbody conditions. For
example, fish kills, fish lesions, depressed populations of certain aquatic species, and bioassessment
scores are observed effects indicating changes in aquatic communities. Major algal blooms, undesirable
taste and odor in raw and finished drinking water, and increased incidences of gastroenteritis and other
waterborne diseases among swimmers are also observed effects. Depending on a State's water quality
standards and specific waterbody conditions, observed effects may form the basis of an impairment
decision. For example, depending on the magnitude and cause of a fish kill, this observed effect may or
may not result in an assessment of "impaired." Generally speaking, pollutants and pollution are not
considered observed effects (e.g., lead, pesticides, phosphorus); rather, they are causes of observed
effects.
Parameter A specific pollutant, or other chemical/physical condition, such as phosphorus, copper, E. coli
bacteria, BOD, temperature, pH, turbidity, etc
Quality assurance project plan (OAPP1A written document that outlines the procedures a monitoring
project will use to ensure that the samples participants collect and analyze, the data they store and
manage, and the reports they write are of high enough quality to meet project needs.
Quality assurance (OA") The overall management system which includes organization, planning, data
collection, quality control, documentation, evaluation, and reporting activities. QA provides the
information needed to ascertain the quality of data and whether they meet the requirements of a project.
QA ensures data will meet defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence.
Quality control (OC1 Routine technical activities whose purposes are, essentially, error control. Since
errors can occur in either the field, the laboratory, or in the office, QC must be part of each of these
functions.
February 2005
64
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
Population A group of animals (including humans), or plants belonging to the same species. This is the
definition of "population" utilized most often in environmental sciences. Statisticians, however, use this
word in a much broader sense-the set of individuals, items, circumstances or conditions that is being
studied. Frequently "target population" is used by statisticians to describe the entire universe of
things/situations from which a set of samples is taken. Hence, the "target population" from which a set
of water quality samples were taken would be all concentrations of the parameter of interest in every
drop of water found in a particular assessment unit in every second of time over a certain period. The
term "waterbody conditions" is used in this document in reference to what statisticians call "population".
Sample A single measurement or aliquot. Often called a "grab sample" in environmental monitoring.
(Note: This is a different use of "sample" than that commonly employed by statisticians. What a
statistician would call a "sample" is referred to as a "sample set" in this document.)
Sample Set A group of individual measurements or aliquots (i.e., a collection of "samples").
Section 304(a) criteria: Those WQC developed by EPA under authority of Section 304(a) of the CWA,
based solely on the latest scientific information regarding the relationship that levels of a stressor
(pollutant, etc.) has to effects on aquatic organisms or human health. These criteria are issued as
guidance to states, territories, and tribes for use in developing their own WQC.
Segment A waterbody (river, lake, bay, estuary, wetland, etc.) or portion thereof.
Threatened waters EPA recommends that States consider as threatened those waters that are currently
attaining WQSs, but which are expected to exceed WQSs by the next listing cycle (every two years). For
example, segments should be listed if the analysis demonstrates a declining trend in a specific water
quality criteria (WQC), and the projected trend will result in a failure to meet a criterion by the date of
the next list (i.e., 2006 for purposes of the 2006 assessment cycle); or, segments should be listed if there
are proposed activities that will result in WQSs exceedances.
Unsupported uses Those designated uses that are not fully supported by conditions in the waterbody to
which those uses are assigned by WQS.
Use (data and information") Employing data and information to make a characterization determination.
Valid (data and information! Data meeting QA/QC specifications. Status should use all such data and
information making characterization determinations.
Water Quality Criteria (WQC") Elements of State, territorial, or tribal WQS, expressed as parameter
(pollutants, etc.) levels or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports one or more
designated uses. Numeric WQC addressing chemical or physical conditions contain three attributes: 1)
magnitude (e.g, concentration), 2) duration (averaging period), and 3) frequency (recovery interval).
Water Quality Standard (WQS) Provisions of State, tribal, or territorial (or, in some cases, Federal) law
which define the water quality goals for a waterbody/segment. WQS consist of: designated uses, water
quality criteria (both numeric and narrative), as well as antidegradation policies and implementation
procedures.
February 2005
65
-------
Draft 2006IR Guidance
WOS Attainment Status Determination Deciding, based on use of all valid existing and readily available
data and information, whether WQS, or components thereof, are being met or are not being met.
