TMDL Program Meeting Between Dep & EPA, June 5, 1997: Information Package


TMDL PROGRAM MEETING BETWEEN
PEP & EPA
June 5. 1997

-------
TMDL PROGRAM MEETING BETWEEN PEP AND EPA
JUNE 5. 1997
Information Package
Index:
A.
Agenda
B.
PA 1996 303(d) list
C.
Overheads
D.
Lawsuit Commitment Summary Table
E.
Elements of a TMDL
F.
TMDL and CPP regulations
G.
Lawsuit Memorandum of Understanding
H.
Monitoring, Assessment and Listing Report
I.
Draft Guidance on List Prioritization and Readily and Available Existing Data
J.
Draft Guidance on TMDL Submittal to EPA Region III

-------
DEP/EPA June 5,1997
TMDL Program
Commitments

-------
What's been completed so far
¦	Reviewed and approved 1996 303d list
¦	Evaluated reliability of land use/water quality
correlation
¦	Drafted EPA Region III guidance for list
prioritization, readily available and existing
data and TMDL submittal (final due 7/15/97)
¦	Listed significant lakes in PA
¦	EPA provided DEP with $100,000 for lake
assessments

-------
Monitoring and Assessment
¦	Draft report on PA's monitoring and
assessment program/303d listing process
DUE 10/1/97
¦	Final report on PA's monitoring and
assessment program/303d listing process
DUE 12/1/97

-------
Continuing Planning Process
¦	Define PA continuing planning process;
EPA to publish notice of its availability in the
Federal Register
DUE January 31, 1998
¦	EPA preliminary CPP evaluation completed
DUE June 1, 1998
¦	Final CPP evaluation completed by EPA
DUE August 1, 1998

-------
Unassessed Waters
¦	Perform comprehensive assessment of PA
wadeable rivers and streams
ONGOING until April 9, 2007
¦	Establish and gain DEP/EPA consensus on
monitoring protocol for wadeable rivers and
streams
DUE: June 15, 1997

-------
Administrative/Reporting
¦	Develop workplan for TMDL development.
Will serve as a guide for both EPA and DEP.
DUE September 30, 1997
¦	EPA's annual consent decree/settlement
agreement compliance report due to
Plaintiffs and DEP
DUE December 31, 1997

-------
LAKES
EPA will provide $200,000 to DEP to assess
significant lakes
First $100,000 already provided
DEP will monitor 100 significant lakes
DUE in 10 years
In 10 years, EPA will monitor u
significant lakes above DEP's 1
303d listing purposes
First 5% due April 9, 1998
o to 100
00 lakes for

-------
TMDL development
¦ TMDL establishment for the first year of the
consent decree: DEP shall establish TMDLs
for at least 8 non-AMD water quality limited
segments on the 1996 303d list which
receive EPA approval.
DUE April 9, 1998

-------
1998 303d list development
¦	DEP submits 1998 303d list
DUE April 1, 1998
¦	EPA reviews PA 303d list; EPA evaluates
whether the list contains all readily available
and existing data; review prioritization of
waters for endangered species
DUE May 1, 1998
¦	If PA fails to submit a 303d list by 4/1/98,
EPA will establish one by 9/1/98

-------

D£P
Mimm
-Priority Gam	Starnmmm
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
2-E.3-J	H«h	2	Mawate River Esluaiy
3-F.	J-G
3-F	633	SdimMRlMfEauiy
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
1-A	Low	2	Dataware Riwar
t-C	H	641#
l-E	L	47SO	Brodheed Creek
1-F	H	03243	WBftzCfeek
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
2-C
H
3364
Sodh Brandt Sauoon Craak (Unl)
2-C
H
3670
UMe Cedar Creak
2-0
Low

LmMdm Late
2-F
HUl
2404
Netaaton Cwt
2-f	H	2480	IM Neehamny Crack
2-f	High	2630	UMe Nashaatoy Creek
Sat Narrative lor Description of Pnorty tor TMOL Development.
Nonpoml Source Prionbea an L for Low. M tor Medium. H for HiQh.
| Mies Degraded ate Baaed on the Length of tw Study Segment.
Entire Area of Lake In Acres ks Shown.
NPS - Indratei Nonpoa* Source Impact.
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
Bate feMMc* EPAUItthltauiciCadt
£vaiuatsd or
P»A3W(l»CmMeCacto Degraded «p» Mooted
DELAWARE ESTUARY
ORBCTox P(fl
Induslnal Pomt Sources
Mnlart
21

E

Municipal Point Soutoa*
Pnonly Organic*
21

E

Nonpoa* Sources
'Iniali
21
X
E
Fish Consump Advisory
Other Nonpoa* Source*
PCB. CNordane
666
X
M
fig/) sbMbaa
Cornbkied Saawr Overflow!
MeUts. OCVBOO
1

E


1-UPPER DELAWARE RIVER


F*h Conaump. Adwaory
UmMerrranod
CNordane
2

M
Phaaal AH
A(ncufen
Nubian!*
6.700
X
M


SuifMndad

X
M

CMher Nonpoaa Sources
Mutnenti

X
M


Suspended

X
M
Fish Consump AtMsory
Aknosphanc OeposOon
Mareuty

X
M
306(b) Raport
Otier Non-Potnl Sources
Suspended Sobd*
06
X
M
306(b) Raport
Otier NorvPcMSouroos
CMhar
05
X
M
2-CENTRAL DELAWARE RIVER
306(b) Raport
306(b) Report
FWt ConaumpL AdriMiy
WBWnaiwrt
305(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
Ohar NoitMnl Souroee
Pnorty Organic*
21
X
M
Mai RiaHWStorm Saaav
Suspended Sand*
06
X
M
Undetaatoed
CMordane
20
-
M
llm^a Mai fiaumee
Nuaiants
IS 1

M

OfgsMc EnrtchmenliDO
10

M

PM
4

M
Otiar Non-Port Souroaa
Cause Unknown
4
X
M
Agnculun
Nutrients
05
X
M
Munopal PoM Souroaa
Orgsrac Ennchment/DO
24

14

Nuaisras
24

M
TL-I
V8WSNSR6
RamUd 2/12/87

-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
D£P
MUM qdiiii Ipvjtfuafed or
$m» *prt«#y Coam ppa^wncmimcq* qmnmm hp# Mot**e
-------
DtP
Straw)
«vhp «ptKw»r .torn
Iftnumifemt
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
OMUmi Evaluated or
iP#»9^99Wrn>f^Mli 6PA M«J)) CaMM Cod* Qqpttfcd HPS MoitftHWl
3-C
High
1878
Bsmftsrt Crash
TMOL Modal
Industrial Port Sources
Dtuotvod Sokds
04
n a

M
t *
J-C
H
1981
Laural Run
306(b) Report
Agriculture
MMM
Organic EnnchmenVDO
U ^
27
X
M
M
3-0
H
3110
UheNocfcamuon
Phase I6 H Report
AgncuKure
Nutnenis
1.450
X
M

Suspended Sediments

X
M

Muvapal Port Sources
Nutnants

Onafte MtaalswatM Systems
Nutnenis

X
M
34}
H
IMS
Franc* Crash
306(b) Report
Agnadluro
Nutnants
76
X
M
3-0
H
1660
llnl French Crash
306(b) Report
Urban RunoMTStorro Sewers
Other
1
X
M
3-D
H
1822
Ur* Sctiuyfcll Rteer
306(b) Report
AgrtcuMura
Nutnants
4 3
X
M
3-0
L
1856
Msnetasny Crash
306(b) Report
Agriculture
Nutnenis
OS
X
M

Agricutore
Organic Ennchmenl/DO
3
X
M
3-E
M
1017
PkUodiki CimIl
306(b) Report
Muraapd Port Sources
NuBients/OO
68

M
VE
M
1017
Grasn Lans Reservoir
Phase 1 Rapt
not yet done
Orgarac EmchmanVDO
814
X
M
VE
M
1024
ShtppechCraeh
306(b) Report
OSwr Non-Port Sources
Nutnants
39
X
M
3-E
Msthum
1181
Misn Crash
906(b) Report
Munapsl Part Sourcss
Oasofced SoSds
06

OSiar
06

M
yf
H
2788
Lake Coterie
Phase 1 Rapt
AgnouMun
Nutnants
365
X
M

Suspended SoSds

X
M

Urban Runoff
Nulnents

X
M

Suspended

X
M

Ons*» Mkstawalar Systems
Nutients

X
M

OVisr Monport Sources
Suipandad Sofeds
Nunarss

X
x
M
14
3-f
H
00076
LatoUaanSoug
Phase IRepI
AgrioShae
Suspended SoSds
NuMMi
166
X
x
M
14

Urban RuroWStana Sewers
Suspended SoSds

X
M
3-F
MsOutn
880
Unnamed Trib. Sandy Run
306(b) Report
InduaM Port Sources
Nutnants
02

Muntctpal Mnt Sourass
Turb/Siapandad SoSds
03

08isr Hon-PoM Sources
CoueeUnhnomn
02
X
M
3-f
Msdksn
an
Sandy Run
306(b) Report
IfcaUprtratftasoss
Nutrients
16
03

M
M

Bm2S255m
03
X
M
3*
M
801
OtamflMi Crash
308(b) Report
Otisr Non-PoM Sourcss
IMSs
02
X
M

Suspended SoSds
0 1
X
M
3-F
Msdksn
880
Trout Run
306(b) Report
Municipal Port Soueoss
Olier
02

M
3-f
M
886
UMsVttsy Crash
306(b) Report
Undetermined
TurttStop Sohds
1 4
X
M

1 4
X
M
3-G
Msdum
620
CM air Crash
306(b) Report
Munfclptf Port Sources
Ohm
04

Undetermined
Otarcrgancs
044

M
3-G
Hsrttsm
528
Unnamsd Trife Chsstar Crash
306(b) Report
Municipal Polnl Sowoss
Otiar
01

M
* See Narrative tor Description ol Priority for TMOL Development.
Nonpomt Source Prionties are L for Low. M for Medium. H for High. TL-3
Q Miles Oegraded ere Based on the Length of the Study Segment,
Entire Area ol Lake in Acres is Shown.
NPS - Indicates Nonpoint Source impact uwshshs
RmmU 2/1249/
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
Dtf>
Wnw QMUea or
«WP Tttotify C(MI» 8taMNM)» jSPAMWtM99MT6*Co4* 6PA399U»>CMMCode Deprived NP$
3-G
Medium
570
Unnamed TifbWBr Chester Creek
305(b) Report
Municipal Pom! Sources
Other
t

M
3G
Madum
604
EBrCheslar Creek
305(b) Report
Municipal Port Sources
Other
02

M
WJ
M
753
Hermseprota Creek
305(b) Report
Other Non-Port Sources
Metals
0 1
X
M

Other
0 1
X
M
3-H
L
4
Brandywne Creek
FohConsump Advisory
Other Nonpoml Sources
CMontane
20
X
M
3-H
High
26
lin Tiift. Brandymne Creek
306(b) Report
Otier Pear* Source*
Nutnento
1 2

M
3-H
I
as
WMBnn^tadywniCmii
306(b) Report
MuraapX Port Sources
Nutnenls
40

Agncukure
NuOients
2
X
M

Fish Consump Advuory
t ¦- -»-* • *
unoawmnM
PCB. CMontane
28
-
M
3-H
H«h
161
Buck Run (UM) (U6e Buck Run)
306(b) Report
Municipal Part Sources
Nutnenls
05

Organic Ermchmenl/DO
04

M
3-H
I
239
Cm! Pfflcti Ormrtywtot Cn#
305(b) Report
AanaAira
Nutnenls
2
X
M
3-H
ttgh
364
CUbertaon Run
3060) Report
Other Port Sources
Tuito/Suspended Sofcds
02

NuOienls
02

M
3-H
H
360
IndlenRun
306(b) Report
AgrtcuHure
Organic Ermchmenl/OO
05
X
M

Oeier
05
X
M

Nutnenls
05
X
M
3-H
Low
Ml
VaBey Creek
Fish Consump Advisory
Industrial Port Sources
PCB
16 7

M
3-1
L
374
Red Clay Creek Been mdudmg
Fish Consump Admaory
Induskial Port Sources
PCB. CMontane
1 1
X
M

East and MM Branches Red Clay Crk.

AgnoAural
PaMiogena
05
X
M

South Brook and Buck Toe Creek

Other Nonport Sources

3-1
H
366
llnl W.Br. Red Clay (Toughkanamon Tnb)
306(b) Raport
Otier Non-Port Sources
Nutnenls
1
X
M
3-1
H
400
Unt Mtaal Br Red Clay Crk. (IM Tab)
306(b) Report
Oder Non-Port Sources
MeWs
0 t
X
M

Pnonty Organics
0 1
X
M
3-1
L
413
Eael Branch Red Clay Creek
306(b) Raport
Agncuftae
Nutnenls
2
X
M
W
High
432
East Branch MMa Clay CreMi
305(b) Report
Muuapat Port Sources
Nukienls
2

Organic Emchmanl/OO
2

Otier NoivPoM Sources
PHlQdll
2
X
M
3-1
High
440
UNT East Branch \MNta Cl% Creek
306(b) Raport
Municipal Port Souraaa
ftlM
01

Bac/ patiogane
01

Undetarmnod
Mstats
02
X
M
3-1

462
Matte Branch WMa Oay Creek
306(b) Report
Municipal Port Sources
Nutnenls
1

AgtoiM
Suspended Sofede
67
X
M

Nutrlants
6.7
X
M
3-1
L
466
Mtoat Branch WMa a* Creak
306(b) Report
A«rta*n
SuapMdad
Muinanfei
35
4
X
x
M
M
34
H
460
SoUh Branch Naaraan Creek
306(b) Raport
Agncuk«e
Nukienls
03
X
M
3-1
High
662
llr* Green Creak
306(b) Report
Otter Port Sourcea
Other
01

M
3-J
HW>
MM
Creek
306(b) Report
tnduMal Port Sourcas
Pnon^r Oiganica
1 1

Ukrtdpal Port Sources
PaVugens
25

Orgarac Ermchmant/OO
24

M
* Sm Narrative for DescnpUon o< Prionty for TMDL Development.
Nonpoml Source Prionbes are L for Low. U tor Medium, H for HiQh. TL-4
@ Miles Degraded are Based on the Length ol the Study Segment.
Entire Area of Lake In Acres m Shown
NPS - Imfccates Nonpoml Source Impact.
\36f>S*S«S
KmhO VMM
-------
PSP
?*P ^£2»
8tmn hmm
W?vW TTT""!™
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
QMIIm Evaluated Of
p»A3Wty9«Ma$Klli CPA C*m Co* O«0r»»0 «p$ M0fl*>r*
-------
6WP wort*
DtP
SOW**)

TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
OM$«MrSf |P4|jW{fc)9gMn»CQ4« SPA 9Q$(fe) Cmh Cq4o
QllUaa
Qe#n**d
WS
Evaluated ot
Monitored
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) 3UBBASIN:
7-LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
7-8
L
10104
Conodoguinsl Creak
305(b) Report
AgncuUwe
Nutrient*
28 8
U
7-fi
H
10261
Letort Spring Run
309(b) Report
Other Non-Port Sources
Pnonty Organic*
2
M

Urban Runoff/Storm Sowar*
Metal*
04
M
7-8
H
10319
Mount Rodi Spring Creak
309(b) Report
AgnaAure
Pesftade*
Nutnant*
0 4
1 4
M
y
7-8
H
10361
Mount Rock Spring Creek
309(b) Report
AgncuMure
Nutnant*
1 4
M
7-8
H
10430
Green Spring Creak
309(b) Raporl
AgncuMure
Numem*
4
M
7-8
L
10966
Capping** Run
309(b) Raport
AgncuMure
Nulnenti.OO/BOO
04
II
7-B
H
10602
Ifetfe Spring Creak
309(b) Report
AgncuMure
Suspended Softitt
4
M

Urban RunoCVStorm Somen
Suspended
24
M
7-C
L
10136
Peidon Creek
305(b) RaporV
Contorted Samer Overta*
OCVBOO
00
14

Storm WMarMgL Study
Urban Runoff
Nulnent*
40
14
7-0
L
6665
Bow Creak UNT
309(b) Raport
AgrtaJkn
Nutnent*
07
M
7-0
L
6706
KJWigar Creak
309(b) Report
Agrio*ire
Nutnant*
55
y
7-0
L
6724
BactmanRun
309(b) Raport
Agrtodkae
Nuthanl*
47
y
7-0
L
6726
Badr Creak
309(b) Raport
Agnoihire
Nutnant*
7 5
y
7-0
I
6726
Snitz Creak
309(b) Raport
Agnculkae
Nutnant*
6
y
7-0
L
6746
Swelara Creek UNT
309(14 Report
AgncuMure
OCVBOO
2
y
7-0
L
6666
Deep Rim
309(b) Raport
Agncufeae
Nutnant*
22
y
7-D
L
6612
EarMdlRun
309(b) Raport
Agnadhae
Nutrient*
38
y
7-0
L
6620
CtomMI Creak UNTIUNT
309(b) Raport
Agricutore
TubfSu* Sokd*
00
y

Bacff>a
-------
D£P
Strewn
Trier#* G«m

TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
CSMIWm Evaluated of
R»AW»(W»<)wn»C«M CPA M$d» C«iW C<*M Deomded HPS Ntoflit*«t
7-G
H
7922
Donegal Creek Unt
306(b) Report
AgncuKure
Nulnenl*
0 I
7-G
H«h
9243
Conewago Creek
306(b) Report
Potnl Sources
DO/BOO
06
7-M

8032
Codorus Creak
305(b) Raport
Induttial Port Source*
TurtrfSuipended Solid*
DO/BOO
Temperature
34
34
30
7 H
L
6093
Souti Branch Codona Crook
306(b) Report
AgncuSure
Suspended Sofrtft
Nutoents
5
6
7-W
H
6213
OSCraak
306(b) Raport
Uitoan RunottStorm Sewer*
Otter
1 2
7-1
M
6791
DoarOaak
306(b) Report
Agricukute
SMpendedSohdi
Nutrients
35
37
7-1
M
8762
Fafeng Branch Doer Croak
305(b) Report
Agncufcjro
Suspended
1 3
7-J
H
7600
Pequee Creak. Unt.
306(b) Report
AgncuBura
Suspended
Numents
03
2 1
7-J
H
7648
Conoaloga Rmot
306(b) Raport
AgncuaureMhar MPS
Nutnant*
Orgarac onnchmeiWOO
OB
04
7-J
ttgh
7612
U« Creak (UnQ
306(b) Raport
Induttnal Port Source*
Agnculkae
Saknty /TDS/CNonda*
Suipended
OS
02
7-J
h
7613
Muddy Run
306(b) Raport
AgnoAn
Suapandad Sokdi
Nutnant*
2
1 2
7-J
H
7646
UttzRun
306(b) Report
Urban RunoMrStotm Seimr*
TiaWSu* Sol
1 7
7-K
H
7026
Tweed Creak
308(b) Raport
AgrtoAuto
Cauta Unknown
08
7-K
H
7162
Conoaringo Creak
306(b) Raport
Agncufeae
Nutnant*
Turb/Sua Sot
76
86
7-K
H
7046
PoquoeMd Creak WMwihed
Piot Study
Agrcutura
Nutnanta/Petbada*
-
7-K
L
74SO
Paquaa Peak
306(b) Rapod
AgricuMuo
Susponded
Nutnanls
25
25
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
M
M
»C
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
26374
KJblarRun
308(b) Raport
S-UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
OKmt NofrMol Souiom Sutpandad Sokdt 03 x
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBAS1N:
»C lam 22SM Spring Craafc and Stab Cafein Run
FiahConeump AdMaory
^CENTRAL WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Industrial Pom Souraaa Uru 18.4
See Narrative lor Description ot Pnorty lor TMDL Development
Nonpomi Source Priorities an L lor Low. M tor Medium, H for High.
I Mites Degraded are Baaed on the Length oI the Study Segment.
Entire Area oi Lake in Acres is Shown.
NPS - Indicates Nonpomt Source Impact.
TL-7
I96PSNSH5
HmtMd 2/12/a/
-------
DEP
9ttMm
8W "Pftortt* Co4*
WmmHmm
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
QUItefi ^Vfltuetod of
fttfSftMm* SPA MMMteuree Coda EPAW$(t»Ca«MCo* Degraded NP9
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
10-LOWER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
10-A
M
20942
FohHoXm
306(b) Report
Urban RunoWStorm Sainton
Cause Unknown
06
X
M
10X
M
18920
B^Mo Creek
306(b) Report
Agncuture
Other
OS
X
M

Almosphenc Oepomon
P«
26
X
U
10-0
H
19792
TAsRin
306(b) Report
Other Non-Port Source*
Suspended
OS
X
M
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
11-UPPER JUNIATA RIVER
11-A
High
16004
Utte Junuta Rnter
306(b) Report
Muraapal Port Sources
Organic EnndimeiWDO
1 2

Urban RunoWStorm Sewer*
Other
1 2
X
M
11>
High
16036
BM Eagle Creek
306(b) Report
Industrie Port Somas
Thermal
t

M
11-A
H«h
10001
Frankatown Branch Junrta River
306(b) Report
Indurtrial Port Soucn
Pnonty Organic*
1 6

Nonpnonty Organic*
24

M
11-A
H
10317
Beaver Oam Branch
306(b) Report
Combined Sextet Overtow
Organic Emchmanl/DO
2
X
M

Urban RunoMrStonn Seetera
OOter
1 4
X
M
11-A
H
10403
MM Run
306(b) Report
Combined Sewer Overtow
Other
1 1
X
M

Urban RunoWStorm Seem
Other
4
X
M

STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:

16- LAKE ERIE

16-A
L
02246
lake Ene and Preeque Me Bay
Ftoh Conaump. Advisory
Otov MonpoM smm
PCS
7U SquoaMt
M X
U

STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:

16-UPPER ALLEGHENY RIVER

10-A
Medum
61691
French Creek
306(b) Report
Mumapel Port Source*
Nutnertfs
36

M
16-A
M
63470
Trout Run
306(b) Report
AgdcUkae
Suspended Sokd*
10 0
X
M
* Sea Narrative (or Descnption of Pnonty for TttiX Development
Nonpomt Source Prionbes am L lor Low. M for Medam. N for High TL-8
Q Miles Degraded are Based on the Length of the Study Segment,
Entire Area of Lake in Acres ¦ Shown.
NPS - Indicates Nonpoml Source Impact.
\9bCSNSR&
R«*itM2yi tM
-------
DtP
Stream
W "Priority

TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
(gMiteu Evaluated at
ISP* Wer .
Thermal Morttcabons
Suspended Sokds
Thermal Morfcflcabons
Nulnents
Suspended
SuHNOdadSoUi
Agnoiun
A0ria*ura
AgrioAM
Agncufer*
Suspended Scads
Nutnants/Suapanded Scads
Nulnants
Nutrients
Nulnents
Nulnents
Suspended Scads
14 5
2
44
44
2
1
1
03
01
0 1
03
25
25
06
06
1 5
3
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
* See Narrative (or Description of Priority lor TMDL Development
NonpotM Source Prionties are L tor Low, M for Medium. H tor High. TL-9
@ kUn Degraded are Based on the Length of the Study Segment,
Entire Area of Lake m Acres is Shown
NPS - Indicates Nonpomt Source Impact.
ISbfSNSHi
lUiMiJIM
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) List
D£P
Ww®l QMilea Evalutitd or
8W "Pfeflfr Co* Prtafewn* JrPA W(b) Soyrca Cpdp |jPA w$
L
35482
Shenango Rarer
Fah Consump. Advisory
industrial Port Sources
PCB. CNordane
33 2
X
M
204
L

Beaver River
Fah Consump Adnsory
Otier Nonport Sources
PCB. CMordana
3
X
M
xyc
high
34787
Brush Creak
306(b) Report
Municipal Port Sources
DQfiOO
55

M
2&C
M
34026
Comoquaneaslng Craak
306(h) Report
Onset Wastewater Systems
Pafiogena
9
X
M
20-E
M
32317
OMoRhar
306(b) Rapart
Contorted Sowar Overflow
Pnonty Orgamcs
9 4
X
M

Otiar Non-Port Sources
Pntndn
10 3
X
M
20-E
M
32838
Otach Foifc Lake
305(b) Report
Agricultural
Nutrients
91
X
M
20-E
L

Otao River (Upper Basin-
Fish Consump. Advisory
Other Nonport Sources
PCB. CMordana
567
X
M

ABagl
rtsny River Monongahala River,

ONoRivar)

20#
H
38777
Charters Craak
306(b) Report
Otiar Non-Port Sources
Pesticides
5
X
M

Ftsti Consump Advisory
Oaier Nonport Sources
PCB. Chiordane
17
X
M
20#
H
38873
Brush Run
306(b) Rapart
Urban RunotfStonn Sewers
Nutnants
04
X
14

Suipwded Sohm
05
X
M
20#
H
38838
Brush Run (Unt)
306(b) Report
Urten RunofStcrm Sswers
Nutnsrtts
03
X
M

SuspMded
0 1
X
M

H
38943
Canonsburg Lake
306(b) Report
AgncuBural
Nuraas
76
X
M
20#
I
38843
LMIe Chertian Creek
Fish Consump Advisory
OtfMf fiftUfpjf
PCB. CMordana
2
X
M
2ft#
H
37044
PhanRun
306(b) Asport
AflricuBun
Nukwnts
2 1
X
M

Suspended
2 1
X
M
20#
MW»
37184
SaaanMRun
306(b) Report
Port Sourcaa
NuktanMXMOO
10

M
" Sea Narrative (or Description of Priority lor TMDL Development
Nonpouit Source Pnonbes at* L for Low, U tor Medium , H for High. TL-10
3 Miies Degraded are Baaed on the Length of the Study Segment,
Entire Area of Lake in Acre* t» Shown.
NPS - Indicates Nonpomt Source Impact
I96PSNSHS
fU«Md W2MI
-------
ouyp
«HFWr
DEP
Stream
•PrtCO0
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
smanNam*
OtftftMiK* §PAttf(t!)*
-------
Vrtority
DEP
9*4*
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
or
m fiPA»>i{b)*M«C*C4Ml# 6PA 30«b) C«UM Coda Pagra0#4 NPS Mtmtfexvd
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
5-A
Low
28374
Lackawanna Rivar
306(b) Report
5-A
Low
26452
Roaring Brook
306(b) Raport
&-A
Low
28566
AytaaworthCk
306(b) Report
5VK
Low
28578
AwMyCmk
306(b) Report
5-A
Low
28694
Cod Brook
306(b) Report
5-A
Low
28685
WHson Croak
305(b) Report
6-B
Low
6685
Susquehanna River
306(b) Report
5-B
Low
28343
Newport Croak
305(b) Report
S-B
Low
28352
Solomon Croak
305(b) Report
5-0
Low
28100
Black Croak
306(b) Report
6-o
Low
26140
Una Neaoopack Croak
305(b) Report
6-D
Low
26206
LMa Naaoopack Ck (Un|)
306(b) Report
5-E
Low
2/629
CdMttMA Qui
306(b) Raport
5-E
Low
27667
TomMckon Croak
306(b) Report
6-E
Low
27671
Sugartoaf Croak
306(b) Raport
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
6-S Li
OW 17666
Mahanoy Croak
306(b) Report
6-8 Li
0* 17638
ZeftoeRun
306(b) Report
8-B L
DW 17670
Crab Run
306(b) Raport
8-B Li
OW 17683
Shenandoah Creek
306(b) Raport
6-B L
DW 16469
ShwnoUn Croak
306(b) Raport
8-B b
DW 16647
Cartoon Run
305(b) Report
6-B Li
DW 16661
Coal Run
306(b) Raport
6-B Li
DW 16662
Quaker Run
306(b) Report
8-B Li
OW 16666
Locuat Croak
305(b) Report
6-B L
ow 16667
North Branch Shamokm Croak
306(b) Report
8-C Li
dw 16696
Mcomaco Croak
306(b) Raport
* See Narrative lor Description of Pnorty for TUOL Development
Q Miles Degraded are Based on the Length of (tie Study Segment TSL-2
NPS - Indicates Nonpotni Source Impact
54JPPER CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Resource Extraction
Metali
28
X
E
Reaource Extraction
Mnt^i
4
X
M
Resource Extraction
P«
Metals
05
X
M
Resource Extraction
05
X
M
Resource Extraction
Mot i In
1 8
X
E
Resource Ex tr acton
Metals
1 9
X
E
Resource Extraction
Moiaii
08
X
E
Resource Exfeacbon
Metals
20
X
E
Resource Fraction
P«
48
X
E
Reaource Extraction
PM
24
X
E
Resource Frt action
Suspended
24
X
E
Resource Fxfearton
Metal*
4 3
X
M
Resource Exfeacbon
P«
9 1
X
M
Resource Extraction
Metals
02
X
E
Resource Exfeacbon
Other Inorganics
0 1
X
E
Resource Extraction
Metals
27 5
X
M
Resource Exfeacbon
MeMs
14
X
E
Reaource Exfeacbon
P«
10 8
X
E
Resource Extraction
PH
55
X
E
6-LOWER CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Resource ExtraOon
Matals
52 2
E
Resource Extraction
MaWs
58
E
Reaource Extraction
Metals
1 3
E
Resource Exfeacbun
Matals
5
E
Raeource Extraction
Matats
347
E
Raaouroa Exfeacbon
Matals
37
e
Reaource Extraction
Metals
3
E
Resource Extraction
MaWs
1 3
E
Raaouroa Exfeacbon
Mnlttl
1 8
E
Raaouroa Extraction
MaUi
46
E
Reeouroe Exfeacbon
Suspended Sokds
32
E
Raaouroa Extraction
lln|-yi
132
E
Reeotace Exfeacbon
P«
18 2
E
\96mine
-------
DEP
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage

Stream

CPA SOffbl Source Cede
OMJIes

EvaHn
sw
OH*

StnMnn Mm#
SMIfM
EPA W) C«uea Code Degraded
HPS
Wood
6-C
Low
17015
RaOkng Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Melals 2 2
X
E
6-C
Low
17016
VM Branch RaUkng Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals 52
X
E
6-C
Low
17019
Ooc Smrth Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Melals 15
X
E
6-C
Low
17023
Shale Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals 08
X
E
6-C
Low
17030
Easl Branch RaUkng Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals 38
X
E
6-C
Low
17031
Stone Catan Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Melals 18
X
E
6-C
Low
17037
Nme O'clock Run
305(b) Report
Resource Exbactan
Melals 06
X
E
6-C
Low
17041
Bear Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Ext action
Melals 44
X
E
ac
Low
17200
Pine Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals 6
X
M
6-C
Low
17236
Deep Creak
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Suspended Sokds 4 5
X
E
6X
Low
17259
HaneYoet Creak
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
P« 1
X
E
6-C
Low
17266
Rauach Creak
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Melals 17
X
E

Low
17267
Wasl Branch Rausch Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Melals 35
X
E
6X
Low
17268
East Branch Reuach Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extacaon
Melals 19
X
E

STATE WATER
PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:

7-LOWER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER

7-0
Low
9361
Swalara Creak
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Mel al» 21 3
X
M
7-0
Low
10021
Bawd Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracbon
Melals 14
X
E
7-D
Low
10022
Was) Branch Fishing Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Melals 36
X
E
7-0
Low
10074
Lower Reuach Creek
905(b) Report
Resource Extacton
Malats 66
X
M
7-0
Low
10076
Lorbeny Creak
306(b) Report
Resource Extacaon
Suspended Sokds 07
X
M

Reeouroe Extacaon
Metals

M
7-0
Low
10076
Stump* Run
305(b) Report
Reaouroe Ertracton
Suapsnded Sokds 04
X
M

Reeoune Extraction
Melals 02
X
M
7-0
Low
10076
Matte Creak
305(b) Report
Reeouroe Extreckon
Melals 17 5
X
M
7-D
Low
10079
Good Spring Croak
305(b) Report
Reaouna Extacaon
Malats 56
X
M
7-0
Low
10000
Poplar Creak
305(b) Report
Reeouroe ExtacHon
Meats 09
X
E
7-0
Low
tOOU
Coal Run
306(b) Report
Reeouroe Extacaon
Melals 16
X
M
7-0
Lew
10064
Gefcherd Run
306W Report
Reeouroe Extacaon
MaMs 19
X
M
7-0
Low
10006
Pantoer Creek
306(b) Report
Reeouroe Ettacton
Itlllll 1 7
X
M
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBAS1N:
•-UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
B-A L
ow 24006
SmnariMhonk^ Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Milan
156
6-A L
ow 24506
Bemaa Brand) SMnamahoring Croak
305(b) Report
Reeouroe Extacaon
Melals
666
frA L
ow 24612
Danls Run
306(b) Report
Reaouroe Extraction
PH
65
B-A L
OW 24679
Trout Run (lint)
305(b) Report
Reaowce ExbacNon
Rmoumo Eikictiofl
P«
Metals
1
02
E
E
E
E
E
* See Narrative (or DescnpOon of Priority lor TMDL Development
6 Miles Degraded are Baaed on the Length of the Study Segment
NPS - Indicates Nonpoint Source Impact
TSL-3
\96mine
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
DEP
gMlht Evaluated or
3WP *Prt©rt& Got* QmtoUK* fi?A9M(ty80Urc*C«d* £PA 9Q$(b) C«um Cod* nagraded NPS Monitored
8-A
Low
24685
Spring Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Resource Extraction
Metals
Other Inorganics
6
1 7
X
X
E
E
a-A
Low
25222
MM Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Mniiih
12
X
E
84
Low
2633
Momgomert Creek (Unl)
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
1 3
X
E
a-a
Low
18668
Mfcst Branch Susquehanna Rwer
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
79 7
X
E
8-B
Low
26119
Laurel Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
1

M
a-B
Low
26613
Woods Run
305
-------
SWP
DEP
Strwm
•Prior** Cod*
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage

Dili Some* EPA SOiiU Bouk*
8MIIm Eviluilid or
6PA 504(b) C*um Cod* P^gratled HPS Mon(U>f»4
8C
Low
26246
Utlto Muddy Run
305(l>) Report
Resource Extraction
PH
4 5
X
E
B-C
Low
26373
Dutch Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
t 3
X
M
6-C
Low
26489
BnAakar Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Other Inorganic*
08
X
E

Resource Extraction
Metals
2
X
E
e-D
Low
25529
Bach Wand Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
62
X
e
»-0
Low
25530
Uttte Bach Wand Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
43
X
E
e-D
Low
25544
Amos Branch
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
1 6
X
E
6-0
Low
25573
Starting Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
97
X
E
S-O
Low
25626
Mosquito Creak
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
6
X
E
ID
Low
25626
CuriaysRim
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
t 2
X
E
e-D
Low
25635
Gomes Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Mntili
2
X
E

Resource Extraction
Metals
1
X
E
ID
Low
25695
Motliannon Crash
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
262
X
E
a-D
Low
25703
Black Moshamon Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
1
X
E
80
Low
25631
Cold Stream
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction

1
X
E
ID
Low
25653
Laursf Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
54
X
E
S-D
Low
25663
Com Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
P«
05
X
M
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
9-CENTRAL WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVERx
9-A Li
Dw 21166
Pine Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
4
M
»-A U
am 21249
OOer Run
305(b) Report
Resource Exti acton
Metals
38
E
9A ti
dw 21262
Left Fork Oder Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracton
Metals
t 5
E
9-A Li
aw 21263
Right Fork OOer Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracton
Metals
04
E
9A Li
ow 21661
BaMt Creek
305(b) Report
Reaourcs Extracton
Mstals
23
M
9Vt Li
aw 21730
^ *
WMOO LiMft
306(b) Raport
Resource Extracton
Metals
23
E
9-B Li
aw 16666
Mast Branch Susquehanna Rami
306(b) Report
Raeource Extraction
Mstals
506
E
9-B Li
aw 23264
Lick Run
306(b) Report
Reeource Extraction
PH
37
E
9« L
aw 23332
Tangasoootack Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extracton
listen
64
E
M L
aw 23620
Drury Run (Basin)
306(b) Raport
Reeource Extraction
P«
7 3
M
9-8 Li
aw 23621
Stony Run
305(b) Raport
Raeource Extracton
Mstais
1 3
E
94 L
dm 29626
(Moodtey Draft Run
306(b) Report
Resource Exfacton
MaWs
1 7
E
9-B Li
dw 23626
Sandy Run
306(b) Raport
Raeource Extracton
Mstals
1
E
9-B L
OW 23661
KeMe Creek
306(b) Raport
Reeource Exaacton
Mtute
3
E
9-B L
DW 23663
Two Mie Run
306(b) Report
Resource Extracton
AMab
1 9
E
94 L
aw 23670
Mridte Branch Two MJe Run
305(b) Report
Resource Exkacton
Mstals
21
E
9-B Li
aw 23966
Cooks Run (Basin)
305(b) Raport
Resource Exkacton
Maiah
66
E
»B Li
OW 23966
Cook* Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracton
Moialt
33
E
9-B L
Dw 23969
Crawley Hotow
305(b) Raport
Resource Extracton
Metals
3 1
E
9-B L
Dw 23992
Camp Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracton
Metals
2
E
9-B L
ow 23994
Rock Run
306(b) Report
Resource Extracton
Metals
1 2
E
9-C L
OW 22596
Beech Creek (Basm)
306(b) Report
Resource Exkacton
Mstals
26
E
* Se« Narrative for Description of PriorOy foe TMDL Development
@ Mil»s Degraded are Based on the Length at Itie Study Segment
NPS - Indicates Nonpomt Source Impact
TSL-5
\96mu>e
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
D£P
enjiM FY>|u>|tft or
SWP WBNWN^WI Q«ti8aMfCf WAWMWJteMWCode SPACommCod# Degraded HPS
B-C
Uw 22662
Mlddta Branch B« Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracbon
itelats
5 &
X
E

Resource Extracbon
P«
0 5
X
E
»-C
Low 22670
East Branch Big Run
305(b) Report
Resource Exbacbon
P«
Metals
2 3
X
E

Resource Extr acton
24
X
E
B-C
Low 22701
LogwayRun
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
08
X
E
e-c
LOW 22781
North Fodi Beech Creak
306(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Metals
58
X
E

STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) 8UBBASIN:

10-LOWER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER

lOA
LOW 20766
Red Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracbon
Mstals
36
X
E
10-B
LOW 19604
Loyalsocfc Creek
305(b) Report
Resouroe Extracbon
Metals
134
X
E
10-0
Low 16666
VWssl Branch Susqushama River
306(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Mstals
3
X
M

STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBAS1N:

11-UPPER JUNIATA RIVERx

11-A
Low 15976
Bear Loop Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
OOtor Inorganica
04
X
E

Resource Extracbon
Metals
06
X
E
11-A
Low 16317
Beevar Oam Branch
305(b) Raport
Resource Exkacbon
Mstals
23

M
11-A
Low 16369
Sugar Run
306(b) Raport
Resource Exkacaon
MstsH
6 3

E
11-A
Low 16416
BurgoonRun
306(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Mstals
3
X
E
11A
Low 16423
NttamingRun
306(b) Raport
Resource Exkacaon
Mstals
42
X
E
11-A
Low 16426
GtansMaRun
306(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
32
X
E
ll-O
LOW 13717
ShoupRun
306(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
Mstals
3
X
E

Resouroe Exkacbon
P«
4 7
X
E
ll-O
Low 13726
Itfar Run
306(b) Raport
Resource Exfracaon
pH
1 4
X
E

Low

Resoune ExkacSon
Mstals
1
X
E
It-O
Low 13737
Hartman Run
306(b) Raport
Resouroe Extraction
PH
06
X
E

Resouroe Exkadlon
Mstals
05

E
ll-O
Low 13791
Six IM* Run
306(b) Raport
Resouroe Extraction
P«
35
X
E

Low

Resouroe Extracbon
Mstals
2
X
E
ll-O
Low 14030
Sandy Run
306(b) Raport
Resource Exaecaon
Bmauim Fnlm'teM
PH
M0Ml
29
9 A
X
If
E
ll-O
Low 14031
Longs Run
306(b) Report
lUPMIil CWWl
Resource ExtracSon
P«
« V
25
9 A
X
tf
E
E
11-0
low 14044
KJmtoar Run
306(b) Raport
iuphw cMflEm
Resouroe Exaaceon
MWI
P«
27
A
X
E
E
* See Narrative for Description of Priority for TMOL Development
@ Miles Degraded are Based on the Length o4 the Study Segment
NPS - Indicates Nonpomt Source Impact
TSL-6
\96mine
-------
DEP
Stream
9W? Trtort^
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
„ „ ©Mlle» Evaluated or
OlfeftlUK* 6PA**M8PMti*C
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
DSP
WW gtlilM Ev#tu*fMf or
9W SttMRftMBM
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
PEP

Strew
ptpm

S«Uies

sw
•Priority
Cede

CPA SMttri Boutc«Code
CPA JQ4(t>tC*»«i Code

MP9
17-C
Low
48208
Latum Run
305(b) Report
Reiouroe Extraction
Otfier Inoiganics
Metals
26
X
E

Resource Extraction
25
X
E

low
48226
Town Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Uetala
55
X
E
17C
low
48264
Pne Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extracbon
Metals
32
X
E
17-C
Low
48289
UOe Sandy Creak
305(b) Report
Reiouroe Extraction
pH
2
X
E
17-C
Low
48386
Clutch Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
36
X
E
17-C
Low
48387
HeddenRun
305) Rapon
Resource Extraction
Metals
1 9
X
E
17-C
Low
48447
Beener Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Otho Inorganics
Metatt
3
X
E

Reiouro* Extraction
3
X
E
17-C
low
48488
WMchRun
305(b) Report
Raaouroe Extraction
P«
12
X
E

Resource Extraction
Metals
1 2
X
E
17-C
low
48734
Beaverdam Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Suspended Solid*
32
X
E
17-C
low
48745
KytaRun(Unl)
305(b) Report
Resource F.xbacbon
Metals
1 4
X
E
17-C
low
48746
Kyle Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metatt
04
X
E
17-C
Low
48803
Leftside Blanch
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
3a
K
M
17-C
Low
48807
LuttaratMao Branch
306(b) Report
Reeource Extraction
Other lnoi]|anic*
1 3
X
e

Resouee Extracbon
Metala
25
X
E
17-C
low
48834
Narrows Creak
305(b) Report
Reeource FrtracOon
MeUia
55
X
E
17-C
Low
48118
North Branch Bear Creak
306(b) Report
Reeource Extracbon
Metals
2
X
E

Reeource Extracbon
Other Inorganics
4
X
E
17-C
Low
49141
Souffi Branch Bear Caaak
305(b) Report
Reeource Extraction
Metals
24
X
E
17-C
Low
61125
Fowler Run
305(b) Rapoit
Resource Extracbon
Mews
07
X
E

Resource Extracbon
P«
07
X
E

Reeource Extraction
Other Inorgarac*
OS
X
E
17-0
low
47327
Pin* Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extracbon
OOiai Inorganica
05
X
E

Resource Exbacbon
Metals
48
X
E

Reeouce Extracbon
Matata
24
X
M
17-0
Low
47352
My* Branch
305(b) Raport
Reeauce Exbacbon
Matte
37
X
E
17-0
low
47377
Caytar Run
306(b) Report
Reeource Extracbon
Meats
0.8
X
M
17-0
low
47438
RwayRin
306(b) Report
Reeouree Extracbon
PH
1 1
X
E
17-0
Low
47W1
Bremer Run
306(b) Raport
Reeouoe Exbacbon
Metals
1 7
X
E
17-0
low
47698
Beech Rim
306(b) Report
Reeouroe Extraction
Menu
1 3
X
E
IT-O
Low
47800
No>» Bran* U8e Matanms Creak
306m Report
Reeouroe Exfcactan
Mauls
37
X
E
1743
Low
47868
EM Run
30604 Raport
neaourra Extracbon
Metals
33
X
E
17-D
low
47748
Mealy Run
306(b) Report
Reeouree Extraction
Matte
1 4
X
E
17-0
Low
47822
ShanpCnak
305(b) Report
Reeource Extraction
Metals
38
X
E

Reeouoe Exbacbon
Suspended
0.7
X
E

Reeouna Extracbon
Oeiar Inorganics
07
X
E
17-0
low
47874
Eeat Branch Uahonlne Cieak
305(10 Raport
Reeeuee Exbacbon
Metals
8
X
M
17-0
Low
40023
Laurel Branch Run
305(b) Raport
Reeeuee Exbacbon
PM
1 4
X
E

Resource Extacion
Matais
1 4
X
E
17-E
Low
46218
Crackad Creak
306(b) Report
Resouce Extraction
Suspended
62
X
E

Raeouroa Extracbon
Matais
16
X
E

neenuro r alci
pH
1 1
X
E
17-E
Low
46221
Carapbei Run
305(b) Report
Reeouce Ej*achor!
Suspended Sokds
1 2
X
E
* See Narrative (or Description of Pnonty lor TMDL Development
@ Miles Degraded are Based on the Lengtft ot the Study Segment
NPS - Indicates Nonpoinl Source Impact
TSL-9
t96nune
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
D£P
ftMJItt Of
SW *Pr»or#y Co* atnmMmm poUtftmre* «PAM«(^)8aMrc*Coa» EPA305(b>C*u»eCod* Dografed HPS KteolKwl
17-E
Low
46245
Elbow Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Suspended Solids
08
X
E
17-E
Low
46263
Coat Bank Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
PH
05
X
E
17-E
Low
46295
North Branch Cherry Run
305(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
Suspended Solids
08
X
E
17-E
Low
46390
Long Run
305(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
Suspended Sokds
05
X
E
17-E
Low
46402
Sugar Run
305(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
*>mpcnrtod
24
X
E

Resource Extraction
PH
06
X
E
17-E
Low
46415
Crag Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Other Inorganic*
1
X
E
17-E
Low
46524
North Branch Plum Creak
305(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
pH
1 1
X
E
17-E
Low
46577
SouBi Branch Plum Creak
305(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Suspended Sokds
Mntah
05
X
E
17-E
Low
46766
Mckae Run
305(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
1 5
X
E

Resource Extraction
Suspended Softtft
06
X
E
17-E
Low
47016
Huskxts Run
305(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Other Inorgana
26
X
E
17-E
Low
47105
Umeak>ne Run
305(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Other InorQanica
52
X
E
17-E
Low
47197
South Branch SoUh Fork Pina Creek
306(b) Raport
Resource Extraction
Metals
25
X
E
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) SUBBASIN:
18-LOWER ALLEGHENY RIVERx
18>
Low
42122
Allegheny River
18-A
Low
42246
Plum Creak
18A
Low
42256
UOto Plum Creak
18-A
LOW
42269
Lrttta Dear Creak
16-B
Low
42616
Kiskjminataa River
18-6
Low
42931
Beaver Run
16-B
Low
42977
Thorn Run
16-B
LOW
42991
Urtf Thorn Run
16C
LOW
43256
Loyaftiame Oaak
16-C
Low
43267
GaByRun
18-C
Low
43397
McCuneRun
16-C
low
43417
Union Run
»C
Low
43446
Saxman Run
18-C
Low
43457
Monastery Run
16-C
Low
43496
Indian Camp Run
1»€
Low
43542
Founnds Rixi
1»C
Low
43632
Conamaugh River
ia-0
18-0
Low
43902
43950
RoarmgRun
¦ Run
306(b) Report
305(b) Report
305(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Report
306(b) Rapon
306(b) Report
306(b) Report
306(b) Report
306W Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
305(b) Raport
306(b) Raport
Resource Extracbon
Mnlili
1 5
X
E
Raaouce Extraction
Metals
3 1
X
E
Resource Exbacbon
llayi
4
X
E
Resource Extraction
Meiata
5 1
X
E
Resource Extracbon
Motah
135

E
Resource Extraction
Suspended Sfrtrti
13 5
X
E
Resource Extracbon
SiMpended frnfrft
25
X
E
Resource Exbacbon
Metts
25
X
E
Raaouce Extraction
Metals
07
X
E
Raaource Exbacbon
MeUte
09
X
E
Raeouroe Extraction
Suspended Sobds
11 5
X
E
Raaouce Exbacbon
MMMs
116
X
E
Raaouce Extracbon
Mstats
1
X
E
Raaource Extracbon
Mstati
t 4
X
E
Raaource Extracbon
MatNl
32
X
E
Raaource Extracbon
Metals
4.7

E
Raaource Extracbon
Matats
08
X
E
Reeouroe Exaibun
Suspended
06
X
E
Reeouce Exbacbon
CMhar Inofgamca
1
X
E
Raaouce Extracbon
Mstato
1
X
E
Raaource Exbacbon
Metals
12 5
X
M
naaouca Exbetbun
Metals
114 5
X
E
Raaouce Extraction
Suspended Sokds
114
X
E
Raaouce Extracbon
Melats
24
X
E
Raaouce Extracbon
Metals
34
X
E
* See Narrative fw Description of Pnorty lor TMDL Development
Q Miles Degraded ore Based on the Length of the Study Segment
NPS - Indicates Nonpomt Source Impact
TSL-IO
\96mine
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
DSP
Mr*** fpuiee Evaluated or
9ym> fftorttf qmi&kik* gPAXXKt>)c**#code piomM HPS ttmtfef**
18-D
Low
44073
Two Ucfc Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
57
X
M
18-D
Low
44112
Tearing Run
306(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
2
X
E
16-0
Low
44118
Valow Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
3
X
E
18-D
Low
44125
Ferrier Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
1 4
X
E
18-0
Low
44276
Perm Run
305(b) Report
Resource Exfe action
Metal*
24
X
E

Resource Extraction
Othef loorgamct
1 4
X
E
18-0
Low
44523
Eft Crook
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
46
X
E
18-0
Low
44523
Eft Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Other Inorganics
24
X
E
1M
Low
44*18
Soutt Branch Btockkck Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Exfeacbon
Metals
1 5
X
M

Reeource Exfeacbon
Metals
3
X
E
18 0
Low
44728
HartndgaRun
305(b) Report
Resource Extractor)
Suspended
03
X
E
ISO
Low
44788
Freeman Run
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Mett*
09
X
E
184)
Low
44924
Rjchanta Run
305(b) Report
Resource Exfeacbon
Metals
05
X
M
18-E
Low
46084
Stony Creak
306(b) Report
Resource Exfeacbon
Mnlili
22 7
X
M

Low

Resource Extract**)
PH
2 1
X
M

Resource Extraction
Mnlilr
22
X
M
18-E
Low
45101
Ban* Creak
305(b) Report
Reaource Extraction
Metals
1 3
X
E
18-E
Low
45132
Sou* Fork Bens Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Exfeacbon
Metals
4 7
X
E
18-E
Low
45223
PaMCraak
305(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
07
X
M
1U
Low
45258
UntPaatf Creek
305(b) Report
Resource Ext acton
Metals
05
X
M
1«
Low
46280
BaOoock Craak (Basel)
306(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
35
X
E
1B-E
low
46270
Shade Creek
306(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
27
X
M

Resource Extraction
Metals
7 7
X
E
ta-e
Low
45330
Dark Shade Craak
306(b) Report
Resource Extractwn
Metals
27
X
M
im
Low
45364
linl Dark Shade Craak
306(b) Report
Resource Extracaon
Milan
06
X
M
18-E
Low
45371
Quamahorang Craak
305(b) Report
Reaotxro Extraction
Metals
1 9
X
M
18-E
Low
45003
UntSkmey Creak
306(b) Report
Reaource Extracton
nam
2 t
X
M
18-E
Low
45004
Man Timber Run
306(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Milan
1
X
M
18-E
Low
4 SS21
Oven Run
306(b) Report
Reeouce Exfeacbon
||^|
1 8
X
M
18-E
Low
46710
Lamberts Run
306m Report
Raeouce Extraction
Mtfats
3 1
X
M
18-E
Low
46742
Boone Run
306(b) Raport
Raaource Exfeacbon
Otter Inofgamcs
05
X
E
18-E
Low
46742
Boone Run
306(b) Raport
Reaource Exfeacbon
Itoteta
00
X
M