February 2005
66
-------
Appendix A
Data Elements for the Electronic Submission of Assessment Results (ADB)
(One Sheet)
-------
Appendix A: Checklist of Data Elements for the Electronic Submission of Assessment Results (ADB)
Data and Information
List Category
Attaining
the water
quality
standard
1
Attaining
some
designated
uses
2
Insufficient or no
data and information
to determine if any
designated uses are
attained
3
Impaired or threatened for one or more
designated uses but not needing a TMDL
TMDL
needed
5
TMDL
complete
4a
Expected to
meet the
standard
4b
Not
impaired by
pollutant
4c
Name of segment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Type of segment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Location of segment based on NHD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Standard for segment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Assessment type
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Assessment level
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Assessment date
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Observed effect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Standard attained
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Designated Uses not attained (impaired)
X
X
X
X
Designated Uses attained but Threatened
X
X
Uses with Insufficient or No information
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-pollutant impairment
X
X
X
X
Pollutant(s) for which TMDLs are required
X
X
X
Source(s) of pollutants
X
X
X
Lake trophic status
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TMDL completion schedule
X
Date TMDL approved
X
X
Monitoring date
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A-l
-------
Appendix B
Data elements for 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Am
DOCUMENTATION FOR DEFINING AND LINKING SEGMENTS TO THE NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET
(Seventeen Sheets)
-------
Data elements for 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report and
documentation for defining and linking segments to the National Hydrography Dataset.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States and Territories to report water quality monitoring and
assessment information to satisfy CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b). EPA recognizes that States and
Territories use a variety of monitoring designs which allow them to characterize waters of the United
States at different scales. This reporting format accommodates jurisdiction-wide or watershed-level
assessments based on probability designs and attainment decisions on individual segment. The purpose
of this appendix is to provide a consistent format for the Integrated Report. This appendix is organized
as follows:
A. Reporting Segment Results
1) Define the segment
2) Report segment geographic information using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
3) Report on the trophic status for all lakes
4) Report attainment decisions for the segment's standard and each of its designated use(s)
5) Document how and when the attainment decision for each segment-designated use
combination was determined
6) Report any pollutants and non-pollutants causing impairments and their probable sources
7) Report any observed effects of pollution for each segment-designated use combination
8) Report on approved TMDLs and provide a schedule for establishing TMDLs
9) Documenting the monitoring schedule
B. Reporting Attainment Decisions based on Probability Designs
1) Identify the waters assessed through a probability design ("target population")
2) Report the geographic locations of the target populations using NHD
3) Report attainment results for standards
4) Report the precision and date of the attainment results
5) Report all pollutants and non-pollutants causing impairment and their probable sources
C. Data Elements to be reported using EPA's Assessment Database or an equivalent relational database
D. Minimal Database Design to support Electronic Submission
B-l
-------
A. Reporting Segment Results
The following information should be submitted in order to identify and characterize segments within the
five categories outlined in this guidance. Jurisdictions should use a relational database to store and
maintain their attainment results and, document decisions on standards attainment status, identify any
pollutants or other types of pollution and their sources for all segments not attaining standards, and report
the assessment metadata for each attainment decision. All segment information should be provided in a
database format, preferably using EPA's Assessment Database (ADB) software. Following is a brief
description of the data elements EPA expects to receive in electronic format. The permissible value
domains for these data elements should be used and can be downloaded from
http://www.epa.gov/waters/reporting. This includes a standardized list of pollutants and non-pollutants,
sources, assessment type and level codes.
1) Define the segments
As described in this guidance, all waters referenced within State and Territory standards documents
should be assessed and reported on. These types of water may include, but are not limited to, lakes,
rivers, estuaries, coastal shorelines, wetlands, oceans and groundwater. The basic unit for assessing
attainment status for Sections 305(b) and 303(d) attainment is the segment.
The following descriptive information should be included for each segment:
unique segment identifier (primary key)
segment's type (river/stream, lake/reservoir, coastal shoreline, wetland, etc.)
segment's size and units of measurement
segment's name and location on the NHD
segment's designated uses
2) Reporting segment geographic information using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Each State and Territory must define their segments, in order to report the status of all of the Nation's
waters in an effective and consistent manner. Segments are the basic unit of record for conducting and
reporting the results of all water quality assessments. States and territories will be able to characterize all
their segments into one of the five categories by employing a systematic approach for segment
documentation in conjunction with the principles described in this guidance.