Ream we Extraction
Mddi
1
X
E
18-E
Low
45767
Clear Run
306(b) Raport
Reeouce Extraction
Mttato
1 3
X
M
18-E
Low
46016
UMaConamaugh River
308(b) Report
Reaource Extracbon
Resource EJdflMdiof)
Metals
06
1 4
X
x
M
£
18-E
Low
45001
Otto Run
305(b) Report
Reaource Exfeacbon
Metals
1 5
X
M
18-E
Low
45002
Sulphur Creek
306(b) Report
Raaource Extraction
Metals
1
X
M
18-E
Low
45017
Beaverdam Run
306(b) Report
Raaource Exfeacbon
Metals
2
X
E
18-E
Low
40070
Spring Run
306(b) Report
Resource Extraction
Metals
21
X
E
18-E
Low
40080
Bens Creak
305(b) Report
Resource Exfeecaon
Metals
1
X
E
18-F
Low
42086
Bufltto Creek (Unl)
306(b) Raport
Reeouce ExfeacMon
Metals
02
X
M
* See Narrative foi Description ol Prionly lor TMOL Development
@ Miles Degraded are Based on the Length of the Study Segment
NPS - Indicates Nonpoait Source Impact
TSL-II
V96mine
-------
PEP
Stoma
sw
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
£MJ|98 Fr>tit»tff) or
fWftftMK* £PA«NW*9MKfC«* fU>A*W)G«M8«C<»* My«M MPS WmlttVffl
STATE WATER PLAN (SWP) 9UBBASIN: 19-MONONGAHELA RIVER
1»A
Low
37188
Streets Run
305
-------
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine Drainage
DEP
0Miles Evaluated of
SW 'fe* Oala Source EPA904UH)c*mc
-------
D£P
9*mm
Trto^f '$«*<
TABLE 1
1996 303(d) Sub-List
Stream Segments Affected by Abandoned Mine drainage
£MUo* Evaluated or
jO»Al«W'»OMre+C«t* &>AW*(t>lC#<«>Coilo (MfMfet HPS »ioofto»» (Bun)
jm:
LOW

CoonoqfWiMtiV C«ak. jUnO
JVC
Low
35314

20-C
Law

CowvanMktCMklUt
»o
Low
»112
HatmanCnMk

Law
33SB4
RnmCMt
»0
Low
xt?ie
FaotoGaraanRu?
2M>
Um
1UM
um Panto (Mm Rut
2M>
Ujw
9304#
Bag— TnitiltaoaCiwB
»e
Low
xai?
OMOKhW
jfrf
Law
wr?
CMtoCMt
ifrF
tow
16700
CaoyAaOtRun
20+
Law
sow

3M
Law
MK7
IMmftiA
tof
Um
17104
SMRi8w
JW-
torn
03204
MomtaiEkRflttiiiQoAuft
»f
Um
03306
R *ftototftton»RwUUi4
JW
Low
M1M
MClOMfcA
JO-G
Low
30604
Mtftai
1C~G Law 307M MoanRin
28-OHIO RIVER
J06<0) R«pafl
Rappr!
308#!><«apert
WSWftVaa
306(b) fUptt
30604 Raporf
306(b) flaps*
306a>)ftaport
1C4
X
Itf
25
X
£
' *>e Narrative tar OescnpOon ol Prorty lor TMOL DeveJapmant
— «««/ on Uie tenflth of B» Study Sogmsnt
TSL-J4
*96«wn®
-------
5 130.4
)
ol v.';• I«• i¦ <|u;' Ii 1.-)>:»p•'r l.i nil ni'Mil, re-
quired 11 v sections yoi(b) si I ill 'i'Ki oT t lie
Act States shall review and revise
\\'<,)S in ;i"i'r)rd:imcc wit h applicable ic):-
• ifnI ir>rip jiiiil. 11s (ippropriat.(i. updalp
Mii'ir Wafpr (Jualily Mfuiafreinont
iW(JM) plans l.i> tellpcl, such levisiuns.
Specific WQS i equii • ¦ 11 if 11 l.r; aw luiinil
in KM : I1' 11 pa it. 11t I
t> l.'ll). f W'ntrv ifimlily rnmiifm
lit i hi ji'¦<•<>idance vvil li si1!1,! ion
I Of :r f • >c I). States must establish iipprn-
piiate r 111 > n i I mi mh methods niul pi hit-
dhi or (i ncludihi; biological moni I ori iif:)
imri":';:ii v I o compile and analy/.o "I:> 1 :i
mi I lip qualify »f waters of" the United
Slates ,'iikI. l.o the extent pi ael.iealile,
e;i .v •'< Tribe must Ix•
i»'i loi med in aecordauer> with KI'A's
quality assuiance/qualitv contiol cuid-
a lli'".
I li) 'I'll" SI a I will pr ill Dili i mini: pi o
i;i hiii shall iih:11111 p P(i|I<-i:I.ii; if-h I dala nml quality assiita.nce
and eniilrul proyiams to assiue sci-
imiI i lira lly valid da t a,. Tlip uses oT 1.1 ipso
dala include ilcl prill i lli Mil a 1 i;vl.i'i 11 r> r 11.
and oonlrn] prinril.ips. devolopinf; and
leviewiuir ival.pr quality .tl.niuln.rilf>,
total f11;ixitiniiii daily loads. wasloload
allocations and load allocations, as-
sepsinir compliance with National I*i> 1 -
lnlanl iJischaiire Kliminal.ioii System
(MPI)KS) permits by dischar^erR: re-
pi't lim,' infoi inafion to tlm public
I >11 <>11¦¦ li the section :M)5(lt) report and
rcvipwliisz site-specific nioniforinfi cf-
loit s.
(M) PR 1779. .Inn II. 19115. as nmiMulril at 51
I'll Mm Apr. II. 19091
5 1.10.5 Continuing plnnning process.
(it.) annual. Kach Slat.e shall esfab
li;:li and maInt .'tin a uniilimiinir plan
nini: process ((J 1 *I') :is described under
section :io:Hp)CIK A) (II) of tin; Act.
Kncli Ml .ate is responsible lor manni: i111r
iI rt wafer quality proKraui to Imple-
ment I lip processes specified ill t.lip
coiitinulnir planning process. KI'A Is re-
sponsible let periodically reviowlniT (lie
11«-r111:it-v nl I lie Sl.a I e's (II'I'.
(In ('iu)b'iil. The Stall- ma\ def ei mini'
I tie liiiinal. of it:'. ('I'l* as lonp its till'
llll III Mill 11 rpipl i i ei nen I •: ill III'1 <'\VA il llj mii'it In1 11«'*¦ i11 il• i¦ 11 in cncli
f-il ii l.e CI'C. ami I lie Ml ale niav include
lit lli'l pi OCC':!:ei; ;i | i 1 ;; | | j ¦ [ I i11 i <| 11.
Il) The pi in Im 11 c \ i • 111 p i ni; pllln-
enl I i ill i I :i I i nil*: iinil ¦ i I lei 1111 ci: of coill-
liliitiii'i1 at lr:e:l ;i". '*.1 i i tie 111 :e; I linsi:
II 'i p i i i < m I 11 ".i ¦ I i i ii i'llllllil 111 anil I'.!).
: 11 ii I H'l'i'. iind ril |i"i*-l '.t t indent as
any i cipiii eim-nt n i-mi I a mh'iI ill applica-
ble walei 1111:11 i I v ¦ I 'i li'ln ills in el led.
iindci aillliniitv nl : i¦ i• I i«• 11 :!().! of I lie
A''I .
('.^1 'I'lle |"|(w-e;:<: fin i 1 n '< 11 1 li n ill i 111', elc-
ineiil s ill a n v :i ppl ic:i Itle a i ' 'a vv ide \v;isl e
l.i eat mii'mI. pliiii'; iiihIci seel ion y.lIft. ;uid
a ppl i cable basin pi a i is. under sect ion V,0!l
of I lie Act.
CI) The pi iieess tor devclopim; total
iiiii.xiiiiiiiu daily loads J)M) lihms. i nclmli iif: schediilps
lor i evisiiili>i n'nnn The
llepional Ail mi n ii;l.ra l.oi shall review
appioved St ill,, ('rf's Irom time t.o time
to eiisuie l.hiit I In- plamiiiu; piiKipssra
are consisi en 1. with the Act anil tlilfl
ii'piilalion The llepioiiiil Adminis-
l.ratoi sliiill not apprnve ativ pcnnit
n'Ki
Enviiunin^nlcil PiolRction Aqpncy
5 nu.6
proiirjiiii under Title IV ol I lie Ail. fur
any Stale which doe:; not, have an ap-
proved continnim: I>1:11111 i 11[; |ii ocess.
5 l.'JO.I! Wnfpr quality liiaoa|:ciiicn(
ptaii";.
(a) U'ufci t/iuililu vunnmnni'iil (H (JM)
plmi.i. Wl^M plans consisl of initjal
plans prnduced in accord.nice willi sec-
tions Will and MllHlc) ol the Act. ami cei
t.itied and :i |i|n nveil updalcs to I hose
pliilis (Inn li nil i ni: Witter ipialily plan
Mini! shall lie based upon WOM plans
anil water ipialilv piohlenis ident.iIieiI
in tin: I.aI.okI. :lll.'i(Iii reports Slale water
1111 a 1 i t ,y pin mii in: should locus a iiiuia 1 lv
oil priority issues and immiiji a pliic, iiri'ii;;
(Hid on the development of waler fpial-
ity controls leadim: t o mi|ileuieiil ation
iiieasui'ps. Wiiler [>| >r I r f. unities 11 < 1111 iiu|iM".ei| walio
iliialil.v in n cemi l;i uce v.-itli ::ecii..n
V.IIM(li)l^) < A ) and (11) ol t he Act
(I) Noil I'nnif wi/ice iiiitiimirtiiriil nml
i-nuhnl (i) 'I'he plan shall desi-nbe the
rei!iilal.orv and mni-i ei;ul:i( oi pm
I! rai us. ilcl i vi I ies and I lest Ma na cement
1*1 :i f: I i cej; I I IM Iwhich I 11" : 11! r • 111 • V hit",
selected its I lie means t,u conliol
noiipoiiit source polluliuii ivlieni nec
essarv l.o piotoct, or achieve appioved
wiit.er uses. Keononite., insl itut.ioiiii I.
and l.eclin ii-ii I factors shall be cnnsiil
erpil in ;i cont iinii nir process ol idenl i
1'yinir colli rol needs and evaliiatini: and
miidifvini: the KMl's .is uccessaiv I"
achieve wa I ei- i|ua I i I v i:ua Is.
Hi) Ui'iiiiliiloiv piiiiiiiims ::hall lie
ideiil.il ied wliiue l.liev are determined
lo lie necessary liv the Slate to at lain
or maintain an approved waler use or
where lion i ejiulal.ory approaches aie
inappropriate in accompl islii rn; l.h:i r
objecti ve.
(iiil ItMI's shall lie identitied lor I lie
rionpoitit sources id<'ti),i I ie(| in (• i
'^0H( b)('X)(K | (K) ol Uie Ae|. find ol.hei
III 111 point SOI 11 COS a;; loi low S'
(A) llriuliiii! Irtish' Idenl.it ica I. mil ol a
pi nci'ss to control t lie disposil ion ol all
residual waste in the area wlin-li could
a licet wii tor 1111 ;i I itv in :i ceo nl :i nee with
.section yijlt( b H'},)(. 11 ol the Act
(I!) I.aiid itiipnsul Idenl ilicat ion ol a
process l,o control tlui disposal of pol
Infants on land or in subsui face ova
val.iuiis lo protect i:ruuiid and surlacp
wa.l.er quality in accordance with rcc
l ion ZOIIl b II7.)( K I ol l.lie Ac.l.
I (:) Aiii H nit a i ill mid vilrit n It ii ml bleu
I i t icil l.i i ni el in oi *e< I lire:: I o control ap n
1111 II. 111 ill :' 11' I si I V il l| | | 111 il I so 11 I e ¦ " ; III
|1' ll I lll.il III ill ilccordil nee Willi ;:ec I j 1111
/!(IItl II )l V M K ) Ol llle /\el,
(I)) /1/iucs" Iden l.i I icit I inn ol proer
(lilies In l'f | II I I III 111 i t|e- I e la I ei I .;rni|'e
of in '11 ii t I no ill a i ' - I u dii uer u i I Ii ",et I inn
yilHl bllZll I : I III ll|e ,\d
-------
§ 130.6
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-96 Edition)
i:i>».ihucliot> Identification of
procedures t.u control construction re-
lated sources or ))ol billon in accord-
ance with section 20(Hh)t2)( II) of the
Act.
(F) SvUiratrr in In/.lion Identification
or proeudmes to control s;ilt.water in-
Irusion in accordance with section
y.ilftll>)(a)(I) of t tie Act,.
((!) Urlxiti <;/'>rntirr. Identification
of MMI's Tor urban stormwater control
lo achieve water quality coals iintl ris-
«¦:>I analysis of tin; necessary capital
mid operations and maintenance ex-
penditures in accordance with section
2l)H(b)(2)( A) oT the Act.
(iv) The nonpuitit source plan ele-
ments outlined In § 130.0(0 (1)(iii)(A)(U)
or this regulation shall be the basis or
water quality activities Impleinented
through agreements or memoranda or
understanding between EPA and other
departments, agencies or instrumental-
ities or the United .States in accordance
with section 'JOI(k) of the Act.
(!>) Management agencies. IdentiTi-
cation of agencies necessary to carry
out the plan and provision for adequate
authority for Intergovernmental co-
operation in accordance with sections
20n(b)(2KIJ) and 3u:i(e)(3KK; of the Act.
Management agencies must dem-
onstrate the legal, institutional, mana-
gerial and rinanciat capability and spe-
cific activities necessary to cany out
their responsibilities in accordance
with section 2(J0(c)(2j(A; through (I) of
the Act.
(6) Implementation measures. Identi-
fication of implementation measures
necessary t.o carry out the plan, includ-
ing financing, the time needed to carry
out the plan, and the economic, social
and environmental impact of carrying
out the plan in accordance with section
2UlkbK2KlC).
(7) Diedi/e or Jill /ininram. Identifica-
tion and development oT programs for
the control of dredge or fill material in
accordance with section 2UU(b)(1)( I)) of
the Act.
(0) Hasin plans. identification of anv
relationship to applicable basin plans
developed under suction 2tl!) of the Act..
(9) O'rui mil watei. Identification and
development of programs for control of
ground-water pollution including the
pro visions oT seel.ion 2()il(liK2H K) "l0
Act Stal l's are not required to develop
f > )-¦ >i i in I water W(^M plan elements be-
yond tin1 ri'ipii i I'inenI s of section
V.dlK bii'/fKK ) of the Ad. bul, may develop
a ground-water plan element if they de-
termine if is necessary to address a
ground-water quality problem. If a
State chooses to develop a ground-
water plan element, it, should describe
the es.sent.ials of a Slate program and
should include. but is mil. limited to:
(i) Overall goals. policies and legisla-
tive a iil.liori I ics lor prot ection of
ground water.
(ii) Monitoring and resource assess-
ment programs in accordance with sec-
tion H)(!(e)( I) of I.he Act.
(iii) Piogratns to control sources of
contamination of ground-water includ-
ing federal programs delegated Lo the
State and additional programs author-
ized in State sl.al.ul.es.
(iv) Procedures for coordination of
ground-water protection programs
among State agencies and with local
and Federal agencies.
(v) Procedures for program manage-
ment and administration Including
provision of program financing, train-
ing and technical assistance, public
participation, and emergency manage-
ment.
(d) Indian Tribes. An Indian Tribe Is
eligible for the purposes of this rule
anil the Clean Wafer Act assistance
programs under '10 (J[''It part !!5, sub-
parts A anil II If:
(1) The Indian Tribe has a governing
body carrying out substantial govern-
mental duties anil powers:
(2) The functions to be exercised by
the Indian Tribe pertain to the man-
agement and protection of water re-
sources which are hold by an Indian
Tribe, held by the United States in
trust, for Indians, held by a member of
an Indian Tribe if such property inter-
est is subject to a trust restriction oil
alienation, or otherwise within the bor-
ders of an Indian reservation: and
CI) The Indian Tribe is reasonably ex-
pected lo be capable, in the Regional
Administrator's judgment. oT carrying
out. tin" functions to be exercised In a
iii:iiiiii*i • •¦¦nsi*-tent ivil.li the terms and
purposes ol the (Mean Water Act and
appllealile regulat ions.
(e) Uiulate ami ccilijicalivn. State and/
or area wide agency \V(.JM plans shall be
updated a'i needed to rolled, changing
Environmental Protection Ayancy
§ 130.7
water ipialiiv condition.*:. n-;;i i II m oT im-
plementation act ions, new reipiiro-
inents or lo remove conditions in prior
conditional or partial plan approvals.
Regional Adininisl ral.oi s may require
that State W(,hM plans lie updated as
needed Stale Continuing Planning
Processes K.TI's) shall specify the
process anil schedule used In revise
W(JM plan.*: The Stale shall ensure
that Stale and area wide \V(^M plan.1: to-
gether include all necessary plan ele-
ments and thai, such plans aie consist-
ent with one ainilher. Tin* llovi'i'inir or
tile Ciovernor's designee shall certify
liy letter to the Itegional Adminis-
trator for KPA approval that WQM
plan updates aie consistent ivifh ail
oilier part;; ol ilie plan The certifi-
cation may be contained in l lie annual
State worlt progi a in
(f) f.Vwmfeiiri/ (Jonsl rucl.joii grant,
nnd permit decisions must lie made in
accordance with certilied and approved
WCjM plans as described in §§ i:i(l. I2(a)
and Hit). 12(b).
l.r)0 Fit. 177*1. .Inn 11. l(lHri, a:; miii'll'lcl ol. .01
Kll 143GU. Apr 11. Ml I' ll l:|lllll. Mm . XI.
1951J
5 i;t(l.7 Total maximum daily loads
(TiMI)l.) and individual nnlcr
quality-based effluent liiiiilalions.
(a) Gtmeial The process lor identify-
ing wafer quality limited segments
still requiring wasl.eload allocations,
load allocations and total maximum
daily loads (WfiAsMiA.s and TMIMiSl.
setting priorities for developing these
loads; establishing these loads for seg-
ments iilent.itied, including water ipia I-
ity monitoring, modeling, data analy-
sis, calculation methods, and list, of
pollutants to lie regulated: submitting
file State's list of segments identified,
priority ranking, anil loads established
(WLiAs/LAs/TMIJI.s) to KI'A lor ap-
proval: incorporating f.lie approved
loads into the State's WQM plans and
NI'MKS permits, and involving l.h<<
public, allected disehargei s. deslg na fed
arcawide agencies, and local gov-
ernments ill Mils pi HI.'I*:::: shall be
clearlv ilesciibed in I lie I'.l >tr
(1) I'lach Stale shall identify those
water ipial i l.v-l imi fed segments still
i ei|ti iring TiM I >1 ,s within its bonndai ie*:
for which:
(il 'I'ecli nolog y ¦ tinned diluent limila
lions requited I¦ y sections :tlll(li).
H07. or other sections of t.lie Act:
(>0 More stringent effluent limita-
tions (including prohibitions) icqim*'*!
by eil.iicr Slale or local autlioi it.y
preserved by see.l.ion M0 of the Act, or
l*'ederal a.nl.lioritv (law, iegulal.bin, oi
treaty): and
(iiil Other pollution control requite
menls (eg., best, management piac
tices) rcipiiied by local. Slate, or I'cd
eial authurit.v are not. stringent
enough Lo implement any water qual
if.v si aiulard.s (\V(^S) applicable In such
waters.
(2) Kac.h Slate slia.ll also idenlify on
t.lie same list, developed nndci paia
graph (h)(1) ol this sect.ion those v.al.ei
qua I il.v-1 irni fed segments still icipiir
ing 'I'M Dlii; or parts thereol within its
boninlai ies for which controls on I her
mal discharges mirier section :!tll or
State or local requiti'menls an* not
st.riiigent enough to assure piotcc.tioo
arid propagation of a balanced indige-
nous population of slielllish, fish and
wildlife.
Ct) l*'or the purposes of list ing wateis
miller § Ctlt.Klit, the term "water ipial
iI.v stanilard applicable to such wateis"
and "applicable water ipialit.y
standards" refer to I.hose water >|• i;i lit y
standards est alii isheil under sect ion :Hl'|
oT the Act, including numeric criteria,
narrative criteria,, waterhody uses, and
anlidegrndafion requii emcnt s
(1) The list reipiired under
§§ 11)0.71 b)i I) and Mil).7(b)(2) ol this sec-
ticn shall include a prioiitv ra.nkiog
for all listed water qua I i tv-I inn ted seg-
ments still requiring TMIJIi.s. taking
info account the severity of l.lie pollu-
tion and the uses to he made ol such
waters and shall identify the pollut-
ants causing or expected t.o cause vio-
lations of t.lie applicable water qualify
standards. The priority ranking shall
specilically include the nleiifiI ica l.ion
til waters targeted for T/Mlll, develop
inent in |,be no- t I o vein s
(.r>) Knell Sl.al.c shall assemble and
evaluate all exist ingr and ie;idily avail
able wa l.er ipial 11 y-1 cla I e.| data and in
formation to dewdop I be 11 . icijnuod
-------
§ 130.7
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-96 Edition)
by §§130.7(b)UJ and 130.7(b)(2). At a
minimum "all existing and readily
available water quality-related data
and Information" includes but is not
limited to all of the existing' and read-
ily available data and information
about the following categories of wa-
ters:
(i) Waters identified by the State in
its most recent section 305(b) report as
"partially meeting" or "not meeting"
designated uses or as "threatened";
(ii) Waters for which dilution cal-
culations or predictive models indicate
nonattainment of applicable water
quality standards:
(iii) Waters for which water quality
problems have been reported by local,
state, or federal agencies; members of
the public; or academic institutions.
These organizations and groups should
be actively solicited for research they
may be conducting or reporting. For
example, university researchers, the
United States Department of Agri-
culture, the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration, the United
States Geological Survey, and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
are good sources of field data; and
(Iv) Waters identified by the State as
Impaired or threatened in a nonpoint
assessment submitted to EPA under
section 319 of the CWA or in any up-
dates of the assessment.
(6) Each State shall provide docu-
mentation to the Regional Adminis-
trator to support the Stabe'o dotcr
miration to list or not to list its wa-
ters as required by §§ 130.7(b)(1) and
130.7(b)(2). This documentation shall be
submitted to the Regional Adminis-
trator together with the list required
by §§ 130.7(b)(1) and 130.7(b)(2) and shall
include at a minimum:
(i) A description of the mothodology
used to develop the list; and
(il) A dcacrlptlon of the data and in
formation used to Identify waters, in-
cluding a description of the data and
information used by the State ao rc
quired by § 130.7(b)(5); and
(lii) A rationale for any decision to
not use any existing and readily avail-
able data and information for any one
of the categories of waters as described
in § 130.7(b)(5); and
(Iv) Any other rcaoonablc informa
tion requested by the Regional Admin-
istrator. Upon request by the Regional
Administrator, each State must dem-
onstrate good cause for not including a
water or waters on the list. Good cause
includes, but is not limited to, more re-
cent or accurate data; more sophisti-
cated water quality modeling; flaws In
the original analysis that led to the
water being listed in the categories in
§ 130.7(b)(5); or changes in conditions,
e.g., new control equipment, or elimi-
nation of discharges.
-------
130.9
program under sections 106 and 205(j) of
the Clean Water Act.
(b) Each such report shall include but
is not limited to the following:
(1) A description of the water quality
of all waters of the United States and
the extent to which the quality of wa-
ters provides for the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows
recreational activities in and on the
water.
(2) An estimate of the extent to
which CWA control programs have im-
proved water quality or will improve
water quality for the purposes of para-
graph (b)(1) of this section, and rec-
ommendations for future actions nec-
essary and identifications of waters
needing action.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 im-
plementation costs.
(5) An assessment of the water qual-
ity of all publicly owned lakes, includ-
ing the status and trends of such water
quality as specified in section 314(a)(1)
of the Clean Water Act.
(c) States may include a description
of the nature and extent of ground-
water pollution and recommendations
of State plans or programs needed to
maintain or improve ground-water
quality.
(d) In the years in which it is pre-
pared the biennial section 305(b) report
satisfies the requirement for the an-
nual water quality report under section
205(j). In years when the 305(b) report is
not required, the State may satisfy the
annual section 205(j) report require-
ment by certifying that the most re-
cently submitted section 305(b) report
is current or by supplying an update of
the sections of the most recently sub-
mitted section 305(b) report which re-
quire updating.
[50 FR 1779, Jan.11, 1985, as amended at 57 FR
33050, July 24, 1992]
5!
-------
r~
Environmental P
any monitoring and/or analysis activi-
ties' undertaken by a Tribe must be
performed in accordance with EPA's
quality assurance/quality control
guidance.
(b) The State's water monitoring
program shall include collection and
analysis of physical, chemical and bio-
logical data and quality assurance and
control programs to assure scientifical-
ly valid data. The uses of these data
include determining abatement and
control priorities; developing and re-
viewing water quality standards, total
maximum daily loads, wasteload allo-
cations and load allocations; assessing
compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits by dischargers; re-
porting information to the public
through the section 305(b) report and
reviewing site-specific monitoring ef-
forts.
(50 FR 1779, Jan. 11. 1985. as amended at 54
FR 14339. Apr. 11. 1989]
9130.5 Continuing planning process.
(a) GeneraL Each State shall estab-
lish and maintain a continuing plan-
ning process (CPP) as described under
section 303(e)(3)(A)—
-------
§130.7
40 CH Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
ministrator for EPA approval that
WQM plan updates are consistent
with all other parts of the plan. The
certification may be contained In the
annual State work program.
(f) Consistency. Construction grant
and permit decisions must be made in
accordance with certified and ap-
proved WQM plans as described in
5$ 130.12(a) and 130.12(b).
[50 FR 1779, Jan. 11. 1985, as amended at 54
FR 14360. Apr. 11. 1989]
8130.7 Total maximum daily loads
(TMDL) and Individual water quality-
based effluent limitations.
(a) General The process for identi-
fying water quality limited segments
still requiring wasteload allocations,
load allocations and total maximum
daily loads (WLAs/LAs and TMDLa),
setting priorities for developing these
loads; establishing these loads for seg-
ments identified, including water qual-
ity monitoring, modeling, data analy-
sis, calculation methods, and list of
pollutants to be regulated; submitting
the State's list of segments identified,
priority ranking, and loads established
(WLAs/LAs/TMDLs) to EPA for ap-
proval; incorporating the approved
loads into the State's WQM plans and
NPDES permits; and Involving the
public, affected dischargers, designat-
ed areawide agencies, and local govern-
ments in this process shall be clearly
described in the State Continuing
Planning Process (CPP).
(b) Identification and priority set-
ting for water quality limited seg-
ments still requiring WLAs/LAs and
TMDLs.
(1) Each State shall identify those
water quality limited segments still re-
quiring WLAs/LAs and TMDLs within
its boundaries for which:
(i) Technology-based effluent limita-
tions required by sections 301(b). 306.
307. or other sections of the Act;
(ii) More stringent effluent limita-
tions (Including prohibitions) required
by either State or local authority pre-
served by section 510 of the Act, or
Federal authority (e.g., law, regula-
tion, or treaty); and
(ill) Other pollution control require-
ments (e.g.. best management prac-
tices) required by local. State, or Fed-
eral authority are not stringent
enough to implement any water qual-
ity standard (WQS) applicable to such
waters. The State shall, establish &
priority ranking for such water quality
limited segments still requiring WLAs/
LAs and TMDLs, taking into account
the severity of the pollution and the
uses to be made of such waters and
shall identify the pollutants causing or
expected to cause violations of the
water quality standards.
(2) Each State shall identify those
water quality limited segments still re-
quiring WLAs/LAs and TMDId or
parts thereof within its boundaries for
which controls on thermal discharges
under section 301 or State or local re-
quirements are not stringent enough
to assure protection and propagation
of a balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife.
(c) Development of TMDLs and indi-
vidual water quality based effluent
limitations.
(1) Each State shall establish WLAs/
LAs and TMDLs for the water quality
limited segments Identified in para-
graph (b)(1) of this section, and in ac-
cordance with the priority ranking.
For pollutants other than heat,
WLAs/LAs and TMDLs shall be estab-
lished at levels necessary to attain and
maintain the applicable narrative and
numerical WQS with seasonal vari-
ations and a margin of safety which
takes into account any lack of knowl-
edge concerning the relationship be-
tween effluent limitations and water
quality. Determinations of WLAs/LAs
and TMDLs shall take into account
critical conditions for stream flow,
loading, and water quality parameters.
(1) TMDLs may be established using
a pollutant-by-pollutant or biomoni-
torlng approach. In many cases both
techniques may be needed. Site-specif-
ic information should be used wherev-
er possible.
(ii) TMDLs shall be established for
all pollutants preventing or expected
to prevent attainment of water quality
standards as identified pursuant to
paragraph (bKl) of this section. Calcu-
lations to establish WLAs/LAs and
TMDLs shall be subject to public
review as defined in the State CPP.
(2) Each State shall estimate for the
water quality limited segments still re-
quiring WLAs/LAs and TMDLs identi-
268
-------
Environmental PwfcHu Agency
fled In paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
the total maximum daily thermal load
which cannot be exceeded in order to
assure protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such esti-
mates shall take into account the
normal water temperatures, flow
rates, seasonal variations, existing
sources of heat Input, and the dissipa-
tive capacity of the Identified waters
or parts thereof. Such estimates shall
include a calculation of the maximum
heat Input that can be made into each
such part and shall include a margin
of safety which takes into account any
lack of knowledge concerning the de-
velopment of thermal water quality
criteria for protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the
identified waters or parts thereof.
(d) Submission and EPA approval
(1) Each State shall submit to the Re-
gional Administrator from time to
time for approval the listing of water
quality limited segments requiring
WLAs/LAs and TMDL* identified
under paragraph (b) of this section.
All WLAs/LAs and TMDLd estab-
lished under paragraph (c) for water
quality limited segments shall contin-
ue to be submitted to EPA for review
and approval. Schedules for submis-
sion of WLAs/LAs and TMDLb shall
be determined by the Regional Admin-
istrator and the State.
The Regional Administrator shall
either approve or disapprove such list-
ing and loadings not later than 30 days
after the date of submission. If the
Regional Administrator approves such
listing and loadings, the State shall in-
corporate them into its current WQM
plan. If the Regional Administrator
disapproves such listing and loadings,
he shall, not later than 30 days after
the date of such disapproval, identify
such waters in such State and estab-
lish such loads for such waters as de-
termined necessary to implement ap-
plicable WQS. The Regional Adminis-
trator shall promptly issue a public
notice seeking comment on such list-
ing and loadings. After considering
public comment and making any revi-
sions he deems appropriate, the Re-
gional Administrator shall transmit
the listing and loads to the State.
9130J
which shall incorporate them into its
current WQM plan.
(e) For the specific purpose of devel-
oping information and as resources
allow, each State shall Identify all seg-
ments within Its boundaries which it
has not identified under paragraph (b)
of this section and estimate for such
waters the TMDLs with seasonal vari-
ations and margins of safety, for those
pollutants which the Regional Admin-
istrator identifies under section
304(a)(2) as suitable for such calcula-
tion and for thermal discharges, at a
level that would assure protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of fish, shellfish and wild-
life. However, there is no requirement
for such loads to be submitted to EPA
for approval, and establishing WLAs/
LAs and TMDLs for those waters iden-
tified in paragraph (b) of this section
shall be given higher priority.
8130i Water quality report
(a) Each State shall prepare and
submit biennially to the Regional Ad-
ministrator a water quality report in
accordance with section 305(b) of the
Act. The water quality report serves as
the primary assessment of State water
quality. Based upon the water quality
data and problems identified in the
306
-------
83
of that State. If the Administrator determines that any §uch re-
vised or new standard is not consistent with the applicable require-
ments of this Act, he shall not later than the ninetieth day after
the date of submission of such standard notify the State and speci-
fy the changes to meet such requirements. If such changes are not
adopted by the State within ninety days after the date of notifica-
tion, the Administrator shall promulgate such standard pursuant
to paragraph (4) of this subsection.
(4) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish pro*
posed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality
standard for the navigable waters involved—
(A) if a revised or new water quality standard submitted by
such State under paragraph (3) of this subsection for such
waters is determined by the Administrator not to be consistent
with the applicable requirements of this Act, or
(B) in any case where the Administrator determines that a
revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements
of this Act.
The Administrator shall promulgate any revised or new standard
under this paragraph not later than ninety days after he publishes
such proposed standards, unless prior to such promulgation, such
State has adopted a revised or new water auality standard which
the Administrator determines to be in accordance with this Act.
(dXIXA) Each State shall identify those waters within its bound-
aries for which the effluent limitations required by section
301(bXlXA) and section 301(bXlXB) are not stringent enough to im-
§lement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The
tate shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into
account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of
such waters.
(B) Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within
its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under sec-
tion 301 are not stringent enough to assure protection and propaga-
tion of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wild-
life.
(C) Each State shall establish for the waters identified in para-
graph (IXA) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority
ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which
the Administrator identifies under section 304(aX2) as suitable for
such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary
to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal
variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any
lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality.
(D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in para-
ah (1XD) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal
required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such estimates
shall take into account the normal water temperatures, flow rates,
seasonal variations, existing sources of heat input, and the dissipa-
tive capacity of the identified waters or parts thereof. Such esti-
mates shall include a calculation of the maximum heat input that
can be made into each such part and shall include a margin of
safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning
-------
84
the development of thermal water quality criteria for such protec-
tion and propagation in the identified waters or parts thereof.
(2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to
time, with the first such submission not later that one hundred and
eighty days after the date of publication of the first identification
of pollutants under section 304(aX2XD), for his approval the waters
identified and the loads established under paragraphs (1XA), (1KB),
(IXC), and (1XD) of this subsection. The Administrator shall either
approve or disapprove such identification and load not later than
thirty days after the date of submission. If the Administrator ap-
proves such identification and load, such State shall incorporate
them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. If
the Administrator disapproves such identification and load, he
shall not later than thirty days after the date of such disapproval
identify such waters in such State and establish such loads for such
waters as he determines necessary to implement the water quality
standards applicable to such waters and upon such identification
and establishment the State shall incorporate them into its current
plan under subsection (e) of this section.
(3) For the specific purpose of developing information, each State
shall identify all waters within its boundaries which it has not
identified under paragraph (1XA) and (1XB) of this subsection and
estimate for such waters the total maximum daily load with sea-
sonal variations and margins of safety, for those pollutants which
the Administrator identifies under section 304(aX2) as suitable for
such calculation and for thermal discharges, at a level that would
assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous popula-
tion of fish, shellfish and wildlife.
(k) Limitations on Revision of Certain Effluent Limita-
tions.—
(A) Standard not attained.—For waters identified under
paragraph (1XA) where the applicable water quality standard
has not yet been attained, any effluent limitation based on a
total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation estab-
lished under this section may be revised only if (i) the cumula-
tive effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such
total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure
the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the desig-
nated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance
with regulations established under this section.
(B) Standard attained.—For waters identified under para-
graph (IXA) where the quality of such waters equals or exceeds
levels necessary to protect the designated use for such waters or
otherwise required by applicable water quality standards, any
effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or
other waste load allocation established under this section, or
any water quality standard established under this section, or
any other permitting standard may be revised only if such revi-
sion is subject to and consistent with the antidegradation policy
established under this section.
(eXl) Each State shall have a continuing planning process ap-
proved under paragraph (2) of this subsection which is consistent
with this Act.
-------
&
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN USEPA REGION ID AND
THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGARDING SECTIONS 303(d) AND 303(e) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
WHEREAS. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d), provides for (i)
identification of water quality limited segments ("WQLSs") where applicable technology-based effluent limitations
are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards; (ii) establishment of a priority ranking for such
waters, and (111) establishment of total maximum daily loads ("TMDLs") for pollutants for which those waters are
not in attainment with water quality standards and TMDLs are still required;
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III ("EPA") and the Commonwealth of
Pennsy lvania. Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") desire to restore the quality of impaired waters to
achieve water quality standards pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA thereby removing waters from the list of
waters not meeting water quality standards;
WHEREAS. Section 303(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(e), provides for EPA to review DEP's
continuing planning process ("CPP") from time to time;
WHEREAS, under Section 303(d) of the CWA, DEP has the lead responsibility for the designation of
WQLSs and the establishment of TMDLs;
NOW. THEREFORE, EPA AND DEP HAVE PREPARED THIS MOU AND EACH UNDERTAKE TO USE ITS
BEST EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING:
I. Section 303(d) List - DEP will use best efforts to submit approvable Section 303(d) lists that are developed
and submitted in accordance with the then applicable EPA regulations.
n. Assessment of Wadeafr'f
A. DEP will use its best efforts, subject to available resources, to assess ail currently unassessed wadeable
streams in the Commonwealth within 10 years of the execution of this MOU.
B EPA and DEP understand that DEP intends to use a modified rapid bioassessment protocol or other
appropnate methods to assess the wadeable streams. EPA and DEP will use best efforts to reach
consensus on the protocol by June 15. 1997.
C EPA and DEP understand that waters found to be impaired using the modified rapid bioassessment
protocol, which are determined to be WQLSs still requiring TMDLs, will appear on the first Section
303(d) list that follows the identification of impaired waters.
III. Assessment of Significant Lakes
A. EPA and DEP agree that "Significant lake", for purposes of this MOU, means a lake with public access
and a hydraulic detention time of 14 days or more based on annual surface and ground water
discharge. Detention time shall be determined at normal pool volume. In the absence of actual Sow
and rainfall records, an average annual daily discharge rate of l.S cubic feet per second per square mile
of watershed area shall be used.
B. DEP will complete a study designed to identify all significant lakes in the Commonwealth and will then
prioritize such lakes based upon the threat to water quality in such lakes, as identified by the
Department, within S years of the date of execution of this MOU.
C EPA agrees to provide DEP with $200,000 to support DEP's efforts to assess significant lakes. EPA
agrees to provide the $200,000 to DEP as follows: (1) $100,000 will be provided by EPA within 90 days
1
-------
of the final execution of this MOU. (2) EPA will use its best efforts to provide the remaining
S 100.000 to DEP no later than 1 year after the final execution of the MOU. DEP will, subject to
available resources, use its best efforts based on EPA funding assistance to assess 100 of the
Commonwealth's significant lakes within 10 years of the receipt of the first $100,000 in full funding
support: and (3) EPA agrees to complement the DEP program of lake monitoring and assessment
described in this Section by monitoring and assessing up to 100 additional significant lakes that have
not been previously monitored and assessed by DEP, pursuant to DEP lake assessment and monitoring
protocols.
IV. TMDLs for WOLSs on the 1996 Section 303(d) List
A. EPA and DEP agree that the types of TMDLs to be developed for WQLSs still needing TMDLs are set
forth in Attachment A of this MOU. EPA acknowledges that the types of activities described by DEP in
Attachment A are acceptable as TMDLs for purposes of satisfying the provisions of this MOU.
B EPA and DEP understand that TMDLs need not be prepared for WQLSs which DEP justifies removing
from the 1996 Section 303(d) list.
C. DEP. subject to available resources, will use its best efforts to work with EPA to establish required
TMDLs for the WQLSs remaining on the 1996 Section 303(d) list: (i) within 10 years of the execution
of this MOU for non-Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD) WQLSs needing TMDLs on such list; and (ii)
within 12 years of the execution of this MOU for AMD WQLSs needing TMDLs on such list..
EPA will support DEP efforts as needed.