Currently, State and Territory segments are defined using a wide range of criteria - from individual
monitoring stations to Natural Resource Conservation Service watersheds. Sometimes these segments
are defined using geographic information systems (GIS) but more often are only described textually. As
a consequence, it is extremely difficult to ensure adequate assessment of all waters. EPA strongly
encourages States and Territories to uniformly adopt the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) reach
addressing protocol for assigning segments. Through a unique reach number and a position, reach
addresses precisely locate water features, such as segments. These reach addresses get stored in a GIS
compatible format. NHD reaches are typically defined from confluence to confluence and are the
hydrographic equivalent of a street's block number. A reach address is analogous to a street address
number. Additional NHD information and data is available from USGS, http://nhd.usgs.gov. EPA will
provide hands on training to any interested jurisdiction on the protocols for linking water quality
information to the NHD. Once the segment has a reach address, other critical water quality data ~ such
B-2
-------
as the segments position within the stream networks, flow, and any other information linked to the NHD
- becomes readily available.
States and Territories should document the process used for defining segments in their assessment
methodologies. Segments should not span more than one water quality standard. The individual size of
segments will vary based upon assessment methodologies, segments should, however, be larger than a
sampling station but small enough to represent a homogenous standard attainment within individual
segments. An individual segment may comprise part of a NHD reach, an individual NHD reach, or a
collection of NHD reaches and or parts of reaches.
The use of the NHD protocol for segment delineation provides powerful mapping and spatial analysis
capabilities for all water quality characterization activities. This delineation approach will help target
resources and activities such as scheduling monitoring, issuing permits, and targeting restoration
measures. In particular, the application of NHD will provide much more spatial resolution in identifying
segments requiring the establishment of TMDLs. Furthermore, the incorporation of NHD will aid in
developing and implementing management actions in individual and/or multiple segments. Jurisdictions
should use the NHD protocols for defining and linking the segments covered by completed TMDLs or
bundles of TMDLs. This TMDL specific geographic information should be submitted to EPA
simultaneously with a TMDL's submission.
For each segment in Category 5, the use of the NHD convention clearly defines the geographic bounds
affected by the TMDL. This should delineate the specific geographic location of the targeted segment, a
clear description of the standard, and a more focused representation of the relevant watershed(s) which
contribute point and non-point source pollutant loads. For example, in the establishment of a TMDL for
a Section 303(d) listed segment, pollutant reduction efforts in a non-impaired segment may be the most
logical and efficient action to the attainment of the standard in the impaired segment. By linking TMDLs
to NHD the management actions throughout a watershed will be visible.
EPA recognizes that some States and Territories may work with other spatial hydrographic data,
however, States and Territories should still provide NHD addresses for their segments. NHD is currently
being developed at higher resolutions and where complete jurisdictions may use these data. States and
Territories interested in developing higher resolution NHD are encouraged to work with United States
Geological Survey (USGS).
The NHD-Reach Indexing Tool (RIT) is a useful tool for creating segment's reach addresses and can
delineate user-defined polygons in wetlands, large estuaries, oceans, and near coastal segments. All GIS
coverages submitted to EPA should have unique segment identifiers that match those in the jurisdiction's
assessment database. Table 1 lists the basic requirements for a GIS submission and the appropriate
metadata that should be included.
B-3
-------
Table 1. Reporting on Segment Geographic Information
Water
Type
GIS Coverage
Database Metadata
Rivers
River segments should
be included as a linear
feature in a GIS
coverage. NHD
format is preferred.
Include standard metadata requirements for NHD event tables.
A list of these requirements can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/georef7nhdrit_datastructure.zip
Otherwise provide Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) "light" metadata about the coverage, as well as the
location of an segment identifiers in the coverage that can be
joined to those in the database. FGDC metadata requirements
can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Lakes
Lake segments can be
included as a linear or
polygon feature in a
GIS coverage. NHD
format is preferred.
Include standard metadata requirements for NHD event tables.
A list of these requirements can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/georefnhdrit_datastructure.zip.
Otherwise provide Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) "light" metadata about the coverage, as well as the
location of a segment identifiers in the coverage that can be
joined to those in the database. FGDC metadata requirements
can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Estuaries
Estuarine segments
should be included as a
polygon feature in a
GIS coverage.