D. EPA and DEP understand that EPA will use, and will provide training and technical assistance to DEP
on the use of. water quality TMDL models, such as BASINS, to prepare TMDLs for WQLSs on the
1996 Section 303(d) list.
E. EPA and DEP understand that DEP's performance of Section IV.C. of this MOU is contingent on EPA
providing DEP the necessary assistance to enable DEP to become technically proficient in and utilize
water quality models, such as BASINS, to prepare TMDLs for WQLSs needing TMDLs on the 19%
Section 303(d) list.
F At the request of EPA. DEP will share any existing and readily available water quality related data with
EPA to assist EPA in establishing TMDLs for WQLSs on the Section 303(d) list.
G. DEP and EPA will use best efforts to develop a joint workplan for TMDL development by September
30. 1997. and each year thereafter that the MOU is in effect. This joint workplan will be based on the
best information currently available. The workplan will serve as a guideline for both agencies, and will
be updated as necessary to reflect changing priorities, available resources, new data, and other
circumstances. DEP and EPA may substitute for any TMDL listed on the workplan at any time, after
notice to the other agency.
H. By September 30, 1997, and each year thereafter that the MOU is in effect, DEP will use best
efforts to provide a summary of TMDLs developed subsequent to the final execution of the MOU. EPA
agrees to provide DEP with a copy of its annual Consent Decree compliance report by December 31 of
each year that the MOU is in effect.
V. TMDLs for Newlv Listed WOLSs on Section 303(d) Lists Submitted After 1996
A. DEP. with assistance from EPA and subject to available resources, will use its best efforts to prepare
TMDLs for newly listed waters within 3 years after EPA's approval of the list on which the waters
appear.
B. DEP will give EPA sufficient notice if it does not believe it will be able to establish
a TMDL for any newly listed WQLSs within 3 years of the date of EPA's approval of the list.
2
-------
C At the request of EPA. DEP will share any existing and readily available water
quality-related data with EPA to assist EPA in establishing TMDLs for newly listed WQLSs.
VL CPP
A. EPA agrees that it received and approved a CPP from the Commonwealth in 1976, and has received
and reviewed subsequent revisions to the CPP
B. DEP will consider EPA comments in preparing any future revisions or addenda to its CPP.
V1L Funding
A. EPA and DEP recognize that in order for DEP to do the work anticipated by this MOU, DEP must
redirect available staff and grant resources to do so, within the confines allowed by law. EPA
understands that it will exercise flexibility, to the extent allowed by law and EPA guidance, in
oversight of DEP grant-related activities to accomodate needed shifts in work priorities to accomplish
the tasks to be performed under the MOU.
B. EPA and DEP understand that in order for EPA to help assure that the work anticipated to be performed
by DEP under this MOU is done. EPA will use best efforts to redirect grant money to the
Commonwealth to the extent it is able to do so within the confines set by statutes, regulations, and
budget constraints.
VUL Legal Effect
A. This MOU is not intended to and does not create any contractual rights or obligations with respect to
the signatory agencies or any other persons or entities, and creates no cause of action against EPA or
the Commonwealth. In addition, the execution and implementation of this MOU does not constitute an
explicit or implicit agreement by either EPA or DEP to subject itself to the jurisdiction of any federal or
state court. Nor shall this MOU be construed as an admission by DEP or EPA that either has failed to
implement the provisions of CWA Sections 303(d) and 303(e). Nor shall this MOU be construed as
creating any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or in equity, by any person or
entity against EPA or DEP. This MOU shall not be construed or create any right to judicial review
involving the compliance or noncompliance with this MOU.
B. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to require actions by DEP or EPA that are inconsistent with
local, state or federal laws, including the Anti Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1341 et sea., or
regulations or any court order.
IX. Termination
This MOU shall terminate upon the completion of TMDLs for all WQLSs on the 19% Section 303(d)
list and the completion of assessments for wadeable streams and significant lakes, or in 12
years from the date of execution, whichever is sooner.
X. MOU Contingent On Fall And Complete Settlement of Litigation
EPA and DEP agree that this MOU is not effective until DEP receives accurate notice from EPA,
including all necessary documentation, that all claims in the matter of American Littoral Society, et al.
v United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.. Civ. No. 96-0489 (E.D. Pa.) have been fully
and completely resolved by the parties to that litigation, and approved and entered by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case of a Consent Decree, and by all
necessary signatories, in the case of a Settlement Agreement or any other settlement document
3
-------
XL Modification
A. EPA and DEP recognize that any efforts made by DEP to implement this MOU are contingent on the
availability of resources, and that any implementation of nonpoint source and AMD TMDLs may
occur based on cost/benefit analysis, and the support of the affected parties.
B. EPA and DEP understand that, while the tasks contemplated by this MOU are based on the best
available projections of future funding, such projections may prove to be inaccurate.
C. EPA and DEP understand that this MOU is based on the statutes and regulations currently in effect and
that changes to such statutes or regulations, or the enactments of new laws or the promulgation of new
regulations impacting its provisions may require that this MOU be modified accordingly.
D. If any of the factors described in B. and C. above result in a change to the conditions on which this
MOU is based, EPA and DEP will negotiate appropriate modifications to this MOU.
4
-------
DATED this 7Hdav of 1. 199^7
United States Environmental Protection Agency
r
By:
W Mid^efMcCabe
Regional Administrator, Region III
Christopher Dfey Ty
Assistant Regional Counsel
Commonwealth of Pennsylvi
Department of Environment
By:
James M.fceif
Secretary j I S
William J. Gerlaflv^-/
Eric L. Setae /\
Deputy GeneraUJounsel
Office of General Counsel
5
-------
ATTACHMENT A
The Different Types Of TMDLs In Pennsylvania
The term "Total Maximum Daily Load" (TMDL) is defined at 40 CFR Section
130 2(i) as the sum of the individual Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for point sources and
Load Allocations (LA) for nonpoint sources and natural background. WLAs are defined at
40 CFR Section 130 2(h) as the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is
allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution. The regulation at 40
CFR Section 130 2(h) provides that WLAs constitute a type of water quality-based
effluent limitation, although in actual practice WLAs merely form the basis for water
quality-based effluent limits. A LA is defined at 40 CFR Section 130.2(g) as the portion
of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to either one of its existing or
future nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources.
The regulations at 40 CFR Section 130.7(c) focus on what is required for the
development of TMDLs. TMDLs are required to be established by each State based on its
prioritized list of WQLS still requiring TMDLs, and must attain and maintain water quality
standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety. Id. at (cXO TMDLs shall take
into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters. Id-
TMDLs may be established by a "pollutant by pollutant" or "biomonitoring approach,
(c)(l)(i), and shall be established for all pollutants preventing or expected to prevent the
attainment of water quality standards, and shall be subject to public review, (cXlK")
TMDLs will be developed in accordance with applicable federal regulations. Each TMDL
developed in accordance with this attachment will include the best practical estimation
based on readily available information on loading from sources and loading reduction from
the proposed controls. The Department establishes four types of TMDLs, as described
below
i. Single Discharge TMDLs are TMDLs which are established on a
pollutant by pollutant basis on stream segments where it is determined that at critical flow
conditions, a point source is the major contributor of the pollutant to be evaluated;
controls more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations are required to assure
the attainment of water quality standards; and the impact of nonpoint sources is accounted
for in the determination of background water quality. The Department routinely performs
water quality assessments at critical flow conditions when it receives applications for new
wastewater discharge permits, or for renewals of existing permits, to determine if limits
more stringent than technology based effluent limits are needed. It is anticipated under the
federal regulations at 40 CFR Section 130.2(h) that these TMDLs will take the form of
water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) in NPDES permits, although in actual
practice they merely form the basis for water quality based effluent limitations.
Determinations on such permits are subject to public participation and meet the
requirements of 40 CFR Section 130.7(c). The Department is currently finalizing a
process for submitting such TMDLs for EPA review and approval when new or renewal
wastewater discharge applications are processed The Department has submitted 2 Single
-------
Discharge TMDLs to EPA for the renewal of the Upper Merion wastewater treatment
plant discharge permit (NPDES PA 0026131) for zinc (totals) and phenols (total).1
ii. Nonpoint Source TMDLs can be developed in two different
formats. A nonpoint source TMDL can be a numerical value expressed in units of mass
per time, such as pounds per year, or a narrative remediation plan. Once the nonpoint
source TMDL is developed and approved by EPA, the stream reach(es) for which the
nonpoint source TMDL was developed will be removed from the Section 303(d) TMDL
list.
Nonpoint Source TMDLs for stream reaches will be initiated using the
Department's protocol for unassessed streams. In summary, this protocol starts with a
detailed screening using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. Each of the
104 State Water Plan watersheds will be prioritized according to their potential for
nonpoint source impacted streams. Starting with the high priority state water plan
watersheds, each watershed will be divided into assessment units. These assessment units
will then be prioritized according to the potential of impairment from nonpoint source
problems and the miles of stream already assessed. Regional Office biologists will then
assess all the stream reaches within the high and medium priority assessment units, using a
modification of the Rapid Bioassessment protocols. The low priority assessment units will
be completed as resources become available. Impaired streams will be identified, and a
determination made as to whether the impairment is caused by point sources, nonpoint
sources, or a combination of the two. Appropriate TMDLs will then be developed as
needed to address these impaired stream reaches. A similar process will be implemented
for lakes. Using protocols developed by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and
the Bureau of Watershed Conservation, significant lakes will be identified. Those lakes
that meet the public access and 14 day detention time criteria for significance will then be
prioritized as to their potential for impairment due to nonpoint source impacts.
Appropriate Trophic Status Index and dissolved oxygen profile data will then be collected
on the high priority lakes according to procedures defined by the Division of Water
Quality Assessment and Standards. A determination will be made if the lake is impaired as
to whether the impairment is caused by point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination
of the two. Appropriate TMDLs will then be developed as needed to address these
impaired lakes.
Numerical TMDLs for nonpoint source problems are extremely difficult to
develop, since the sources of impairment cannot be easily identified and quantified. A
phased approach is necessary. During the first phase, available data and literature values
will be used to simulate and allocate the loadings from different land uses. Using
computer modeling techniques these loadings will then be reduced to meet water quality
standards and appropriate load reductions developed. This first phase will also identify all
areas where additional data could supplement and refine existing data to result in a more
accurate and detailed TMDL. Additional monitoring and data collection will then be
1 Notice of the submission is set forth in the Pennsylvania Bulletin at 26 Pa.B 2342 (May 18. 19%).
-------
performed as needed. Once this data is collected, a more complete analysis will be done
using similar computer modeling techniques, and a more detailed TMDL will be
developed. The more detailed TMDL will be very costly and time consuming to develop.
Supplemental data collection will take at least a year to complete in most cases. The more
detailed modeling needed in the second phase could take an additional one to four years to
complete
Remediation plan Nonpoint Source TMDLs are a more cost effective alternative
to address stream reaches needing a TMDL. A nonpoint source remediation plan is a
narrative document developed with public participation and support, and will take
between one to two years to develop. Based on existing information and best professional
judgment (BPJ), the plan will be developed with the purpose of restoring and maintaining
water quality standards. The remediation plans will have the following components:
1. An identification of the problem.
2 A detailed description of the management measures or best management practices
3 A public education program
4. An estimate of the technical and financial resources needed to implement the plan
5 A tentative schedule for implementation
6. A budget
7 Follow up monitoring will be conducted consistent with the Department's overall
strategy for continuing assessment of water quality.
Examples of this type of TMDL include:
• Stormwater Management Plans
• Clean Lakes Phase 1 Feasibility Studies
• Nonpoint Source Watershed Plans and activities done as part of Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act
• Abandoned Mine Drainage project designs and watershed restoration plans
• Local watershed restoration plans
iii. Complei TMDLs are TMDLs established for more complex
water quality management situations such as water quality impaired segments where there
are multiple point sources, combinations of multiple point and nonpoint sources, or
multiple nonpoint sources. In these situations, the Department will utilize water quality
computer modeling and biological assessments to ascertain the extent of impairment.
Management measures will then be developed and implemented, including discharge
limitations in NPDES permits, best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint sources,
and remediation plans, to address the water quality impairment. These types of TMDLs
are more involved than single discharge or nonpoint source TMDLs because of the
discharge interactions and complex evaluations required, and involve a much greater
resource commitment. An example of a complex TMDL which the Department is
involved in is the Christina River Basin Project.
-------
The Department has been involved in the Christina River Basin Project interstate
effort for several years. Partners in this effort include the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), the Delaware Natural
Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) agency, the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), the US Geological Survey (USGS), the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Chester and New Castle Counties. This
project is a five year strategy which was developed to address the point and nonpoint
source impacts within this 565 square mile basin. The components of this program as
developed so far can be summarized as follows:
Monitoring to address both point source an nonpoint source data needs. A monitoring
plan to address the information needs to develop a point source model using WASP
(Watershed Assessment Screening Protocol) is in its second year of implementation. A
total of 33 stations are included in the plan. Monthly grab samples are being taken at
these stations. The monitoring plan to address the information needs for nonpoint source
has recently been finalized. This plan calls for 11 stations. Automatic samplers will be
installed at all 11 stations. It is planned to sample six storm events, with 4 discrete
samples and 1 composite sample taken during each event at all 11 stations. Additional
base flow and grab samples are also planned.
Watershed Assessments and GIS Development. During this year, additional watershed
information is being collected. This includes information on land use, soils, existing
stormwater management programs and ordinances, and the definition of subwatersheds.
Computer Modeling. It has been proposed to use the WASP model to address the point
source issues and to assess instream impacts from nonpoint sources. It has also been
proposed to use the HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran) model to generate
the loadings from nonpoint sources for input into WASP. A workplan for this modeling
effort has recently been finalized.
Remediation Plan. At the end of the five years, the development of a comprehensive
plan for the entire basin is planned.
iv. Abandoned Mine Drainage TMDLs are those TMDLs developed to
address Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD), Pennsylvania's largest water quality problem.
AMD is difficult to address because much of it results from past mining practices, and
continues to flow even in the absence of precipitation, depending on the hydraulic head
and hydrogeology of the area.. In addition, because of the volume and chemical
parameters of the discharge, many stream segments cannot be addressed with existing
technology in a cost effective, feasible manner.
Two ongoing initiatives undertaken by the Department will result in TMDLs for
certain AMD discharges: (1) The AMD Impacted Watershed Assessment Pilot Project,
and (2) The 10% Set-Aside Program. It is hoped that these projects will yield information
to better address AMD in the Commonwealth.
-------
The AMD Impacted Watershed Assessment Pilot Project -The Department has
estimated the time and resources needed to prepare an AMD Impacted Watershed
Assessment TMDL for eight (8) pilot project watersheds (note: each watershed includes
many impacted stream segments).
The 10% Set-Aside Program. - In addition to the eight pilot watershed projects,
the Department's Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) has been using 10%
of all funds available for abandoned mine reclamation in the Commonwealth since 1990 to
address AMD impacts, and develop remediation plans for these discharges. Each project
will be developed as a TMDL for AMD. For each potential project, the BAMR completes
a detailed analysis to see if the discharge can be addressed in an economic, feasible
manner, develops a hydrologic plan, completes the design for remediation, and constructs
the project. The Department is contributing significant resources to this project in
addition to those provided by the the 10% Set-Aside grant.
-------
H
ATTACHMENT A
Topics of Monitoring, Assessment and Listing Report
I. Evaluation of Existing Pennsylvania Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment Program
A. Identification of types and amount of waters in
Pennsylvania
B. Identification of boundary delineation (e.g.,
watersheds)
C. Description of current monitoring activities (e.g.,
location of monitoring stations (GIS), frequency, form
of data, and data storage)
1. Pennsylvania monitoring stations
2. Federal monitoring stations (USGS, etc.)
3. Other monitoring stations and activities
(universities, volunteers, etc.)
D. Pennsylvania's use of existing data to establish
priorities in the Section 303(d) listing process
1. Description of Pennsylvania's organizational
structure and administrative process for decision-
making
2. Description of Pennsylvania's process for
comparing data to numerical standards, narrative
standards (such as sediment, nutrients, odor,
etc.) and anti-degradation requirements, to
determine whether standards are met or will be
met, for all categories of waters, including those
impacted by agriculture, abandoned mine drainage,
and forestry
3. Description of Pennsylvania's use of simple
analyses and models to interpret and extrapolate
data
4. Description of how information regarding
violations of water quality standards is used in
the listing process, including use of Section
305(b), 314 and 319(a) assessments
E. Identification of existing major point sources
discharging to:
1. any unassessed water
2. any water quality limited segment where no TMDL
has been established
3. any water quality limited segment where a TMDL has
been established
F. Identification and description of any specific data
needs and gaps
1. Identification of major sources and/or causes of
impairment with locational data
2. Identification of data needs to determine
appropriate programmatic management activities
1
-------
3. Description of Pennsylvania's process for
identifying water areas of special value or
special protection
4. Description of Pennsylvania's process for
identifying biological reference conditions/areas
5. Identification of any data gaps as to particular
flow/quantity issues
6. Identification of type(s) of data needed to fill
any gaps
7. Ranking of any data gaps from high to low priority
(acknowledging resource limitations)
8. Discussion of ability to use other agencies' data
to fill any gaps
II. Recommendations for Monitoring and Assessment to Fill Any
Data Gaps and Satisfy Any Data Needs
A. Proposed approach for ambient monitoring and assessment
program
1. Definition of objectives
2. Types/frequency of monitoring activities
3. Selection of environmental indicators to meet
monitoring and assessment objectives
B. Options for integration of ambient and program-specific
monitoring
1. Locational comparison (use GIS tool)
2. Methods for integration
3. Availability of information
4. Consideration of whether integration supports
water quality goals and monitoring objectives
5. Identification of data duplications, gaps and
needs
6. Selection of environmental indicators
C. Implementation
1. Cooperation with other agencies, local groups and
watershed associations
2. Integration of data from various agencies
a. QA/QC procedures
b. Adoption of standard terminology
3. Data Collection
a. Discussion of who will collect data
b. QA/QC procedures
4. Estimated costs and possible sources of funding
III. Recommendations to Improve Pennsylvania's Program for
Identifying Waters that Should be Listed on the Section
303(d) List
2
-------
REGION III GUIDANCE
- PART I-
LISTING WATERS UNDER SECTION 303(d) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(May 20, 1997)
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the States to identify all waters within the
State that still require the development of TMDLs. Specifically, the Section 303(d) requirements
include;
1. Identify waters where required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or
maintain applicable water quality standards, using existing and readily available
water quality-related data and information,
2. Rank the waters considering uses and severity of the pollution problem,
3. Target those waters where TMDLs will be developed over the next two years, and
4. Develop TMDLs and control requirements for contributing point and nonpoint
sources.
Two aspects of the listing process include the ranking system that the States use for the waters
and the types and extent of data used to make the listing determination. In order to provide
consistent direction to the States in EPA Region III, the Region has developed guidance for
ranking of waters and the consideration of existing and readily available water quality-related
data.
This guidance is not intended to be prescriptive in nature. It will provide options for
consideration by the States and will not identify one option as the preferred. EPA firmly believes
that it is the States' responsibility to develop and adopt an appropriate ranking system as well as
to decide what data is appropriate to use for listing decisions.
While this guidance is not' intended to be prescriptive and is designed to provide the States with
options and other considerations that may be used by the States in the development of a ranking
system or the selection of data to be used for listing purposes, there are a few 'musts' with
respect to ranking and data selection. First, the States, when developing their ranking and
targeting approach, must include the consideration of water uses and the severity of the pollution
problem in any approach adopted. Secondly, the States must fully consider the existing and
readily available water quality-related data and information about the categories of waters listed
at 40 CFR §130.7(b)(5). The States must provide a rationale for any decision to not use any
existing and readily available data and information for any one of these categories.
This paper represents Regional guidance that should be considered by the States in Region III in
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE-2
the fulfilment of the requirements at 40 CFR §130.7 and the CWA section 303(d). This guidance
may be superseded by any additional guidance developed by EPA Headquarters for the National
TMDL program. All reasonable care has been taken to assure that this Regional guidance is not
in conflict with any national EPA guidance on this subject. However, if a situation is found
where this Regional guidance does conflict with previously issued national directives, the
national directives will control.
I. RANKING AND TARGETING WATERS
BACKGROUND:
One aspect of the development of the list of water quality-limited segments still requiring
TMDLs (Mist of waters') is the need to establish a priority ranking of those waters. The Clean
Water Act (CWA), section 303(d)(1)(A), states that 'Each State shall identify those waters within
its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required...are not stringent enough to implement
any water quality standard... The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking
into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such.waters'. Further
requirements for the ranking and targeting of waters are found in the Federal Regulations at 40
CFR § 130.7(b)(4) which states that 'The list required [the list of water quality-limited segments
still requiring TMDLs] ...shall include a priority ranking for all listed water quality-limited
segments still requiring TMDLs, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to
be made of such waters...The priority ranking shall specifically include the identification of
waters targeted for TMDL development in the next two years.'
The ranking and targeting of waters is an important part of a State's water quality planning
activities. The process allows the State to establish workloads, make efficient use of its available
resources and met the objectives of the CWA. According to EPA's April 1991, "Guidance for
Water Quality-based Decisions - The TMDL Process" (1991 Guidance), "Where all water quality
problems cannot be addressed immediately, EPA and the States will, using multi-year
approaches, set priorities and direct efforts and resources to maximize environmental benefits by
dealing with the most serious water quality problems and the most valuable and threatened
resources first."
It is the Region's position that it is the States' responsibility to develop and establish a priority
setting system for those waters still needing TMDL development. Any system developed and
used by the States however, must be consistent with Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the CWA and 40
CFR § 130.7(b)(4). These provisions identify the relevant minimum factors the state must
consider when establishing a priority system for those waters still needing the development of
TMDLs. They are: 1) the uses of the specific waters, and 2) the severity of the pollution for each
water.
DISCUSSION:
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE-3
There are two separate but associated steps the States are required to take when listing waters for
the development TMDLs. These two steps are 1) the priority ranking of all of their listed waters,
and 2) the identification of those waters targeted for TMDL development over the next two
years. For example, all of the waters identified on the section 303(d) list of waters are required
to be priority ranked by some method developed by the States. The specific priority ranking
method is not specified in the regulations or in subsequent EPA guidance. There are several
acceptable methods for ranking and targeting waters.
Priority Ranking of Waters
First, waters may be ranked numerically such as "1", "2", "3" and so on. Using this approach
the state would develop a numerical rank for each water based on the uses and severity (see
below for approaches to this). The state would then target waters where TMDLs will be
developed over the next two years.
Second, waters could be ranked as "high", "medium" or "low". Once all of the waters are ranked
according to these categories, the States would target which of those waters will have TMDLs
completed over the next two years. If there are more waters ranked as high priority than the state
can do TMDLs for over a two year period, the state would target which of those high priority
waters will be addressed in the specified time frame.
Third, waters could be ranked and targeted in a combined approach1. The list of waters would
then be arranged in the order in which the state expects to develop the TMDLs. The list
submitted to EPA, when using this approach, would identify the number of TMDLs to be
developed over the next two years;
The above discussion does not preclude the States from devising their own method for ranking
and targeting waters for the development of TMDLs. However, any priority ranking system
MUST fully consider the uses of the waters and the severity of the pollution problem. In
addition, any system for targeting the development of TMDLs should not exclude entirely
particular sources or types of pollution simply because they are difficult to address.
In developing a priority ranking the waters2, the state must consider the use of the water and the
severity of the pollution-problem. We believe that these two factors should form the basis for
Region III believes that the ranking and targeting can be combined in a single numerical system
since statutory and regulatory reference to the uses and severity do not preclude the consideration
of other factors.
When 'the waters' are referenced in this paper, we are referring to the waters on the States' most
recently approved section 303(d) list of waters still needing the development of TMDLs.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE-4
establishing the ranking of waters3. There are many aspects of these criteria that could be
factored into a priority ranking decision. These factors4 include, but are not limited to:
1. Which water bodies are most valuable from a functional perspective, for instance,
for aquatic habitat, recreation and water supply
2. Which water bodies are impaired due to pollution, loss of habitat or riparian or
terrestrial area destruction.
3. Which waters are threatened as opposed to those that are already impaired.
4. Which waters are more sensitive to change (pollutant impacts)
5. Which waters are known to or potentially could cause human health impacts(risk
to human health)
These factors, and others that may be used by the States, should be evaluated with respect to their
relative severity and/or importance. For instance, a human health impacted water may have
higher priority 'points' assigned to it than one that is identified as having a medium loss of
habitat. Likewise threatened waters may have a lower priority 'point' associated with them than
a water that is shown to already be impaired. The individual state must establish its own
comparative ranking system in order to adequately rank the listed waters.
Note that we do not consider it appropriate to consider certain resource items, such as resources
necessary to develop a TMDL or the anticipated cost of controls, in the ranking of waters. Such
considerations can be included during the targeting phase. Complex situations, such as presence
of multiple discharges or the presence of nonpoint sources or a water listed for a particular type
of pollutant that is particularly difficult to analyze, should not automatically be assigned a lower
priority rank. (See the discussion on targeting.below)
In addition to the analysis and weighing of the many aspects of severity of pollution and water
uses, there are several approaches or techniques for 'calculating' the rank of a water in
comparison to other waters. The document "Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples"
provides a detailed discussion of the various approaches to establishing rankings. As a summary,
the document identifies several types of approaches including the numeric approach, the decision
tree approach, the data layer overlay approach and the multi-agency selection process.
The numeric approach is the most common priority ranking technique. It applies a weighted
numeric index to each'water. Such an index combines multiple factors associated with a water's
use and the severity of its water quality problems into an overall score. The score for each water
is then used to establish a relative priority ranking of all waters. This type of an approach can be
based on quantifiable criteria important to water quality, such as recreation use, human health
Other factors as discussed later can be considered in ranking/targeting when using the combined
numerical rank/target approach.
From "Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples", EPA, February 1993.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE-5
factors and aquatic life support. The rankings can provide a single, integrated list of waters for
all programs that set priorities. The results are standardized and reproducible.
A decision tree approach provides a clear overview of the ranking process and is based primarily
on the best professional judgment of water resource managers. Available information on listed
waters is assembled. Then, a series of questions5 is posed to the water resource managers
familiar with the water resources. Based on the answers to these questions, waters are placed
into a number of priority categories. The decision tree ultimately results in a set of high priority
waters. The main attraction of the decision tree approach is that it provides a clear understanding
of the decision point in the ranking process.
The data overlay approach requires the mapping of many types of geographically distributed
data. Successive overlays of the data types reveal the spatial correlations among different water
quality problems. Overlaying several environmental features, such as land use, point sources,
toxic hot spots, nutrient enriched areas and water supplies, can help to identify highly sensitive
areas. To be effective, however, the data overlay approach must be used in conjunction with
either the decision tree or numerical approach.
Multi-agency selection emphasizes broad participation by State, local, federal and/or public
groups. The central feature of this approach is consensus. Multi agency committees review
technical information from a water quality agency and move toward agreement on prioritization
of waters. The advantage of this approach is the widespread acceptance of the results.
The Region is not recommending one of the above approaches to priority ranking over any of the
others. The States should consider the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of all of these
with respect to the State's own programs, needs and organization. Other approaches not
mentioned above may also be more appropriate for a particular state. However, as the state
develops its own procedures, it must assure that any approach adopted by the state considers the
waters' use and the severity "of the pollution problem in establishing a priority ranking of the
listed waters.
Targeting Waters for TMDh Development
It is recognized that in most, if not all, States it is not possible to complete the development of
the TMDLs for all of,the waters listed in the next two years. Some of these factors include the
number of waters on the lists, the complexity of some situations, technical feasibility and
resources. Because of these limitations and concerns, the States must develop a method for
targeting certain waters for TMDL development over the next two years. The federal regulations
These questions can be as direct as 'Are data sufficient to evaluate the water?', 'Are standards
violated frequently or seldom?', 'Is this a high value water?', 'Do management tools exist for this
water?'. See the New Mexico example in "geographic Targeting: Selected State examples", EPA,
1993.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 6
also require the States to target, as part of the priority ranking process, those waters where
TMDLs will be developed over the next two years. 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(4).
The number of waters identified as high priority may exceed the state's resources for doing
TMDLs in a two year period. Therefore, once the rankings are set considering the severity of a
water's pollution and its uses, the waters for TMDL development can be targeted. The Federal
Regulations at 40 CFR §130.7(c)(1) state that 'Each State shall establish TMDLs for the water
quality limited segments...in accordance with the priority ranking.'. The Region believes that this
priority ranking includes the two step process of ranking and targeting. Therefore, if the State
chooses to use a "high", "medium" and "low" priority system, the targeting of waters should take
place in the high priority ranking group first and then the medium ranking group if additional
TMDLs can be completed over the next two years. If waters are prioritized numerically, the
waters targeted for TMDL development need not necessarily be sequentially the highest
numbered waters6. There can be some discretion in selecting higher or lower numbered waters
on the list based on other factors listed below. The state should fully document its targeting
rationale and process in order to justify the selection of waters not in sequence.
Targeting waters for TMDL development can include considerations other than a water's uses
and severity of pollution. In fact, there are a number of factors the States could include in their
targeting considerations, including, but not limited to, the following:
1.
Basin planning cycles,
2.
Degree of public interest and support, recreational, economic and aesthetic