Include Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) "light"
metadata about the coverage, as well as the location of a
segment identifiers in the coverage that can be joined to those in
the database. FGDC metadata requirements can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Coastal
Waters
quality
Coastal shoreline
segments should be
included as a linear
feature in a GIS
coverage. Other near
coastal units (e.g.,
shellfish beds) should
be reported as
polygons.
Include standard metadata requirements for NHD event tables.
A list of these requirements can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/georef/nhdrit_datastructure.zip.
Otherwise provide Include Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) "light" metadata about the coverage, as well as the
location of a segment identifiers in the coverage that can be
joined to those in the database. FGDC metadata requirements
can be found at: http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
Wetlands
Wetlands segments
should be included as a
polygon feature in a
GIS coverage.
Include Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) "light"
metadata about the coverage, as well as the location of a
segment identifiers in the coverage that can be joined to those
in the database. FGDC metadata requirements can be found at:
http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html
B-4
-------
3) Report on the trophic status for all lakes
The trophic condition of all lakes must be reported using values found on
hup://www.epa.gov/waters/reporling .
4) Report attainment decisions for the segment's standard and each of its designated use(s)
EPA encourages states and territories to provide assessment information for every segment's designated
use(s). Each segment's designated use should be assessed and reported to have one of the following
conditions:
Attaining standard
Not Attaining standard
Insufficient or no data and information - Segments with insufficient data and information to
support an attainment determination for a standard.
For segments which are not attaining one or more designated uses, jurisdictions should determine and
report if the segment is expected to attain its standard (i.e., all designated uses) in the near future. For
these segments, jurisdictions should report the other pollution control requirements which when
implemented will result in the attainment of water quality standards. Jurisdictions should also report the
dates these actions were or will be implemented and the anticipated year of attainment. This information
is need by EPA to validate the assumptions jurisdictions used when placing segments in Category 4B.
Threatened waters are those segments where a jurisdiction has determined that sufficient data exists to
determine that all designated uses are being attained, and that non-attainment is predicted by the time the
next Integrated Report is due to be submitted. These segments should be included in Category 5.
5) Document how and when the attainment decision for each segment-designated use combination
was determined
EPA requests the following information be included to document the attainment decision for each
assessed segment designated use:
Assessment date (e.g., December 20, 2005) - This date documents when the jurisdiction
completed the technical analysis of data and made its decision on the segment's designated use
attainment status. A common way to store a full Y2K-compliant date is in the character format
YYYYMMDD (e.g., 20031220 for December 20, 2005).
Assessment type - Jurisdictions should list all types of data they used to make each use
attainment decision (e.g., physical/chemical monitoring, toxicity testing (e.g., bioassays), benthic
macro-invertebrate surveys, etc.).
Assessment level - Assessment levels, which range from 1 (least rigorous) to 4 (most rigorous)
should be reported for each assessment type. Jurisdictions should provide definitions of their
assessment levels in their assessment methodologies.
B-5
-------
6) Report any pollutants and or non-pollutants causing impairment and their probable sources
Jurisdictions should report all of the pollutants or other types of pollution for impaired or threatened
segments. The list of acceptable pollutants and other types of pollution is available on
http://www.epa.gov/waters/reporting. The list contains a complete set of chemical characteristics and
non-pollutant causes of impairment. Jurisdictions should link the pollutant to the designated use or
designated uses that are not being attained Jurisdictions should also indicate the specific pollutant
causing impairment when known.
Jurisdictions should also identify the probable sources contributing to an impairment. The sources
should be documented using the list provided on http://www.epa.gov/waters/reporting. These sources
need to be linked to the appropriate pollutant causing the impairment.
7) Report any observed effects of pollution for each segment-designated use combination
Jurisdictions should document and report any observed effects of pollution for each segment-designated
use combination. Observed effects may include; fish lesions, fish kills, stream bottom deposits, low
combined biota/habitat bioassessment. How jurisdictions use observed effects to make attainment
decisions is dependent upon a jurisdictions' interpretation of their water quality standards and should be
documented in their assessment methodology. Documenting observed effects is most important in
segments which are not attaining one or more designated uses but the pollutant or non-pollutant is
unknown.