importance,
3.
Adequacy of existing data,
4.
immediate programmatic needs such as need to develop waste load

allocations for permits or a load allocation for BMPs,
5.
Court orders and decisions relating to water quality,
6.
National priorities and policies,
7.
Adequacy of existing technical tools,
8.
Cooperation of the affected public,
9.
Backing of,citizen groups and locals,
10.
On-going activities in the watershed, and
11.
Other programs' needs and activities
When considering the a water's uses and the severity of pollution in establishing numerical
priority rankings and weighing other considerations for identifying TMDL development targets
Unless of course the combined rank/target approach is used, in which case the TMDLs are
developed in the order in which the waters appear on the list.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE-7
for the next two years, the state may elect to combine the priority ranking and TMDL targeting
into one step. Using this approach would result in a list of waters that is arranged numerically so
that the development of TMDLs would follow.
Public participation is an important aspect of the ranking and targeting of waters. The Region
expects that any system used by the States to rank and target will be made available to the public.
At a minimum, the process should be made available when the proposed list of waters is noticed .
It is further recommended that, as the state's ranking and targeting process is developed, the state
make it available to the public for review and comment before it is used by the state. The Region
also expects the state to submit a full description of the ranking and targeting approach to EPA as
part of the listing process under section 303(d) of the CWA.
SUMMARY:
The Federal Regulations at 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(4) require all of the waters on a state's Section
303(d) list of waters to be priority ranked, considering uses of the water and severity of the
pollution.
Waters targeted for TMDL development over the next two years must be identified on the list of
waters.
The waters can be ranked and targeted by one of the following approaches:
1. First ranking the waters by the "high", "medium" and "low" approach using the
uses and severity considerations-and then targeting high priority waters for TMDL
development over the next two years.
2. First ranking the waters numerically considering the uses and severity and then
targeting the high ranking waters for TMDL development over the next two years.
3. Combining the ranking and targeting steps and listing the waters numerically
according to the sequence in which the TMDLs will be developed.
4. A different state developed approach that fully considers water uses and the
severity of the pollution problem, as well as a targeting approach that does not
fully exclude waters impaired by a particular source or type of pollution simply
because they are difficult to address
Any approach that the state uses should be fully available to the public for review. It is
recommended that it be made available for public comment before it used by the state.
Documentation of the approach used by the state must be submitted to EPA along with the
proposed list of waters.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE-8
2. CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING and READILY AVAILABLE
WATER QUALITY-RELATED DATA and INFORMATION
BACKGROUND:
One aspect of the development of the list of waters still needing the development of TMDLs7 is
the requirement to use "existing and readily available water quality-related data and
information". Federal regulations at 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5) require the States to 'assemble and
evaluate all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information to develop
the list...'. This regulation goes on to identify four general categories of waters such data and
information must be considered. Further explanation of the type of data to which this
requirement refers has been addressed to some degree in previous EPA guidance or policy.
DISCUSSION:
State water quality standards provide the yardstick against which the States can assess a water's
status and implement needed controls. These state water quality standards include four elements:
numeric criteria8, narrative criteria9, designated uses and anti-degradation. In developing a list of
waters still requiring the development of TMDLs under section 303(d) of the CWA, States need
to identify those waters not meeting the state's applicable water quality standards (see 40 CFR
§ 130.7(b)(3)).
Each state may have different methods for identifying and compiling information on the status of
its waters depending on its specific programmatic or cross-programmatic needs and
organizational arrangements. Typically, States utilize both existing (historic) information and
new data collected from on-going monitoring programs to assess whether water quality standards
are being met and to detect trends.
See the CWA at section 303(d)(1)(A) for the requirement to identify the waters for which
technology-based controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards and,
section 303(d)( 1 )(C) for the requirement to establish TMDLs for those waters.
A numeric criterion can consist of either one number or three separate numbers, one for acute
considerations, one for chronic considerations and one for human health protection. They may
also represent a never to exceed condition or include consideration of frequency and duration as
well as magnitude.
A narrative criteria could be in the form of a 'free from toxic impacts", as an example.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PACE - 9
Federal regulations at 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5) state that "At a minimum 'all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and information' includes but is not limited to all of the
existing and readily available data and information about..." the following four separate
categories of waters:
1. Those waters in the 305(b) report10 identified as partially meeting or not meeting
designated uses, or as threatened.
2. Waters where dilution calculations or other predictive models indicate
nonattainment of applicable water quality standards.
3. Waters where water quality problems have been reported by local, state, or federal
agencies, the public, or academic institutions. The following specific agencies or
organizations were identified as good examples:
1. university researchers
2. US Department of Agriculture
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
4. US Geological Survey (USGS)
5. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW)
4. Those waters identified as impaired or threatened in the CWA section 319"
nonpoint source assessment.
This list of categories was condensed from the list of 16 categories included in the regulations for
CWA section 304(1)12 listing (see 40 CFR § 130.10(d)(6)). The discussion in the preamble to the
final regulations for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Surface Water Toxics
Control Program (see Federal Register from June 2,1989) describes the EPA's definition of
existing and readily available data for the section 304(1) listing requirements. These are the
categories, listed in Attachment III, as identifeid in the Appendix C of the 1991 EPA TMDL
guidance13 which appear at 40 CFR §130.10(d)(6)14.
Section 305(b) of the CWA requires States to prepare a water quality inventory every 2 years (this
has been changed to.every 5 years for a full report) to document the status of waters that have
! •
been assessed.
Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to develop State assessment reports identifying
waters adversely affected by nonpoint sources.
Section 304(1) of the CWA requires the States to identified all surface waters adversely affected
by toxic, conventional and nonconventional pollutants from both point and nonpoint sources.
"'Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisiosn: The TMDL Process", EPA, 1991.
Note that not all waters identified under each of these 16 categories may need to be listed on the
section 303(d) list. There are exceptions to the listing of some waters. As an example, some
waters that are not designated as fishable/swimmable can, nonetheless meet State water quality
standards. Waters that are not designated fishable/swimmable and that meet the designated uses
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 10
Appendix C of the 1991 TMDL guidance further states that "As stated in the 1991 guidance
"These screening categories are based on categories promulgated as the minimum data set a State
should consider when developing their list of impaired waters pursuant to section 304(1) of the
CWA. When developing lists pursuant to this guidance and to meet the requirements of section
303(d), a State should, at a minimum, use these categories to identify their water quality-limited
waters. States should also consider additional information, such as TRI data, streamflow
information collected by USGS, locally available data, and public comments on the proposed
303(d) lists."
The 1989 preamble states that:
"EPA considers the existing and readily available information and data about the
categories of waters described in paragraph 130.10(d)(6) to be the minimum data
and information that a state must assemble and evaluate when preparing lists in
order for EPA to have an adequate basis to approve or disapprove the lists...
" These categories reflect what EPA considers to be the minimum existing
and readily available water quality data and information that a state and EPA can
reasonably obtain...
Although this preamble was for the CWA section 304(1) listing requirements, it is significant in
the 303(d) process since the final section 303(d) regulations, dated July 24, 1992, (see Federal
Register, July 24, 1992, preamble to the final rule for Surface Water Toxics Control Program and
Water Quality Planning and Management Program) describes the use of the 16 categories as the
basis for establishing the 4 categories found in 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5) for the 303(d) listing
requirements. The 1992 Preamble explains why the 16 categories of waters developed for the
section 304(1) requirements were revised into the four general categories in section 130.7(b)(5)
and that these 4 general categories embody all of the 16 categories found at 130.10(d)(6).
Therefore, we hold that these 4 categories are what EPA considers to be the minimum existing
and readily available water quality data and information that a state and EPA can reasonably
obtain for listing decisions underboth section 304(1) and 303(d).
Although the list of 4 categories is considered to be the minimum data and information that a
state can reasonably obtain, it is not intended to exclude any information that is relevant to
developing the section 303(d) list. States are required to use all existing and readily available
data and information. As an example, States should consider their section 304(1) lists and also
available Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) data reported under the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act as existing and readily data.
should not be listed. Refer to the 1991 listing guidance for those exceptions and the preamble to
the final July 24, 1992, regulations for a discussion.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 11
As noted in the 1994 listing guidance memorandum from Geoffrey Grubbs15,
"States are expected to use a combination of the most reliable databases, best
professional judgement and the best available information to develop section
303(d) lists. In addition, in 1994 a greater use of predictive water quality
modeling results should be made. EPA expects that this mix of databases,
evidence and best professional judgement will vary from state to state.
"There are a number of sources that can be used to help determine whether a
particular waterbody belongs on the section 303(d) list. These include section
305(b) reports, Waterbody System information, toxics chemical release inventory
(TRi), CWA section 319 and 314 assessments, USGS streamflow information,
STORET data, fish consumption advisory information, anecdotal information and
public reports, and other State and Federal databases. State should use the best
available information in making the section 303(d) list determinations.
The guidance memorandum further provides examples of the type of data and information that
should be considered:
"Determining how much data and information are adequate to include a
waterbody on the section 303(d) list is a deliberative process involving
judgement. Appendix C of the 1991 TMDL guidance [see above for the list of 16
categories] provides a list of screening categories that States should use to identify
water quality-limited waters. Examples of the type of data and information that
should be used in making this determination are provided below:
"• Evidence of numeric criterion violation. Example:
Ambient monitoring data demonstrates exceedence of the
State's ammonia criteria.
"• Beneficial use impaired. Listing a waterbody due to
beneficial use impairment requires information that shows
the use is not being maintained and that this failure is due
to degraded water quality. Example: A waterbody
designated as cold water fishery has exhibited a
documented decline in fish population. The population
decline is tied to the existence of sediment deposits on the
stream bottom which inhibit or preclude spawning.
See Memorandum from Geoffrey Grubbs, "Guidance for the 1994 Section 303(d) Lists",
November 26, 1993
-------
EPA REGION IH SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 12
"• Evidence of a narrative criterion violation. Example:
BJoJogreaJ assessment demonstrates that a ]oss of biological
integrity has occurred, in violation of a stale's biological
criterion.
"• Technical analysis. Example: Predictive modeling or
Rapid Bioassessement Protocol results that show criteria
will be violated or beneficial uses will not be maintained.
"• Impairment demonstrated through other CWA mechanisms.
example: If a waterbody is included on a section 33 9 or
314 assessment, or is determined to be impaired under
section 305(b), it should be reviewed for possible inclusion
on the section 303(d) list.
"• Other information sources. Other sources that support
listing based on best professional judgement include
information from the public participation process and
information regarding the efficacy of existing control
requirements to be implemented in the near future.1'
The guidance memorandum further discusses the need to include consideration of biological
assessments in the development of the list of waters. The guidance states at page 5 that
"biological data can be used to support listing . This is consistent with the use of biological
assessment in EPA's 305(b) guidelines. These assessments can provide compelling evidence of
water quality impairment because they directly measure the aquatic community's response to
pollutants or stressors. Biological assessments and biological criteria address the cumulative
impacts of all stressors, especially habitat degradation, Loss of diversity and nonpoint sources.
Biological information can help provide an ecologically based assessment of the status of a
waterbody and as such can be used to decide which water need TMDLs.
EPA Region III believes that the use of biological data can be used alone (without corresponding
chemical data) to make listing decisions under section 303(d). This type of data can be important
in determining whether a water is meeting its designated use classification and/or the narrative
criteria. It is also an important component in the determination as to whether a water meets the
'biological integrity1 objective of the Clean Water Act.
The section 305(b) report preparation guidance for 1996 data information has been divided into 4
levels for chemical data and 4 different levels for the biological data (Tables 5-2 and 5-3 in the
section 305(b) guidance). These levels represent various levels of data reliability. In October
1995. The Region provided guidance lo the States concerning which levels should be considered
for listing decisions. The following is an excerpt from that Regional guidance:
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 13
"... we believe that it is appropriate to use levels four and three [as indicated in
tables 5-2 and 5-3 of the section 305(b) guidance] for both chemical and
biological data to justify including waters on the section 303(d) list. However...
there are certain data types in both level two and level one that should also be
used in any listing decision.
"For the biological/habitat data, we believe that level one data is not sufficient to
make a decision for listing under section 303(d). However, we believe that most
of the data included under level two should be sufficient to decide if a water
should be listed. There are several issues that need clarification, as follows:
"1. The items marked as evaluated (E) are not sufficient for listing
decisions. Since the 'E' marked items are both associated with
'M' (monitored) as well, we have defined the 'E' items the RBP-I
and the item defined as 'Strong information about natural
reproducing fishery' with an exception (see item 6 below).
"2. For any level two data, results showing the water to be severely impaired
should be included on the list.
"3. For any level two data, any results showing the water to be
moderately impaired should be included on the list, unless the
State can show that some extenuating circumstances (such as high
flow conditions during sampling) have made the representativeness
of the data questionable.
"4. Where the State believes a water may be impaired based on Level
two data or in situations described under the exception described in
3 above, the State should consider additional sampling before the
next listing period to confirm the water's condition.
"5. We/believe that 1 sampling event for level two data will integrate
conditions over a period of time and is, therefore, sufficient to
make a listing decision. However, the State may want to consider
replicate samples for further verification.
"6. For level two data identified in the 305(b) guidance as 'strong
information about natural reproducing fishery', we believe that, if
this information includes actual fishery surveys where collections
have taken place16, it is sufficient for listing.
16 Fish collected, number of species determined, abundance, evidence of tumors or other abnormalities
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 14
"7. The State would probably want to use land use information,
impairment cause, knowledge of the watershed and professional
judgement to identify the length of stream impaired.
The EPA 1994 guidance for section 303(d) lists discusses the importance
of using biological data for the identification of impairments. Types of data that
are mentioned include the Rapid Bioassessement Protocol and beneficial use
evaluations. The guidance considers biological data as important information for
listing purposes.
" We agree that levels three and four of the Physical/Chemical data are
sufficient to make a listing decision under section 303(d). In addition, we believe
that the State should consider most of the physical/chemical data under level two
for listing and some of the level one data as well. The following describes the
level two and one data that we believe are sufficient to make a listing decision:
"1. All of the level two data should be used with the exception of the
volunteer monitoring data. This data may be used by the State if it
is felt that the quality of data is sufficient.
"2. For level one data, we believe that most of the data types are not
sufficient to make listing decisions. The exceptions include, a)
fixed-station monitoring with limited period of record or
parametric coverage, b) short-term surveys, and c) models that are
not calibrated or verified.
"3. Exception 'a' noted in 2 above is limited. Where there is a good
understanding of the problem or source, then limited data would be
sufficient to list a water. An example would be quarterly
monitoring below a point source discharge.
"4. Exception 'b' above is also limited. Situations where a short-term
survey can be used in the listing decision process is where the State
has conducted a short-term data collection program to obtain data
for a water quality model. This would be similar to the past
practice of the State of a quick data collection process for input
into the toxics watershed model. This type of limited survey
should also be used in situations where there is a reason to believe
a severe source, such as acid mine drainage, is the cause and its
obvious that it can be identified in a one day survey. As footnoted
in Table 5-3, a single visit to a stream with severe acid mine
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 15
drainage impacts (high metals, low pH) cal result in high
confidence of nonsupport. One grab sample is generally not
sufficient to confirm a problem.
"5. For exception "c' [above].... W[w]e believe that any process that is
used routinely to placed legally enforceable conditions on a
permittee is certainly sufficient to make a listing decision. In
addition. EPA regulations at 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5)(ii) identifies
dilution or predictive modeling as one source of information for
making listing decisions. EPA 1994 guidance for listing also
addresses the need to include predicative modeling as well.
We should keep in mind that there are minimum data requirements for
listing under 40 CFR §130.7. This data must be used by the State for listing of
waters under section 303(d) of the CWA. Data and data sources, such as fish
kills or fishing or consumption advisories, should not be eliminated from
consideration when listing waters because they do not fit into the two tables
presented in the 305(b) guidance. In addition, when deciding to list a water or
not, the feasibility of correcting a problem should not be considered."
As data sources are selected for listing considerations, States must keep in mind the need to use
reliable data. The listing of a water on the section 303(d) list represents a potentially significant
level of resource commitment by the state in the development of TMDLs. It is important that the
decisions for listing waters on the list are based on reliable data that were collected under proper
quality controls. As stated in the 1989 preamble:
"EPA expects the state to determine as much as possible the accuracy and validity
of their existing and readily available data and information. EPA does not expect
the states to rely on old or inaccurate data or information. If the state finds that
much of its existing and readily available data is unreliable, EPA strongly
encourages the states to obtain more current additional data whenever possible."
Determination of the level of quality assurance (QA) needed to accept data for listing purposes is
a state decision. However, the level of quality control should not be at such a high level that
little if any data, other'than that data collected directly by the deciding agency, would not be
accepted for listing decisions. The type of problem identified by the data or information will also
dictate the level of QA necessary. For example, visual observations of a water may not be
sufficient to list a water for dissolved oxygen or nutrient problems, but may be sufficient to list a
water for impacts from acid mine drainage.
Volunteer monitoring is another area that needs to be considered by the States. In situations
where citizen monitoring identifies a problem, there are two options a state could take in
deciding how to use this data. If the citizen group can show that a minimum QA program was
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 16
followed that is acceptable to the state, the data should be used for listing decisions. If, on the
other hand, the QA is not at a minimum acceptable level, then the state should use the data to
identify areas in need of follow up monitoring by the state. In this case the water would not be
listed but would be identified for future monitoring in order to confirm, or deny, the citizen
sampling results.
There is also some question as to when data and information is readily available. The question
often arises when data is from some source other than the state agency actually responsible for
the listing process. The Region believes that the state should request entities17 that may have
appropriate water quality data to provide that data to the listing agency. This can be done by a
request early on in the process, or by requesting comments from the other entities on a
preliminary draft of the list. The listing agency should review and consider all new data
provided. The listing agency is not expected, however, to be aware of and canvass all possible
sources of water quality-related data and information during the list development18.
In addition to the above, the States must notice the draft list for public comment. A request for
additional data relevant to a listing decision should be included in the notice. This would provide
an opportunity for the state to obtain data from some additional sources. Although it is the
States' responsibility to assure the list is as accurate and complete as possible, it is not realistic to
expect the States to know of all of the possible data sources. The public notice could help in this
identification.
SUMMARY:
The following is a summary list of water quality-related data types/sources that may be
considered, if relevant, in the development of the section 303(d) list of waters. The limitations
and conditions on the data as discussed above should be included in any decision by the States to
use or not use the following information. Realistically, the States cannot be expected to be aware
of all of the individual sources listed below (all university researchers, etc). The States may rely
on the public comment process to request, and consider, additional significant data.
Such entities may include not only other State agencies but relevant Federal agencies,
environmental groups, private organizations and/or universities.
There are a large number of consultants, universities, private citizens, etc that MAY have some
water quality data or information. It would be impossible, and unrealistic, for the state to be
expected to contact all of these possibilities. The Region expects the States to contact those that
they believe to be significant sources of information, however.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE - 17
1. Various reports and assessments as required by the Clean Water Act, including
the following:
a. Section 305(b) report (40 CFR §1310.7(b)(5)(i)). This information will
include many of the 16 categories of waters discussed in the 1991 TMDL
guidance, such as waters with fishing or shellfishing bans or advisories,
waters where there have been repeated fishkills or fish abnormalities have
been reported or waters where there are restrictions on water sports. The
associated Water Body System would be a source of the data for the
305(b) preparation.
b. Section 319 nonpoint source assessment for waters impacted by nonpoint
sources of pollution (40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(iv)).
c. Section 304(1) list of waters (see the 1991 TMDL guidance by EPA). The
'long list' of waters is a comprehensive list of waters that are not meeting
the fishable and swimmable goals of the CWA whether due to toxic
pollutants, conventional pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, point
sources or nonpoint sources19.
d. Section 314(a) assessments. This would give basic information on lake
quality
2. Other federal and state agency data and information, including but not limited to:
a. State and Federal Agricultural Departments (40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(iii))
b. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (40 CFR
§130.7(b)(5)(iii))
c. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(iii))
d. State and Federal Fish and Wildlife Services (40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5)(iii))
e. State and Federal Mining Agencies (40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5)(iii))
f. River Basin Commissions (SRBC, DRBC, ORSANCO, INCOPOT)
3. Various EPA CWA programs data storage and retrieval systems (see Attachment
1 for a list of known systems), such as:
a. STORET- source of raw ambient data for water quality assessments.
b. BIOS - biological data storage system
c. PCS - Compliance status tracking system for major dischargers.
Noncompliance data could be used to show a water need NOT be listed
because of enforcement problems (one of the exceptions to listing if the
resolution of the enforcement issue would resolve the water quality
problem and not require a TMDL).
19
Not all of the 304(1) listed waters need to be included on the section 303(d)list of waters. As an
example, a water body which meets its designated use criteria and does not meet the
fishable/swimmable goals would be on the 304(1) long list but not the 303(d) list.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
PAGE -18
4. Data types that should be considered include:
a. Ambient chemical data. This information should be part of the section
305(b) report data set. STORET and state databases would be a source of
this information.
b. Effluent toxicity test results. This information could be used in a dilution
calculation (40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(ii)) to determine potential in stream
impacts.
c. Biological and habitat data and information
d. Predictive data (40 CFR § 130.7(b)(5)(ii)). This could include dilution
calculations or other predictive models based on estimates of discharge
levels derived from effluent guidelines, NPDES permits or permit
applications or DMRs If dilution calculations are completed for runoff
critical conditions, land use information and/or GIS-based data could be
used to project nonpoint contributions to water quality problems. The
state must make a decision concerning the quality assurance issue when
deciding whether to use this data source for listing decisions.
5. Sources of data other than federal or state agencies, for example:
a. University researchers (general request for comment during the public
comment period) (40 CFR §130.7(bX5)(iii))
b. Citizen monitoring activities (with proper QA/QC)
c. Waters where ambient toxicity or adverse water quality conditions have
been reported by others. This information could be obtained during the
public comment period.
6. Other than CWA EPA program data sources, such as:
a. National Priority List prepared under CERCLA
b. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
7. Special regional studies and programs such as the Great Lakes Initiative.
Delaware Estuary program and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program can be a source of additional data.
3. DELISTING of WATERS on the SECTION 303(tn LIST
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 1
ATTACHMENT L -1
EPA DATA SOURCES
This Attachment is provided to identify various EPA data sources that maybe useful in the
development of the section 303(d) list of waters. This information is taken, and condensed, from
the EPA publication "Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples"', EPA-841-B-93-001,
February 1993.
TABLE 1 - EPA DATA SOURCES
DATA SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY USE
303(d) RELATED
USE
Waterbody System
Database of assessment
information on which the
305(b) report is based
Provides Waterbody
specific information on
pollution causes and
sources and impairments
Major source for water
quality data and
identification of causes and
sources of problems
Reach File
Hydrologic georeferencing
and routing system
Integrates many databases
having locational info on
water quality conditions or
pollutant causes
Hydrologic routing for
estimating pollutant
loadings
STORET
Data storage and analysis
tool for chemical
monitoring data from
waters. Can store sediment
and fish tissue data.
Major source of raw
ambient data for water
quality assessments.
Data analysis to document
water quality problems,
estimate loads, and rank
impacts.
BIOS
Component of STORET
for storing info on
biological assessments
Simplifies storage and
analysis of biological data,
with links to other EPA
data files.
Useful for direct access of
biotic integrity to
document ecological and
habitat impairments or
threats.
Ocean data Evaluation
System (ODES)
Database and analysis
system for marine and near
/coastal monitoring info
Permit tracking system for
NPDES discharges to
oceans and estuaries and
ocean dumping.
Can assist in highlighting
trends and spatial
relationships
Current fish consumption
advisories and bans
National database of
fish/shellfish consumption
advisories and bans from
305(b) reports and other
sources
Identifies waters, species
affected by advisories and
bans and the problem
pollutant.
Identifies waters, species
affected by advisories and
bans and the problem
pollutant
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 2
DATA SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY USE
303(d) RELATED
USE
Clean Lakes System
Data analysis system for
significant publicly owned
lakes under section 314
program
provides data integration
using number of EPA data
files with mapping using
the reach file.
Provides sophisticated
integrated assessments for
lakes, basic techniques
could be extended for
basin planning.
Permit Compliance System
(PCS)
Locations and discharge
characteristics for major
and minor NPDES
permittee
Compliance status tracking
system for major
dischargers
Estimating point source
loadings and screening for
areas with significant point
source compliance
problems.
Industrial Facilities
Discharge File (IFD)
Information for over
120,000 NPDES
dischargers, also
Superfund sites
Locations, flows, and
receiving waters for
industrial discharges and
POTWs
National-level screening
for pollutant loadings
associated with specific
industrial categories. May
be outdated
Complex Effluent Toxicity
Information System
(CETIS)
Data on results of whole
effluent toxicity
information on biologically
oriented tool to spot toxics
problems, with major uses
in third round NPDES
- permitting.
Combination of STORET
chemical data and BIOS
and CETIS provide a
balanced way to document
severity of ecological
impacts.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 3
ATTACHMENT L - II
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT SECTIONS
of the
CLEAN WATER ACT, FEDERAL REGULATIONS
POLICY and GUIDANCE
I - RANKING AND TARGETING OF WATERS
CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A) -
'Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the
effluent limitations required...are not stringent enough to implement any
water quality standard... The State shall establish a priority ranking for
such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses
to be made of such waters'.
40 CFR §130.7(b)(4) -
'The list required [the list of water quality-limited segments still requiring
TMDLs] ...shall include a priority ranking for all listed water quality-
limited segments requiring TMDLs, taking into account the severity of the
pollution and the uses to be made of such waters...The priority ranking
shall specifically include the identification of waters targeted for TMDL
development in the next two years.'
40 CFR §130.7(c)(l) -
'Each State shall establish TMDLs for the water quality limited
segments..., and in accordance with the priority ranking.'
Federal Register from Dec 28,1978, preamble to final notice of TMDL regulations -
'Section 303(d)(1)(A) [of the CWA] is not exclusive of other factors.
While States must consider the severity of pollution and uses to be made
of the waters in establishing priority rankings, the statute does not
preclude/Consideration of additional relevant factors such as timing,
resource needs and level of technical detail.'
Federal Register from July 24, 1992, preamble to Surface Water Toxics control Program and
Water Quality Planning and Management Program
Indicates that the reference to the consideration of uses and severity of the
pollution does not preclude the use of other considerations when
establishing a ranking system, "Section 303(d) of the CWA currently
requires that when setting priorities, States must consider the uses of
identified waters and the severity of the pollution. These are the
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 4
minimum, but not necessarily the only factors a State should consider in
developing a priority ranking." This preamble also suggests additional
considerations when targeting high priority waters for TMDL
development, "...targeting of high priority waters for TMDL development
should reflect an evaluation of the relative value and benefit of water
bodies within the State and take into consideration the following: Risk to
human health and aquatic life; degree of public interest and support,
recreational, economic and aesthetic importance; vulnerability or fragility
of a water as an aquatic habitat; immediate programmatic needs such as
waste load allocations for permits or load allocations for best management
practices (BMPs); water quality problems identified during the
development of the section 304(1) 'long list;' and national priorities and
policies..."
Federal Register from January 12, 1989, preamble to the proposed rules for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; Surface Water Toxics Control Program -
'When setting priorities, a state must consider uses of identified waters
identified and the severity of the pollution. The State should also take into
account such factors as :
1. The need to improve National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits,
2. The need for nonpoint source controls,
3. The priority Clean Lake projects, and
4. The pending State Revolving Load Fund decisions."
"Supplemental Guidance on Section 303(d) implementation" August 13,1992
"The 303(d) list, including the priority ranking and identification of
targeted waters, is dynamic. The priority ranking and waters identified as
needing TMDLs may change during the succeeding two-year cycle. The
waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years should
reflect the srtate's own priority ranking of its waters. The statute requires
that the priority ranking and the list of waters targeted for TMDL
development reflect the severity of use impairment and the type of uses
being impaired. Particular sources or types of pollution should not be
entirely excluded simply because they are difficult to address. For
example, while nonpoint pollution is difficult to monitor and control it is
widely recognized as the primary threat to water quality. The Agency
objective and policy for review and approval of the identification of
targeted waters is to ensure reasonable progress in addressing high priority
waters with challenging water quality problems.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-5
II - EXISTING and READILY AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY-RELATED
DATA AND INFORMATION
40 CFR §130.7(b)(5) -
'Each State shall assemble and evaluate all listing and readily available
water quality-related data and information to develop the list...At a
minimum "all existing and readily available data and information"
includes but is not limited to all of the existing and readily available data