8) Report on approved TMDLs and provide a schedule for establishing TMDLs
Jurisdictions must submit an estimated schedule for establishing TMDLs for every pollutant on each
segment in Category 5. This schedule must specify the month/year for all TMDLs which will be
established prior to the next Integrated Report, and the year for all others. In addition jurisdictions
should indicate which of the pollutants on impaired segments have an approved TMDL. Jurisdictions
should indicate the date EPA approved these TMDLs and the EPA TMDL identification number.
Information on the approval date and EPA TMDL identification number can be found on
http://www.epa.gov/waters/reporling.
B. Reporting assessments based on State-wide or watershed-level probability designs
The following sections address the data requirements recommended by EPA for reporting probability-
based assessments. This guidance defines the data elements and format necessary to document a
jurisdiction's assessment based upon probability based monitoring designs. Tables 2 through 4 provide
recommended formats for summarizing and reporting the results of probability-based monitoring. Each
data element is defined in Table 6.
1) Identify the waters assessed through a probability design ("targetpopulation ")
Study area findings should be associated with the area's standard(s) and should be clearly documented
along with the target population that was monitored to develop the indicator. For instance, wadeable
B-6
-------
perennial streams throughout a state and territory may be the target population for an indicator of
biological integrity related to aquatic life support. Each probability survey project should be assigned an
ID (a Probability Survey Project ID). Table 2 shows how this basic information on state probability
survey projects should be organized.
2) Report the geographic locations of the target populations using NHD
Where the target population is not the same as an entire state, maps should be provided that use polygons
to highlight a project's geographic area such as all waters of a specific class (e.g., lakes) throughout
watershed units, eco-regions, or other geographic regions. States and territories are expected to have GIS
polygon coverages related to each probability survey project. GIS coverages should conform to Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Geospatial Data Metadata Standards. State in-house probability
survey project polygons should be available with basic FGDC-compliant metadata in either a shape file
format or in a standard ESRI export file format (*.e00). Additional information can be found at:
ht to ://www. fgdc .gov/ metadata/co nts tan.htm 1.
Additional information to define the geographic frame (sample frame or "population") for a probability
survey project should include such items as: the water type relevant to the project (e.g., rivers); or other
"stratification" features.
States and Territories are also expected to develop size estimates for the entire target population. States
and Territories should be able to document the GIS Hydrography coverage or other data layer used to
develop their target population sizes.
3) Report attainment results for water quality standards
For each probability survey project, attainment results should be summarized using the format illustrated
In Table 2. The table can be accompanied with graphics using pie charts or other business charting
layouts. The presentation of the study's findings should apply a breakpoint that clearly defines the
estimated percentage of the total target population meeting standards and the percentage not meeting
standards. For each probability survey project, a description of the project methodology should be
provided. Where there are a small number of standard project designs, a state can make reference to
pertinent sections from its monitoring strategy, QAPP and/or assessment methodology materials. The
estimated percentage of the target population meeting standards should also be accompanied by the
precision of the estimate, in the form of 90 or 95% confidence intervals.
4) Report the precision and date of the probable attainment results
A major attraction of probability designs is that statistics can be developed that show the confidence
levels associated with attainment results. States and Territories should provide a discussion of the
statistical tests they apply to produce the precision value information illustrated in Table 2 or refer to
other documents that provide this information such as a QAPP or assessment methodology. As with
reporting for segment results, the assessment date should be included for each probability survey project
indicating when the State and Territory finished the technical analysis of data and made its decision on
the standards attainment status. Table 2 illustrates how to display the assessment date in a Y2K-
compliant format (YYYMMDD).
B-7
-------
5) Report any pollutants and non-pollutants and their probable sources
Where possible, EPA requests that States and Territories develop pollutant and source summary
information for each of their probability survey projects using the format illustrated in Table 3. The
maximum impact percentage in these tables should not exceed the percent for the use non-attainment
results reported in Table 2 (a value of 25% for this hypothetical case).
B-8
-------
Table 2. Reporting format for the attainment results calculated using a probabilistic monitoring design
Project ID
Project Name
Target Population
Type
Size
Units
Designated_use
Percent_
attaining
Percent_not_
attaining
Indicator
Assmt_datฃ
Precision
Confidence
STX_1
Downstate Sample
Survey
All streams ordered
4 or greater in basins
CandD
River
100
Miles
Aquatic Life
75%
25%
Biological
20000201
90%
ฑ15%
Table 3. Reporting Locations identified using a probabilistic monitoring design
Pro pet ID
Location _Type
Location_Desc
STXl
State Basin
C
STX 1
State Basin
D
Table 4. Reporting causes of impairment and potential sources of impairment identified using a probabilistic monitoring design.