and information about the following categories of waters:'
40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(i) -
Those waters in the 305(b) report identified as "partially meeting" or "not
meeting" designated uses, or as "threatened".
40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(ii) -
Waters where dilution calculations or other predictive models indicate
nonattainment of applicable water quality standards.
40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(iii) -
Waters where water quality problems have been reported by local, state, or
federal agencies, the public, or academic institutions. The following
specific agencies or organizations were identified as good examples:
1. university researchers
2. US Department of Agriculture
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
4. US Geological Survey (USGS)
5. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW)
40 CFR §130.7(b)(5)(iv) -
Those waters identified as "impaired or threatened" in the CWA section
319 nonpoint source assessment.
40 CFR §130.7(b)(6) -
Requires the States to submit to EPA a description of the data used for
listings-purposes and a rationale for not using any existing and readily
available data and information for any of the categories of waters listed
above..
40 CFR §130.10(d)(6) -
list of sixteen categories of waters identified as existing and readily
available data for their 304(1) listing process.
Federal Register from July 24, 1992, (pages 33046-33047) preamble to the final rule for
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 6
Surface Water Toxics Control Program and Water Quality Planning and Management Program -
provides a discussion as to why the 16 categories of waters developed for
the section 304(1) requirements were revised into the four general
categories found above.
Federal Register from June 2,1989, (pages 23884-23885) preamble to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; Surface Water Toxics Control Program; Final Rule -
provides a discussion on existing and readily available data for the section
304(1) listing requirements. These are the data categories as identified in
the Appendix C of the 1991 EPA TMDL guidance and appear at 40 CFR
§130.10(d)(6).
Memorandum from Geoffrey Grubbs, "Guidance for the 1994 Section 303(d) Lists",
November 26,1993 -
provides a discussion on the types of data that are appropriate for listing
decisions.
Guidance for water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process", EPA, 1991 -
provides a discussion of the types of data and information that should be
considered when making listing decisions and a list of screening
categories of waters20.
III. DELISTING of WATERS
i
20
See discussion below for further information on these screening categories.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 7
ATTACHMENT L - III
16 CATEGORIES of WATERS as IDENTIFIED
at 40 CFR 130.10(d)(6)
1. Waters with fishing or shellfishing bans or advisories
2. Waters where there have been repeated fishkills or fish abnormalities have been
reported
3. Waters where there are restrictions on water sports
4. Waters identified by the state in 305(b) as either partially achieving or not
achieving designed uses
5. Waters listed under sections 319 or 304(1) of the CWA
6. Waters identified by the States as priority waters
7. Waters where ambient data indicate potential or actual exceedences of standards
due to toxic pollutants from industry
8. Waters where effluent toxicity test results indicate possible or actual exceedences
of standards including 'free froms'.
9. Waters with primary industrial dischargers where dilution analysis indicate
exceedences of narrative or numeric criteria for toxic-pollutants. These dilution
analysis must be based on estimates of discharge levels derived from effluent
guidelines, NPDES permits or permit applications or DMRs
10. Waters with POTW dischargers requiring pretreatment programs where dilution
analysis shows exceedences of standards for toxic, ammonia or chlorine. These
dilution analysis must be based on estimates of discharge levels derived from
effluent guidelines, NPDES permits or permit applications or DMRs
11. Waters with dischargers not covered above with dilution analysis, as above.
12. Waters classified as not supporting fishable/swimmable
13. Waters where ambient toxicity or adverse water quality conditions have been
reported by others
14. Waters identified as impaired under Section 31421 of the CWA
15. Waters identified as impaired under the nonpoint source assessment
16. Waters impaired by pollutants from hazardous waste sites on the National Priority
List prepared under CERCLA
Under Section 314(a) of the CWA, States identified a list of publicly owned lakes for which uses
are known to be impaired by point and/or nonpoint sources.
-------
J
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE a - l
REGION III GUIDANCE
- PART II -
TMDL DEVELOPMENT UNDER
SECTION 303(d) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(May 20, 1997)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) at section 303(d) requires the States to develop and submit to EPA
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for those waters that are not or will meet applicable water
quality standards after application of basic treatment as defined in the Act27.
1. TMDL SUBMITTALS TO EPA REGION III
INTRODUCTION:
The Clean Water Act (CWA)28 requires each State to establish, for the waters identified as
impaired and needing additional controls beyond minimum treatment as defined in the CWA, a
total maximumm daily load (TMDL) for those pollutants-which have been identified as causing
or could potentially cause an impairment. These TMDLs must be completed for all pollutants,
including thermal discharges. In addition, the States are required to submit the completed
TMDLs to EPA for review and approval.
In order to assist the States in Region III in completing the requirements of submitting all
TMDLs for EPA review, EPA Region III has developed this guidance which provides a
description of the type of information that the States need to submit to EPA for review. Included
as Attachment TMDL -1 is a summary of the authorities for the development and submittal and
EPA review of TMDLs. This Attachment provides in one location the federal laws and
regulations pertaining to TMDLs and are provided for the convenience of the reader. In addtion,
we have also included Attachment TMDL - II that presents a detailed discussion of the Region's
views on TMDLs. This Attachment will give the States within Region III a common
understanding of the Region's views on TMDLs.
Basic treatment for municipalor industrial waste treatment facilities as defined at sections
301(b)(1)(A) (industrial) and 301 (b)( 1(B) (municipal) of the CWA.
See Appendix I for a more complete discussion of the TMDL development requirements of the
Clean Water Act and the federal regulations pertaining to the development of TMDLs.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 2
This guidance outlines a procedure which can be used by the States and EPA Region III that will
satisfy the CWA and federal regulation requirements and allow for adequate review of TMDLs.
Every effort has been made to make sure that the material in this paper is consistent with Agency
rules, policies and guidance. There are certain situations where the Region's interpretation of
some aspects of the TMDL program are not directly contained in Agency policy or guidance. In
situations where there is a difference between material in this paper and official Agency policy or
regulations, those Agency policies andVor regulations will take presidence over the Region III
guidance paper. As National guidance becomes available, the Regional guidance will be
adjusted, if necessary.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A TMDL;
TMDLs all have several common characteristics. These characteristics must be considered as the
state develops a TMDL for a water and prepares to submit the TMDL to EPA for review and
approval. Under some situations, the States may prefer to develop and submit remdiation plans
instead of a 'traditional' TMDL. These remediation plans could include lake remediation plans
developed under the Clean Lakes Program (section 314 of the CWA), nonpoint source
remediaition plans developed under a State's nonpoint source control program or abandoned
mine drainage plans. If a State intends to submit such a plan to EPA for review as a TMDL, the
State should make certain that the plan contains all of the characteristics of a TMDL described
below. These characteristics include the following:
1. An appropriate quantifiable end point must be identified for each TMDL. This
end point could be an appropriate numeric water quality standard or may be based
on the level of control necessary to prevent a violation of a narrative criterion or
use classification of a water. In developing a TMDL to address nonattainment of
a narrative criterion or a designated use, identifying an endpoint may be less
forward than if a numeric criterion exists. For example, in a water where elvated
sediment loadings prevent attainment of a use, a TMDL might recommend as a
measurable endpoint thatonly a specific percent by weight of river bottom
sediments are allwed as fine sediments.
2. A TMDL riiust be designed to meet the identified end point. In other words, any
TMDL that is developed must be developed with the expectation that, when
implemented, the appropriate water quality standard, i.e., the identified end point,
will be attained.
3. A TMDL must include a pollutant reduction target. TMDLs can be expressed in
terms of either mass per time, toxicity or other appropriate measure. TMDLs
need not be expressed in loading per unit time or concentration. Other appropriate
measures could include an estimate of reduction necessary in sediment or
nutgrients needed to achieve water quality standards.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 3
4. A TMDL must include an allocation of the allowable load to the significant
sources, including point sources, nonpoint sources and existing, background
stream loads.
5. A TMDL is scientific and uses the best available information.
6. There must be an assurance that the TMDL can be implemented. This does not
imply that a specific plan and schedule for implementation is required to be
submitted withthe TMDL, simply that the allocations made to the various sources
of the pollutant/stressor are reasonable (both in terms of technology and
politically) and could be expected to be achieved when implemented.
7. TMDLs must address all significant sources of the pollutant/stressor, including
both point sources and nonpoint sources (including any background loading of the
specific pollutant). A TMDL is defined as the sum of all point source loadings
plus allof the nonpoint source loadings and a margin of safety. The TMDL
development process should identify, to the maximum extent practicable, all
pollutant sources that significantly contribute to the actual or threatened
impairment. All sources of a stressor must be identified and considered in
developing a TMDL to the maximum extent practicable, but it is permissible to
allocate loads to a subset of these sources.
8. A TMDL can be developed for any TMDL or stressor, (see fed rgister 1978)
9. A TMDL must be submitted to EPA for review and approval.
10. A TMDL can be done in phases. If the Phased approach is used, the TMDL
documentation must include a followup monitoring program to confirm or deny
the success of Phase 1. The phased approach may be used in situations where
there are not adequate data and predictive tools to characterize and analyze the
pollution roblem^with a lnownlevel of uncertainty.
11. TMDLs can be developed for waterbody segments, whole water bodies or
watersheds. The correct geographic scale depends on the type, location and extent
of all significant sources of the stressor and the geographic extent of the
impairment
12. TMDLs can be established using a pollutant-by-pollutant or biomonitoring
approach. A TMDL addresses a single pollutant or stressor. Each TMDL
represents a specific stressor or property of a stressor. Some waters may need
multiple TMDLs if more than one pollutant/stressor is causing impairment.
13. A TMDL contains a margin of safety (MOS). This MOS may be explicit or
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 4
implicit, but accounts for any uncertainty in the analysis.
14. A TMDL has a public participation component. Where a TMDL is limited in
scope to point sources, it is acceptable to amend the public notice for the NPDES
permits to meet the public participation requirement of a TMDL.
15. A TMDL must be established taking into account seasonal variations as well as
critical conditions for stream flow, loading and water quality parameters.
SUBMITTALS to EPA:
The following information must be included with each TMDL submitted to EPA for review and
approval. This information is necessary in order for EPA to properly review the TMDL and the
basis for its determination. The form in which a TMDL and its associated information is
packaged and submitted to EPA is a State decision. However, it is recommended that the
minimum information described below be clearly identfid in any submittal. Attachment II
provides a short checklist of information to assist the States in assuring that all required, basic
informatiojn is included in the pacskage submitted to EPA.
1. Transmittal letter to EPA. This letter from the State should clearly identify the water for
which the TMDL was developed and a specific request for EPA review and action. It is
highly recommended that the State provide a draft of the TMDL and supporting
documentation to EPA staff for preliminary review. This would allow the agencies to
resolve any possible problems with the TMDL before EPA needs to take finalaction.
2. TMDL documentation
a. identification of water for which TMDL has been developed
b. identification of standards impaired and pollutant(s) to be allocated
c. identification and documentation of the basis for the end points for TMDL
development
d. identification of significant sources of pollutant(s) of concern
e. details of technical process used in the devlopment of the TMDL, including but
not limited to.
1. assumptions including background loading assumptions
2. specific technical procedures
3. A showing that standards are expected to be met with the TMDL in place
3. margin of safety used
4. data
f. Calculated maximum loading plus the allocations to the significant sources, both
point and nonpoint sources
g. proposed controls necessary to achieve the TMDL.
h. If a phased TMDL, a description of the followup monitoring program
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE a - 5
3. Public participation documentation
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 6
ATTACHMENT T -1
LAW and REGULATIONS PERTAINING
to the
DEVLOPMENT of TMDLs
CLEAN WATER ACT
303(d)(1)(A)
Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its
boundaries for which the effluent limoitations required by section
301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicabloe to such waters.
The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking
into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made
of such waters.
note:
303(d)(1)(B)
EPA's longstanding interpretation is that this section applies to
waters impaired by point sources alone, nonpoint sources alone or
a combination of sources. This interpretation is consistent with
other subsections of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This
subsection is interpreted in the federal regulations at 40 CFR
130.7(b) and is the listing of waters still needing TMDL
development requirement.
Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its
boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under section
301 are not stringent enough to assure protection and propagation
of a balanced indigenoous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife.
note:
303(d)(1)(C)
This subsection is interpreted at 40 CFR 130.7(b)(2).
Each State shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph
(1)(A) of this subsection, and inaccordance with the priority
ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which
the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for
such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level
necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with
seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account
any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
effluent limitations and water quality.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 7
note:
303(d)(1)(D)
note:
303(d)(2)
See the federal register cite from November 1978 for a discussion
on which pollutants are suitable for TMDL development.
See also the federal regulations at 40 CFR 130.7(c)(l)(ii) for a
description of the pollutants that are appropriate for TMDL
development.
Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in paragraph
(1)(D) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal load
required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigneous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife...
This subsection is interpreted at 40 CFR 130.7(c)(2)
Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to time,
with the first submission not later than one hundred and eighty
days after the date of publication of the first identification of
pollutants under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters
identified and the loads established under paragrapghs (1)(A),
(1)(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this subsection. The Administrator
shall either approve or disapprove such identification and load not
later than thirty days after the date of submission, if the
Administrator approves such identification and load, such State
shall incorporate theminto oits current plan undewr subsection (e)
of this section. If the Administrator disapproves such
identification and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the
date of such approval identify such waters in such State and
establish such loads for such waters as he deterimnes necessary to
impement the water quality standards applicable to such waters and
upon such identification and establishment the State shall
incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this
seciton.
note:
This subsectionof the CWA describes the need for EPA review and
approval of any TMDL that is developed by the States. It also
gives EPA the responsibility to develop a TMDL if the State's
TMDL is disapproved.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
40 CFR 130.2(f) Loading capacity. The greatest amount of loading that a water can
receive without violating wate quality standards.
40 CFR 130.2(g) Load allocation (LA). The portion of a receiving water's loading
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 8
capacity that is attributed either to one of its existing or future
nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources.
Load allocations are best estimates of the loading, which may
range from reasonably accurate estimatess to gross allotments,
depending on the availability of data and appropriate techniques
for predicting the loading. Wherever possible, natural and
nonpoint source loads should be distinguished.
40 CFR 130.2(h) Wasteload allocation (WLA). The portion of a receiving water's
loading capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future
point sources of pollution. WLA's constitute a type of water
quality-based effluent limitation.
40 CFR 130.2(i) Total maximum daily load (TMDL). The sum of the individual
WLAs for point sources and LAs for nonpoint sources and natural
background. If a receiving water has only one point source
discharger, the TMDL is the sum of that point source WLA plus
the LAs for any nonpoint sources of pollution and natural
background sources, tributaries, or adjacent segments. TMDLs can
be expressed in terms of either mass per time, toxicity, or other
appropriate measure. If Best Management Practices (BMPs) or
other nonpoint source pollution controls make more stringent load
allocations practicable, then wasteload allocations can be made less
stringent. Thus, the TMDL process provides for nonpoint source
control tradeoffs.
40 CFR 130.5(b)(3) The process for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
and individual water quality based effluent limitations for
pollutants in accordance with section 303(d) of the Act and
§ 130.7(a) of this regulation.
40 CFR 130.6(c)(1) Total maximum daily loads. TMDLs in accordance with sections
303(d) and (e)(3)(C) of the Act and §130.7 of this part.
40 CFR 130.6(c)(4) Nonpoint source management and control, (i) The plan shall
describe the regulatory and non-regulatory programs, activities and
Best Management Practices (BMPs) which the agency has selected
as the means to control nonpoint source pollution where necessary
to protect or achieve approved water uses. Economic, institutional,
and technical factors shall be considered in a continuing process of
identifying control needs and evaluating and modifying the BMPs
as necessary to achieve water quality goals.
(ii) Regulatory programs shall be identified where they are determined to
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 9
be necessary by the State to attain or maintain an approved water use or
where non-regulatory approaches are inappropriate in accomplishing that
objective.
(iii) BMPs shall be identified for the nonpoint sources identified in section
208(b)(2)(F)-(K) of the Act and other nonpoint sources as follows:
(A) Residual waste. Identification of a process to control the
disposition of all residual waste in the area which could affect
water quality in accordance with section 208 (b)(2)(J) of the Act.
(B) Land disposal. Identification of a process to control the
disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations to
protect ground and surface water quality in accordance with
section 208(b)(2)(K) of the Act.
(C)Agricultural and silvicultural. Identification of
procedures to control agricultural and silvicultural sources
of pollution in accordance with section 208(b)(2)(F) of the
Act.
(D) Mines. Identification of procedures to control mine-
related sources of pollution in accordance with section
208(b)(2)(G) of the Act.
(E) Construction. Identification of procedures to control
construction related sources of pollution in accordance with
section 208(b)(2)(I) of the Act.
(F) Saltwater intrusion. Identification of procedures to
control saltwater intrusion in accordance with section
208(b)(2)(I) of the Act.
(G) Urban stormwater. Identification of BMPs for urban
stormwater control to achieve water quality goals and fiscal
analysis of the necessary capital and operations and
maintenance expenditures in accordance with section
208(b)(2)(A) of the Act.
(iv) The nonpoint source plan elements outlined in § 130.6(c)(4)(iii)(A)(G)
of this regulation shall be the basis of water quality activities implemented
through agreements or memoranda of understanding between EPA and
other departments, agencies or instrumentalities of the United States in
/accordance with section 304(k) of the Act.
40 CFR 130.7(b)(1) Each State shall identify those water quality-limited segments still
requiring TMDLs within its boundaries for which:
(i) Technology-based effluent limitations required by sections 301(b), 306,
307, or other sections of the Act;
(ii) More stringent effluent limitations (including prohibitions) required by
either State or local authority preserved by section 510 of the Act, or
Federal authority (law, regulation, or treaty); and
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 10
(iii) Other pollution control requirements (e.g., best management
practices) required by local, State, of Federal authority are not stringent
enough to implement any water quality standards (WQS) applicable to
such waters.
40 CFR 130.7(b)(3) For the purposes of listing waters under § 130.7(b), the term "water
quality standard applicable to such waters" and "applicable water
quality standards" refer to those water quality standards established
under section 303 for the Act, including numeric criteria, narrative
criteria, waterbody uses, and antidegredation requirements.
40 CFR 130.7(c)( 1) Each State shall establish TMDLs for the water quality limited
segments identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and in
accordance with the priority ranking. For pollutants other than
heat, TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain and
maintain the applicable narrative and numerical WQS with
seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account
any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
effluent limitations and water quality. Determinations of TMDLs
shall take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading,
and water quality parameters.
(i) TMDLs may be established using a pollutant-by-pollutant or
biomonitoring approach. In many cases both techniques may be needed.
Site-specific information should be used wherever possible.
(ii) TMDLs shall be established for all pollutants preventing or expected to
prevent attainment of water quality standards as identified pursuant to
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Calculations to establish TMDLs shall be
subject to public review as defined in the State CPP.
40 CFR 130.7(c)(2) Each State shall estimate for the water quality limited segments
still requiring TMDLs identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
the total/maximum daily thermal load which cannot be exceeded in
order to assure protection and propagation of a balance, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife. Such estimates shall take
¦ into account the normal water temperatures, flow rates, seasonal
variations, existing sources of heat input, and the dissipative
capacity of the identified waters or parts thereof. Such estimates
shall include a calculation of the maximum heat input that can be
made into each such part and shall include a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the
development of thermal water quality criteria for protection and
propagation of shellfish, fish and wildlife in the identified waters
or parts thereof.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 11
40 CFR 130.7(d)(1) Each State shall submit biennially to the Regional Administrator
beginning in 1992 the list of waters, pollutants causing
impairment, and the priority ranking including waters targeted for
TMDL development within the next two years as required under
paragraph (b) of this section. For the 1992 biennial submission,
these lists are due no later than October 22, 1992. Thereafter, each
State shall submit to EPA lists required under paragraph (b) of this
section on April 1 of every even-numbered year. The list of waters
may be submitted as part of the State's biennial water quality
report required by §130.8 of this part and section 305(b) of the
CWA or submitted under separate coveT. All WLAs/LAs and
TMDLs established under paragraph (c) for water quality limited
segments shall continue to be submitted to EPA for review and
approval. Schedules for submission of TMDLs shall be
determined by the Regional Administrator and the State.
40 CFR 130.7(d)(2) The Regional Administrator shall either approve or disapprove
such listing and loadings not later than 30 days after the date of
submission. The Regional Administrator shall approve a list
developed under §130.7(b) that is submitted after the effective date
of this rule only if it meets the requirements of § 130.7(b). If the
Regional Administrator approves such listing and loadings, the
State shall incorporate them into its current WQM plan. If the
Regional Administrator disapproves such listing and loadings, he
shall, not later than 30 days after the date of such disapproval,
identify such waters in such State and establish such loads for such
waters as determined necessary to implement applicable WQS.
The Regional Administrator shall promptly issue a public notice
seeking comment on such listing and loadings. After considering
public comment and making any revisions he deems appropriate,
the Regional Administrator shall transmit the listing and loads to
the State, which shall incorporate them into its current WQM plan.
40 CFR 130.10(b)(3) The Act also requies that each State initially submit to EPA and
/revise as necessasry the following:
...(3) Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)(303(d)); and...
40 CFR 130.10(c) The form and content of required State submittals to EPA may be
tailored to reflect the organization and needs of the State, as long
as the requirements and purposes of the Act, this part and, where
applicable, 40 CFR parts 29, 30, 33 and 35, subparts A and J are
met. The need for revision and schedule of submittals shall be
agreed to annually with EPA as the States annual work program is
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 12
developed.
FEDERAL REGISTER:
vol 43. no 250 Total Maximum Daily Loads Under Clean Water Act -
Dec 28, 1978 final notice of pollutants suitable for TMDL development:
(A) EPA's identification is as follows: All pollutants, under the proper
technical conditions, are suitable for the calculation of total maximum
daily loads. The Agency believes that under the proper technical
conditions total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and wasteload allocations
can be developed for all pollutants. The requirements to perform TMDLs
will be adjusted according to a priority ranking as envisioned by section
303(d) for the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) To avoid over-
loading either the States or EPA during the phased development of
TMDLs.
(B) TMDLs can only be calculated for water bodies and pollutants with a
specified numerical limit based upon approved or promulgated ambient
water quality standards. Such numerical limits may be specified in the
water quality standards or may be based upon the level of control
necessary to prevent the violation of a quantitative or nonquantitative
water quality criterion.
Water Quality Planning and Management:
(A) It is preferable for States to establish WLAs/LAs and TMDLs
for their waters in advance of NPDES permit or construction grant
decisions. However, if a State has many water bodies where new
WLAs/LAs and TMDLs are needed, it may have to submit
WLAs/LAs to EPA with the permit or construction grant
applications.
(B) If spike discharges are expected to present a water quality
problem, permits should impose mass per day WLA limits and
concentration limits on the discharger. EPA regulations, 40 CFR
Part 122.63(f)(2), already provide for limiting effluents in terms of
pollutant concentrations and this is a common practice in the
NPDES permit process.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System;
Surface Water Toxics Control Program:
(A) The second requirement in subparagraph (vii) for deriving water
quality-based effluent limits, is that the water quality-based effluent limits
must be consistent with wasteload allocations (WLAs) developed and
approved in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7, if a WLA is available for the
discharge. A wasteload allocation is defined at 40 CFR 130.2 and reflects
Vol 50, no 8,
January 11, 1985
Vol 54, no 105,
June 2, 1989
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 13
the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to a
point source. The requirement to use approved wasteload allocations for
water quality-based permit limits is implied in current § 122.44(d) because
paragraph (d) requires effluent limits to meet water quality standards.
Today's language clarifies EPA's existing regulations by stating that when
WLAs are available, they must be used to translate water quality standards
into NPDES permit limits. Although subparagraph (vii) requires the
permitting authority to use a wasteload allocation if one has been approved
under Part 130, today's regulations do not allow the permitting authority
to delay developing and issuing a permit if a wasteload allocation has not
already been developed and approved.
Vol 57, no 143, Surface Water Toxics Control Program and Water
July 24, 1992 Quality Planning and Management Program:
(A) EPA is today making non-substantive clarifying corrections to its
regulations in part 130 to amend repeated references to "WLAs/LAs and
TMDLs" to read "TMDLs." EPA had clearly stated in its definition of
WLAs, LAs and TMDLs; and in the preamble to the 1985 final rule
establishing part 130, that WLAs and LAs are part of a TMDL. See 50 FR
1775. Accordingly, the references to WLAs and LAs in these passages are
not necessary.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 14
ATTACHMENT T - II
DEFINITION of a TMDL
The definition of a TMDL is found in the Act and EPA regulations, and EPA guidance
documents. That broad definition establishes minimum technical requirements for the
development of water quality analyses with respect to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Section 303(d) provides that TMDLs should be established "at a level necessary to implement
the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which
takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality." EPA regulations further state that TMDLs "shall be established
for all pollutants preventing or expected to prevent attainment of water quality standards . .
and that TMDLs "shall take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water
quality parameters." 40 C.F.R. § 130.7. The components of a TMDL are set forth in 40 C.F.R. §
130.2 and include allocations attributed to point sources (wasteload allocation or "WLA") and to
nonpoint sources, natural background, tributaries, or adjacent segments (load allocations or
"LA"). A TMDL establishes the allowable loading of a pollutant to a waterbody so that water
quality standards can be attained. A TMDL must consider all sources of the pollutant for which
it is being established and it must enumerate such loads to WLAs and/or LAs such that the
applicable water quality standards29 will be attained and maintained.
A TMDL may address, as appropriate, a single pollutant source or multiple sources and
may be established for geographic areas that range in size from a single water quality-limited
segment to a large watershed encompassing many segments. The fundamental requirement for a
TMDL, however, is that it is based on attaining and/or maintaining applicable State water quality
standards as defined in the CWA.
A TMDL is one among a number of tools for implementing state water quality standards.
A TMDL is a planning tool thatxquantifies reductions needed to implement applicable water
quality standards and that recommends ways to obtain those reductions. TMDLs are not self-
implementing; neither are they by themselves controls. TMDLs are implemented through other
statutory authorities, or^possibly through voluntary approaches, such as effluent limitations
imposed in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits under Section
402 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), nonpoint source management programs, and other
authorities provided by the CWA. The mechanisms used to implement TMDLs can extend
beyond CWA authorities to include local ordinances, state water quality laws that are more
29
40 CFR § 130.7(b)(3) describes applicable water quality standards as those water quality standards
established under section 303 of the CWA, including numeric criteria, narrative criteria,
waterbody uses and antidegradation requirements.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 15
stringent than the CWA, and water quality protection rules utilized by federal land management
agencies.
TMDLs do not need to be described in a specific format or document. It is EPA's policy
that the details of documenting TMDLs and the process for EPA review and approval of TMDLs
should be established as part of the technical implementation agreement between EPA and the
state. However, basic minimum requirements for the development and approvalof a TMDL
exist. These requiements have been described in the main body of this paper.
TMDLs may be developed both for waters that do not achieve water quality standards
after application of technology-based and other controls and for those waters that are not
expected to do so (e.g.. waters where future activity, such as expanding or proposed wastewater
treatment facility discharges threaten water quality). Development of TMDLs for future
activities allows EPA and the states to be proactive and to incorporate water quality-based permit
limits into the design of new or expanding wastewater treatment facilities to prevent water
quality standards excursions.
The establishment of each TMDL is a separate action not only for each segment or
watershed, but also for each pollutant or stressor within each segment. Thus, within a particular
water segment or watershed, there can be as many TMDLs as there are water quality limiting
pollutants. When establishing priorities for TMDL development for segments or watersheds that
are water quality limited for a number of pollutants, a state may assign a high priority to a
particular pollutant or stressor within a water segment or watershed, while assigning a low
priority to another pollutant or stressor within the same segment or watershed
In addition to the TMDL, the federal regulations offer other alternatives to establishing
controls necessary in order to meet applicable water quality standards. In certain situations,
waters need not be listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of waters, and therefore need not have
TMDLs developed for them, if effluent limits required by either State or local authority (40 CFR
§130.7(b)(l)(ii)) or other pollution control requirements (including BMPs) are required by local,
State or federal authority are sufficient to meet the applicable water quality standards (40 CFR
§130.7(b)(l)(iii)).
A. The Purpose of a TMDL
The TMDL is a tool used to establish controls necessary to achieve applicable water
quality standards. The TMDL process quantifies the loading capacity of a water for a given
stressor and ultimately provides a quantitative scheme for allocating loadings among pollutant
sources for a particular water segment. In doing so, the TMDL quantifies the relationships
among sources, stressors, control options and water quality conditions. For example, a TMDL
may mathematically show how a specified percent reduction of a pollutant is necessary to reach
the pollutant concentration reflected in a water quality standard. In some cases, the pollutant for
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 16
which the controls are necessary may not have a direct water quality standard but is embodied in
the narrative or use portion of the standard. The TMDL process must be able to relate these
types of pollutants to the water quality conditions.
TMDLs are vital elements of a growing number of state programs. The process used to
develop and implement a TMDL is the technical backbone of the Watershed Protection
Approach and is integral to many ecosystem based initiatives. The TMDL's broad applicability
to nonpoint source pollution, non-chemical stressors such as habitat degradation and other
impairments is increasingly being realized. The TMDL process is also appropriate for
addressing cross-media problems such as aerial deposition of pollutants, pollutant transfer
through contaminated sediment, inflow of concentrated groundwater and pollutant migration