Pro ject ID
Designated_use
Im pairmentID
Im pairment_Percent
Source_ID
SourceJPercent
STXl
Aquatic Life
15
5%
2
70%
STXl
Aquatic Life
166
10%
3
20%
STX 1
Aquatic Life
166
10%
3
10%
B-9
-------
C. Data elements to be reported using EPA's Assessment Database or an equivalent relational
database
Data elements to be reported using either EPA's Assessment Database or the relational database structure
outlined in Section D, Minimal Database Elements to Support Electronic Submission are described in
Table 5 below.
Table S. Segment Specific Data Elements to be reported in the 2006 Integrated Report
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
ID305B
Text
Free text,
Jurisdiction
specific
Unique identifier for
segment ID state defined
CYCLE
Date
YYYY
Reporting Cycle
AU_NAME
Text
Free Text
Name of Segment
LOCATION
Text
Free Text,
Jurisdiction
specific *Note,
this does not
replace linking
segments to the
NHD
Text description of the
segment's location
AU_TYPE
Text
http://www.eDa.
liov/waters/repo
rling
Water type for the
segment (e.g., River,
Estuary, Wetland)
AU_SIZE
Numeric
Dependent
upon units used
to measure
Size of the segment
SIZEJJNIT
Text
hitD://www.eoa.
eov/waters/repo
rting
Size unit (e.g. Miles if
AU_TYPE is River)
TROPHIC_STATUS
Text
htto://www.eDa.
pov/waters/repo
rting
Trophic status of publicly
owned lakes
LOCATION_TYPE
Text
Free Text
Description of the type of
location (i.e. 8-digit HUC,
County, etc.)
LOCATION_DESC
Text
Free Text
Values for locations
associated with an
Assessment Unit or
Project ID.
B-10
-------
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
LATDD
Numeric
15-72
Latitude in Decimal
Degrees
LONDD
Numeric
65-180
Longitude in Decimal
Degrees
PREVIOUSID305B
Text
Free Text
Used for tracking
Assessment Units from
cycle to cycle. This field
would be used when there
is a change in the ID
structure for an
Assessment Unit, or if an
Assessment Unit gets split
PREVIOUSCYCLE
Date
YYYY
Cycle for the previous
Assessment Unit ID.
Used for cycle tracking
USEDESC
Text
Designated
Uses as
described in
state water
quality
standards
Description of the
designated use which is
being assessed
ATTAINMENT
Text
Attaining, Not
Attaining,
Insufficient or
No Information
The attainment status for a
particular segment
designated use
ASSMNT_TYPE
Numeric
httr>://www.ena.
cov/waters/repo
rting
Caption describing a
category of data types
used to make
attainment/impairment
decision
ASSMNTQUAL
Numeric
ht(D://www.eDa.
gov/waters/repo
rting
A score ranging from a
lower range of 1 up to 4
indicating reliability and
precision of the applied
for a category of standard
specific assessment type
ASSMNTDATE
Date
YYYYMMDD
Date the attainment
decision was made
B-ll
-------
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
THREATENED_FLAG
Text
Y/null
Flag used to indicate
threatened waters.
Threatened segments are
those segments where sues
are being attained, but
non-attainment is
predicted by the time the
next Integrated Report is
submitted.
MONITORING_SCHEDULED_DATE
Date
YYYY
Date by which additional
monitoring for attainment
status will be completed
IMPAIRMENT_ID
Numeric
httD://www.eDa.
gov/waters/repo
fling
EPA Unique identifier
assigned to pollutants,
non-pollutants and
observed effects
IMP_G ROUP_ID
Numeric
EPA defined for
pollutants and
non-pollutants.
State defined
for observed
effects or other
impairment
groupings
Used to group a collection
of impairments into
various categories such as
pollutants and non-
pollutants
C Y CLEFIRSTLISTED
Date
YYYY
First Year (cycle) water
was listed for a given
cause of impairment
POLLUTANTFLAG
Text
Y/null
Marked Y if the cause of
impairment is a pollutant,
N if the cause is pollution
ENFORCEABLEACTION
Text
Free Text
Pollution control
requirements other than a
TMDL taken for a
segment to meet standard
ACTION_DATE
Date
YYYY
Year other pollution
control requirement
was/will be completed
EXPECTED_TO_ATTAIN_DATE
Date
YYYY
Date by which the
segment is project to attain
its standard
B-12
-------
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
TMDLSCHEDULE
Date
YYYYMM
Date when the jurisdiction
anticipates submitting the
TMDL for EPA approval
TMDLPRIORITY
Text
High, Medium,
Low
State's priority for
developing a TMDL
TMDL_ID
Numeric
h(tD://www.eoa.
gov/waters/tmdl
EPA assigned unique
identifier for approved
TMDLs
SOURCEID
Numeric
http://www.eDa.
pov/waters/repo
rting
EPA identifier indicating
the source of the pollutant
MONITORING_STRATEGY
BLOB
Free Text
The jurisdiction's current
monitoring strategy
document stored in PDF,
MS Word or WordPerfect
format.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
BLOB
Free Text
A copy of the assessment
methodology used to make
attainment decisions
stored in PDF, MS Word
or WordPerfect format.
B-13
-------
Table 6. Probabilistic Monitoring Data Elements to be reported in the 2006 Integrated Report
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
PROJECTED
Text
Free text
jurisdiction
specific
State assigned identifier
used to uniquely identify
the study/project
CYCLE
Date
YYYY
Reporting Cycle
PROJECTNAME
Text
Free Text
Name of the project
TARGET_POPULATION
Text
Free Text
jurisdiction
specific
Description of the
project's target population
AU_TYPE
Text
httD://www.eDa.nov
/waters/reporting
Water type for the
segment (e.g, River,
Estuary, Wetland)
AU_SIZE
Numeric
Dependent upon
units used to
measure
Size of the segment
SIZEUNIT
Text
httn://www.ena.eov
/waiers/reporiinp
Size unit (e.g. Miles if
AS_TYPE is River)
LOCATION_TYPE
Text
Free Text
Description of the type of
location (i.e. 8-digit HUC,
County, etc.)
LOCATION_DESC
Text
Free Text
Values for locations
associated with an
Assessment Unit or
Project ID.
INDICATOR
Text
Free Text
A description of the
indicator that was
monitored (e.g. Biological
indicator, Trophic State
Index, etc.)
ASSMNTDATE
Date
YYYYMMDD
Date the attainment
decision was made
PRECISION
Numeric
1-100.00
Precision of the estimate,
in the form of 90 or 95%
confidence intervals
CONFIDENCE
Numeric
1-100.00
The confidence interval
(% +/-) for the standard
attainment decision
B-14
-------
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
USEDESC
Text
Designated Uses as
described in state
water quality
standards
Description of the
designated use which is
being assessed
PERCENTATTAINrNG
Numeric
1-100.00
Percent of target
population attaining
standard
PERCENTNOTATT AINING
Numeric
1-100.00 (not to
exceed 100-Percent
Attaining)
Percent of target
population not attaining
designated standard
IMPAIRMENT_ID
Numeric
httD:/7w ww. etปa. kov
/waters/reporting
EPA Unique identifier
assigned to pollutants,
non-pollutants and
observed effects
IMP_GROUP_ID
Numeric
EPA defined for
pollutants and non-
pollutants. State
defined for
observed effects or
other impairment
groupings
Used to group a collection
of impairments into
various categories such as
pollutants and non-
pollutants
IMPAIRMENT_PERCENT
Numeric
Sum of all
impairment
percentages not to
exceed the percent
not attaining
Percent of non-attaining
population impaired by a
specific cause (30% non-
attainment attributed to
nitrogen)
SOURCE_ID
Numeric
httD://www.eDa.eov
/'waters/reporting
EPA identifier indicating
the source of the pollutant
SOURCE_PERCENT
Numeric
Sum of all source
percentages not to
exceed 100% for a
given impairment
Percent of non-attaining
population attributable to
a particular source of
pollution (e.g. of the 30%
of nitrogen impaired
waters, 70% was
potentially attributable to
agricultural runoff)
B-15
-------
Field Name
Field
Type
Domain
Description
MONITORING_STRATEGY
BLOB
Free Text
The jurisdiction's current
monitoring strategy
document stored in PDF,
MS Word or WordPerfect
format.