from waste sites. TMDLs are applicable to waters impaired, or threatened by point sources only,
nonpoint sources only or a combination of point and nonpoint sources.
B. Range of the TMDL Concept
The term "Total Maximum Daily Load" does not immediately convey the full meaning of
the TMDL concept. Historically, there has been confusion concerning the applicability of
TMDLs, particularly with respect to nonpoint sources of pollution, nonattainment of water
quality standards based on narrative criteria and impairments such as physical degradation of
aquatic habitat. This confusion continues today in many circles. Further, there seems to be
confusion over the concept that a single loading number would be sufficient to define a TMDL
for a water.
As provided for in EPA's implementing regulations and as stated in guidance, the TMDL
process has the flexibility for developing comprehensive, watershed-based solutions for many
types of problems that effect aquatic ecosystems. The fact that TMDLs can be developed to
address nonpoint source problems is demonstrated by EPA's regulations at 40 CFR §130.2(1),
which defines a TMDL as:
"...the sum of the-individual WLAs for point sources and the LAs
for nonpoint sources and natural background. If a receiving water
has only one point source discharger, the TMDL is the sum of that
point source WLA plus the LAs for any nonpoint sources of
pollution and natural background sources, tributaries or adjacent
segments. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per
time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure. If Best Management
Practices (BMPs) or other nonpoint source pollution controls make
more stringent load allocations practicable, then wasteload
allocations can be made less stringent. Thus, the TMDL process
provides for nonpoint source control tradeoffs."
The development of load allocations for nonpoint sources and background conditions is
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 17
also recognized at 40 CFR § 130.2(g), where load allocations are described as:
"...best estimates of the loading, which may range from reasonably
accurate estimates to gross allotments, depending on the
availability of data and appropriate techniques for predicting the
loading."
Further, the regulations also establish the applicability of TMDLs to situations involving
water quality standards based on narrative or the use designation of the standard. 40 CFR
§ 130.7(c)(1) states:
"...TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain and
maintain the applicable narrative and numerical WQS with
seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account
any lack
of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality. Determinations of TMDLs shall take
into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading and water
quality parameters."
The regulations provide the flexibility to use TMDLs in a wide range of situations where
reduction in nonpoint and/or point source loadings are needed to meet the appropriate water
quality standard, numeric, narrative and uses.
C. Steps in TMDL Development
Development of a defensible, implementable TMDL is more than "plugging" numbers
into a set of equations to get a number that then can be divided equally between sources. It
involves considerable preparation before any type of calculations can be made to establish the
TMDL. Even the most simple of cases require the collection of existing data to verify the
problem and to determine the level of analysis that can be done for a specific case. All TMDLs
that are developed need to go through at least the following steps in order to ensure that they are
developed in a manner that will allow a reasonable assurance applicable water quality standards
will be attain and/or maintained.
1. collection of existing water quality data, source information, etc (this and the next
step could include public participation to help identify data sources and problems)
2. identification of water quality problem to be addressed
3. estimation of cost of controls, level of interest, complexity of the problem and\or
some other information to help determine the complexity of the TMDL analysis
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A- 18
necessary
4. selection of analytical tools to be used (models, etc)
5. identification of any data gaps
6. filling of data gaps (optional if it is determined that existing data is sufficient)
7. collection of additional data (again optional)
8. analysis to develop the TMDL, WLA, LA
9. develop control alternatives
10. report preparation
11. public participation
D. Units for TMDLs
As EPA interprets the unit requirements for TMDLs, WLAs and LAs, each of those may
be expressed in terms of daily, weekly or annual loads as appropriate to the situation and/or
pollutant. Daily loads are appropriate for some circumstances such as acute toxicity. For such
pollutants as nutrients, annual loads are more appropriate. Weekly loads may be appropriate to
express the allocation of chronic toxicity (In fact, there are situations where dilution will dictate
that concentration is the most critical consideration for toxic pollutants). The preamble to the
January 1985 federal regulations and the July 1992 federal regulations discusses further the issue
of what units are appropriate for which TMDLs. In addition, some pollutants may not allow the
units to be expressed in pounds per unit time. For instance, fecal coliform would be more
appropriately referred to in counts per ml. See respectively 50 Fed. Reg. 1774 (January. 11,
1985) and 57 Fed. Reg. 33,040 (July 24, 1992).
E. TMDLs are for a Specific Pollutant
The preamble to the 1985 regulations implementing CWA section 303(d), states, "a
single TMDL covers only one specific pollutant...". A TMDL may also address a single property
of pollution, described in the preamble to the 1985 regulations as , "...for example, acidity, BOD,
radioactivity, or toxicity.";'In,arddition, the setting of priorities for completing TMDLs may also
consider a pollutant by pollutant approach. The CWA requirement that states set priorities when
developing TMDLs account for the severity of the pollution problems authorizes a state to issue,
for a particular waterbody, a single TMDL for the most serious pollutant first in lieu of
establishing a TMDL for all pollutants at once30.
In situations where a water may be impaired by several pollutants, a determination should
be made to see if single or multiple TMDLs need to be established. A TMDL for multiple
See Dioxin/Organochlorine Center et al. v. Rasmussen ,slip op., No. C93-33D(W.D. Wash)
(August 13, 1993)
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 19
stressors may be developed if it is efficient to do so and the resulting TMDL will be scientifically
sound.
The technical analysis required to develop a TMDL, such as water quality modeling, can
vary significantly depending on the type of stressor. Moreover, the assessments necessary to
develop multiple, all-encompassing TMDLs might be exceedingly complex. Therefore, it may
not be technically feasible to develop multiple TMDLs addressing all of the stressors for a water.
By focusing on single stressor TMDLs instead of multiple TMDLs, scientific and mathematical
procedures for each TMDL can be simplified. Conversely, occasionally one model may be
applicable to multiple stressors, and the same set of controls may reduce many kinds of stressors.
Under these circumstances, multiple TMDLs may be feasible and should be developed where
appropriate.
F. Complexity of Developing Reliable TMDLs
TMDLs range from simple to complex depending on the situation or the needs of the
regulator. They can be developed by using simple desktop approaches or complex
calibrated/verified modeling techniques. TMDLs may be developed based solely on existing
data, or may require extensive data collection. TMDLs may include a single point source,
multiple point sources, nonpoint sources or a combination of point and nonpoint sources.
TMDLs may be developed using the phased approach (discussed below). TMDLs may be
designed to apply to either low flow steady state or the more complex wet weather transient flow
situations.
Like many other regulatory tools, the level of analysis for establishing a TMDL is
dependent on the problem to be solved and the intended use of the TMDL. It is appropriate to
select the least complex approach appropriate for a situation. As the regulator address
increasingly complex situations, correspondingly more resources should generally be allocated
for the development of those TMDLs.
As EPA interprets the>303(d) requirements and the TMDL development process, that
process does not need to span the entire range of flow conditions expected in the receiving water,
but rather may focus on the critical condition of the water body, the sources and pollutants
responsible for the impairment. Once the critical condition, pollutants and sources of pollutants
are identified, the TMDL may then be established to appropriately allocate those loads to cure
the impairment. The determination of the critical condition responsible for the water impairment
can be a difficult analysis for many pollutants and sources. For nutrient loadings to a lake or
estuary, the annual average loading would be the critical condition; for carcinogenic pollutants
(such as dioxin) annual loadings (or longer) would be the appropriate time frame; for point
source dominated impairments, the low flow period is critical.
It has been commonly accepted that for situations where point sources of pollution are the
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 20
primary source of water quality impairment, the critical condition is the stream design low flow
condition. In many cases for rivers and streams point sources of pollution are the dominant
source of water quality impairment. In many states, the low flow critical design condition is the
7-day. 10-year low flow period (over a ten year period the lowest 7 day flow of water).
Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to develop TMDLs for point sources at these design flows. If
TMDLs are also required for a particular pollutant at higher flows, the point source low flow
allocation would act as a baseline for any further allocations that may be necessary.
In situations where nonpoint sources of pollution dominate, the selection of a critical
condition is not as straight forward. Nonpoint source loads are typically positively correlated to
flows. As flow increases so does the loading from nonpoint sources. Compounding the
complexity are the various considerations set forth in the water quality standard - magnitude,
frequency and duration. Impairment is measured for a particular water body on the basis of
whether that water body attains the relevant water quality standards. Many water quality
standards for toxic pollutants are expressed not only with a specific criterion number but also by
how many times the criterion can be exceeded in a certain period of time (a criterion of 10 ug/1
that cannot be exceeded on a four day average more than once over a three year period). The
determination of impairment and the appropriate critical condition becomes increasingly
complex. In order to fully consider all of these factors over the entire range of seasonally variable
flow conditions, it is necessary to go beyond the simple TMDL. Such an analysis would require
probabilistic modeling and massive amounts of representative data regarding the range of stream
flows and pollutant concentrations. Because long-term, resource-intensive in stream monitoring
is required to do such an analysis, in most cases such data is not readily available. Other wise,
any data generated as part of TMDL development would be based on many assumptions and may
not be reliable.
EPA believes that for point source dominated waters, low flow TMDLs are appropriate
and necessary. There is no need to establish additional or more complex TMDLs at higher flows
since the low flow will be the controlling factor for many point source treatment needs.
Likewise, for situations where nonpoint sources are the dominant or sole source of the
impairment, it would be appropriate to conduct only wet weather TMDLs (the critical design
conditions for these wet weather situations is another complicating factor). For nonpoint-only
TMDLs where the controlling conditions are at higher flows, there would be no need to
determine the low flow TMDL component since nonpoint source impacts at the lower flow
would" be insignificant. In those cases the critical condition would be the higher flow condition.
In some situations two TMDLs (or two independent components of one TMDL) may be
necessary to redress the impaired water quality. One TMDL would be established for low flow
conditions to set the baseline treatment requirements for the point sources; one TMDL would
then be established for wet weather (high flow) conditions, based on the statistical probability of
recurrence, to establish the needed controls for the nonpoint source contributions for the pollutant
of concern.
In many cases it may not be possible to establish a single total loading restriction for a
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A - 21
given water. The loading capacity of a water does not necessarily reflect a fixed amount of
loading. Assimilative capacity often varies in time and space due to the dynamic, sometimes
random nature of the ecological features (physical, chemical and biological) which comprise a
water and its watershed.
Based on the current state of the science and resources, EPA must approach the selection
of remedy for nonpoint source problems on a case by case basis. EPA suggests that a process
that includes an opportunity for a stepwise or phased approach to addressing nonpoint sources
may be the most appropriate. (See Discussion under The Phased TMDL Approach below.)
Under that approach, the TMDL would set forth the load allocations based on a simple analytical
tool that considers existing and available data. Follow up monitoring would then determine if
this approach was sufficient to properly allocate loadings in order for the impaired water to
achieve water quality standards. If that monitoring finds that the TMDL is not adequate, then a
more detailed approach would be developed to refine the original allocation. EPA also believes
that low flow analyses for point sources are appropriate TMDL calculations, under the
circumstances described.
G. Time and Resources Necessary for TMDL Establishment
Although very simple TMDLs may be completed quickly, the more complex approaches,
such as those that require multiple flow and source considerations, could take a year or more to
complete. EPA believes that data collection should not be excluded from the estimation of the
time it takes to complete a TMDL. In situations where data collection is necessary to develop a
proper TMDL, the collection process could add, at a minimum, several months to the process and
most likely considerably longer. In addition, preliminary activities could add another month or
more to the front end of the entire process. These preliminary activities include identification of
the problem to be resolved, level of analysis necessary to properly address the problem,
analytical tool selection, data gap analysis and monitoring program design. EPA estimates that
the calculations necessary for developing a TMDL, particularly when several different sources
are involved may take up to several months. Calculations for a simple TMDL case would require
at least a week.
Public participation is necessary for effective TMDL development and implementation.
The time devoted to this activity varies with the complexity of the TMDL, including such other
factors as public interest in the particular water. At a minimum, the requirements for public
participation in Pennsylvania will add another 2 to 6 months to the entire development process.
EPA estimates that a minimum of 6 months is required to complete the development of a
single TMDL, even for the simplest situation. Obviously the time involved will increase with
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-22
complexity of the TMDL. A study completed for EPA31 provides estimates of the resources
needed for completion of 14 TMDLs nationwide. In general, it was found that the more complex
the modeling associated with the development of the TMDL, the more resources were necessary
for completing the work. The resources ranged from a low of 0.08 full time employees (FTEs)32
and $4,039 for a simple approach to over 10 FTEs and more than $600,OOO33.
H. Waste Load Allocations
Historically, EPA has accepted work labeled as a waste load allocation ("WLA") analysis
as satisfying the substantive and procedural requirements of § 303(d). These WLAs have
included full consideration of all point, nonpoint, and natural sources, given due consideration to
seasonality and a margin of safety, properly considered critical conditions, and they have
designed controls that will properly implement water quality standards.
Any contention that WLAs constitute only simplified estimates and that to satisfy the
requirements of § 303(d) they must be based on field data and a calibrated and verified water
quality model,34 as well as take into account nonpoint sources and background loadings, is
inaccurate. A water quality analysis that meets the minimum technical requirements of a TMDL,
including adequate accounting for nonpoint sources and background loadings, can qualify as the
functional equivalent of a TMDL.
Consistent with EPA regulations, WLAs can range from simplified estimates to highly
accurate allocations of load. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Act or EPA regulations
"TMDL Development Cost Estimates: Case Studies of 14 TMDLs", US EPA, Office of Water,
EPA-R-96-001, May 19%
32 The report notes that the FTE estimate may be low for many of the cases since it includes only
those FTEs for the lead agency. As an example, the report notes that for the Flint Creek TMDL,
an FTE of 2.00 was reported but abut 14 additional FTEs were provided by other participating
agencies. TheTlintCreek TMDL was considered to be a simple TMDL costing over $ 1,000,000.
This estimate of over $600,000 is low since the total resources provided other agencies were not
included in'all cases. See footnote number 3 for a discussion on the Flint Creek and the
underestimation of resources.
34 Calibrated and verified models are those mathematical water quality models whose performance and
accuracy have been tested against actual field water quality data. The process of calibration involves the
"fitting" of the model's performance to observed field data. The process of verification involves checking
the model's performance against independent field data that was not used in the calibration process. If the
model can reasonably predict the pollutant concentrations and the pollutant or parameter profiles that are
measured, then the model can be considered calibrated. Calibrated/verified models and the needed data
collection are conducted in order to ensure the technical defensibility of the resulting TMDL, as occurs
when the receiving water is particularly important or when the cost to upgrade a wastewater treatment
facility to comply with new permit limits based on the TMDL is substantial.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-23
that requires the use of field data or the use of calibrated and verified water quality models to
qualify the analysis as a TMDL. There may be instances where a calibrated and verified water
quality model will be needed to sort out technical issues and derive technically-defensible
components of a TMDL, but the decision to develop such resource intensive WLAs is properly
within the discretion of the state, subject to EPA review.
I. Seasonal Variations
States have accounted for seasonal variations by establishing season-based TMDLs, most
often using the environmental conditions of the most critical season of the year to develop the
TMDL and then applying the results of the TMDL across the full year. This is accomplished
under certain situations, such as when a state elects to calculate a low-flow TMDL using an
extreme low-flow that occurs only during one time of the year, but applying the water quality
controls derived from the low-flow TMDL across all seasons. This is also accomplished when a
state elects to use an extreme ambient temperature from one season to formulate a TMDL, but
apply the results of the TMDL to the full year. In both the low-flow and extreme temperature
examples, a state may elect to apply controls based on actual seasonal flows and temperatures,
but this would result in controls less stringent than those controls derived from applying the most
critical flow and temperature across the full year.
J. Summation of TMDL Components
The summation of point sources loadings developed through a WLA and of nonpoint
source and background load allocations is not necessary to be considered as a TMDL. Water
quality models used to develop a TMDL must account for sources of loading for the pollutant of
concern. To perform a water quality analysis that implements water quality standards, taking
into proper consideration critical conditions, a margin of safety,35 seasonality, and all pollutant
sources, and then not to accept that work as an analysis that qualifies as a TMDL because the
loads were not mathematically summed misses the entire point of the TMDL program. Of
greatest utility to the regulatory agencies and the public is an articulation of the TMDL in terms
of levels of control throughout the watershed, allocating and defining loads to individual sources
of pollution. Indeed, mathematically summing the point source loads under a WLA and the
nonpoint source load as well as background source loads under a LA for a watershed which has
many waterbody segments and many sources may be more confounding that meaningful. An
important aspect in TMDL development is to consider all sources and allocate loading
responsibilities to the identified sources at a level that ensures the attainment of water quality
standards.
j5 The margin of safety may be incorporated into the TMDL either explicitly, by adding a discrete variable to
the underlying water quality model, or implicitly, by making conservative assumptions when setting the
model's coefficients.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-24
K. Simplifying Assumptions Allowed
When developing TMDLs, States must balance the need to make prompt water quality-
based decisions with the need to acquire the best possible information and data. The task of
collecting field data for TMDL analyses can be an extremely time consuming and resource
intensive process. To assist the states, EPA has published a series of technical guidance
documents which outline a range of data gathering techniques to support TMDLs. The amount
of data needed, as well as the best technical methodology, to develop a TMDL varies
considerably from site to site. States are given discretion, with EPA review and public
participation, to determine the proper balance between the need to collect site-specific
information, apply appropriate technical methods, and the urgency of the water quality decision
in question. An approach included in EPA's guidance states that "[the analytical techniques
which are used in water quality modeling should be the simplest possible that will still allow the
water quality manager to make confident and defensible water pollution control decisions. In
many cases, simplified modeling efforts that have less extensive manpower and data
requirements are often adequate to make decisions." 3eg EPA, Simplified Analytical Method for
Determining NPDES Effluent Limitations for POTWs Discharging into Low-Flow Streams
(1980).
Other simplifications that could occur in the course of TMDL development include
assumptions that concern critical upstream flow conditions, geographic scope (focussing on one
part of the watershed), modeling approach, background conditions, and stream biological rates.
States have used these assumptions to focus efforts on particular problems and make their water
quality-based decisions more responsive and timely. EPA takes the position, and I agree, that
the use of such simplifying assumptions is not inconsistent with the substantive and procedural
requirements of § 303(d).
Any contention that the water quality analyses submitted by Pennsylvania cannot qualify
as a TMDL because nonpoint sources or background loadings are not considered fails to
appreciate the complete range of the State's TMDL work and the role of simplifying
assumptions. EPA recommends that States consider background and nonpoint sources during
critical conditions for all water'quality analyses. Consistent with EPA guidance, however, it is
acceptable to use simplifying assumptions, such as relying on data from other similar streams in
the state to estimate background and nonpoint sources. States may use its discretion to make
judgements whether the collection of field data is necessary to develop a technically defensible
TMDL. Where States elect to use water quality data from reference streams as an estimate of
background and nonpoint source loadings in its development of the components of TMDLs, EPA
may consider those estimates as adequate representations for purposes of TMDL review and
approval.
L. Low-Flow as a Critical Condition
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-25
For conventional pollutants such as dissolved-oxygen consuming substances, EPA has
long recognized that a reasonable presumption is that low-flow periods of high ambient
temperature are most often the critical condition with respect to discharges from municipal point
source treatment facilities and other continuous discharging point sources. Although a stream
may exhibit stress during periods of high-flow, in particular, stormwater conditions, the pollutant
liability associated with municipal facilities as a source and contributor to biological, physical,
and chemical stress on the receiving water is often the greatest at low-flow conditions. Because
of this, EPA believes that TMDLs based on low-flow conditions are the proper simplification to
address treatment needs at municipal facilities. Nothing in Section 303(d) or EPA regulations
requires that the underlying water quality models used to develop TMDLs or WLAs
simultaneously address multiple hydrologic events (e.g. low-flow, high-flow, etc.).
During periods of environmental stress at low-flow, the TMDL typically allocates
treatment responsibilities to point sources. At high-flow stress periods, the TMDL correctly
directs attention to a combination of point source and nonpoint source controls or possibly all
nonpoint source controls. EPA regulations recognize that wasteload allocations can be made less
stringent if nonpoint source pollution controls are "practicable."
With respect to municipal wastewater facilities, it is proper to assume that low-flow, high
temperature is the most critical condition. The use of this rebuttable presumption is appropriate
for the development of TMDLs which address water quality problems such as low dissolved
oxygen. Accordingly, it is appropriate to develop a TMDL for dissolved oxygen consuming
pollutants under this critical low-flow.
Seasonal variation can be, and is, considered when developing low flow TMDLs. The
most obvious situation is that of nitrification. Nitrifiers are more active during the warmer
temperatures of summer. They are not significantly active during winter months. Therefore,
when allocating ammonia loads to a point source as part of a dissolved oxygen based low flow
TMDL, many times the nitrification requirements are removed or reduced (that is the effluent
concentration is allowed to be higher) during the winter months, thus allowing an increased
loading of ammonia.
M. State Discretion Under the TMDL Program
Section 303(d) of the CWA affords the states a wide range of decision-making latitude in
how it goes about developing TMDLs. To begin with, the definition of TMDL found in EPA
regulations itself provides the states with discretion. For example, 40 C.F.R. § 130.7 provides
that "TMDLs may be established using a pollutant-by-pollutant or biomonitoring approach."
The most common method in most states, including Pennsylvania, for developing TMDLs is the
pollutant-by-pollutant approach. It addresses the physical and chemical impacts of loadings of a
single pollutant or parameter (e.g.. low dissolved oxygen) on the receiving water. The TMDL
process also can be used to establish controls, if necessary, for quantifiable non-chemical
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-26
parameters that are preventing the attainment of water quality standards. These regulations also
explain that states are allowed to express TMDLs "in terms of either mass per time, toxicity, or
other appropriate measure," and that the load allocation portion of a TMDL "may range from
reasonably accurate estimates to gross allotments, depending on the availability of data and
appropriate techniques for predicting the loading." Section 303(d) and EPA regulations also
afford the states ability to prioritize the waters for which TMDLs will be developed.
The states, with EPA review, may determine the amount of effort that should be invested
in a particular TMDL. The amount of time needed to develop a TMDL varies since there is a
range of complexity found in water quality problems. Certain TMDLs that are simple can be
performed with minimal environmental data and without the need of calibrated and verified
water quality models. Other more complex TMDLs may take a long period of time to develop
because of many factors. Key factors affecting the complexity of a TMDL include: the number
and types of pollutant sources (multiple sources generally result in technically more complex and
difficult TMDLs); the quantity, quality and availability of data and information regarding water
quality and quantity, and the characteristics of the point/nonpoint source discharge; the extent of
background and/or nonpoint source pollution (which is often difficult to characterize and
quantify); critical gaps in information that may result in needed additional data collection; the
fate and effects of pollutants discharged; the degree of public interest in the TMDL(s); the
feasibility of controlling the pollutant sources; and the degree of uncertainty in the analysis.
Complex TMDLs can use the same mathematical model as simple TMDLs or they can
use models incorporating more complex mathematical formulation representing more
complicated stream biology and chemistry, such as algal growth kinetics or heavy metal
reactions. The complex models can be steady state or dynamic; they can represent varying
stream and discharge flows and can consider multiple dischargers and the biological and
chemical interaction of various wastewater dischargers (e.g.. industries, municipalities, and
stormwater runoff). In order to develop a TMDL using complex models, the state generally
needs to collect site-specific data regarding the wastewater sources and the receiving waterbody.
It is important to note.that EPA considers TMDL development to be more than just the
actual calculation of acceptable loads for implementation of water quality standards. Included in
this process are efforts to collect environmental data, when needed, as well as the resources
necessary to seek public participation.
N. The Phased Approach to TMDL Development
When developed according to a phased approach, a TMDL can be used to establish load
reductions where there is impairment due to nonpoint sources or where there is lack of data or
adequate modeling. EPA regulations provide that load allocations for nonpoint sources may be
based on gross allotments depending on availability of data and appropriate techniques for
predicting loads. Under the phased approach, the TMDL authority would then perform
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-27
additional monitoring of the water body to evaluate the effectiveness of nonpoint source
management measures or more stringent effluent limitations.
Under the phased approach, the TMDL is developed based on the information at hand,
best professional judgement and a margin of safety. The TMDL authority may then collect
additional monitoring data to evaluate the effectiveness of the TMDL and whether more stringent
effluent limitations and/or a revised TMDL may be necessary. The margin of safety in any
TMDL should reflect the adequacy of data and the decree of uncertainty about the relationship
between pollutant loading and receiving water quality. If necessary, the TMDL may be revised
based on new monitoring information.
The phased approach can be applied to either low flow critical condition TMDLs or wet
weather based TMDLs. Application for low flow is no different than if applied to a high flow
rainfall related situation. Generally, when developing the wasteload allocations for point sources
at the critical stream flow, six major areas must be considered: 1) point source characteristics, 2)
receiving waterbody characteristics, 3) background conditions, 4) any nonpoint source
contributions, 5) multiple discharge interaction, and 6) a margin of safety. Items 1 and 2 are
generally available or appropriate simplifying assumptions are available. Background conditions
refer to natural contributions of the pollutant of concern to the receiving waterbody. However, in
many situations, it is difficult to distinguish between different types of loads so natural and other
background loads are considered as one.
Because TMDLs require the full consideration of point, nonpoint sources and background
in order to ensure the impaired water meet the appropriate water quality standard, the phased
approach can be used in situations where background and/or nonpoint source data are not yet
available. Instead of delaying the development of the TMDL until the data is collected, the state
may establish the TMDL based on available information and best professional judgement,
include a monitoring requirement and a schedule for implementation of the TMDL. Nonpoint
source loadings (and background contributions) can be established using gross allotments until
additional data are collected to better quantify the background and/or the nonpoint source
loadings'. This would be Phase-16f the TMDL development. Based on a review of that data, the
State or EPA could determine-if nonpoint sources and/or background loads are significant and if
the TMDL must be reconsidered and should be recalculated.
0. Activities that Meet the Substantive Requirements of CWA §303(dV2)36
Many types of activities may qualify as TMDLs. EPA regulations at 40 CFR
§ 130.7(b)(1) provide that waters need not be included on the section 303(d) list of waters if other
Federal, state or local requirements are stringent enough to result in the attainment or
These are considered as TMDLs and will be referred to as "equivalent TMDLs" throughout this
report.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-28
maintenance of applicable water quality standards. That is. if there is a reasonable assurance that
the controls will attain and maintain applicable water quality standards in a reasonable time
frame, then those waters need not be identified as needing TMDLs, and hence, TMDLs are not
required. These activities are essentially considered an equivalent to a calculated TMDL.
In all cases, equivalent TMDLs must meet several basic principles. There basic
principles include: 1) controls must be linked to the problem at hand, 2) controls must be
sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards, 3) there must be a reasonable assurance that
the controls will be implemented, and 4) there is a reasonable time frame for implementation.
Because there are few if any regulatory requirements for the implementation of nonpoint
source controls at the federal level, and just as few at the state and local level, the above
exception has been interpreted to include both required and voluntary approaches to nonpoint
source controls. However, whether the proposed control (or TMDL equivalent) is required or
voluntary in nature, there must be a reasonable expectation that certain conditions will be met in
order to consider them as equivalent TMDLs. There must also be a reasonable time frame for the
controls to be put in place and some follow-up monitoring plan to assess the success of the plan
in attaining the applicable water quality standard.
Examples of reasonable assurance for required controls may include authorization by
federal or state authority, or local ordinance, for actions that have been shown to attain water
quality standards or the activity is backed by a performance bond or similar legal contract, such
as a contract that covers a point/nonpoint source trading agreement.
Reasonable assurances for voluntary approaches may be satisfied if:
1. it is technically feasible; and
2. it is specific to the stressor of concern; and
3. appropriate predictive analysis suggests that the appropriate water quality
standards will bemet; and
4: there is an implementation plan with a reasonable time frame; and
5. there is local buy in for the implementation
Some examples of other activities that may qualify as TMDL equivalents include:
1. stormwater management plans
2. lake restoration plans developed under section 314 of the CWA
3. nonpoint source watershed activities and plans as developed under section 319 of
the CWA
4. abandoned mine drainage watershed restoration plans
5. local watershed restoration plans
P. Trends in TMDL Development
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE
A-29
In the past, federal and state water quality management programs have focused on
controlling point sources of pollution by implementing waste load allocations in the form of
water quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Water quality data and water quality
models that could easily integrate an analysis of both point sources and nonpoint sources of
pollution where generally not available in earlier years nor were they easy to use. In recent
years, the effects of nonpoint source contributions to water quality problems are becoming better
understood. Water quality models and the related data collection that can assist in quantifying
and characterizing nonpoint sources of pollution are being developed and can be used in the
TMDL process.
Throughout the country, the initial phase of TMDL development was for the purpose of
supporting programs to construct municipal waste treatment plants. Through the WLA
component of TMDLs, water quality-based effluent limitations were developed for use in
NPDES permits.
The. states and EPA have made substantial progress, through the 1970's and 1980's, in
addressing problems from chemical pollutants. However, the goal of the-CWA is to preserve the
chemical as well as the physical and biological integrity of this nation's waters. Thus, even as
progress was being made, EPA and states recognized that physical and biological problems were
a significant source of water quality impairments. EPA and the states noticed that cumulative
effects of chemical pollution and disturbances to.the physical conditions of streams, lakes and
estuaries were affecting aquatic as well as human populations. Consequently, EPA began to look
toward a more integrated, holistic approach to improving water quality.
-------
EPA REGION III SECTION 303(d) LISTING GUIDANCE a-30
ATTACHMENT TMDL - III
TABLE for TMDL SUBMITTAL REVIEW
Characteristic
included?
Comments
-------