ASSESSMENT_METHODOLOGY
BLOB
Free Text
A copy of the assessment
methodology used to make
attainment decisions
stored in PDF, MS Word
or WordPerfect format.
D. Minimal Database Design to support electronic submission of the Integrated Report
The data elements and business processes outlined in the previous three sections must be assembled into
a relational database design. EPA's Assessment Database is one data base design capable of storing and
reporting the attainment status of a jurisdiction's waters. States and Territories should use EPA's
Assessment Database to track the attainment status of their segments and to submit the supporting
information behind their Integrated Report. If a State or Territory or authorized Tribe chooses not to use
the Assessment Database, then at a minimum they should use the database design outlined in Diagram A
with the data elements described in Table 4 to transmit their Integrated Report to EPA. EPA will
provide any interested State or Territory training and support using the Assessment Database.
B-16
-------
Diagram A. Entity relationship diagram for the minimum elements needed to support an electronic submission of the Integrated Report.
x * ^ vปป: .
^ \ :;-".vvXr Sซ. '
-a"
I I A
:> * A ^
y M X
;;ฆ,
*y.
A
*. *:.
A
:
* x
>:cJx-
X ฃ>
A ,
6
A
:<>:<ฆ :
' ฆ;:>-;
ซ A
-:o:-v
ซA
>*>ฃ
A
ot>ซty
- A
A
ฆ^jp&ZXFXtS-srjMKr-. W,
xo:-x
*yปy
:W!Wฎ
IIIP
~ A
*>*'ฆ'A-
<> A ><>
* N? *5
i
ซ'.-ปฆ
^:4cx
A
5ป>^
2
y.r>Wt-
;:a;-x
.
C<
A
:: :
i-'x--
A :
&
:: Axj-x-xf.^x^:
S
**>
ฆ:w;c.x -;
" iV
y^>
:. C.
A
ซ*!#**><
:
ฆ '*-&
A :>-.ซ
A --:*ซ*
-,> >yysyซoป :ฆ> ฆ
iJ :-iA: - ':&*
ฆ ฆ
ปฆปฆ ฆฆฆ jV ' -" wiw."
ป*. ฃ o . ซ : ;ฆ:
* A W-KX*
* A ***
V*. -A ^A
v/.rr mr ft * A ov-'w-
C> A
O S& :
~ jj I J,
# ac
*
A *rnwvz
-r;
?**-<
"t*!"
A
:*: A
< ป ^
ซ^'A
A .'A
>ปซซv
^ A
.. " A
ซ6;^ซWyk:
'r^AA<ซ-x-rซr; ;<- .;-.:r,y :x- ;
A.:Mซn;A:J
v * wo>V--
^ 4, wflW?/(.v;>W
A:ซ A
* ป
&<5&
: o :
WZ
w>:
wSwSwi; <<-x,
xAw*.^ *vปA
A=jA
PM*ii
> *
A
ฆ Xv$>,
A
' X*
ISA
ซ.K-
:ซ
A
ฆ RXAX^.JW
A>:
A :'
A
%?jA;';;>:
;jj* iKs*s>ป; WS'-W&t
* *. A :>*
f~4~ * A t&Mf&x,
A 4-
;i f
W-W' jW
;'.;:'>wcซ:.:cy&.;?c<<;.':
i:|p;
;ฆ/ฆ V:
Ukhi
V. ^ :
A
fx*
A *"
yx<<
ซ'/ซ:ซ/
ป*
iES
A
A
I- 4
**AA::
A; A
* A/
*K<*
"^A
:>"
*:a
ii^A:
:-Sซ>
a
*
ฆ*ซ.' ฆ
-X *
A> :
* *
-
. V//XV :<
' f>
VWW.JWX'/.v
; .a
A
-S-XXWf?
:>
*sซ i
j.i.i
ป x-
A
-s
yx/crx-X'-yixo:
<>::
<*xvx<>
ซ;:
A
5?^ซ>
:>y-
A
X
A
m
A
: towotfxorww
*r. rx
A A :ฆ :ฆ
C 4c. >>< '^>5
Ac A,
ฆฆฆ A
B-17
------- |